Uh, no, read his initial post. He wondered aloud if people could forfeit their humanity and thus be deprived of human rights. When I asked, "Who?" he said, "Lobbyists."
The implication is pretty clear, unless he wants to disabuse me of the notion.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Lobbyists look to crush liberals on Medicare for All through influencing Dems
- Thread starter Stellar
- Start date
The implication is pretty clear, unless he wants to disabuse me of the notion.
Using reading comprehension would require the PoliEra usuals to actually meaningfully respond to arguments, rather than just take potshots at strawmen. And that's obviously too much to expect.
User Banned (3 Days): Continuously antagonizing other members over multiple threads
ah, yes, lobbyists, that persecuted minority. can't wait to hear about how it's actually a vile leftist euphemism for women or POC or Jews
I thought it was just the usual disdain for corporate lobbyists. I don't see how anyone can think that he wants to rescind the rights of the NAACP lol
"I want to ban corporate lobbyists" reads a bit differently from "I wonder if people [lobbyists, by his own admission] can forfeit humanity and thus their human rights." At least the former is an argument, though it wouldn't work quite the way its proponents think.
The latter connotes some unsettling things whether you want it to or not.
If we don't destroy the centrists in the Dems, we're going to be a nastier Trump in 24 or 28. Winning the primary is more important than winning the general.
There lobbyists that act in good faith and such like NAACP, we should keep stuff like that.
Ban/limit influence of lobbyists like the fossil fuel companies, big pharm, etc from having such an effect.
Ban/limit influence of lobbyists like the fossil fuel companies, big pharm, etc from having such an effect.
This of course is aggravating but I don't think M4A's prospects were all that great in the foreseeable future anyway. I'd prefer the left focus their efforts on a public option and an intermediary step.
speaking of 28, we're almost out of time anyways. climate change is said to have its worst effects happen beyond 2030, and it just so happens for the dems to lift the ban on taking fossil fuel money directly, which sparked the green new deal pushback in the first place.
Anyone who thinks money doesn't control our political system should not be allowed to make comments on political discussions
If none of these issues are going to be considered in any instance with the business lobby bearing down on congress, there's no reason not to advocate for single payer goverment funded healthcare as a whole.
weird how asking someone to clarify a weirdly vague statement about "lobbyists' humanity being forfeit" is getting this level of pushback and "actually they meant" from the Not Sphagnum, Who Is Actually Good at Posting* wing
this includes the extremely low bar of being able to make internally consistent arguments without requiring everyone else to know your posting history to be able to infer what you Really Mean
Last edited:
Anyway I hope more and more candidates and reps support M4A which should be a part of our platform no matter what.
Its helpful that more people are pushing and getting there reps to say no to influence, otherwise unseating, primary and or push them.
Its helpful that more people are pushing and getting there reps to say no to influence, otherwise unseating, primary and or push them.
It's amazing to me that you can see somebody write "lobbyists don't have deserve to have human rights" and be like "eh that's fine and normal." Like you need to change your social circle so you talk to sane humans.
also primary dems that don't support M4A with dems that do
I mean it's a message board forum. People say hyperbolic shit like this all the damn time almost. I don't get he moral panic on this one.
I'm sorry you can't detect clear hyperbole. I'm willing to give Samoyed the benefit of a doubt
Basically take him seriously but not literally
Got it, I understand you perfectly
We need to demand an affirmative Medicare 4 All for every primary candidate. Nothing short of it. With a committed expansion for senior care, too.
I dunno if it suits your purposes to pretend you don't understand my point or if you genuinely just don't have the necessary comprehension, but I'll expand:
Basically your position here is that you're fine with and approve of deploying violent rhetoric against your political enemies.
This is literally Trump's position on violent rhetoric as well. At the time, people had much the same response -- it's not literal, and people are overreacting to nothing.
Then Trump got into office and it turned out, hey, that violent rhetoric both had practical implications on its own, but also foreshadowed Trump's actual policy priorities and choices, which were to dehumanize and persecute the people he had deployed violent rhetoric against.
That all turned out to be pretty bad.
So it is bad, on a morally problematic level, that your perspective is that we should do the exact same thing, just with different targets. Being a socialist is necessary for being a good human being, but not sufficient. You need to examine your moral choices and try to be a decent person.
I knew this was going to happen. Too many politicians are being bribed, and there's no way billion dollar corporations are going to let the healthcare cash cow evaporate.
This is going to be a HUGE fight.
This is going to be a HUGE fight.
I get your point and despite your condescension, I have reading comprehension. Like I said earlier, I can give Samoyed the benefit of a doubt because I don't think he's going to start taking away the rights of lobbyists nor do I think he has the capability to do so. I also don't think people actually intend to turn cannibalistic solely for the wealthy, either.
You can claim I'm an indecent person because I chose to see hyperbole for what it is. It's still hyperbole. If it turns out he wasn't being hyperbolic, you can feed me the crow yourself.
EDIT: have your last word. I won't respond to it. We shouldn't derail this thread further. It's a decent thing to do, right?
Last edited:
Wait so you mean to tell me that people aren't actually going to eat the rich?
If they don't vote for M4A, then primary them in 2020. That's the only option I see for us populates.
M4A needs to become a litmus test, but I don't think action should solely be kept to elections. The Sunrise Movement is agitating for the Green New Deal right now.
Means tested legislation with slow gradual progress that gets reversed and faces many set backs that barely address the systemic issues for all!
But that's a purity test
But that's a purity test
holy fuck @ this thread. Lobbyism by corporate interests is being defended as a human right, and opponents to it are persecuted and even banned. Are you even aware of the shit that corporate lobbyism does to the US? The US hardly a democracy at all with the immense power that companies hold over politicians via lobbying. The fact that you are defending it means that you are defending oligarchy (which the US effectively is, among many other despicable things).
lol this post. The Democrats are so terrible and incompetent and have been so for decades. They too are part of reproducing a very, very sick society with prison industrial complex, huge bloated military, no healthcare despite being one of the richest countries in world history, bombing brown people and exerting imperial influence on other nations, white supremacy domestically, gross wealth inequality, etc. So fucking lol that you are denying extremely legitimate criticisms of the Democrat for being a horrible, white supremacist, capitalist, imperialist party that they are.
The Democrats are all complicit in these things and they, like the straight-up evil fascist Republicans, are part of the problem with US society.
lol this post. The Democrats are so terrible and incompetent and have been so for decades. They too are part of reproducing a very, very sick society with prison industrial complex, huge bloated military, no healthcare despite being one of the richest countries in world history, bombing brown people and exerting imperial influence on other nations, white supremacy domestically, gross wealth inequality, etc. So fucking lol that you are denying extremely legitimate criticisms of the Democrat for being a horrible, white supremacist, capitalist, imperialist party that they are.
The Democrats are all complicit in these things and they, like the straight-up evil fascist Republicans, are part of the problem with US society.
Last edited:
So when a Trump voter says "I'm not racist, my best friend/wife/doctor/dog is black/gay/female/Jewish", I assume you all just sagely nod your head and go "he said The Words, he is Accepted".
Since my morality was called into question which is a pretty serious thing I'll just link you two posts of mine which should illustrate my stance.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/michelle-obama-george-w-bush-is-my-'partner-in-crime'.74223/page-19#post-13702101 (I was actually warned for this one)
https://www.resetera.com/threads/ge...-at-the-age-of-94.84380/page-21#post-15588010
If that is not enough to understand, and since this "normal social norms" thing is a particular peeve of mine...
It is "normal social norm" to respect the dead, even if the dead is a warmonger like HWB, or someone who bombed civilians in an unjust war like McCain. It's abnormal to bring up these character failings during times of grief, which are brushed aside as "just part of the job". So, when you accuse me of not following social norms, I say, absolutely!, because nearly all modern social norms are idiosyncratically blind to injustice against minorities/women/indigenes/LGBT and only seek to perserve the negative peace that allows the privileged to stockpile their wealth and influence. It's normal to send criminals to prison. It's normal to discuss humanitarian issues in terms of business viability. It's normal to support Israel. It's abnormal to raise the implications of the Prison industrial complex and the New Jim Crow. It's abnormal to consider that maybe businesses shouldn't be the arbiters of humanity. It's abnormal to extend your empathy to Palestinian children.
I do not identify as socialist because I recognize the legitimacy of standard liberal norms (having been raised in that infamous liberal enclave, NYC). I identify as socialist because I've rejected all the norms I learned, once I realized their inherent contradictions, and in the process of rebuilding my own personal framework, I stumbled onto socialism as the first morally consistent political stance, being irrevocably opposed to everything I learned as a child and grew to hate.
TL;DR: You can take all your "normal norms" and shove it up your morally compromised ass.
Since my morality was called into question which is a pretty serious thing I'll just link you two posts of mine which should illustrate my stance.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/michelle-obama-george-w-bush-is-my-'partner-in-crime'.74223/page-19#post-13702101 (I was actually warned for this one)
https://www.resetera.com/threads/ge...-at-the-age-of-94.84380/page-21#post-15588010
If that is not enough to understand, and since this "normal social norms" thing is a particular peeve of mine...
It is "normal social norm" to respect the dead, even if the dead is a warmonger like HWB, or someone who bombed civilians in an unjust war like McCain. It's abnormal to bring up these character failings during times of grief, which are brushed aside as "just part of the job". So, when you accuse me of not following social norms, I say, absolutely!, because nearly all modern social norms are idiosyncratically blind to injustice against minorities/women/indigenes/LGBT and only seek to perserve the negative peace that allows the privileged to stockpile their wealth and influence. It's normal to send criminals to prison. It's normal to discuss humanitarian issues in terms of business viability. It's normal to support Israel. It's abnormal to raise the implications of the Prison industrial complex and the New Jim Crow. It's abnormal to consider that maybe businesses shouldn't be the arbiters of humanity. It's abnormal to extend your empathy to Palestinian children.
I do not identify as socialist because I recognize the legitimacy of standard liberal norms (having been raised in that infamous liberal enclave, NYC). I identify as socialist because I've rejected all the norms I learned, once I realized their inherent contradictions, and in the process of rebuilding my own personal framework, I stumbled onto socialism as the first morally consistent political stance, being irrevocably opposed to everything I learned as a child and grew to hate.
TL;DR: You can take all your "normal norms" and shove it up your morally compromised ass.
cool how y'all complain for days about strawmen and then lube up your fists at the first given opportunity to shove words into people's mouths. nobody's defending corporate lobbying as a human right, we're wondering whether this apparently barely-considered throwaway line meant this person was literally calling to deny human rights to lobbyists they don't happen to like (and wondering why it's so fucking difficult to get a yes or no answer to "do we want to throw our political opponents into gulags")
like you are extremely obviously not wrong that lots of norms are still here so the powerful can use them to oppress the marginalized. (i'm fully aware of that, given how many marginalized groups i'm in in the first place.) but that entire line of discussion is still a blatant dodge of something you specifically decided to post.
anyway Autodidact we're obviously not gonna get a straight answer to the "do lobbyists deserve basic human rights" question, so I might as well return to my initial two questions, neither of which were ever answered by anyone
Last edited:
If your take on socialism is "the right thing to do is deprive a specific group of people of their human rights" you are literally the kind of socialist that gives the rest of us a bad name. The best thing you can do to advance the cause of socialism is to tell everybody you're actually an establishment Democrat.
I have already amended my words, but I guess that's not enough so I'll just say it. I don't intend to deprive any group of their human rights. Property rights I'm not all that convinced about though.
Get real. Do you think I'm a Stalinist? If you think so just call me a Stalinist or a Maoist and get it over with. I don't identify with Stalinism or Maoism by the way, just so we're clear. Why the circuitous, mealy mouthed words?
Nothing is circuitous about my post. It states exactly what I think of you. In terms of Stalinism or Maoism or whatever I have to be honest and say I don't really follow sports that much.
Oh, sure.
Anyway, I get it. You think vanguard socialism will collapse into fascism which makes self-styled socialists prone to authoritarian outbursts like me a threat. That's reasonable I suppose. I'm still getting my bearings with regards to socialism so I can neither confirm nor deny your analysis of socialist theory and my rhetoric.
Article from the OP:
It's good to see that Pramila Jayapal is advocating forcefully on this, and related issues (see also: link). It seems Jayapal is keen on addressing the important distinctions between S. 1804 and H.R. 676 (the two Medicare for All bills), for example:
The Blue Dogs got annihilated in 2010. There are barely any left.
This Democratic caucus will be much more liberal than 2007-11.
More and more people will get fed up with the system as it exists now and call for something new. Establishment dems would be smart to put that into the official platform and hopefully, they won't listen to the lobbyists.
Uh, yes, because those officials choose to be influenced by if it works. Fighting it before it becomes an issue is a non-issue to me. Democrats are not that above money.
U.S can arguably be called an oligarchy with how much influence money has in our electoral process at least in the higher elections.
1. I am sure you probably know from the Minneapolis thread, but I am for M4A or bust and in U.S. Bust as in I'm not going to settle for less before we even capture a trifecta come 2020. The cynicism of if it can be accomplished before we even grab power is ridiculous. This isnt 2008 nor the past.
2. I am not sure what this matters, but I have one. I also have good health insurance and dont run into the covered-but-not-really issue. I cant imagine how it would feel to go to a hospital and find out one doctor in it that gave me care isnt something my health insurance cover.
I fight for this so others get what they deserve.
True, but I question how much of a compliment that is. Blue Dogs were basically moderate Republicans.
I wonder what the response would be if you answer yes to the first question and no to the second.