The Dems need to hang James Carville's sign (that hung in Clinton's campaign HQ) in the DNC office and send one to each of the candidates. It was the right formula for beating Bush. Bush had a 90% job performance approval rating in March 1991 after the Kuwait ground war. Forward to August 1992 and his disapproval rating was 64%. Ooops. A prevailing recession will do that. Here's what Carville hung in Clinton Campaign HQ:
Change vs. more of the same.
The economy, stupid
Don't forget health care.
If the Dems stick to a similar playbook, they can beat Drumpf. But if they try to get complicated or go for pie-in-the-sky promises, who knows. It is now time to really start pounding "The economy, stupid."
That might be key. I really wish the party had the ability to come together and say "let's be pragmatic; we need to beat this clown before any of the 'far left vs. moderate left' stuff can even be debated. So let's attract the people in the middle that are turned off by him and might just vote against him given the way the economy is going."
I am on board with some of the "far left's" stuff. Not all of it. Either way, save that shit for when you have more leverage and come together and take out a wannabe despot. I really believe Elizabeth Warren is the most qualified, but she's probably too into "free stuff" to beat Trump.
I don’t have a vote in this, but it does still kinda bug me that it seems it’s never the “right time” for progressive policies. Something else always has to be the focus first, and we’ll get to that equality and justice stuff later.
Johnson had a huge lift to get civil rights, voting act and the housing act passed. but he had the will to be the bully to get that shit done. since then, change for the better has come incrementally and when it was more than that , later Congresses gutted important legislation like Dodd Frank, Feingold McCain etc.....
ACA was a shock to the system, one that initially had a public option. just an option that saw huge blowback so it was dropped to get it passed. It was only possible because all both chambers and the admin were same party.
so unless you totally change the makeup of Congress as a whole to have veto proof majorities of far left progressives, you arent likely to see much of anything they currently propose get passed.
I am more willing to hear and pay attention to whats possible/probable then empty promises......
What is possible/probably depends a lot on how it is framed and how people talk about it. It's not like there is some actual, physical barrier, like a lack of a scientific discovery. It's all based on opinions, and opinions can be changed. All of those who spend time talking about what will never work, what isn't possible, what the voter will not accept, just perpetuate the issue.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
The Dems need to hang James Carville's sign (that hung in Clinton's campaign HQ) in the DNC office and send one to each of the candidates. It was the right formula for beating Bush. Bush had a 90% job performance approval rating in March 1991 after the Kuwait ground war. Forward to August 1992 and his disapproval rating was 64%. Ooops. A prevailing recession will do that. Here's what Carville hung in Clinton Campaign HQ:
Change vs. more of the same.
The economy, stupid
Don't forget health care.
If the Dems stick to a similar playbook, they can beat Drumpf. But if they try to get complicated or go for pie-in-the-sky promises, who knows. It is now time to really start pounding "The economy, stupid."
That might be key. I really wish the party had the ability to come together and say "let's be pragmatic; we need to beat this clown before any of the 'far left vs. moderate left' stuff can even be debated. So let's attract the people in the middle that are turned off by him and might just vote against him given the way the economy is going."
I am on board with some of the "far left's" stuff. Not all of it. Either way, save that shit for when you have more leverage and come together and take out a wannabe despot. I really believe Elizabeth Warren is the most qualified, but she's probably too into "free stuff" to beat Trump.
I don’t have a vote in this, but it does still kinda bug me that it seems it’s never the “right time” for progressive policies. Something else always has to be the focus first, and we’ll get to that equality and justice stuff later.
I kinda share that frustration. And there are times when I'd have been less pragmatic. But right now, the US is as far right as it's been in my lifetime and "owning libs" has an importance I'd never have imagined even ten years ago. To me, it's not about the philosophies of AOC vs. Biden; it's about getting rid of very dangerous people like Trump and McConnell. We need to get back at least to GWB (second term; post 9/11 honeymoon) level normalcy. I firmly believe authoritarianism is on the horizon and that has to be stopped now. Most don't...particularly middle-of-the-roaders that vote "sometimes." "Terror" scared them into voting for Bush in 2004 and some of the Dems seem bent on allow "socialism" to do it this time.
To some, the response to the awfulness of Trump is to try to be the opposite. But that sort of ignores why he was elected.
Admittedly, my call for "pragmatism" runs squarely into the problem of continuing to put it off. But if there was ever "not the time," it's now.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
The Dems need to hang James Carville's sign (that hung in Clinton's campaign HQ) in the DNC office and send one to each of the candidates. It was the right formula for beating Bush. Bush had a 90% job performance approval rating in March 1991 after the Kuwait ground war. Forward to August 1992 and his disapproval rating was 64%. Ooops. A prevailing recession will do that. Here's what Carville hung in Clinton Campaign HQ:
Change vs. more of the same.
The economy, stupid
Don't forget health care.
If the Dems stick to a similar playbook, they can beat Drumpf. But if they try to get complicated or go for pie-in-the-sky promises, who knows. It is now time to really start pounding "The economy, stupid."
That might be key. I really wish the party had the ability to come together and say "let's be pragmatic; we need to beat this clown before any of the 'far left vs. moderate left' stuff can even be debated. So let's attract the people in the middle that are turned off by him and might just vote against him given the way the economy is going."
I am on board with some of the "far left's" stuff. Not all of it. Either way, save that shit for when you have more leverage and come together and take out a wannabe despot. I really believe Elizabeth Warren is the most qualified, but she's probably too into "free stuff" to beat Trump.
I don’t have a vote in this, but it does still kinda bug me that it seems it’s never the “right time” for progressive policies. Something else always has to be the focus first, and we’ll get to that equality and justice stuff later.
I kinda share that frustration. And there are times when I'd have been less pragmatic. But right now, the US is as far right as it's been in my lifetime and "owning libs" has an importance I'd never have imagined even ten years ago. To me, it's not about the philosophies of AOC vs. Biden; it's about getting rid of very dangerous people like Trump and McConnell. We need to get back at least to GWB (second term; post 9/11 honeymoon) level normalcy. I firmly believe authoritarianism is on the horizon and that has to be stopped now. Most don't...particularly middle-of-the-roaders that vote "sometimes." "Terror" scared them into voting for Bush in 2004 and some of the Dems seem bent on allow "socialism" to do it this time.
To some, the response to the awfulness of Trump is to try to be the opposite. But that sort of ignores why he was elected.
Admittedly, my call for "pragmatism" runs squarely into the problem of continuing to put it off. But if there was ever "not the time," it's now.
Exactly. Far-left progressive ideas may be the right ones in a vacuum. But we have to deal with reality, and you highlighted the current political reality. I'm not interested in a "what's the absolute best, most ideal system" sort of discussions leading into 2020. I'm interested in how we elect a president who is not Trump. That is it. I'll vote for whomever is on the ballot opposite him. The only way that person has a shot is to win the most electoral college votes. The only way that will happen is to appeal to the broadest number of voters. Simple reality.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
People are just nervous about another McGovern Nixon election. At least I am...
This will not happen again in the near future. We are far too polarized a nation for that. The modern equivalent isn't a Democrat who can't win New York and California, it is a Democrat who can't win Pennsylvania and Michigan. 1972 is a boogieman scenario today. You have as much chance of catching bigfoot as you do seeing an electoral map like this anytime soon.
The Dems need to hang James Carville's sign (that hung in Clinton's campaign HQ) in the DNC office and send one to each of the candidates. It was the right formula for beating Bush. Bush had a 90% job performance approval rating in March 1991 after the Kuwait ground war. Forward to August 1992 and his disapproval rating was 64%. Ooops. A prevailing recession will do that. Here's what Carville hung in Clinton Campaign HQ:
Change vs. more of the same.
The economy, stupid
Don't forget health care.
If the Dems stick to a similar playbook, they can beat Drumpf. But if they try to get complicated or go for pie-in-the-sky promises, who knows. It is now time to really start pounding "The economy, stupid."
That might be key. I really wish the party had the ability to come together and say "let's be pragmatic; we need to beat this clown before any of the 'far left vs. moderate left' stuff can even be debated. So let's attract the people in the middle that are turned off by him and might just vote against him given the way the economy is going."
I am on board with some of the "far left's" stuff. Not all of it. Either way, save that shit for when you have more leverage and come together and take out a wannabe despot. I really believe Elizabeth Warren is the most qualified, but she's probably too into "free stuff" to beat Trump.
I don’t have a vote in this, but it does still kinda bug me that it seems it’s never the “right time” for progressive policies. Something else always has to be the focus first, and we’ll get to that equality and justice stuff later.
I kinda share that frustration. And there are times when I'd have been less pragmatic. But right now, the US is as far right as it's been in my lifetime and "owning libs" has an importance I'd never have imagined even ten years ago. To me, it's not about the philosophies of AOC vs. Biden; it's about getting rid of very dangerous people like Trump and McConnell. We need to get back at least to GWB (second term; post 9/11 honeymoon) level normalcy. I firmly believe authoritarianism is on the horizon and that has to be stopped now. Most don't...particularly middle-of-the-roaders that vote "sometimes." "Terror" scared them into voting for Bush in 2004 and some of the Dems seem bent on allow "socialism" to do it this time.
To some, the response to the awfulness of Trump is to try to be the opposite. But that sort of ignores why he was elected.
Admittedly, my call for "pragmatism" runs squarely into the problem of continuing to put it off. But if there was ever "not the time," it's now.
Exactly. Far-left progressive ideas may be the right ones in a vacuum. But we have to deal with reality, and you highlighted the current political reality. I'm not interested in a "what's the absolute best, most ideal system" sort of discussions leading into 2020. I'm interested in how we elect a president who is not Trump. That is it. I'll vote for whomever is on the ballot opposite him. The only way that person has a shot is to win the most electoral college votes. The only way that will happen is to appeal to the broadest number of voters. Simple reality.
Ooh. I get to use one of my favorite cliches!
I don't want to allow great to be the enemy of good
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
People are just nervous about another McGovern Nixon election. At least I am...
This will not happen again in the near future. We are far too polarized a nation for that. The modern equivalent isn't a Democrat who can't win New York and California, it is a Democrat who can't win Pennsylvania and Michigan. 1972 is a boogieman scenario today. You have as much chance of catching bigfoot as you do seeing an electoral map like this anytime soon.
PS: Massachusetts is awesome.
I don't necessarily mean from an electoral count, rather losing a winnable election because of the policies of McGovern... and Eagleton and his shock therapy. That didn't help.
The Dems need to hang James Carville's sign (that hung in Clinton's campaign HQ) in the DNC office and send one to each of the candidates. It was the right formula for beating Bush. Bush had a 90% job performance approval rating in March 1991 after the Kuwait ground war. Forward to August 1992 and his disapproval rating was 64%. Ooops. A prevailing recession will do that. Here's what Carville hung in Clinton Campaign HQ:
Change vs. more of the same.
The economy, stupid
Don't forget health care.
If the Dems stick to a similar playbook, they can beat Drumpf. But if they try to get complicated or go for pie-in-the-sky promises, who knows. It is now time to really start pounding "The economy, stupid."
That might be key. I really wish the party had the ability to come together and say "let's be pragmatic; we need to beat this clown before any of the 'far left vs. moderate left' stuff can even be debated. So let's attract the people in the middle that are turned off by him and might just vote against him given the way the economy is going."
I am on board with some of the "far left's" stuff. Not all of it. Either way, save that shit for when you have more leverage and come together and take out a wannabe despot. I really believe Elizabeth Warren is the most qualified, but she's probably too into "free stuff" to beat Trump.
I don’t have a vote in this, but it does still kinda bug me that it seems it’s never the “right time” for progressive policies. Something else always has to be the focus first, and we’ll get to that equality and justice stuff later.
Johnson had a huge lift to get civil rights, voting act and the housing act passed. but he had the will to be the bully to get that shit done. since then, change for the better has come incrementally and when it was more than that , later Congresses gutted important legislation like Dodd Frank, Feingold McCain etc.....
ACA was a shock to the system, one that initially had a public option. just an option that saw huge blowback so it was dropped to get it passed. It was only possible because all both chambers and the admin were same party.
so unless you totally change the makeup of Congress as a whole to have veto proof majorities of far left progressives, you arent likely to see much of anything they currently propose get passed.
I am more willing to hear and pay attention to whats possible/probable then empty promises......
What is possible/probably depends a lot on how it is framed and how people talk about it. It's not like there is some actual, physical barrier, like a lack of a scientific discovery. It's all based on opinions, and opinions can be changed. All of those who spend time talking about what will never work, what isn't possible, what the voter will not accept, just perpetuate the issue.
take every idea all candidates are proposing, now tell me which ones get past a McConnell led Senate. Or even a Schumer(shudder) led one, what with filibuster firmly in pmace as it should be. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The Dems need to hang James Carville's sign (that hung in Clinton's campaign HQ) in the DNC office and send one to each of the candidates. It was the right formula for beating Bush. Bush had a 90% job performance approval rating in March 1991 after the Kuwait ground war. Forward to August 1992 and his disapproval rating was 64%. Ooops. A prevailing recession will do that. Here's what Carville hung in Clinton Campaign HQ:
Change vs. more of the same.
The economy, stupid
Don't forget health care.
If the Dems stick to a similar playbook, they can beat Drumpf. But if they try to get complicated or go for pie-in-the-sky promises, who knows. It is now time to really start pounding "The economy, stupid."
That might be key. I really wish the party had the ability to come together and say "let's be pragmatic; we need to beat this clown before any of the 'far left vs. moderate left' stuff can even be debated. So let's attract the people in the middle that are turned off by him and might just vote against him given the way the economy is going."
I am on board with some of the "far left's" stuff. Not all of it. Either way, save that shit for when you have more leverage and come together and take out a wannabe despot. I really believe Elizabeth Warren is the most qualified, but she's probably too into "free stuff" to beat Trump.
I don’t have a vote in this, but it does still kinda bug me that it seems it’s never the “right time” for progressive policies. Something else always has to be the focus first, and we’ll get to that equality and justice stuff later.
Johnson had a huge lift to get civil rights, voting act and the housing act passed. but he had the will to be the bully to get that shit done. since then, change for the better has come incrementally and when it was more than that , later Congresses gutted important legislation like Dodd Frank, Feingold McCain etc.....
ACA was a shock to the system, one that initially had a public option. just an option that saw huge blowback so it was dropped to get it passed. It was only possible because all both chambers and the admin were same party.
so unless you totally change the makeup of Congress as a whole to have veto proof majorities of far left progressives, you arent likely to see much of anything they currently propose get passed.
I am more willing to hear and pay attention to whats possible/probable then empty promises......
What is possible/probably depends a lot on how it is framed and how people talk about it. It's not like there is some actual, physical barrier, like a lack of a scientific discovery. It's all based on opinions, and opinions can be changed. All of those who spend time talking about what will never work, what isn't possible, what the voter will not accept, just perpetuate the issue.
take every idea all candidates are proposing, now tell me which ones get past a McConnell led Senate. Or even a Schumer(shudder) led one, what with filibuster firmly in pmace as it should be. Go ahead, I'll wait.
That’s mostly irrelevant, because as you well know, virtually no idea proposed by the Dems will get past a McConnell led Senate. That shouldn’t be the grounds for what ideas are worthwhile. In fact, getting the approval of McConnell and the current GOP almost guarantees it’s a shitty, abusive, soul sucking idea.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
The Dems need to hang James Carville's sign (that hung in Clinton's campaign HQ) in the DNC office and send one to each of the candidates. It was the right formula for beating Bush. Bush had a 90% job performance approval rating in March 1991 after the Kuwait ground war. Forward to August 1992 and his disapproval rating was 64%. Ooops. A prevailing recession will do that. Here's what Carville hung in Clinton Campaign HQ:
Change vs. more of the same.
The economy, stupid
Don't forget health care.
If the Dems stick to a similar playbook, they can beat Drumpf. But if they try to get complicated or go for pie-in-the-sky promises, who knows. It is now time to really start pounding "The economy, stupid."
That might be key. I really wish the party had the ability to come together and say "let's be pragmatic; we need to beat this clown before any of the 'far left vs. moderate left' stuff can even be debated. So let's attract the people in the middle that are turned off by him and might just vote against him given the way the economy is going."
I am on board with some of the "far left's" stuff. Not all of it. Either way, save that shit for when you have more leverage and come together and take out a wannabe despot. I really believe Elizabeth Warren is the most qualified, but she's probably too into "free stuff" to beat Trump.
I don’t have a vote in this, but it does still kinda bug me that it seems it’s never the “right time” for progressive policies. Something else always has to be the focus first, and we’ll get to that equality and justice stuff later.
Johnson had a huge lift to get civil rights, voting act and the housing act passed. but he had the will to be the bully to get that shit done. since then, change for the better has come incrementally and when it was more than that , later Congresses gutted important legislation like Dodd Frank, Feingold McCain etc.....
ACA was a shock to the system, one that initially had a public option. just an option that saw huge blowback so it was dropped to get it passed. It was only possible because all both chambers and the admin were same party.
so unless you totally change the makeup of Congress as a whole to have veto proof majorities of far left progressives, you arent likely to see much of anything they currently propose get passed.
I am more willing to hear and pay attention to whats possible/probable then empty promises......
What is possible/probably depends a lot on how it is framed and how people talk about it. It's not like there is some actual, physical barrier, like a lack of a scientific discovery. It's all based on opinions, and opinions can be changed. All of those who spend time talking about what will never work, what isn't possible, what the voter will not accept, just perpetuate the issue.
take every idea all candidates are proposing, now tell me which ones get past a McConnell led Senate. Or even a Schumer(shudder) led one, what with filibuster firmly in pmace as it should be. Go ahead, I'll wait.
That’s mostly irrelevant, because as you well know, virtually no idea proposed by the Dems will get past a McConnell led Senate. That shouldn’t be the grounds for what ideas are worthwhile. In fact, getting the approval of McConnell and the current GOP almost guarantees it’s a shitty, abusive, soul sucking idea.
except all these people are running and claiming this will get done, not just presenting ideas, no matter how worthwhile they may be. And its a lie, they know it, I know it, and unfortunately the younger voters arent cynical enough nor critically thinking enough to know better.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Me too. It's a damn shame he's had his challenges with the black community, or I think he'd be a very viable candidate. I suspect 2024 may be a good year for him.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Me too. It's a damn shame he's had his challenges with the black community, or I think he'd be a very viable candidate. I suspect 2024 may be a good year for him.
Im not sure that's the issue right now. I think name recognition and familiarity is the real challenge. Had Obama not done the key note in 04, I'm not sure his campaign would have got off the ground. Seems like everyone says.. yeah I like Pete but I like/ know/ trust/ x better. Maybe he can capture hearts though. It's still very early.
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,397
Was with a gay dude who I work with on Tuesday. We talked politics over some beers after our meetings. he was not behind Mayor Pete specifically because of the questions around his relationship with the police and parts of his community. Even though he was happy a gay guy is on the stage he didn't support him. (He preferred that jabbering twins but Warren more than Bernard.) Guessing others feel the same. I like Pete better than any of the other leading candidates thus far, but do not think the swing Trump votes are likely to be open to a gay candidate.
The Dems need to hang James Carville's sign (that hung in Clinton's campaign HQ) in the DNC office and send one to each of the candidates. It was the right formula for beating Bush. Bush had a 90% job performance approval rating in March 1991 after the Kuwait ground war. Forward to August 1992 and his disapproval rating was 64%. Ooops. A prevailing recession will do that. Here's what Carville hung in Clinton Campaign HQ:
Change vs. more of the same.
The economy, stupid
Don't forget health care.
If the Dems stick to a similar playbook, they can beat Drumpf. But if they try to get complicated or go for pie-in-the-sky promises, who knows. It is now time to really start pounding "The economy, stupid."
That might be key. I really wish the party had the ability to come together and say "let's be pragmatic; we need to beat this clown before any of the 'far left vs. moderate left' stuff can even be debated. So let's attract the people in the middle that are turned off by him and might just vote against him given the way the economy is going."
I am on board with some of the "far left's" stuff. Not all of it. Either way, save that shit for when you have more leverage and come together and take out a wannabe despot. I really believe Elizabeth Warren is the most qualified, but she's probably too into "free stuff" to beat Trump.
I don’t have a vote in this, but it does still kinda bug me that it seems it’s never the “right time” for progressive policies. Something else always has to be the focus first, and we’ll get to that equality and justice stuff later.
Johnson had a huge lift to get civil rights, voting act and the housing act passed. but he had the will to be the bully to get that shit done. since then, change for the better has come incrementally and when it was more than that , later Congresses gutted important legislation like Dodd Frank, Feingold McCain etc.....
ACA was a shock to the system, one that initially had a public option. just an option that saw huge blowback so it was dropped to get it passed. It was only possible because all both chambers and the admin were same party.
so unless you totally change the makeup of Congress as a whole to have veto proof majorities of far left progressives, you arent likely to see much of anything they currently propose get passed.
I am more willing to hear and pay attention to whats possible/probable then empty promises......
What is possible/probably depends a lot on how it is framed and how people talk about it. It's not like there is some actual, physical barrier, like a lack of a scientific discovery. It's all based on opinions, and opinions can be changed. All of those who spend time talking about what will never work, what isn't possible, what the voter will not accept, just perpetuate the issue.
take every idea all candidates are proposing, now tell me which ones get past a McConnell led Senate. Or even a Schumer(shudder) led one, what with filibuster firmly in pmace as it should be. Go ahead, I'll wait.
That’s mostly irrelevant, because as you well know, virtually no idea proposed by the Dems will get past a McConnell led Senate. That shouldn’t be the grounds for what ideas are worthwhile. In fact, getting the approval of McConnell and the current GOP almost guarantees it’s a shitty, abusive, soul sucking idea.
except all these people are running and claiming this will get done, not just presenting ideas, no matter how worthwhile they may be. And its a lie, they know it, I know it, and unfortunately the younger voters arent cynical enough nor critically thinking enough to know better.
And the GOP will make lots of claims, too. Each new generation of voters learns how this works, and sometimes things change, but never when everyone is naysaying.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
It is a very good representation of the essence of the issue. He’s not the first to explain this and he won’t be the last, but it was succinctly and clearly done.
Unfortunately, a whole bunch of people don’t care about how much this answer makes sense.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
The 'dark side' of Finland's famous free health care
In his search for examples of a more equitable society, Bernie Sanders has long looked north ... to Northern Europe, that is.
That is one pointless article. HAHA.
I'm starting to believe Bernies campaign manager saying CNN is biased against Bernie is true.
What is this "DAAAAAAARK SIDE" exactly? How can anything be compared DAAAAAAARK when compared to the US system?
"Finlands system isn't 100% magically perfect so therefore it is instead completely worthless and therefore lets keep our predatory capitalistic system where people die because they can't afford healthcare and where we pay double for our health care but as long as we have made people so fucking numb to our shittiness they won't acknowledge that and instead have a stupid fear of taxes"
... americans...
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
The 'dark side' of Finland's famous free health care
In his search for examples of a more equitable society, Bernie Sanders has long looked north ... to Northern Europe, that is.
That is one pointless article. HAHA.
I'm starting to believe Bernies campaign manager saying CNN is biased against Bernie is true.
What is this "DAAAAAAARK SIDE" exactly? How can anything be compared DAAAAAAARK when compared to the US system?
"Finlands system isn't 100% magically perfect so therefore it is instead completely worthless and therefore lets keep our predatory capitalistic system where people die because they can't afford healthcare and where we pay double for our health care but as long as we have made people so fucking numb to our shittiness they won't acknowledge that and instead have a stupid fear of taxes"
The 'dark side' of Finland's famous free health care
In his search for examples of a more equitable society, Bernie Sanders has long looked north ... to Northern Europe, that is.
That is one pointless article. HAHA.
I'm starting to believe Bernies campaign manager saying CNN is biased against Bernie is true.
What is this "DAAAAAAARK SIDE" exactly? How can anything be compared DAAAAAAARK when compared to the US system?
"Finlands system isn't 100% magically perfect so therefore it is instead completely worthless and therefore lets keep our predatory capitalistic system where people die because they can't afford healthcare and where we pay double for our health care but as long as we have made people so fucking numb to our shittiness they won't acknowledge that and instead have a stupid fear of taxes"
... americans...
Did you even read the article?
Yes. See my first sentence if you missed it.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
The 'dark side' of Finland's famous free health care
In his search for examples of a more equitable society, Bernie Sanders has long looked north ... to Northern Europe, that is.
That is one pointless article. HAHA.
I'm starting to believe Bernies campaign manager saying CNN is biased against Bernie is true.
What is this "DAAAAAAARK SIDE" exactly? How can anything be compared DAAAAAAARK when compared to the US system?
"Finlands system isn't 100% magically perfect so therefore it is instead completely worthless and therefore lets keep our predatory capitalistic system where people die because they can't afford healthcare and where we pay double for our health care but as long as we have made people so fucking numb to our shittiness they won't acknowledge that and instead have a stupid fear of taxes"
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Me too. It's a damn shame he's had his challenges with the black community, or I think he'd be a very viable candidate. I suspect 2024 may be a good year for him.
I like Pete. But he did what he says he dislikes. A question he said that is meant to bring up emotions. He gives a very bad proposal in my opinion (meaning doctors don’t have the say), and then uses emotional hypotheticals.
Me too. It's a damn shame he's had his challenges with the black community, or I think he'd be a very viable candidate. I suspect 2024 may be a good year for him.
I like Pete. But he did what he says he dislikes. A question he said that is meant to bring up emotions. He gives a very bad proposal in my opinion (meaning doctors don’t have the say), and then uses emotional hypotheticals.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Me too. It's a damn shame he's had his challenges with the black community, or I think he'd be a very viable candidate. I suspect 2024 may be a good year for him.
I like Pete. But he did what he says he dislikes. A question he said that is meant to bring up emotions. He gives a very bad proposal in my opinion (meaning doctors don’t have the say), and then uses emotional hypotheticals.
But it's not an analytical, black and white issue. It's the most personal issue out there. So how is the government best situated top litigate it from Washington?
The Dems need to hang James Carville's sign (that hung in Clinton's campaign HQ) in the DNC office and send one to each of the candidates. It was the right formula for beating Bush. Bush had a 90% job performance approval rating in March 1991 after the Kuwait ground war. Forward to August 1992 and his disapproval rating was 64%. Ooops. A prevailing recession will do that. Here's what Carville hung in Clinton Campaign HQ:
Change vs. more of the same.
The economy, stupid
Don't forget health care.
If the Dems stick to a similar playbook, they can beat Drumpf. But if they try to get complicated or go for pie-in-the-sky promises, who knows. It is now time to really start pounding "The economy, stupid."
That might be key. I really wish the party had the ability to come together and say "let's be pragmatic; we need to beat this clown before any of the 'far left vs. moderate left' stuff can even be debated. So let's attract the people in the middle that are turned off by him and might just vote against him given the way the economy is going."
I am on board with some of the "far left's" stuff. Not all of it. Either way, save that shit for when you have more leverage and come together and take out a wannabe despot. I really believe Elizabeth Warren is the most qualified, but she's probably too into "free stuff" to beat Trump.
I don’t have a vote in this, but it does still kinda bug me that it seems it’s never the “right time” for progressive policies. Something else always has to be the focus first, and we’ll get to that equality and justice stuff later.
Johnson had a huge lift to get civil rights, voting act and the housing act passed. but he had the will to be the bully to get that shit done. since then, change for the better has come incrementally and when it was more than that , later Congresses gutted important legislation like Dodd Frank, Feingold McCain etc.....
ACA was a shock to the system, one that initially had a public option. just an option that saw huge blowback so it was dropped to get it passed. It was only possible because all both chambers and the admin were same party.
so unless you totally change the makeup of Congress as a whole to have veto proof majorities of far left progressives, you arent likely to see much of anything they currently propose get passed.
I am more willing to hear and pay attention to whats possible/probable then empty promises......
What is possible/probably depends a lot on how it is framed and how people talk about it. It's not like there is some actual, physical barrier, like a lack of a scientific discovery. It's all based on opinions, and opinions can be changed. All of those who spend time talking about what will never work, what isn't possible, what the voter will not accept, just perpetuate the issue.
take every idea all candidates are proposing, now tell me which ones get past a McConnell led Senate. Or even a Schumer(shudder) led one, what with filibuster firmly in pmace as it should be. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Your wait is over:
The GOP senate has passed significant rule changes in this congress. SCOTUS justices are confirmed now by simple majority and debates on all other federal judges limited to allow for quick and numerous confirmations.
Rule changes require simple majority. If the dems can win the senate (looking at how aggressive the gop has been with the rules ) they can pass a new rule interpreting SCOTUS justices and climate issues as budgetary.
They would then be able to pack the court and pass sweeping climate change legislation with simple majorities.
watched part of Joe Rogan's podcast last night Bernie Sanders. God that guy needs some personality. he sounded like a low talking old curmudgeonish college professor. pretty hard to win the presidency or even the nom when your personality is flat lined.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Comments
What is possible/probably depends a lot on how it is framed and how people talk about it. It's not like there is some actual, physical barrier, like a lack of a scientific discovery. It's all based on opinions, and opinions can be changed. All of those who spend time talking about what will never work, what isn't possible, what the voter will not accept, just perpetuate the issue.
To some, the response to the awfulness of Trump is to try to be the opposite. But that sort of ignores why he was elected.
Admittedly, my call for "pragmatism" runs squarely into the problem of continuing to put it off. But if there was ever "not the time," it's now.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
PS: Massachusetts is awesome.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I don't want to allow great to be the enemy of good
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
(He preferred that jabbering twins but Warren more than Bernard.)
Guessing others feel the same.
I like Pete better than any of the other leading candidates thus far, but do not think the swing Trump votes are likely to be open to a gay candidate.
Unfortunately, a whole bunch of people don’t care about how much this answer makes sense.
The 'dark side' of Finland's famous free health care
In his search for examples of a more equitable society, Bernie Sanders has long looked north ... to Northern Europe, that is.I'm starting to believe Bernies campaign manager saying CNN is biased against Bernie is true.
What is this "DAAAAAAARK SIDE" exactly? How can anything be compared DAAAAAAARK when compared to the US system?
"Finlands system isn't 100% magically perfect so therefore it is instead completely worthless and therefore lets keep our predatory capitalistic system where people die because they can't afford healthcare and where we pay double for our health care but as long as we have made people so fucking numb to our shittiness they won't acknowledge that and instead have a stupid fear of taxes"
... americans...
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
-EV 8/14/93
Your wait is over:
The GOP senate has passed significant rule changes in this congress. SCOTUS justices are confirmed now by simple majority and debates on all other federal judges limited to allow for quick and numerous confirmations.
Rule changes require simple majority. If the dems can win the senate (looking at how aggressive the gop has been with the rules ) they can pass a new rule interpreting SCOTUS justices and climate issues as budgetary.
They would then be able to pack the court and pass sweeping climate change legislation with simple majorities.
.
-EV 8/14/93