Elizabeth Warren slams calls for Democrats to move to the center, says party 'won't go back'
92 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52573401]No one with a brain should vote for the anti-nuclear greens. Probably a bigger joke than the libertarian party.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, I find Capitalism-Oriented Anarchism to be a bit more laughable than Maximum Over-Hippies. At least later are nicer.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;52570963]No the rest of the country outside a few high population areas that came out in force.[/QUOTE]
Actually thats completely wrong. Compared to previous elections, the democrat turnout was weak. It was like 100k less than Obamas in 2012 and like 3 million less than 08. Trump improved republican turnout a bit over Romney, especially energizing people in a few key swing states. All of this and Trump still lost the popular vote. Overall turnout was highest in mostly swing states, which trump managed to win by narrow margins. That means a lot of democratic votes that didn't translate into any electoral votes. Also, at the basic level, the fact that you believe that millions more people being in favor of thing A than thing B means that thing B has won the court of public opinion makes me truly question your sanity
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52572896]Not really. Most of the people around where I live would vote down universal healthcare because the government has steadily fucked up the trust in where one's taxes are going. If i'm going to pay 25% (hypothetical) tax, then I want a return on my investment (like roads that aren't falling apart, a healthcare industry that isn't steadily getting fucked, politicians that actually represent their constituency), instead we get.. well.. what we've gotten.
You want more people to embrace universal healthcare? Then unfuck the budget. Stop wasting money on bullshit that we don't need, start investing in infrastructure and proper planning. Start creating clear goals for the fed, and start executing them. Fire those who don't execute the goals, or those who fail to accomplish the mission at hand. The days of wishy washy leadership (starting under the clinton era, and perhaps earlier but I don't actually know off the top of my head) have resulted in the people's faith in the fed to be completely shattered.[/QUOTE]
I personally think more budget-oriented transparency would be a strong step toward both unfucking the budget and restoring public trust in the government's ability to manage its money, in one fell sweep.
Clearly mark out how much each department gets, clearly pin a leader or committee of each department as the fall-man if the budget falls through, clearly define each department's goals and the time they need to have them met by, and have regular transparent updates on both how each department is doing in terms of money spent versus budget allotted, and what all those departments have spent their money on.
If a department goes over-budget, rake the pinned leader(s) over the coals. If a department is spending its money on things outside the budget, rake them over the coals. And if the department manages to get all of its stated goals done within the budget, then give them some form of reward proportional to how under budget they were.
Capitalists have a natural tendency to avoid things that burn them, and an even stronger natural tendency to strive toward things that benefit them. Exploit that, and make the system do both. And when you put the head honchos of these departments under the microscope and squarely in the thoughts of the American people, combining that with the very real possibility of them getting grilled for shitting the bed, then it's very likely that'd spur them into action to try and get everything done as expected.
That's my two cents, anyways.
You can't drop identity politics these days. LGBT, ethic minorities and women all vote now and are key to winning. If you ignore their issues and push them out, they won't vote for you. As a dem, if you don't give them a voice, a dem who does will and will win the nominee race.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52572896]Not really. Most of the people around where I live would vote down universal healthcare because the government has steadily fucked up the trust in where one's taxes are going. If i'm going to pay 25% (hypothetical) tax, then I want a return on my investment (like roads that aren't falling apart, a healthcare industry that isn't steadily getting fucked, politicians that actually represent their constituency), instead we get.. well.. what we've gotten.[/QUOTE]
So you're mainly concerned about tax rates and the national debt, and you get to choose between a party that cuts taxes and raises spending or raises taxes and raises spending at comparable rate to cover costs, and you think the best way to help our "national debt" is to give less and spend more?
Not really interested in wading into the concern-troll-filled-swamp that is dissecting the Democrats strategy (or lack of one) but I will say Elizabeth Warren probably isn't the best face of the progressive left considering she sided with Clinton over Sanders in the last election.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52574246]No, more concerned with the fact that if i'm supposedly paying to keep the roads maintained, then they obviously either A: Aren't taking enough to maintain the roads, or B: Are taking enough to maintain the roads, but just aren't doing the job.
Neither are acceptable.
I'm saying that I'd be fine giving more to the government, but if i'm going to do so then I expect the government to fill its half of the bargain, and not half ass it. I don't expect trillions of dollars to go into a defense project only for it to fall flat and us get no weapon system, while simultaneously we cut food stamps because they're "too expensive". I desire a return on investment (which is how I view taxes). If i'm paying taxes, then I expect my schools to be properly funded (they aren't in my state), I expect roads to be well maintained (again, not in my state), I expect my healthcare system to not be almost bankrupt (again, my state).
I expect the government to DO ITS JOB, and represent the people, not the corporations, not the banks, the PEOPLE. Since the government (up till now) can't be trusted to do something like that, I don't want to pay more taxes. Show me a government that is actively looking out for the people, and i'll be perfectly willing to pay more.[/QUOTE]
The issue is that the party that is fucking all of those things up is the same party that wants to lower taxes. This administration has proved that the Republican party isn't just one of obstruction, it's one of sabotage. People who vote for Republicans due so because they don't want to pay taxes because they don't know where the taxes are going. Maybe the taxes are being wasted because they're voting for a political party that has demonstrated themselves to be corrupt and saboteurs of most of the things that taxes are supposed to be spent on in the first place (like schools)?
If your tax money is being wasted by a corrupt political party, the solution is to oust that party, not to vote for the same party because they promise less taxes.
[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;52574232]You can't drop identity politics these days. LGBT, ethic minorities and women all vote now and are key to winning. If you ignore their issues and push them out, they won't vote for you. As a dem, if you don't give them a voice, a dem who does will and will win the nominee race.[/QUOTE]
There's plenty of people who refuses to vote for someone who bases their platform heavily on identity politics.
The key is to represented everyone without giving anyone special attention.
[QUOTE=Van-man;52576374]There's plenty of people who refuses to vote for someone who bases their platform heavily on identity politics.
The key is to represented everyone without giving anyone special attention.[/QUOTE]
Some people do need special attention since not every group suffers equally and some of them face special problems that need tackling.
I get your point and it's solid, I just feel like you can do both and Hillary failed at that.
What I find truly fascinating about the last election was the "Benghazi" ruse, in regards to Clintons involvement.
There was nothing there, literally, nothing. It was a pure fabrication of a story. But we're still talking about it.
That's some pretty masterful manipulation of the population by the media, and the GOP.
[editline]15th August 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52572843]You know I'm sick of identity politics and I'm sick of being told who my heroes ought to be. I'm not going to support a party that goes out of their way to appeal to single issue voter minority groups. I will never support universal health care when it comes at the cost of increased taxes for everyone and an increased national deficit. I'm not voting for someone who wants to diminish my gun rights because leftist and media fearmongering convinces them that firearms and not lack of mental health resources are the issue. And while virtually none of them are here to agree, millions of people feel the same way.
Of course I'm going to keep framing this as "dems ran ideas that lost them votes," especially when those ideas could have been the difference between them winning the electoral college and then not. I'd like to kindly remind you that 40% of eligible voters STILL didn't vote last election cycle. They're only "dishonest as fuck" to you because you want to believe that you have the superior viewpoint and party platform and that the loss can't be attributed to those things at all.
If you want to talk about the outdated electoral college system or voter fraud or Russian collusion you can do that all day but it won't change the fact that YOU LOST TO DONALD TRUMP. Obviously there are a hundred different variables but to pretend like you wouldn't have had a better shot with a more centrist platform is laughable at best.
Everybody knows Donald Trump isn't a standard Republican or a politician, I don't know how naive you're expecting the American people to be that they just go "well this unqualified reality tv star who ran as a republican may have colluded with Russia and made us look dumb, guess I'll just flip on my belief system and vote democrat."[/QUOTE]
I find the wholesale rejection of an actual fix to your countries healthcare issues to be baffling.
Why do you want things to be the worst they can be in that field?
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52576660]Because I think the government is shit at almost everything it tries to do, and I don't want it to have any part in our healthcare.
Increased taxes and increased national deficit is not an "actual fix."[/QUOTE]
It's worked fine for a lot of the world but what do we know
[editline]15th August 2017[/editline]
I can also respond with the exact same tone, and words, and it'll mean very little to you I'm sure.
Corporations are worse than government and far less accountable so while you want them in every aspect of your life, I'd take government over the corporations.
[editline]15th August 2017[/editline]
Lifetime of debt for a simple treatment for a defect you were born with isn't an "Actual fix" either though.
Why would someone born with a pre-existing condition be happy to be denied coverage and die young?
You're just selfish.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52576693] I don't want universal healthcare is because I don't think healthcare is a right, and I don't want to subsidize your care with my money.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure that's the exact [I]ME ME ME ME[/I] attitude that's screwed over the US countless times.
You're basically repeating the exact behavior that those politicians you bitched about pretty much continuously do.
Essentially maintaining shit status quo.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52576779]Oh argumentum ad passiones, my favorite.
So what if I am? You have no right to incur cost on me to pay for others, it's that simple.[/QUOTE]
So you would happily go into a million or more dollars worth of debt should your son be born with a pre-existing condition?
I don't believe you.
[editline]15th August 2017[/editline]
My friends son was born with a bad leg, he's getting help for it as a Canadian citizen and will be able to walk as an adult, without this he'd never walk or they'd pay 1.4 million by the time he's 10. Now he'll be able to get a job and work in the economy. Otherwise he'd be a burden.
How's that bad again
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52576825]Happily? Of course not, don't be silly. Just because the situation sucks doesn't mean I have a right to usurp millions of dollars of taxpayer money to pay for my son.
[editline]15th August 2017[/editline]
So he's going to pay back over 1.4 million in taxes for all the costs that were pushed off onto your healthcare system now that he'll be able to work? I don't think so.[/QUOTE]
No, since when was the requirement this be revenue neutral? It does mean he does more than just be a burden for his whole life adding to the debt of his parents.
What if your child is going to die? You'll take the same clinical approach that your child doesn't have a right to life? Okay. You're dead set in your beliefs, and honestly no logical argument could change your view. You'll just have to suffer something I don't wish upon you.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52576861]So without universal healthcare, he's a burden. With universal healthcare, he's a burden on different people and we can feel good about it.
Your argument isn't based on logic, your argument is based on emotion. Our system is far from perfect, it could be reformed, but universal healthcare is not the solution.[/QUOTE]
You're against having the government involved. So, corporations are in charge then. You'll never have effective health care if that's the case.
Your system is more costly, and less effective, and yet we're the emotionally driven ones who can't logically see anything for what it is? Are you for real? No one exists in a vacuum, no one exists on an island, we're all part of the same society and we're all in this together. I guess you want to pay for your own police and fire services too? Logically, you must. Those MUST be privatized too. Like the good old days.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52576861]So without universal healthcare, he's a burden. With universal healthcare, he's a burden on different people and we can feel good about it.
Your argument isn't based on logic, your argument is based on emotion. Our system is far from perfect, it could be reformed, but universal healthcare is not the solution.[/QUOTE]
With universal healthcare he might still have taken more than he returned but at least in that scenario he got help and was a "burden" instead of not getting help and still being a "burden."
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52576779]Oh argumentum ad passiones, my favorite.
So what if I am? You have no right to incur cost on me to pay for others, it's that simple.[/QUOTE]
Okay, then you have no right to use the roads that other people paid for or use the emergency services that other people paid for or use the education system that other people are paying for or participate in the society that other people are paying for.
If you're really so insistent about this then you're perfectly welcome to go back to the jungle and try to make it own your own without benefiting from anyone else's labor, intelligence or wealth. But as long as you continue to participate in a society formed by the hard work of other people, benefiting daily from the inventions and craftsmanship of other people, using a currency that only has value because other people agree that it does, you can keep your "I'm a self-made man who don't owe no one nuthin'" rhetoric to yourself.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52576904]We all utilize police, without them there would be disorder. We need public fire services because what are you going to do if you can't afford them? Let the fire spread and do damage to others?
My health conditions are exactly that, MINE. If others want to help pay for them, that's their prerogative, but I have no right to infringe on the rights of others to attain the care I feel I deserve. Canada has roughly the same population as the state of California, and almost 10x less people than the United States. The costs of even attempting to implement universal healthcare would be astronomical - medicare alone is a financial disaster.[/QUOTE]
Size isn't the issue. This seems to be something trotted out everytime, but I've never seen one data set point the finger to size. So, unless you can break the streak, show me how this is size related and I'll believe you but until then, I don't.
Police and Fire were both privatized back in the day, surely you know that. So why can't we do that again? You're in favour of it in other fields?
Your health issues shouldn't put you millions of dollars into debt in order to recieve treatment or life. You shouldn't be born into a society that is fine with letting you die because your wallet was light that day. Why you think that's a "GREAT" society, I'll never know.
[editline]15th August 2017[/editline]
Honestly Hunter, we should privatize all roads, all fire services, all police services, all health services, everything. Nothing should be free. Water? Water should be privatized, there should be no such thing as free water. You should have to pay for everything up front. Everything.
I love how the same people who vote for the guy who publicly stated that we should just let the health care market collapse complain about the government not working properly
the people who complain about how terrible the government is are 90% of the reason it functions so poorly
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52576904]My health conditions are exactly that, MINE.[/QUOTE]
In case you forgot, this country belongs not to you, but everyone within it. The problems of healthcare concern both the country and it's citizens, and by trying to literally remove this issue from hands of the people as a whole into hands of each individual, you are harming millions. You and your approach on this matter are literally endangering your fellow citizens and the state of our country. Don't like it the idea that such a topic is not in separation of individual and governance? Then fuck off from US, because you are shitting on our people and our country, all in the name of wanting your own little kingdom to rule over without any oversight from anyone else.
You are the fucking problem. Millions are suffering because of you.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52576968]Me, personally? Wow, I wasn't aware.[/QUOTE]
Lack of understanding of social responsibility is not a quality of a free man. It a quality of a barbarian.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52576968]
Roads, police, fire, etc. are all services that we all require. Even if you've never owned a car you still utilize the roads as a delivery means for the resources that you need to survive. Those that do use the roads pay more when they register their vehicles, mind you. I didn't know free water existed, I pay a water bill.[/QUOTE]
Do you pay that water bill to the city, the state, or to Nestle? Because you pay it to the state, or the city, who have provided it to you at a fraction of the cost. I guess we have to stop that, it's being paid by taxation, and your money is being [B]STOLEN![/B] If you want the government out of these spaces, then you'd better be okay with paying Nestle for your water at whatever rates they set, probably similar to what you buy in a bottle.
Roads, fire, police, those are all services like healthcare in the sense that you will use them. So, why you make a differentiation on healthcare because of money is beyond me. It's not logical like you believe.
[QUOTE]Regardless, the discussion was about universal healthcare, not privatizing every conceivable government funded organization. Healthcare is not a right, even if you want to consider it one, my rights end where yours begin and just because you need healthcare doesn't mean you can take my property to pay for it, especially when it is to the tune of millions and millions of dollars.[/QUOTE]
Health of the citizens of a nation is not just an individual issue. It's actually a systemic one. Now, if you think the government has no place in healthcare, do they have a place in food safety? What about in anything that relates to healthcare? Should you have to pay for the air you breathe?
[QUOTE]If I can't pay for food should I take your money to buy it? If I don't have a home should I take your money to attain one? What about a method of travel, is that a necessity? Internet perhaps?[/QUOTE]
Universal. Basic. Income.
I mean even if you don't want universal healthcare, with how insurance functions, you're going to subsidize SOMEONE'S costs.
But we can't have that, can we?
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52576995]Check it out dood: You already do. If you have health insurance in america, (not tricare), then you subsidize other people's care. You do so by paying your bill. You might not need it, but you keep paying your bill, and where does that money go, you might ask? Well, the majority of it goes into paying for OTHER PEOPLE'S healthcare. The rest? Goes to the company as profit.
This isn't sustainable, because as healthcare costs rise, insurance costs must also rise in order for the company to generate a profit, because, you see, the free market does not thrive on charity. So you'll keep paying increased costs, and increased costs, because a company MUST generate profit, if it doesn't then it's doomed to fail.
THAT'S why government run healthcare is so great, because the fed isn't interested in maintaining a profit, its just interested in getting the job done (in an ideal world).[/QUOTE]
yeah but who cares about enacting the clearly most practical and effective solution that's been enacted in the majority of other countries on the planet
you're not spending MY money on YOUR cancer treatment. If you didn't want to die of cancer, you should have gotten a better job you fucking freeloading parasite.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52577015]I have the autonomy to choose the provider, choose the plan, choose what health insurance I want or if I even want it at all. I'm not forced to pay what someone deems I should be paying.
You just want some ideal socialist paradise where everybody contributes what they can and gets everything they need no questions asked.[/QUOTE]
well shit, I didn't realize HumanAbyss lived in an impossible to realize utopian fairyland
hey HumanAbyss, can you get one of the wizards at your local adventurer's guild to cast a spell that'll transport me to your perfect dream world?
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52576968]This argument makes less than zero sense. I pay for the resources and services that I require, just as I am paid for the services that I provide. [/QUOTE]
And you draw far more than you return, which means you're a "burden" as you put it.
Not to mention, it doesn't actually matter if you pay for those resources and services because they still wouldn't be available if other people didn't invent, create, and provide them. You're benefiting from other people's efforts regardless.
All of these "what's mine is mine I don't owe society anything" people forget what society actually is. The only reason the concept of private property even exists is because it was a more effective way of managing resources once enough people started hanging around. Nothing can even be "yours" without the help of other people who respect that.
The entire point of a society is that you benefit more from everyone else than you contribute to everyone else. If that wasn't the case, then civilization wouldn't exist.
And just like with the invention of the concepts of property, currency, etc. themselves, the question we should be asking is "does the way we're doing things make efficient use of the resources produced by society to provide people with the things they need?"
And if, in the case of our healthcare system, the answer is "no" then we shouldn't be sticking to the status quo or in fact trying to make things even [i]less[/i] effective simply because some people mistakenly believe that they would be contributing more than they are receiving if the system did a better job of providing other people with the things they needed.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52576779]Oh argumentum ad passiones, my favorite.
So what if I am? You have no right to incur cost on me to pay for others, it's that simple.[/QUOTE]
that's fine, you earned your money fair and square, and nobody has the right to take that from you. you know who can't earn their money fair and square? me and everyone like me. and you know what people like me actually want, rather than the shirt off your fucking back?
to ever make as much money as you.
do you really believe in capitalism, in only getting out as much as you put in, or is that just what you say to make the existence of cripples more palatable?
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52577015]I have the autonomy to choose the provider, choose the plan, choose what health insurance I want or if I even want it at all. I'm not forced to pay what someone deems I should be paying.[/QUOTE]
Uhm, yes you are? You don't get to decide what any of those things cost. You may get to choose whose price you want to pay, but you don't get to decide what their prices are. And if you don't pay at all, then when you get sick you're going to be forced to pay what the hospital thinks you should be paying.
[editline]15th August 2017[/editline]
Or not pay anything and get no treatment and just gamble with your life and wellbeing, I guess, but that's still an option regardless of what healthcare system you use if you really want to suffer and die so badly.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52577015]We don't live in an ideal world. Look at how much money the government wastes, you think universal healthcare in the United States would be some cost-efficient endeavor where everybody gets what they need on a timely basis? Don't think so.
I have the autonomy to choose the provider, choose the plan, choose what health insurance I want or if I even want it at all. I'm not forced to pay what someone deems I should be paying.
You just want some ideal socialist paradise where everybody contributes what they can and gets everything they need no questions asked.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I would rather not resign myself to working within the shittiest possible system we have for this, and then clapping like a trained seal everytime I pay a fortune for very little.
You seem to live in this alternate reality where Canada is a wasteland devoid of happiness and freedom, destitute nation of entitled whiners. But not in reality dude. We fought hard to have our right to healthcare, and it's been a better nation for it. Sure, you wanted to talk about size, but you sure did drop that quickly when you had no numbers to support you on that.
Yes, I want a better system than what you have because what you have is fucking pathetic and broken and not worth salvaging.
[editline]15th August 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52577034]well shit, I didn't realize HumanAbyss lived in an impossible to realize utopian fairyland
hey HumanAbyss, can you get one of the wizards at your local adventurer's guild to cast a spell that'll transport me to your perfect dream world?[/QUOTE]
Done
He's cast the spell
but the downside is you have to pay me 10,000 shmeckles.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.