Republicans Don't Care if Trump Shoots Someone on Fifth Ave

[Fogdog]

The Republicans are honest in their opposition to healthcare for all Americans. The Democrats are trying to have it both ways.

I really hope they prove me wrong, but the only way to know is when they actually make it happen.

How is 60 years of support for universal access to healthcare, passage of Medicare, Medicaid, multiple attempts at passing legislation for universal healthcare coverage, passage of the ACA, defense of the ACA, indicative of "having it both ways". Even today, you claim they don't support universal coverage, with the bill sitting right in front of you that says they do, yet you deny it.

 

[Fogdog]

No, I'm just using your own tactics on you. Gotta love it!

Actually, no

Berners are way out on a limb. Even their opponents say Democrats support universal healthcare. This is what Republicans say about Democrats regarding healthcare:

Once Deemed “Too Radical,” Democrats Now Embrace $32 Trillion Single-Payer Healthcare
https://gop.com/once-deemed-too-radical-democrats-now-embrace-32-trillion-single-payer-healthcare/

"Most House Democrats" Have Now Endorsed A Single-Payer Proposal. "In a sign of shifting sympathies, most House Democrats have now endorsed a single-payer proposal." (Alexander Burns And Jennifer Medina, "The Single-Payer Party? Democrats Shift Left On Health Care," The New York Times , 6/3/17)

In 2017, Representative John Conyers Jr. (D-MI) Introduced "H.R.676 - Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act" Which "Establishes A Medicare For All Program.""This bill [H.R. 676] establishes the Medicare for All Program to provide all individuals residing in the United States and U.S. territories with free health care that includes all medically necessary care, such as primary care and prevention, dietary and nutritional therapies, prescription drugs, emergency care, long-term care, mental health services, dental services, and vision care." ("H.R.676 - Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act," Congress.Gov , Accessed 7/10/17)

If they are against it, I'm for it.

Why are you against this?

 

[ttystikk]

I quoted most pertinent numbers I could find from here: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-exit-polls-how-donald-trump-won-the-us-presidency/
You:
I haven't seen any numbers but I suspect that the number of Democrats crossing over in The last presidential election is larger than any other.

This is why I call you a cynic. Nothing other than your opinion is given. No fact checking, just what you read from somewhere maybe.

The election turned on a score of districts that voted for Trump when in the past they had voted for Democrats in key states . Extrapolating results from a few districts turning from Democrat to Trump as representative of something significant to the entire nation is shoddy analysis. Lazy too. And cynical.

What happened nationwide? Clinton won the popular vote by a margin of 3 million voters.

The exit poll cited didn't address the number of crossover votes, just the raw numbers.

This is as close as they come;
"In contrast, only 84 percent of white Democrats voted for Clinton. She did win 86 percent of white Democratic women, but only 81 percent of white, Democratic men voted for her."

That implies a substantial, even decisive percentage of crossover.

People like you, and a greater extent both Uncle dreck and abandon reason are definitely making me cynical about America's willingness or even ability to look at the problems we have and work together to push for solutions. Two of the three of you have given up on actual debate entirely in favor of name-calling, cheap shots and misrepresentation; if this is indicative of the larger population, then little will change and certainly not for the better.

At least I was honest when I said it was my subjective opinion but you seem to have missed the part where I said I formed it while speaking to lots of individuals.

What happened was that Clinton lost. To the most unpopular candidate in modern history. Make all the excuses you want about it. I prefer to dig deeper for the reasons- and what I'm finding is apparently so unpalatable to the establishment shills here that they're reduced to personal attacks rather than intelligent discussion.

 

[ttystikk]

Actually, no

Berners are way out on a limb. Even their opponents say Democrats support universal healthcare. This is what Republicans say about Democrats regarding healthcare:

Once Deemed “Too Radical,” Democrats Now Embrace $32 Trillion Single-Payer Healthcare
https://gop.com/once-deemed-too-radical-democrats-now-embrace-32-trillion-single-payer-healthcare/

"Most House Democrats" Have Now Endorsed A Single-Payer Proposal. "In a sign of shifting sympathies, most House Democrats have now endorsed a single-payer proposal." (Alexander Burns And Jennifer Medina, "The Single-Payer Party? Democrats Shift Left On Health Care," The New York Times , 6/3/17)

In 2017, Representative John Conyers Jr. (D-MI) Introduced "H.R.676 - Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act" Which "Establishes A Medicare For All Program.""This bill [H.R. 676] establishes the Medicare for All Program to provide all individuals residing in the United States and U.S. territories with free health care that includes all medically necessary care, such as primary care and prevention, dietary and nutritional therapies, prescription drugs, emergency care, long-term care, mental health services, dental services, and vision care." ("H.R.676 - Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act," Congress.Gov , Accessed 7/10/17)

If they are against it, I'm for it.

Why are you against this?

I'm all for the above, which doesn't contradict anything I've said.

If they campaign on it I'll support them. If they pull it off, I'll be their biggest fan!

But talk is cheap and they're in the minority. Let's see what happens when they actually have the power to do anything.

 

[Fogdog]

The exit poll cited didn't address the number of crossover votes, just the raw numbers.

This is as close as they come;
"In contrast, only 84 percent of white Democrats voted for Clinton. She did win 86 percent of white Democratic women, but only 81 percent of white, Democratic men voted for her."

That implies a substantial, even decisive percentage of crossover.

People like you, and a greater extent both Uncle dreck and abandon reason are definitely making me cynical about America's willingness or even ability to look at the problems we have and work together to push for solutions. Two of the three of you have given up on actual debate entirely in favor of name-calling, cheap shots and misrepresentation; if this is indicative of the larger population, then little will change and certainly not for the better.

At least I was honest when I said it was my subjective opinion but you seem to have missed the part where I said I formed it while speaking to lots of individuals.

What happened was that Clinton lost. To the most unpopular candidate in modern history. Make all the excuses you want about it. I prefer to dig deeper for the reasons- and what I'm finding is apparently so unpalatable to the establishment shills here that they're reduced to personal attacks rather than intelligent discussion.

Good, we are now using the same set of facts. This might get easier.

First, I make no excuses anywhere, especially in my preceding posts. So fuck that bit.

I'm challenging your assertion about some significance to 16% of white male Democrats who voted for Trump or a third party. Of course, you'd want us to focus on white males, but I'll just let that one alone right now. The number I quoted was 11% of all Democrats voted for Trump or a third party. That's more significant than the subset of a subset of voters that is bigger proportionally but is smaller in number. Do you see why statistics are confusing?

If you are going to somehow make this a nationwide indictment about Democrats, I challenge the validity. Very few of those Democrats voted in the districts that mattered. Probably more important is how many independents or non affiliated voters in key districts voted for Trump. And, no excuses, Clinton failed to attract enough voters in those districts to win.

Just give it up, man. This dog won't hunt.

 

[Fogdog]

I'm all for the above, which doesn't contradict anything I've said.

If they campaign on it I'll support them. If they pull it off, I'll be their biggest fan!

But talk is cheap and they're in the minority. Let's see what happens when they actually have the power to do anything.

You didn't know, did you? You made claims that were lazy and untrue. You still can't accept the truth that Democrats are and have been supporters of universal healthcare.

I'm so glad you can admit that you are cynical and your opinion is worthless.

 

[ttystikk]

Good, we are now using the same set of facts. This might get easier.

First, I make no excuses anywhere, especially in my preceding posts. So fuck that bit.

I'm challenging your assertion about some significance to 16% of white male Democrats who voted for Trump or a third party. Of course, you'd want us to focus on white males, but I'll just let that one alone right now. The number I quoted was 11% of all Democrats voted for Trump or a third party. That's more significant than the subset of a subset of voters that is bigger proportionally but is smaller in number. Do you see why statistics are confusing?

If you are going to somehow make this a nationwide indictment about Democrats, I challenge the validity. Very few of those Democrats voted in the districts that mattered. Probably more important is how many independents or non affiliated voters in key districts voted for Trump. And, no excuses, Clinton failed to attract enough voters in those districts to win.

Just give it up, man. This dog won't hunt.

This post is self contradictory; first you say that Democrats may or may not have voted for Mrs Clinton but you can't be sure because the available statistics are 'confusing'.

Then you say that Mrs Clinton failed to attract enough voters to win.

Finally you tell me to give it up because the dog won't hunt.

I'm not confused; Mrs Clinton lost to the most unpopular winning candidate in modern American history. The only question left to ask is why her campaign was even less popular.

But y'all aren't asking that question. Like the rest of the Democratic Party, you're doing anything but.

Bernie answered it. Denial is the first step. Acceptance is the last.

11% of Democratic voters would be roughly 6.5 million votes, or enough to utterly swamp the margin of victory as well as Mrs Clinton's margin of the popular vote.

But low turnout was also a big factor, which itself screams the truth about the unpopularity of both candidates. To equal the turnout rate of 2008, another 18 million votes would have needed to participate. That's also significant.

The bottom line is that the Democratic bar did not feel like their party was with voting for. Many stayed home. Many others voted for the Chump.

I think it's time to not only focus on why, but to take those lessons to heart and remake the Democratic Party accordingly- but I'm seeing precious little evidence of any such activity within the party, or it's supporters.

That's why I'm organizing with progressive groups. Of all the political organizations now in play in America, they seem to me to be the ones most responsive to the actual needs of their constituents.

This is my way of being part of the solution, although I'm the first to admit my cynicism about the overall situation.

 

[ttystikk]

You didn't know, did you? You made claims that were lazy and untrue. You still can't accept the truth that Democrats are and have been supporters of universal healthcare.

I'm so glad you can admit that you are cynical and your opinion is worthless.

When they have the majority, let's see what they do with it. My doubts about their sincerity are on record. How is that 'lazy or untrue'?

 

[Fogdog]

This post is self contradictory; first you say that Democrats may or may not have voted for Mrs Clinton but you can't be sure because the available statistics are 'confusing'.

Then you say that Mrs Clinton failed to attract enough voters to win.

Finally you tell me to give it up because the dog won't hunt.

I'm not confused; Mrs Clinton lost to the most unpopular winning candidate in modern American history. The only question left to ask is why her campaign was even less popular.

But y'all aren't asking that question. Like the rest of the Democratic Party, you're doing anything but.

Bernie answered it. Denial is the first step. Acceptance is the last.

11% of Democratic voters would be roughly 6.5 million votes, or enough to utterly swamp the margin of victory as well as Mrs Clinton's margin of the popular vote.

But low turnout was also a big factor, which itself screams the truth about the unpopularity of both candidates. To equal the turnout rate of 2008, another 18 million votes would have needed to participate. That's also significant.

The bottom line is that the Democratic bar did not feel like their party was with voting for. Many stayed home. Many others voted for the Chump.

I think it's time to not only focus on why, but to take those lessons to heart and remake the Democratic Party accordingly- but I'm seeing precious little evidence of any such activity within the party, or it's supporters.

That's why I'm organizing with progressive groups. Of all the political organizations now in play in America, they seem to me to be the ones most responsive to the actual needs of their constituents.

This is my way of being part of the solution, although I'm the first to admit my cynicism about the overall situation.

At least you are honest about being confused.

It's also becoming a pattern that you can't follow a thread very well. So, I'll reset and remind you that you were making a big issue about crossover Democrats. Also while you weren't able to follow it, your idea was crushed. The loss in this election was not nationwide. It was specific to a few districts in a few states. You are trying to extrapolate that into a National trend and that dog won't hunt.

Regarding all that other kibble you tossed the page, do you want to make the assertion that Hillary was crushed in the election? That this means Democrats will be crushed in the future? Numbers say not. She actually tallied more votes than Trump did. But I concede she lost the election in the EC.

Does that make you happy?

 

[Fogdog]

When they have the majority, let's see what they do with it. My doubts about their sincerity are on record. How is that 'lazy or untrue'?

cynical especially the "distrustful of human sincerity or integrity" part:

cyn·i·cal
ˈsinək(ə)l/
adjective

1. 1.
   believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity.

 

[ttystikk]

At least you are honest about being confused.

It's also becoming a pattern that you can't follow a thread very well. So, I'll reset and remind you that you were making a big issue about crossover Democrats. Also while you weren't able to follow it, your idea was crushed. The loss in this election was not nationwide. It was specific to a few districts in a few states. You are trying to extrapolate that into a National trend and that dog won't hunt.

Regarding all that other kibble you tossed the page, do you want to make the assertion that Hillary was crushed in the election? That this means Democrats will be crushed in the future? Numbers say not. She actually tallied more votes than Trump did. But I concede she lost the election in the EC.

Does that make you happy?

Yep. She lost.

I'm not confused at all.

Go eat your kibble.

 

[ttystikk]

cynical especially the "distrustful of human sincerity or integrity" part:

cyn·i·cal
ˈsinək(ə)l/
adjective

1. 1.
   believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity.

That does sum up my attitude about both Republicans and Democrats today.

You've presented insufficient evidence not to be, putting it mildly.

 

[UncleBuck]

Go eat your kibble.

 

[abandonconflict]

 

[schuylaar]

That's fine, think what you want about me. It's funny though, that you never call out your fellow Berntards when they make extremely offensive bigoted remarks.

Yes, the many, many offensive remarks..meanwhile everyone wishes @UncleBuck would've kept his bet and @SneekyNinja would just die already.

PMs are a bitch.

 

[schuylaar]

It's in quotes.

 

[SneekyNinja]

Yes, the many, many offensive remarks..meanwhile everyone wishes @UncleBuck would've kept his bet and @SneekyNinja would just die already.

PMs are a bitch.

You're totally obsessed with me.

 

[schuylaar]

The exit poll cited didn't address the number of crossover votes, just the raw numbers.

This is as close as they come;
"In contrast, only 84 percent of white Democrats voted for Clinton. She did win 86 percent of white Democratic women, but only 81 percent of white, Democratic men voted for her."

That implies a substantial, even decisive percentage of crossover.

People like you, and a greater extent both Uncle dreck and abandon reason are definitely making me cynical about America's willingness or even ability to look at the problems we have and work together to push for solutions. Two of the three of you have given up on actual debate entirely in favor of name-calling, cheap shots and misrepresentation; if this is indicative of the larger population, then little will change and certainly not for the better.

At least I was honest when I said it was my subjective opinion but you seem to have missed the part where I said I formed it while speaking to lots of individuals.

What happened was that Clinton lost. To the most unpopular candidate in modern history. Make all the excuses you want about it. I prefer to dig deeper for the reasons- and what I'm finding is apparently so unpalatable to the establishment shills here that they're reduced to personal attacks rather than intelligent discussion.

The three you've mentioned are playing right into Putins hand of divisiveness/chaos/confusion and propaganda..

So weak-minded, they can't see it..

 

[Fogdog]

The three you've mentioned are playing right into Putins hand of divisiveness/chaos/confusion and propaganda..

So weak-minded, they can't see it..

I think radicalization of the west is the larger driver of division in this country. Putin played a role but so did Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch much more so through Fox News.

 

[schuylaar]

I think radicalization of the west is the larger driver of division in this country. Putin played a role but so did Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch much more so through Fox News.

I disagree.

The divide is friend against friend.

This is what Putin wants.

Divisiveness, chaos, propaganda..currently 22% of the US cannot tell the difference between real and not real.

I'd go with Roger Ailes through FOX..give old white men what they wish for: fear mongering, perpetuating hatred toward anything leftist and tits.