Yup, already been noticing it [my IG is mostly memes].
It's been infuriating to watch accounts I loved shill for this discarded banana peel.
Yup, already been noticing it [my IG is mostly memes].
It's been infuriating to watch accounts I loved shill for this discarded banana peel.
Imagine how beastly Bernie's Hispanic numbers would be if Cubans weren't a political anomaly. They're easily spooked by "socialism" and immediately conflate it with communism and Castro, so it's Bidenville among the Cuban Dems down in Miami. If that weren't the case? If Bernie has a snowball's chance in hell at cracking Florida? I'd be 100% certain about him cruising to a plurality.
I get very frustrated with my people.
It's a big part of why I mostly dismiss Bloomberg as a novelty. If Bernie goes 3.5/4 on the early primary states he's going to cement himself as more and more electable (which the mc poll is already indicating) and more and more as a winner.This is an underrated part of primaries in general imo. As Bernie wins more and more states, I wouldn't understate how many people want to back a winner. Especially considering 2016.
Traditionally, Florida Cubans have voted Republican as a reaction to the communist dictatorship in Cuba, yes. My post was just to say that, if Cubans weren't generally far more conservative than other Hispanics, Florida would be in the bag. Wishful thinking.Cubans in Florida usually side with conservatives right?
So it was gonna be a low chance winning them anyway?
Ocasio-Cortez ― one of the most outspoken advocates for Medicare for All ― said she thought voters understood there was an "inherent check" on the president's ability to actually change things like our health care system. And she argued that the realities of governing were actually an argument for someone like Sanders, as he'd be able to push Democrats and resulting changes further left.
But Ocasio-Cortez is also realistic about how far even a President Sanders could actually move Congress.
"The worst-case scenario? We compromise deeply and we end up getting a public option. Is that a nightmare? I don't think so," she said.
Ocasio-Cortez stressed that just getting a public option for health care wasn't the left's ultimate goal. But she also said she wasn't here to railroad other members with differing viewpoints on health care ― she just thinks it helps to have a president who has a more ambitious platform than Congress so that Democrats could stretch what's possible.
She is right, and I doubt Bernie can successfully pass M4A, but I don't think we should be compromising from the get-go. If Bernie and AOC are unable to get it through they'll obviously go for the next best thing, but in the meantime they'll keep their base excited about M4A.Interested to hear what Bernie supporters think of this
The Big Roadblock For Bernie Sanders' Agenda
Moderates shouldn't be too scared of a Sanders presidency when all Republicans and most Democrats in Congress publicly oppose "Medicare for All."www.huffpost.com
I think what she says makes a lot of sense, but I've also heard from some Bernie supporters (though not all of course) who think any public option compromise is anathema, and worry it would forestall actual single payer being passed in the future.
Now obviously she's saying that this is what she would be ok with after pushing as hard as possible for M4A first. But I know there's some resistance for a public option from some supporters even after there's been a push for single payer.
Interested to hear what Bernie supporters think of this
The Big Roadblock For Bernie Sanders' Agenda
Moderates shouldn't be too scared of a Sanders presidency when all Republicans and most Democrats in Congress publicly oppose "Medicare for All."www.huffpost.com
I think what she says makes a lot of sense, but I've also heard from some Bernie supporters (though not all of course) who think any public option compromise is anathema, and worry it would forestall actual single payer being passed in the future.
Now obviously she's saying that this is what she would be ok with after pushing as hard as possible for M4A first. But I know there's some resistance for a public option from some supporters even after there's been a push for single payer.
What?It's fine. You don't start a negotiation with a weak position.
Interested to hear what Bernie supporters think of this
The Big Roadblock For Bernie Sanders' Agenda
Moderates shouldn't be too scared of a Sanders presidency when all Republicans and most Democrats in Congress publicly oppose "Medicare for All."www.huffpost.com
I think what she says makes a lot of sense, but I've also heard from some Bernie supporters (though not all of course) who think any public option compromise is anathema, and worry it would forestall actual single payer being passed in the future.
Now obviously she's saying that this is what she would be ok with after pushing as hard as possible for M4A first. But I know there's some resistance for a public option from some supporters even after there's been a push for single payer.
Interested to hear what Bernie supporters think of this
The Big Roadblock For Bernie Sanders' Agenda
Moderates shouldn't be too scared of a Sanders presidency when all Republicans and most Democrats in Congress publicly oppose "Medicare for All."www.huffpost.com
I think what she says makes a lot of sense, but I've also heard from some Bernie supporters (though not all of course) who think any public option compromise is anathema, and worry it would forestall actual single payer being passed in the future.
Now obviously she's saying that this is what she would be ok with after pushing as hard as possible for M4A first. But I know there's some resistance for a public option from some supporters even after there's been a push for single payer.
Interested to hear what Bernie supporters think of this
The Big Roadblock For Bernie Sanders' Agenda
Moderates shouldn't be too scared of a Sanders presidency when all Republicans and most Democrats in Congress publicly oppose "Medicare for All."www.huffpost.com
I think what she says makes a lot of sense, but I've also heard from some Bernie supporters (though not all of course) who think any public option compromise is anathema, and worry it would forestall actual single payer being passed in the future.
Now obviously she's saying that this is what she would be ok with after pushing as hard as possible for M4A first. But I know there's some resistance for a public option from some supporters even after there's been a push for single payer.
this is a common mischaracterization of Sanders supporters
I think AOC has actually said some good words about it in the past, it's about fighting for specific goals even if you have to compromise to get good policy through
I think you're conflating Sanders supporters being disappointed when candidates pivot away from those strong goals during an election vs. coming to a compromise when policy is actually being passed
you'll note that AOC is still all about M4A she's just talking about the political realities of actually getting something passed and what it might look like. she's still going to fight like hell for M4A despite those political realities.
Matt
As I read all your posts from today in this thread, I was strongly reminded of the YouTube channel Innuendo Studios's The Alt-Right Playbook series. Specifically, the episode titled "You Go High, We Go Low." If you haven't seen it, or if it's been a while, I suggest you watch it. In fact, I want you to watch it, because otherwise you'll never understand where the people who've been responding to you are coming from, and why your seeming obsession with the "democratic process" and its "integrity" (your words) can be aggravating to them - and frankly, to me as well. Here it is:
First, I'm going to assume you're a Democrat/liberal/left of Republicans.
Second, the video isn't directly about the topic at hand, but it touches on the notion of valuing the process/having integrity at all costs, something you seem to be engaging in going by many of your replies. That said, entire parts of the video are particularly relevant, so here are just a few choice quotes (emphasis mine):
"There is a liberal tendency to turn away from policy and focus instead on process - generally uncontroversial things like bipartisanship, compromise, decorum. And, fair enough, the absence of these things in Washington over the years is certainly something everyone left of center is sick of, but [...] none of them are results; they're means. Like, a willingness to compromise is not a position, and when you overfocus on how you should go about things, and not what things you should go about, it fosters a certain philosophy about government that is both highly flawed and highly exploitable. The valuing of means at the expense of ends. Most people would say that "the ends justify the means" is a crap moral philosophy. Democrats would agree. But liberals often overcorrect to the point where thinking about the ends at all is thought of as, in a vague, reflexive kind of way, innately immoral.
[...]
On some level, [Democrats] genuinely believe that even when it accomplishes nothing, following the rules to the bitter end is the noble thing to do.
[...]
This can be very frustrating. To us as citizens, the most important question is "what happens next?" Republicans break a rule, Democrats take the high road, and what happens next? In practice, the answer is always "they get what they want, but we get a philosophical victory." But when the questions that govern our lives are "will I get shot by police?" or "will my kid die in an emergency room for lack of funds?", unless it's gonna get my kid a philosophical blood transfusion, values neutral governance isn't useful.
[...]
An action has no intrinsic value wholly separate from its outcome. A Kentucky clerk breaking the law by refusing to sign a legal gay marriage licence is wrong, and a California clerk breaking the law by signing an illegal gay marriage licence is right. There is a moral imperative to disobey rules when following does not lead to justice."
The type of responses you've been posting are, to be blunt, infuriating. You're arguing about the process to justify how Bloomberg entering the election and making his way to the top is normal and good democracy, actually, all while denying any responsibility for your opinions by going "but you know, on a moral level, I agree with you, Bloomberg is bad... But the process though!" Who cares about the damn process? Democracy and the democratic process are not the same thing. The democratic process is meaningless, if not outright detrimental to democracy if it's flawed in a way that other forces can disproportionately influence the people. Bloomberg is using his outrageous wealth to inundate us with ads and buying people to shill for him and fuck with the process. His candidacy might be legal, but it is most definitely not "legitimate", to use your words. And the end result, should he get the nomination, is that people would then have to choose between someone who is a threat to their lives, and someone who would be... a threat to their lives too. Only with even more money to corrupt the system. Yay.
That's why posters in this thread are so frustrated with your tonedeaf takes about the goddamn integrity of the process. Integrity means nothing when lives and freedom are in peril. The process means nothing when it can be legally exploited in such a way that it undermines democracy. Stop fetishizing a slavish values neutral adherence to the process; stop fetishizing a form of democracy that would lead to plutocracy. Imagine if the heroic lady from yesterday's conference acted that way: "This isn't democracy. This is plutocracy... But Bloomberg is respecting the law, so carry on; we gotta respect the process for whatever reason, after all!"
This stance of yours wouldn't be so frustrating if ERA wasn't supposed to be a safe space for the very vulnerable people Bloomberg has harmed... But it kind of is. Well, some of us try to make it that anyway. And you're not helping when you do this. Especially not as a mod. Honestly, I find your takes unsettlingly detached from reality.
Do better, dude.
For real this is probably greatest analysis of american liberalism on YouTube. Extremely eye opening to be honest and everyone should watch it.
It's fine. You don't start a negotiation with a weak position.
Except that was Elizabeth Warren's plan, and Rose Twitter reacted by saying her phase-in was too short, and that it would be literally killing people.
So, when Bernie Sanders, because he's a smart politician, who understands social welfare gains, signs a public option bill, I look forward to the Jacobin or Matt Bruenig article counting up all the people Bernie Sanders is murdering by signing that bill, instead of holding out for M4A.
I don't care about whatever twitter boogie man you're concerned with and you should probably care less too. I'm not even going to ask what Rose Twitter is because it sounds stupid but if you want answers from them it sounds like they're on twitter
Matt
As I read all your posts from today in this thread, I was strongly reminded of the YouTube channel Innuendo Studios's The Alt-Right Playbook series. Specifically, the episode titled "You Go High, We Go Low." If you haven't seen it, or if it's been a while, I suggest you watch it. In fact, I want you to watch it, because otherwise you'll never understand where the people who've been responding to you are coming from, and why your seeming obsession with the "democratic process" and its "integrity" (your words) can be aggravating to them - and frankly, to me as well. Here it is:
First, I'm going to assume you're a Democrat/liberal/left of Republicans.
Second, the video isn't directly about the topic at hand, but it touches on the notion of valuing the process/having integrity at all costs, something you seem to be engaging in going by many of your replies. That said, entire parts of the video are particularly relevant, so here are just a few choice quotes (emphasis mine):
"There is a liberal tendency to turn away from policy and focus instead on process - generally uncontroversial things like bipartisanship, compromise, decorum. And, fair enough, the absence of these things in Washington over the years is certainly something everyone left of center is sick of, but [...] none of them are results; they're means. Like, a willingness to compromise is not a position, and when you overfocus on how you should go about things, and not what things you should go about, it fosters a certain philosophy about government that is both highly flawed and highly exploitable. The valuing of means at the expense of ends. Most people would say that "the ends justify the means" is a crap moral philosophy. Democrats would agree. But liberals often overcorrect to the point where thinking about the ends at all is thought of as, in a vague, reflexive kind of way, innately immoral.
[...]
On some level, [Democrats] genuinely believe that even when it accomplishes nothing, following the rules to the bitter end is the noble thing to do.
[...]
This can be very frustrating. To us as citizens, the most important question is "what happens next?" Republicans break a rule, Democrats take the high road, and what happens next? In practice, the answer is always "they get what they want, but we get a philosophical victory." But when the questions that govern our lives are "will I get shot by police?" or "will my kid die in an emergency room for lack of funds?", unless it's gonna get my kid a philosophical blood transfusion, values neutral governance isn't useful.
[...]
An action has no intrinsic value wholly separate from its outcome. A Kentucky clerk breaking the law by refusing to sign a legal gay marriage licence is wrong, and a California clerk breaking the law by signing an illegal gay marriage licence is right. There is a moral imperative to disobey rules when following does not lead to justice."
The type of responses you've been posting are, to be blunt, infuriating. You're arguing about the process to justify how Bloomberg entering the election and making his way to the top is normal and good democracy, actually, all while denying any responsibility for your opinions by going "but you know, on a moral level, I agree with you, Bloomberg is bad... But the process though!" Who cares about the damn process? Democracy and the democratic process are not the same thing. The democratic process is meaningless, if not outright detrimental to democracy if it's flawed in a way that other forces can disproportionately influence the people. Bloomberg is using his outrageous wealth to inundate us with ads and buying people to shill for him and fuck with the process. His candidacy might be legal, but it is most definitely not "legitimate", to use your words. And the end result, should he get the nomination, is that people would then have to choose between someone who is a threat to their lives, and someone who would be... a threat to their lives too. Only with even more money to corrupt the system. Yay.
That's why posters in this thread are so frustrated with your tonedeaf takes about the goddamn integrity of the process. Integrity means nothing when lives and freedom are in peril. The process means nothing when it can be legally exploited in such a way that it undermines democracy. Stop fetishizing a slavish values neutral adherence to the process; stop fetishizing a form of democracy that would lead to plutocracy. Imagine if the heroic lady from yesterday's conference acted that way: "This isn't democracy. This is plutocracy... But Bloomberg is respecting the law, so carry on; we gotta respect the process for whatever reason, after all!"
This stance of yours wouldn't be so frustrating if ERA wasn't supposed to be a safe space for the very vulnerable people Bloomberg has harmed... But it kind of is. Well, some of us try to make it that anyway. And you're not helping when you do this. Especially not as a mod. Honestly, I find your takes unsettlingly detached from reality.
Do better, dude.
I mean, Sanders supporters in this very forum declare that Sander's M4A plan is the only way forward, and anything less than that will mean poor people will die and that will be on the hands of any politician that supports anything less than Sander's specific M4A plan.
All I want is consistency - if Warren is a snake who wants poor people to die, because her implementation of M4A is different than Bernie, than Bernie's a snake who is OK with poor people dying when he signs a public option in October of 2021.
I mean, Sanders supporters in this very forum declare that Sander's M4A plan is the only way forward, and anything less than that will mean poor people will die and that will be on the hands of any politician that supports anything less than Sander's specific M4A plan.
All I want is consistency - if Warren is a snake who wants poor people to die, because her implementation of M4A is different than Bernie, than Bernie's a snake who is OK with poor people dying when he signs a public option in October of 2021.
The Medicare 4 All plan prohibit that too.If unions want to have their medical benifits they achieved they can have them, but that won't exclude them to pay whatever taxes "medicare for all" will have.
Easy.
Count out Venezuelans too and the majority of Puerto Ricans living in Florida.She cannotImagine how beastly Bernie's Hispanic numbers would be if Cubans weren't a political anomaly. They're easily spooked by "socialism" and immediately conflate it with communism and Castro, so it's Bidenville among the Cuban Dems down in Miami. If that weren't the case? If Bernie has a snowball's chance in hell at cracking Florida? I'd be 100% certain about him cruising to a plurality.
I get very frustrated with my people.
What points do you disagree with?Thank you for the thoughtful post. I disagree with some of your points, but I appreciate the time and effort you invested to put them down.
Medicare 4 All have little chance to pass even if Sanders is president.M4A is the only way forward and anything less will mean a lot of underprivileged people will be fucked
that's still true
I'm not sure what your issue here is tbh, none of the candidates are actually president yet
M4A is the only way forward and anything less will mean a lot of underprivileged people will be fucked
that's still true
I'm not sure what your issue here is tbh, none of the candidates are actually president yet
Except that was Elizabeth Warren's plan, and Rose Twitter reacted by saying her phase-in was too short, and that it would be literally killing people.
So, when Bernie Sanders, because he's a smart politician, who understands social welfare gains, signs a public option bill, I look forward to the Jacobin or Matt Bruenig article counting up all the people Bernie Sanders is murdering by signing that bill, instead of holding out for M4A.
I don't think the Democratic Party allowing Bloomberg to run for the nomination has anything to do with going high or going low. I think the only people who have any right to chose the party's standard bearer are the voters.
That when some people actually openly admit the actual political reality at play, they're attacked as pre-compromising sellout snakes, while others aren't.
Medicare 4 All have little chance to pass even if Sanders is president.
That when some people actually openly admit the actual political reality at play, they're attacked as pre-compromising sellout snakes, while others aren't.
It literally is starting with the compromise from the beginning. That is the point. That is what is being considered morally questionable and foolish considering all legislation inevitably gets watered down as it makes its way through the process.
Bernie supports M4A as his goal and ideal, it's what he will fight for before ever having to compromise. Warren starts with her compromise as the goal and will inevitably compromise further from that point. There is nothing more complicated to it than this.
i don't know why you're saying aoc saying something about m4a is the same thing as bernie saying something about m4a (which is the same thing as warren saying something about m4a??)
whether or not she's a 'surrogate' doesn't matter, she's not saying she's speaking for bernie and she never suggests she is.
Except your first part isn't true - if Random Democrat X came in and had a health care bill that 51 Senator's agreed too, there'd be no watering down. Now, that may not go far enough for you, but that's not pre-compromising.
As far as the rest, it's interesting that two different implementation routes to M4A has been changed too, "Elizabeth Warren has pre-compromised, while Sanders hasn't," ignoring the fact that Bernie has implementation as well. I could argue that Bernie has pre-compromised for not wanting M4A to be not immediate, but that'd be a silly argument.
The actual truth is, whether Sanders or Warren is President, the health care bill they sign will be the same, regardless of where they start.
I mean, this is technically true, but also c'mon, we all know AOC isn't giving comment on the record to Huff Po writers about Bernie's signature policy without coordinating with the campaign. You're right it's not Bernie, and I'm sure that's exactly what Bernie will say, but I'm also sure that maintaining that plausible deniability is intentional too. That's the whole art of the pivot to the general, finding ways to communicate different things to different audiences without technically lying. And it's good, smart strategy — honestly kind of a useful corrective to the idea that Bernie is some sort of my-way-or-the-highway tyrant that the media seems to want to portray — but it is a funny development, after the themes of absolute clarity he built his primary campaign around and the bluntness and unbendingness his most ardent supporters say they like most about him.
That's... a bit of a misreading of Kilrogg's post. I understand if you don't want to address his criticisms of your posts, but at least try and understand his argument against the Bloomberg thing better.I don't think the Democratic Party allowing Bloomberg to run for the nomination has anything to do with going high or going low. I think the only people who have any right to chose the party's standard bearer are the voters.
I understand it just fine, I just don't agree.That's... a bit of a misreading of Kilrogg's post. I understand if you don't want to address his criticisms of your posts, but at least try and understand his argument against the Bloomberg thing better.
An unaffiliated Democratic operative in Iowa provided Yahoo News with a copy of the contract between Shadow and the Iowa Democratic Party. The contract, which was signed on Oct. 14 and refers to Shadow as the "Consultant," specified that the company had to work with the DNC and provide the national party with access to its software for testing.
While the Democratic National Committee over the past 10 days has tried to distance itself from the troubled app that threw the results of the Iowa caucuses into disarray, a copy of the contract and internal correspondence provided to Yahoo News demonstrates that national party officials had extensive oversight over the development of the technology.
Yet the contract demonstrated that the DNC should have had the opportunity to forsee some of the problems. One provision in the contract says Shadow would provide "monthly. written updates to the DNC regarding the Software status and timeline for implementation." It also required Shadow to work with outside consultants and cybersecurity specialists, which the DNC could "choose in its sole discretion."