USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
- Status
trixR4kids
Well-known member
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!
It's not a conspiracy, the DCCC just tends to have affluent people who want to protect their own interests.
It's not a conspiracy, the DCCC just tends to have affluent people who want to protect their own interests.
unofan
Well-known member
Welcome to Earth. Are you new here?
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely
Democrats are not immune.
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely
Democrats are not immune.
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!
I can't say this is a widespread issue. The only recent instance I recall this happening is in Texas where one Dem candidate had been quoted in the past blasting the district she was trying to represent. That's a problem. Otherwise aside from incumbent protection I don't recall them taking too many sides in open contests.
The issue I have with some Berniecrats is they want their candidate to win without actually doing the hard work of convincing voters that their person is the best choice. If Dem candidate for Congress Kepler wants to implement single payer for all, he needs to convince voters about how its going to be worth the massive tax increases that come with it. If he can't do that, its not some Establishment conspiracy that he didn't get the nomination.
I can't say this is a widespread issue. The only recent instance I recall this happening is in Texas where one Dem candidate had been quoted in the past blasting the district she was trying to represent. That's a problem. Otherwise aside from incumbent protection I don't recall them taking too many sides in open contests.
The issue I have with some Berniecrats is they want their candidate to win without actually doing the hard work of convincing voters that their person is the best choice. If Dem candidate for Congress Kepler wants to implement single payer for all, he needs to convince voters about how its going to be worth the massive tax increases that come with it. If he can't do that, its not some Establishment conspiracy that he didn't get the nomination.
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!
If you're referring to Hillary, I'd disagree. Assuming there was a conspiracy to get her to the election quickly, it was based on a desire to get the party past the division and criticism that was happening between the two factions and sometimes the broader Dem agenda. The country's decision was already a foregone conclusion somewhat early. And as the obvious goal was to give Hillary the best chance to beat Trump by limiting internal criticisms of her, that's not a bad thing.
If you're referring to Hillary, I'd disagree. Assuming there was a conspiracy to get her to the election quickly, it was based on a desire to get the party past the division and criticism that was happening between the two factions and sometimes the broader Dem agenda. The country's decision was already a foregone conclusion somewhat early. And as the obvious goal was to give Hillary the best chance to beat Trump by limiting internal criticisms of her, that's not a bad thing.
trixR4kids
Well-known member
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!
As for the quoted, most people are already convinced, that isn't the problem.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">At this point, any candidate or official who doesn’t support Medicare for All could be seen as holding a “fringe” stance in the Democratic Party.<br><br>Americans overwhelmingly want single payer. We know it has the power to transform life for working people.<br><br>Let’s make it happen. <a href="https://t.co/Ldr6VBHYSR">https://t.co/Ldr6VBHYSR</a></p>— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Ocasio2018) <a href="https://twitter.com/Ocasio2018/status/1032763778193125376?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 23, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
If you agree with me why ask the silly question?
I wasn't talking about the 2016 presidential election and honestly the downstream effects of the more local elections that were completely underfunded was the bigger issue there.
For your first quote, I'm not gonna go through and name every race where it's happened but the one where Steny Hoyer was caught on tape trying to get someone to drop out of the race was in CO. There were a number of races cited as well, including older races when Rahm Emanuel was running the show. I could pull up the article from the Intercept but they named off a number of races.
As for the quoted, most people are already convinced, that isn't the problem.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">At this point, any candidate or official who doesn’t support Medicare for All could be seen as holding a “fringe” stance in the Democratic Party.<br><br>Americans overwhelmingly want single payer. We know it has the power to transform life for working people.<br><br>Let’s make it happen. <a href="https://t.co/Ldr6VBHYSR">https://t.co/Ldr6VBHYSR</a></p>— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Ocasio2018) <a href="https://twitter.com/Ocasio2018/status/1032763778193125376?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 23, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!
Rahm Emmanuel was a long time ago and the dude's been a failure everywhere he's gone. So if you want to chalk him up to your point, sure but maybe something in the here and now is more relevant? As in under current leadership?
People like the idea of single payer. Once the costs get mentioned its support goes way down. AOC is going to find this out the hard way just as those good and well-meaning progressives did in Vermont several years ago when they tried to implement it. You can bet your bong and entire stash of weed that the Republicans will exploit that point mercilessly in any campaign. Having a solid counter argument is a must, along the lines of the ACA when Massachusetts had already implemented a test run of the program successfully without bankrupting the state.
Rahm Emmanuel was a long time ago and the dude's been a failure everywhere he's gone. So if you want to chalk him up to your point, sure but maybe something in the here and now is more relevant? As in under current leadership?
People like the idea of single payer. Once the costs get mentioned its support goes way down. AOC is going to find this out the hard way just as those good and well-meaning progressives did in Vermont several years ago when they tried to implement it. You can bet your bong and entire stash of weed that the Republicans will exploit that point mercilessly in any campaign. Having a solid counter argument is a must, along the lines of the ACA when Massachusetts had already implemented a test run of the program successfully without bankrupting the state.
trixR4kids
Well-known member
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!
We already pay a lot for healthcare, the American people would save money through medicare for all. It's not that difficult to understand and most people seem to according to that graph.
We already pay a lot for healthcare, the American people would save money through medicare for all. It's not that difficult to understand and most people seem to according to that graph.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!
That graph is incomplete to say the least and doesnt disprove anything Rover said. People support the idea of Universal Health Care in some form or another...they just dont support the funding mechanisms to the same level which is why it is a non-starter right now. Basic logic...it happens this way all the time.
Here lets use a different example. I think we all want great roads and bridges right? No one wants to drive around hitting potholes or having uneven lanes. We also want the ability for those roads and bridges to be expanded when needed. Yet what is the one thing everyone complains about (on the Left or Right) as soon as the snow melts in Minnesota? TRAFFIC AND CONSTRUCTION!!! How dare MNDOT shut down [insert highway here] in an effort to fix it. Why should I have to take a less desirable route or a wait an extra exit to get where I am going? People will often complain IN THE SAME SENTENCE how [insert highway] sucks and is undriveable and then complain the same highway is being shut down so they can improve it.
It is just advanced NIMBYism. People want all sorts of stuff but not if it is going to screw with them. People want the roads plowed fast and often but they dont want to pay the taxes to fund it. People want diversity and equal opportunity but they dont want it in their neighborhoods for fear it will drop their property values. People want Universal Health Care but they dont want to pay the price to get it yet. While UHC may poll at 70% I bet the raise in personal taxes it would take to get there polls at half that. In 15 years people will think differently but right now they dont.
That graph is incomplete to say the least and doesnt disprove anything Rover said. People support the idea of Universal Health Care in some form or another...they just dont support the funding mechanisms to the same level which is why it is a non-starter right now. Basic logic...it happens this way all the time.
Here lets use a different example. I think we all want great roads and bridges right? No one wants to drive around hitting potholes or having uneven lanes. We also want the ability for those roads and bridges to be expanded when needed. Yet what is the one thing everyone complains about (on the Left or Right) as soon as the snow melts in Minnesota? TRAFFIC AND CONSTRUCTION!!! How dare MNDOT shut down [insert highway here] in an effort to fix it. Why should I have to take a less desirable route or a wait an extra exit to get where I am going? People will often complain IN THE SAME SENTENCE how [insert highway] sucks and is undriveable and then complain the same highway is being shut down so they can improve it.
It is just advanced NIMBYism. People want all sorts of stuff but not if it is going to screw with them. People want the roads plowed fast and often but they dont want to pay the taxes to fund it. People want diversity and equal opportunity but they dont want it in their neighborhoods for fear it will drop their property values. People want Universal Health Care but they dont want to pay the price to get it yet. While UHC may poll at 70% I bet the raise in personal taxes it would take to get there polls at half that. In 15 years people will think differently but right now they dont.
trixR4kids
Well-known member
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!
The price would be less than what they're currently paying in the vast majority of cases though, that really isn't that hard to explain and I highly doubt that everyone on that graph just completely failed to consider that aspect. The issue isn't that people don't want it or are afraid of the cost, the issue is that certain politicians just desperately cling to some outdated half-*** approach because it's closer to their ideological leanings as well as those of their corporate sponsors.
And yes you'd have to raise taxes but it's not like the other side is afraid to take on more debt to give away our money to rich people. There's literally no reason not to do it to give people healthcare. And if they're no longer paying for healthcare through their employer and they pay an equal or lesser amount in taxes to give everyone healthcare (including their kids who might be reaching age 26 or whatever and can no longer be on their plan, or the growing number of poor people who don't have any healthcare at all), it's not all that difficult to see the benefit unless you're part of the 35% of people who believe pizzagate.
The price would be less than what they're currently paying in the vast majority of cases though, that really isn't that hard to explain and I highly doubt that everyone on that graph just completely failed to consider that aspect. The issue isn't that people don't want it or are afraid of the cost, the issue is that certain politicians just desperately cling to some outdated half-*** approach because it's closer to their ideological leanings as well as those of their corporate sponsors.
And yes you'd have to raise taxes but it's not like the other side is afraid to take on more debt to give away our money to rich people. There's literally no reason not to do it to give people healthcare. And if they're no longer paying for healthcare through their employer and they pay an equal or lesser amount in taxes to give everyone healthcare (including their kids who might be reaching age 26 or whatever and can no longer be on their plan, or the growing number of poor people who don't have any healthcare at all), it's not all that difficult to see the benefit unless you're part of the 35% of people who believe pizzagate.
Last edited:
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!
Kelly Ayotte lost her election in 2016, meaning she matters about as much as I do.
Kelly Ayotte lost her election in 2016, meaning she matters about as much as I do.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!
Wait so a former Senator doesnt count? Could have sworn they got a vote.
Scooby is on a roll today.
Wait so a former Senator doesnt count? Could have sworn they got a vote.
Scooby is on a roll today.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!
Yep. I'm rolling. I forgot she had lost. Sue me. Oh, that's right. You never forget anything. And you're never on a roll. Must be nice.
Yep. I'm rolling. I forgot she had lost. Sue me. Oh, that's right. You never forget anything. And you're never on a roll. Must be nice.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!
Nope. Don't want a tissue. Just want my country back.
I saw her interviewed on Sunday morning. Missed the first part obviously.
Nope. Don't want a tissue. Just want my country back.
I saw her interviewed on Sunday morning. Missed the first part obviously.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!
Whew, droppin' bombs. But no, universal healthcare isn't a "fringe" stance, sorry dude. To be clear, it should be, but it's not.
Whew, droppin' bombs. But no, universal healthcare isn't a "fringe" stance, sorry dude. To be clear, it should be, but it's not.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!
Isn’t that what she said?
Or did you mean NOT supporting it?
Isn’t that what she said?
Or did you mean NOT supporting it?
- Status