JC29856 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

Here is what democrats are actually doing to fight racism against non-whites.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/sen-cory-booker-introduce-bill-remove-confederate-statues-052404285--abc-news-topstories.html

Sen. Cory Booker says he plans to introduce bill to remove Confederate statues from Capitol

Because there just might be enough votes to pass it and dare Trump to veto it.

CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING 101

https://www.njtvonline.org/news/video/sen-booker-co-sponsoring-bernie-sanders-medicare-bill/

hmmm?...deja vu California dreaming


Booker is not the only high-profile Democratic senator to announce his support for the plan. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and California Sen. Kamala Harris have already announced they are co-sponsoring Sanders’ bill. Warren, Harris and Booker are widely considered to be top contenders for the 2020 democratic presidential nomination.

we're all sexist and racist

benjs said:

JC29856 said:

JC29856 said:

JC29856 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

Here is what democrats are actually doing to fight racism against non-whites.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/sen-cory-booker-introduce-bill-remove-confederate-statues-052404285--abc-news-topstories.html

Sen. Cory Booker says he plans to introduce bill to remove Confederate statues from Capitol

Because there just might be enough votes to pass it and dare Trump to veto it.

CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING 101

https://www.njtvonline.org/news/video/sen-booker-co-sponsoring-bernie-sanders-medicare-bill/

hmmm?...deja vu California dreaming


Booker is not the only high-profile Democratic senator to announce his support for the plan. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and California Sen. Kamala Harris have already announced they are co-sponsoring Sanders’ bill. Warren, Harris and Booker are widely considered to be top contenders for the 2020 democratic presidential nomination.

Advertising 101
 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/09/12/kirsten-gillibrand-backs-bernie-sanders-bill-single-payer-health-care/657285001/

At a certain point, people you disagree with are going to promote things you agree with because it is the most positive for their brand. If you are looking for righteousness as the primary motive for political aspirations, you are not understanding the basis of human nature, and certainly not of politicians - those who serve to structure power to gain themselves more of it.

We do what is best for ourselves, and on a short enough scale as one human life (especially with the age of typical politicians), what is best for us personally typically is not what is best for us collectively. Trump could buy a Hummer, and have gasoline-powered flamethrowers coming out of the back of it, and he will still most likely never personally or materially suffer the consequences of carbon emissions. 

If you believe any of this, then you're going to have to ask yourself - if someone you disagree with promotes something you agree with for a reason you disagree with, will you support them? Or will you stay rigid in your stance that anyone whose name contains vowels and/or consonants is insincere and thus unsupportable? If you disagree with my opinion, I'd love to hear why.

I'll answer but first I need a better understanding of what you mean and what you are asking, but before that let me say a few things to clarify and bring those that havent been following along up to speed. First off lets make clear that single payer and medicare for all are not the same, althou most if not all of the links I posted previously use those terms interchangeably. Im not going to get into the differences or similarities, if anyone cares they can research themselves. The point is as I have posted single payer is NOT medicare for all. Second, the point of my posts and repeat posts are to illustrate just how disingenuous California democrats have been when they pushed for single payer legislation under Republican control, knowing it would never pass. Now that Cal Dems have control and can actually pass single payer, they shelf it. Why? Besides control in Cal from GOP to Dem, what changed?

IMO we are seeing the same thing (disingenuous democrats) play out on the national level, certain Democrats are behind "single payer" medicare for all" knowing that it has zero chance of even being called to a vote, let alone passed and signed by Trump (if you think single payer or medicare for all has any chance of being called to a vote stop right here, dont waste your remaining brain cells reading any further). Can I not question the motivations for such actions and offer my opinions as to why this game is played (free advertising, now and in the future, when your name is in the presidential hat)?
 
Now on to your reply, immediately Im confused as to your choice of the word "brand". I am and have referred to elected civil servants who's job is to serve their constituents, not Kyle Jenner and whatever her job is. Explain what you mean by "brand" in the context of politicians/political processes?
Even thou I think your asking me if I will waste my time and efforts and support total horse shit, Ill answer your question as simply as possible, yes I will support ANYONE if they (honestly sincerely fight for) promote something that I believe is right. Ill support ANYONE who (honestly and sincerely) pushes for healthcare as an entitlement versus a commodity, regardless of their reasons. I do not and will not support horse shit lip service.
Weeks if not months ago I posted just how horse shitty ironstache and harris are (fyi for the alt-stupid, one is a white male, the other is a black female)
My questions: Are you suggestion that one should support harris booker (fill in the next presidential hopeful, gillibrand, kaine, liz) etc because they are behind single payer even thou they are only doing it for political expediency/free advertising/branding to use your term? Why would anyone waste their time or efforts supporting a candidate that is obviously intellectually dishonest / political expedient?
Single payer and medicare for all isnt going anywhere and likely never will in our lifetime. Check the political contributions and pac money from health insurance companies, pharma and the like. More-so than money and power those currently in control (and some Dems too) think single payer is socialism, that obama and obamacare are the stepping stone to FREE healthcare for food stampers.  
(for those that arent following along, please try to stay on topic)

Go Beavers said:

I would be careful about being so certain of others sincerity, or lack of it. Regardless of whether it's free advertising or not, it's another step toward a single payer system. 

I'm certain you and I will be offered the option to time travel before we're offered single payer.

I wonder what Pelosi thinks about the prospects of Medicare for all?

time traveling...I'm going back to 2003 and working my way forward.

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program…I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.” – Barack Obama, 2003

— In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan.” [2008]

— During a speech at the American Medical Association, President Obama told thousands of doctors that one of the plans included in the new health insurance exchanges “needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market.” [6/15/09]

— While speaking to the nation during his weekly address, the President said that “any plan” he signs “must include…a public option.” [7/17/09]

— During a conference call with progressive bloggers, the President said he continues “to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go.” [7/20/09]

— Obama told NBC’s David Gregory that a public option “should be a part of this [health care bill],” while rebuking claims that the plan was “dead.” [9/20/09]

September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

time traveling...I'm going back to 2003 and working my way forward.

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program…I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.” – Barack Obama, 2003

— In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan.” [2008]

— During a speech at the American Medical Association, President Obama told thousands of doctors that one of the plans included in the new health insurance exchanges “needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market.” [6/15/09]

— While speaking to the nation during his weekly address, the President said that “any plan” he signs “must include…a public option.” [7/17/09]

— During a conference call with progressive bloggers, the President said he continues “to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go.” [7/20/09]

— Obama told NBC’s David Gregory that a public option “should be a part of this [health care bill],” while rebuking claims that the plan was “dead.” [9/20/09]

September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010

WTF is your point?

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

time traveling...I'm going back to 2003 and working my way forward.

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program…I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.” – Barack Obama, 2003

— In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan.” [2008]

— During a speech at the American Medical Association, President Obama told thousands of doctors that one of the plans included in the new health insurance exchanges “needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market.” [6/15/09]

— While speaking to the nation during his weekly address, the President said that “any plan” he signs “must include…a public option.” [7/17/09]

— During a conference call with progressive bloggers, the President said he continues “to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go.” [7/20/09]

— Obama told NBC’s David Gregory that a public option “should be a part of this [health care bill],” while rebuking claims that the plan was “dead.” [9/20/09]

September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010

WTF is your point?

lol