Dem Party

benjs said:

JC29856 said:

benjs said:

JC29856 said:

JC29856 said:

JC29856 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

Truncated for length

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

CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING 101

Truncated for length

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) 

First, let me make sure I properly understand the difference between single-payer and Medicare for All: the former is the elimination of health insurance, as the government carries the tab for the health care provided to its citizens. The latter subsidizes insurance for those who cannot afford their own premiums.

Next, it is astonishing to me how you only perceive disingenuousness within one party - one party with little political sway, and representing the minority of each branch of government today. To deny that this is a political epidemic rather than an epidemic within the DNC furthers division: to criticize a bucket of Democrats asks them to disadvantage themselves and give Republicans a free pass (guess what - that's unlikely). To criticize the bucket of politicians at large and to hold ALL to the same standards is the more reasonable and less divisive way to go.

You're welcome to question anything you want. When you question everything you hear, set the bar so unreasonably high as to be virtually impossible, and spend zero time identifying what "good" actually looks like - don't be surprised when no one gives two shits about what you have to say and most write you off as a naive idealist. And this is coming from a liberal-minded person.

Next, your expectation that your elected civil servants are here to serve their constituents. This is just laughable. If you honestly believe that more than 5% of politicians are here for you, the people, then I've got a bridge to sell you. People ignoring and forgetting about the existence of their moral compasses in the interest of seizing power is a trait as old as our species. In the modern world, power is measured in dollars, and a politician (who controls decisions intrinsically linked to peoples' abilities to profit) is unlimited in his or her right to be a capitalist. How's that for a conflict of interest?

Next topic - a brand (something I really didn't think I needed to explain). It's the ways in which someone or something claims to add value to your life - not the value actually contributed. Does Coca Cola actually make life better and make my encounters with friends more exciting? No, it leads to diabetes. Will Axe Body Spray help me find someone to have sex with? No, but it will make me smell like crap until I shower. You are living in a world where brands are typically more meaningful and resonant to a person than the actual impact a person or thing has on you (likely correlated to our collective stupidity, ignorance, ego, and susceptibility to confirmation bias). Thus, strong brands make outlandish promises, and once you've paid (i.e. through a vote), they break the contract (which was only informal and not legally binding - such as a campaign promise), and reap the benefits. The perception is far more important than the reality, especially when us collectively dumb-shit humans forget and move on so quickly.

What I am suggesting is simple: you spend a ludicrous amount of time criticizing - so how do you feel the words you share actually contribute to the better tomorrow you claim to want?

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

a corrupt candidate lost to a buffoon, I have an idea let's run someone more corrupt and crooked.
(FYI for the alt-stupid: white male)
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/13/terry-mcauliffe-2020-off-message-239459

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/terry-mcauliffe-governor-virginia/

Your complete and utter lack of criticism of and for Trump is astounding. You must be so proud and smug?

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

a corrupt candidate lost to a buffoon, I have an idea let's run someone more corrupt and crooked.
(FYI for the alt-stupid: white male)
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/13/terry-mcauliffe-2020-off-message-239459

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/terry-mcauliffe-governor-virginia/

Your complete and utter lack of criticism of and for Trump is astounding. You must be so proud and smug?

consider me the equivalent of gap insurance...the Trump criticisms are already covered repeatedly daily kinda like your 538 posts pre election..."what about" Awan? any criticism.

But I haven't seen you criticize Trump for his desire to expand the CIA drone program in the 7 countries you claim to care most about. What gives? One of the most incomprehensible poorly written responses from you in a while. Nice job.