A Kasich-Hickenlooper independent ticket that arose after neither ran in the primaries would get like...8% of the vote. Fingers crossed that it (or anything like it) doesn't happen.
you're dumb. saying it's how it is, is a self fulfilling prophecy. Get used to more of Trump and his ilk with that craven attitude.
There's some brilliant circular logic there. A Medicare 4 all system 'funded' by progressive taxes is enacted precisely for the reason that it reduces inequality.
I don't have many other words in the language with which I can use to try to make you understand. You can't pass Medicare for All, or any other single-payer plan, because no matter how many times you protest or march or go blue in the face, the truth is wealthy Americans - who make up 20-30% of the voting electorate - will not back large taxes in return for no additional benefit. So either you give them some concession, or you reduce income inequality first - some other way - or they won't vote for the people who enacted Medicare for All and it will get repealed by the party that obtains their votes. That's how democracies work. We have a lot of wealthy people in the US. In the 2018 midterms, wealthy people were 34% of the electorate. In 2016, wealthy people were 34% of the electorate. Neither party is going to write off those 34% entirely. You have said you wanted to discuss substance, but you have found yourself wholly uncomfortable with the task. All I'm begging now is that you realize you're down, stay down, refuse to learn anything else from this, end this conversation, and come back in a few days having changed nothing.
So you win Brummie? Is that what you spent all those years in school for? To “win” in a random forum?
No, I actually want to debate the substance of policies. When someone says "let's debate the substance of policy" and then in the next breath says "we don't need to get into the substance" then what would you rather I do? What alternative should I have pursed?
I think you'll find Vfish more willing to engage. If I'm wrong, let me know and I'll update my ignore list.
. They can try and fail, sometimes that is what needs to happen, reality needs to smack people in the face. Republicans voted what 100 times? to repeal the ACA when they were meaningless votes. House dems may do the same for the next 2 years for single payer. Maybe Democrats in the house will vote for some type of single payer plan with very little details, then after 2020 if the Dems win the Senate and the presidency, the fights can get going on how to pass this. The problem is that they would need to pass a budget first, the rules are different now than back when the ACA passed. I do not know if Democrats would need 60 votes anymore, can they use the same trick that the republicans used to pass the tax cut? I would prefer they tried to fix the ACA before going for medicare for all, but I a have a feeling that many will not want to fix something that they want to kill anyways. One option would be to include a buy-in to the ACA first and work from there, the buy in was left out because 60 votes were needed, if only 50 senators are needed after 2020, then maybe it can be included.
You're talking past me. There are 2 answers I already offered to this concern. 1. Taxes don't fund spending. Your fiscal position is approaching a trillion dollar deficit FFS. 2. Corporations don't pay enough tax.
He's Australian, he has no idea how to accomplish it, nor does he care. He's only interested in arguing for argument sake. Show him the futility of his position and he moves onto the next one, or doubles down and will start posting headlines from blog sites to win.
Because he's dumb and has demonstrated that he has less than a superficial understanding on almost any topic he engages in, it should be dismissed, unless you like that sort of thing as entertainment. He's also a Stalin apologist "communism was never given a proper chance" type. It gets worse. You guys keep him for a while, you'll see.
I really shouldn't engage any further on this, but I want you to tell me who you think I voted for in 2008, 2012, and 2016. I'd like to know what you think.
I'm personally very suspicious of anyone selling me something when they're not in any danger of actually using what they're selling me.
Wellt then what are you referring to in your previous post? People that can’t get access to Nutella but advocate for it? [emoji849]
If you actually read what I wrote instead of what you think I meant or whatever, you might’ve noted that I was talking about my own personal skepticism toward people who are beating the drum for a particular product or candidate or political philosophy while not being in any danger of having to live with the consequences of choosing that product or candidate or political philosophy. Allow me to repeat four words for emphasis: my own personal skepticism. Nowhere did I say that those people can’t or shouldn’t post. I didn’t even tell you that you shouldn’t think what want. All I’m telling you is what I think.
Fair enough. It just came across that way, I’ve seen it before in respect to this particular individual. The same logic could be applied to us talking about Brexit.