I never understood this. So they want to be governed but not by the government. So these states and private industry can do all kinds of government things and that is fine because they are not the government..........
Ah yes, "it's not about policy". Such a good rallying cry, and really showed me what for on my concerns about his policies.
The idea is that you want to have a government but there's a limit on how much you want it to do. Also, what exactly do you consider "government things" ?
I think the idea is more that you want the government to do the things you can't. And if you or your allies/organisation can get a lot done yourselves (usually because you're rich), you correspondingly want the government to do much less.
Because the only people the government fucks over is the rich, right? The government is an organization that's just as susceptible to the corruption of power as any other organization, and is filled with just as many rich people as businesses are. You're usually not one to use these kinds of reductive arguments so why use it now?
The best explanation of it that I've heard is that it tends to come from a fundamentally different view of the roll of government, where republicans think it should be as local as possible with only having the federal government managing the military and a few other things.
No not really.
That is where I was getting at. To be reductive for simplicity like you said they are filled with the same type people so the issue is with the name which sounds silly.
The government is (usually) the ultimate source of power in a country, so the aim of carrying out your will is to control government. There are numerous dimensions of wants, but the economic tend to be the most potent. In the modern world, the poor attempt to control government to get things they can't afford like welfare and healthcare, and the rich try to control government so the poor don't make them pay taxes.
Right you are, must've made a mistake in editing my post somewhere. I'll edit the original.
OK, so long as I'm clear. I find it a bit inexplicable, if I'm honest: I just thank Bast that this "all or nothing" attitude has not been widespread in the UK, else we would never have established the NHS.
Do you actually know whether these specific Senators have broken trust on major votes in the past, or is this an assumption?
I fully understand why. I'm just making clear that your sticking point here isn't what's on offer; it's who offers it.
I've heard that before. In fact, I've heard how soon it will dissolve at practically every election.
Well, except for those millions of people covered in the interim.
Same question as above: what basis do you have for assuming bad faith of the Senators who actually voted the way you wanted them to?
and I find it inexplicable that in the middle of a global pandemic that has already claimed 120,000 American lives that ANYONE could possibly be against M4A.
More to the point, this is about effective use of political capital, negotiating, and willingness to employ the bully pulpit when and where necessary to effect policy...you know, key traits of representative governance at which the Obama administration utterly failed, largely by design. Say what you will about the end result of Republican policy-craft, the one thing you cannot nor should not ever say is they're ineffective, and to wit to even push back against that assertion is to push the topic away from what defines effective governance.
Wut. The majority of Americans don’t vote. That’s a known thing.
Did they actually deal with the housing crisis though?
So do I. Absolutely, so do I. The decision being put to the American public is a fucking circus.
Sanders seems to be placing quite a lot of stock in the Biden-Sanders joint task forces, which are focusing on healthcare among other things. If it's a multi-election fight, it would seem to me that the most obvious first step would be to get progressive law-makers into a position where they can actually influence policy-- like in a task-force in an actual government.
Yep. Not because of this.
Yes. Yes they have. I've posted articles about Democrats who vote "against the party" a few time. Including the article we're discussing. This isn't even a good faith question.
Because who's offering it won't offer what's on offer. I don't think this is a radical thought, "I don't trust the proven liar to do what he says he's going to do". Granted even what he says he's going to do isn't nearly enough and if it were a more trustworthy candidate, it would still be an uphill battle with their only real advantage being against Trump.
Yes, it's been a looming threat for decades, and Democrats haven't been pushing back it's solvency, since miraculously there's never enough votes to overhaul it despite being one of the things they champion, but always enough Dem votes to cut it.
Once again, the only people safe are those who die in the interim. If you survive to the end, congrats SS is gone anyway and you're fucked! Wooo!
Hillary lost on these exact bases four years ago. These policies are so disastrous that they kept people home and not voting across the majority of the country. I've shown it before in other threads, her vote count was buoyed by NY and California, and then the rest of the country dropped her like a rock. The same thing happened to Obama the election before, he just had the good luck of being against Mitt Romney.
History
Because, they don't vote in line. As a party at least they are institutionally incapable of not being Republicans.
Oh, I must have missed that something this insulting was posted. The Democrats did nothing for the millions of people, of real, innocent human beings whose lives were ruined, whose communities were stripped down for parts, and whose futures were stolen from them. They, and the entire political apparatus, stood back and watched as our homes were diced up and traded as gambling chips. They then saved the gamblers rather than the gambled. The total failure of the Obama administration to address the housing crisis in a way that preserved the meagre wealth and opportunity of average Americans has decimated any possibility of this country’s survival and doomed us to decades of political and economic instability. This is unforgivable. Obama may easily be the best president I will ever have, and that fact is his own damn fault.
There's zero reason why Biden can't do both. I'm not going to let The DNC hold me hostage anymore with their "Accept our crumbs and thank us for the privilege!" garbage. If Biden loses, this is 100% on Biden and The DNC (maybe mostly the DNC as Biden doesn't seem to know where he is half the time during his interviews) for deciding that their Health Insurance Sponsors are more important than the people they supposedly represent.
Try tens of millions. Impending food, housing, and job crises as a direct consequence of COVID-19 getting out of control aren't vanishing when the pandemic does. The only candidate who recognized the enormity of COVID-19 and its spillover effects is the one the national party and donor class united to stop at any cost and whose supporters have been quite clearly told they don't have a seat at the table, even if it means voting the party into extinction once the boomer die-off begins.
