Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "" video.
-
@robertreese1275 The grift is to sell yourself as something you're not.
He promoted Trump as the better option than Clinton, for progressives. According to Jimmy, Trump being so bad, such a deranged fascist, a Trump presidency would lead to a massive progressive backlash that would "for sure" take the house (nope) and senate (nope), in 2018, and the presidency (nope), in 2020. He claimed even Republicans would vote against a Trump agenda (nope), rather than follow him into fascism (they did), and Trump filling multiple scotus seats was as likely as the moon falling into Lake Michigan (nope). All of his predictions were wrong so, ultimately, promoting Trump over Clinton only benefited Trump.
Promoting Trump over Clinton was also promoting tossing 10m of the poorest Americans off of Medicaid expansion, over adding 40m older Americans to Medicare expansion. Then he promoted Tulsi (public option) over Bernie (M4A). Then he, again ... even after all his failed predictions ... even after Trump's incompetent leadership had a hand in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of people ... he made out like Biden (public option + Medicare expansion) was worse than Trump (still trying to toss millions of poor Americans off of Medicaid expansion). Dore promoted the worst healthcare option, each time, and then tries passing himself off as the one true champion of healthcare, because he came up with a nonsense "plan" to have a performance art vote. He also abandoned Nina Turner (M4A), and now promotes never again voting for someone running as a Democrat. Going third party likely won't even get you a single seat in congress, in the next 5 decades, let alone get some kind of healthcare bill passed, in the next century.
He uses slander, not "truth". AOC never ran on paralyzing, or threatening to paralyze, the house. She ran on what her own concept of a "ruckus" is, not Jimmy's. She backed 20 pro-M4A progressives, and helped add a few more M4A advocates to congress, which actually moves you closer to ever being able to pass the bill, while a performance art vote doesn't actually do that. She has done more for M4A in 2 years than Dore has in his entire lifetime. He made out like he didn't know where she was, on M4A march day, when it was public knowledge that she was at rallies for Nina Turner, promoting M4A and trying hard to add another M4A advocate to congress. Why weren't M4A marchers promoting and supporting Nina? Why did Dore promote abandoning Nina, on his show ... abandoning adding another M4A advocate to congress?
Then, there's going on far right television, largely just to agree with far right talking points. There's promoting allying with far right ancap extremists, that are trying to start a civil war.
How does Dore actually benefit the left? Almost everytime he proposes actions, they're actions that seem to benefit the right ... even extreme right ... no matter that he frames it as coming from the left. You're a sucker.
17
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
2
-
@Fuwuzworsh It is absolutely not a strawman, to point out the absolute fact, that even the most popular third party hasn't won a single seat in congress in its near 50 year existence, the most popular progressive third party hasn't won a single seat in congress in its 20 year existence. It is absolutely not a strawman to point out the math of having power in congress and that, as a third party, you could be completely ignored, until you get a majority, if the other two parties work together. You, apparently, have no clue what a "strawman" is.
AOC just used that PAC to back 20 other pro-M4A progressives in the last primaries. She helped add a few more M4A advocates to congress, and helped remove a few more corporate Dems. Some of the progressives she backed got absolutely trounced in very conservative districts, but a conservative Dem did end up winning the general. So, you Dore knobs are upset, that she wants the party to hold those seats in the midterms. I get it ... Dore knobs like Republicans in the majority, and progressives in a minority party.
Wait. On one hand, a Dore argument is that corporate Dems would rather work with, or lose to, Republicans, than they would to work with, or lose to, progressives. On the other hand, a Dore argument is that they'll hate losing to Republicans, so much, that they'll turn more progressive. You realize that that's gibberish, right? Both can't be true.
Just pretend that a hard all or nothing stance got you absolutely nothing, like you wanted.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@2727rogers The system needs to change, but you can't change it from the outside. The broader progressive caucus is about 15 seats away from becoming the majority of house Dems. The most popular third party hasn't won a single seat in congress in its near 50 year existence. The shortest path to progressives getting some power, is to take over the Democratic party. At 15 seats away, that's sound about the dumbest time to start from scratch.
What major progressive federal policies have the NDP implemented (don't say Medicare)? Didn't vote splitting, between Liberal, NDP, and the BQ, give Canada 9 years of Stephen Harper? Isn't progressives being part of the same party as more conservative Dems, like having a coalition party, which is entirely a thing in parliamentary politics? Isn't that the smarter thing to do, against a united fascist party, rather than split votes, and hand the country to them?
1
-
@Fuwuzworsh You're the one who replied to me, first, and opened with saying I was strawmanning. How can I strawman you, before ever responding to you? You're incoherent.
Nader changed the Democratic party? The only change I saw was that in 2000, they had a presidential candidate running on climate change as the centerpiece of his platform. Obama and Biden have both been to the right of Gore, on that subject. Gore losing pushed them further right. Likewise, instead of bringing about a progressive wave, as Dore claimed a Trump presidency would bring about, everyone went screaming into Biden's arms. It was an Obama presidency, that ended with a progressive movement forming behind Bernie.
Sure, Biden is a right winger, and letting Trump win, led to Biden. So, the answer is to let Trump, or DeSantis, win again ... let outright fascists who wanted to overthrow the democratic process win again ... because that'll do what, exactly? There's zero evidence letting Republicans win moves Democrats left. There is decades of evidence showing that, when Republicans move things further right, corporate Dems then meet them in the new "middle". There's evidence that a progressive movement can come after a fairly ineffective Dem presidency, and that repeatedly going outright backwards, with Republicans, isn't necessary.
You're both arguing to not vote blue, and then pointing to polls, showing that not voting blue will lead to Republicans winning. Biden simply being ineffective isn't telling people not to vote Dem. You are. You're promoting having a Republican majority, because that'll be sooooo much better.
1
-
@Fuwuzworsh Oh geez. Basically, every economic measure was already trending in the direction it was heading, under Obama. The economy's biggest economic gains came during Trump's first year ... which was still Obama's final budget. Even by Trump's own favorite economic metric, the stock market, it almost flatlined in 2018, when his first budget, and tax cuts, came into play. Then, he had one of the most incompetent covid responses, in the world, tanking the economy more than it should have, and leading to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. Australia's covid death rate would translate into about 20k total covid deaths in the US, instead of going on 800k. It was handing tons of money to corporations, instead of more money to consumers, under Trump, that allowed demand, and supply, to drop, which is why demand is now higher than supply. But, sure, "objectively" better. F*ck off.
1
-
@Fuwuzworsh It is absolutely not a strawman, to point out the math, or the fact that repeatedly letting Republicans win has accomplished nothing but moving the country further right. Sorry, that you find math and facts "hysterical".
Voting Obama, kept McCain and Palin out of office, and led to a progressive movement under Bernie. What did letting Trump win lead to? Where's the massive progressive wave, Dore claimed would "for sure" materialize and take the house, senate, and presidency? Oh right, that was a fantasy.
That Dore fantasy, btw, was based on the argument that Trump was so much worse than Clinton, it would cause a bigger backlash (it did) ... that was suppose to be majority progressive (it wasn't). Now, your Dore knob argument is that they're tots samesies. So, you're arguing Dore was an idiot, for thinking Trump was far worse? Either way, it seems he was an idiot. You also seem to be sticking to arguing he's an idiot for saying Dems would rather lose to Republicans, than progressives.
Voting Gore would have kept Dubya out of power, and put a president with climate change as their priority, in the white house. Gore and Dubya ... tots samesies.
Sticking with Carter would have kept Reagan out of the white house. Carter and Reagan ... tots samesies.
Voting blue works both ways, for progressives. Those who vote against progressives in the primaries still tend to vote for them in the general. It helps them win general elections. You want to split that voting, which would mostly help Republicans win generals, based on some fantasy that letting Republicans win is what will make corporate Dems change, when there's zero evidence that is the case. You want progressives to have fewer seats, be in a minority party, or be in an insignificant party with zero seats. Yeah, sounds awesome.
Consider the primaries the major battle. It's also the election where there's the most room to increase voter turnout, progressive turnout. If progressives happen to lose, then still vote to keep Republicans out, vote to say you don't want the country moving any further right than a corporate Dem.
Rofl, no. Profanity often comes out, when I hear something unbelievably stupid. And, I'm perfectly calm. Your mental telepathy has failed you. Labor force participation isn't the lowest in history. It isn't even lower than the lowest point, last year. Consumer confidence isn't the lowest in history. It also isn't even lower than the lowest point, last year. You're hysterically making up nonsense. Weird how a "socialist" would actually lie, to try and make Trump look better. Weird how you Dore "socialists" promote things that would benefit Republicans most.
1
-
1
-
@Fuwuzworsh Rofl. I don't even like Biden, you dimwitted Dore knob. Trashing him doesn't affect my argument. How is letting Republicans win, a strategy? It's a failed "strategy", that has been repeated, for decades, and has only moved the country further right. Like I said, vote for progressives in the primaries, try to increase progressive voter participation in primaries, when more corporate Dem voters don't come out to vote. It's the best place for progressives to win, not in generals, running as third party candidates. But then, whatever the outcome, vote in the general, to say a corporate Dem is as far right as you're willing to go, to say neutral is better than reverse, to keep whatever progressives there are in the majority party rather than a minority party, and then focus on getting more progressive seats in the next primary. All the evidence points against letting Republicans win being a good "strategy", and shows it causing a Dem shift to the right, not left. All the evidence points towards a progressive movement coming about without needing a Republican in power. All the evidence points towards going third party as being a decades long endeavor, to even win a single seat in congress. The simple math of congress is that a progressive third party would need a majority, to ever be able to pass anything, and that Republicans and corporate Dems could completely ignore them, and pass anything they wanted, otherwise.
Dore cites the definition of insanity, but then proposes doing the same thing, that has been happening for decades. Stop letting Republicans win, even if the current Dems kinda suck. Focus on getting corporate Dems out in the next primaries, rather than just letting them lose to Republicans, which has done absolutely nothing but repeatedly moved the country backwards.
What projection? I, in no way, ever promoted Trump as being better for progressives than Clinton. I, in no way, promoted going on a far right white nationalist's propaganda show, just to largely agree with a bunch of far right talking points. I, in no way, promoted allying with psycho ancap Boogaloos that want to start a civil war, and would likely be shooting lefties, if that civil war ever came about. I, in no way, promoted abandoning Nina Turner, an ardent supporter of M4A, just because she was running as a Dem. I, in no way, promoted Tulsi (public option) over Bernie (M4A).
I promote progressives get out and vote during the primaries, getting more progressives in congress, but never letting the country move further right than a corporate Dem. That's called harm avoidance, and I'll take a Chomsky, or Bernie, over a BGJ, any day of the week.
1
-
@Fuwuzworsh Rofl, talk about strawmanning. Or, do you just have severe reading comprehension problems? I pointed out the fact that letting Republicans win has only moved Democrats to the right. There's zero evidence to support any fantasy that letting Republicans win will move Dems left, or cause a massive progressive backlash.
The numbers argument was about ever being able to pass a progressive policy, as a third party. I made different points, and you're just not addressing that one. Are you simply agreeing, yes, a progressive third party wouldn't be able to accomplish much, even if it magically became popular enough to win a seat in our lifetime?
No, letting Republicans win, and jump further right, has had corporate Dems repeatedly meet them in the new "middle", which is then further right, for decades. It's what you're proposing, that has been done over, and over. I'm proposing never letting Republicans be president, or have a majority in congress. You're proposing doing the same thing, that hasn't moved Dems left, that has moved Dems right, again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Fuwuzworsh So, Tulsi being "anti-war" (complete bullshit), wasn't the end all and be all? It's the whole bullshit reason why Dore gave her a pass on her public option healthcare, and still supported her. War topped healthcare, for him, at that point. But, Clinton having no major unilateral wars, isn't good enough. I see. Nor his economy. He wasn't perfectly perfect. I guess we can expect perfectly perfect candidates, like say Kyrsten Sinema, in third parties, right?
How does being disgruntled, not getting out to vote, letting Republicans win, and having them try to toss 10m poor people off of Medicaid expansion, help prove your point? It proves they aren't samesies, and proves letting Republicans win is stupid.
The ACA could actually be turned into a German like system. Private =/= bad. Unregulated private = bad. The government would just have to enforce a low price on basic coverage, make all the basic coverage the same, etc.
1
-
If the majority of Republican lawmakers are trying to overthrow the democratic process, ditch any of their members that accept the results, and try to protect themselves by not having an investigation, how is that not a Republican policy? When they still seem to have Trump as their leader, even though he's still spewing that the election was stolen, and others of them have rallies, continuing to spread that nonsense, how is that not Republican policy? If Republican lawmakers, across the country, try to curtail voting, using the same nonsense as grounds, how is that not Republican policy?
A perfect illustration of your point is that, since the Dems in the house passed the $15, and since most of the Dems in the senate voted for it, that because it didn't ultimately pass, that's a good reason to let Republicans take the house, senate, and presidency, because ... that'll really show those corporate Dems, that voted against it, what's what? Why didn't letting Trump win show them what's what, after Obama? Why didn't letting Bush win, after Clinton, show them what's what? Why didn't letting Reagan win, after Carter, show them what's what? You seem to having some serious delusion, that doesn't match the reality of the last 50 years, or more. There's absolutely zero evidence, suggesting letting Republicans win, moves corporate Dems to the left. The very fact that a Manchin doesn't give a crap, if he tanks Biden's entire platform, is evidence he doesn't give a crap. He'd probably love losing the progressive wing of the party so he, and his Republican buddies, can pass all the "bipartisan" bills they want, without having to deal with progressives in his party.
You say sticking with blue, has gotten the country where it is, but that's not, at all, reality. The majority of voters have not gone out and voted blue, no matter what. Enough voters have stayed home, or voted third party, to let Republicans win over, and over. It is exactly what you're proposing, letting Republicans win again, that has gotten the country where it is. Nothing you've fantasized coming about, by letting Republicans win, has actually come about, any of those times, but you want to let them win again, because maybe this time things will be different. The majority getting out and voting, and sticking with blue, is exactly what hasn't happened. That's actual history.
Let me be more clear, I'd pick a Chomsky over a dozen BGJs and Chris Hedges. Neither are anywhere close to his weight class and, quite obviously, the vast majority off progressive voters, don't agree with them, or Dore.
I'm blinded? You're the one proposing doing the same thing over, and over, but thinks you're going to get a different result. You're the one following a loudmouth contrarian, who makes out like everyone who disagrees with him is a fake, fraud, or sellout, just like Dumpty. You're the one defending a jagoff who has repeatedly backed the worst healthcare policies, has abandoned adding M4A advocates to congress, but passes himself off as some champion of healthcare, who's leading you down a road to never even winning a seat in congress. The same jagoff who had some grand fantasy about letting Trump win, and absolutely none of his predictions came true, and yet you entertain his new fantasies.
The Puritan People's Party is a joke, with one of its main leaders already leaving the "party", because even they weren't puritan enough for him. The Green Party has produced the likes of Kyrsten Sinema. The reality is that you can't possibly get a third party, of any significance, as puritan as you like, or even guarantee a third party won't have corruptible members. Actual history shows that corporate Dems have repeatedly moved right, after letting Republicans win, not left, even after 3 terms (12 years) of Republicans. Just how many years do you have to let Republicans rule, to get corporate Dems to move left, exactly, in your fantasy scenario? The reality of math says that a progressive third party couldn't accomplish much. As long as there are a handful of corporate Dems, like Manchin, willing to work with Republicans, they coukd pass whatever they wanted, without needing a single progressive third party vote. You seem to have more faith in corporate Dems, than I do. I don't think they're very moveable. I think you need to replace them, and I don't see how going third party will ever accomplish that. Justive Dems have replaced more corporate Dems, in just 4 years, than all third parties combined have, in 50 years.
1
-
@Fuwuzworsh What aren't you grasping? Splitting off progressive votes, will allow Republicans to win. That's just math. It is absolutely a historical fact that Republicans have been allowed to win repeatedly, and it hasn't moved the Dems left, in the least. They have been moving right, along with Republicans. What don't you get about them moving more towards the position of those who beat them, not further away from it? Even just talking elections with left leaning challengers, the Green Party is now 20 years old. They have run against them multiple times. They even possibly spoiled two elections. In what way did those election losses move corporate Dems left? They didn't. There's no evidence to support anything you're arguing, and plenty of evidence against it. You're the one spewing falsehoods and fantasy.
Oh right, they're all in cahoots, and no politicians, no appointed officials, nor any of their aids, have exposed that they're all in cahoots. One of the tightest lipped conspiracies in history. And, your "evidence" is that, since something you wanted didn't get passed, that they must be in cahoots?
I never once argued Biden could be pushed left. You're the idiot arguing corporate Dems can be pushed left. I've argued to replace them. I already stated this, but you either have severe reading comprehension problems, or are completely dishonest, leading to you ironically spewing strawmen, which you erroneously opened complaining about, when I hadn't even addressed you. I'll have to assume the completely dishonest part, at this point. I also haven't budged, to the right. I propose suffering through a corporate Dem majority, until they can be taken out in the primaries. You propose suffering through a Republican majority, and no way of getting rid of them, because voting third party won't get rid of them. You outeight propose entrenching a fascist Republican majority, for some undetermined amount of time, until your fantasy comes to fruition, and then unironically claim I'm the fascist supporter? You're hilarious.
Trump was blamed for the current (2020) state of the country, and people went screaming into Biden's "more electable" arms, desperate to be rid of him, so desperate they didn't want to risk voting Bernie. Letting Trump win, having Stein possibly spoil the election, is what Dore promoted, what you are promoting. None of his fantasies came true. There's zero indication yours woukd, either. Your answer would have been to let Trump win, yet again? Because, next time it'll work, for sure.
Stop pretending that a Republican, like Reagan, couldn't change all kinds of economic policies, and absolutely destroy the country for working people. It doesn't take a Democrat to pass things. You're making up more fiction, implying it does.
You're the one proposing letting "to the right we go" happen, ffs. I'm proposing voters get out and vote not to let that happen. Maybe you do have comprehension problems.
1
-
@Fuwuzworsh I, literally, stated "suffering through corporate Dems". More horrible? Such as? (Weird, how you Dore "socialists" keep making out like Republicans are better. Are you sure you're not one of his far right fans, pretending to be a lefty? Hard to tell with Dore knobs.)
Right wing Dems voting for another round of covid relief is better than every single Republican voting against it. Having a pro vaccine, and pro other covid regulations, leadership, is better than a completely incompetent, anti- everything, encouraging uprisings against governors, "it is what it is", "leadership". Even simply having leadership not trying to toss 10m+ poor people off of Medicaid expansion, is better than leadership trying to. Restoring some environmental protections is better than removing them. Restoring funding to clinics that simply refer women to abortion clinics is better than stripping their funding. Etc. Etc. (There's a bunch of Trump bullshit that Biden quickly reversed, that's better.)
1
-
1
-
@Fuwuzworsh Yes, it is possible, hence the fact that there are progressives in congress. DNC shenanigans can't overcome overwhelming numbers. Nina's campaign team, for example, didn't do any canvassing, to get people out to vote. There were hundreds of thousands more potential voters in that district. Barely 70k came out for the primary, and she lost by only 4k. Yes, the corporate Dems, and their allies, threw everything they had, at her, but she had twice as much money, and could have stomped her opponent. Her team blew her money on media ads, and barely spent a dime on canvassing. That's how AOC won her district ... canvassing, canvassing, canvassing ... and barely spent a dime on media ads. Not that it matters to you Dore knobs, since King Jimmy abandoned her ... abandoned adding another M4A advocate to congress ... because that's what "real" M4A supporters do.
Hate to tell you, but the "liberal" brand was destroyed, already. And, they didn't do it on their own. Islamophobes started bashing the hell out of "liberals" after 9/11. Republicans always try to convert normal words into insults. Even Dore is using the word like an insult. Why do you still want to use "liberal", for branding? That sounds dumb.
Stop pretending like Republicans couldn't get NAFTA done. Reagan had already signed a deal with Canada. Bush Sr was headed for a seperate deal with Mexico. Canadian conservatives then came in late and wanted in, to merge the deals into a 3 way deal. Bush Sr simply ran out of time. The deal was passed by a Republican majority. The majority of Dems voted against it. Stop your fiction. Republicans would have passed it, just fine, without a Dem president.
You seriously think NAFTA and Glass-Steagall were worse than the Reaganomics' trickle down myth, and the massive amount of deregulation Reagan pulled off? Reagan had a big hand in destroying the healthcare system, making it so unaffordable, but now healthcare isn't the end all and be all, for you lot. The messaging from Dore, and his knobs, is incoherent. One second anti-war is the end all and be all, and passes are given for shittier healthcare policies, as long as the candidate lies about being anti-war. The next second, healthcare is the end all and be all, and no passes are given, not even for simple strategy disagreement ... anyone who disagrees on strategy is a "fake", "fraud", "sellout", "betrayer", blah blah. Now, you're telling me that neither of those is of primary importance. Now, it's a foreign trade deal, and one specific deregulation that are far worse than the tons of deregulation in the 12 years before, far worse than making healthcare unaffordable, far worse than warmongering. Get your priorities in some coherent order. And, maybe add climate change, as a priority. Republicans have repeatedly rolled back environmental protections, and many still pretend like it's not a thing.
Republicans wouldn't have even tried to change the healthcare system, at all. The ACA not only flattened the rate prices were increasing yearly, a little, it also added 10m poor Americans to Medicaid expansion. Numerous Republican states opted out of Medicaid expansion, for their citizens. The ACA, in no f*cking way, is more conservative than what there was before, and red states turning down more Medicaid for their poor, sure isn't samesies, let alone anywhere close to being better. I'm pretty sure you're one of Dore's far right fans, at this point.
Again, vote blue works both ways. Those who vote against progressives in the primaries, tend to vote for them in the generals. It's exactly what every progressive would have wanted, if Bernie had won the primaries. It's how progressives can beat Republicans, in some tighter districts. I get it, "real" progressives don't actually want any progressives in congress, and want Republicans to rule, for decades to come. So very brave of you, to offer up poor people to be thrown of healthcare, and other, benefits. So very brave of you to offer up going completely backwards on climate change. So very brave of you to offer up those targetted by racist and bigoted policies. All for some misplaced faith you have in corporate Dems, changing their ways. If only a leftist third party can spoil an election for them (already possibly happened, twice), then they will see the light (they didn't).
1
-
1
-
@Fuwuzworsh No. The fact is that Reagan had already signed a trade deal, with Canada, which was the starting point. The fact is that Bush was working on a seperate trade deal with Mexico. The fact is that it was Canada who then came in and wanted to merge the deals into a three way deal, which pushed negotiations passed the end of Bush's first term. If Bush had a second term, there's zero evidence negotiations would have magically failed and the three way deal wouldn't have gone through as planned. Everything was already in the works, and supported by the majority of Republican lawmakers. There's zero evidence it required a Democrat to finalize the deal. That's totally fiction, on your part.
In 1980, US healthcare costs were rising on par with other developed nations. They started spiking before the end of Reagan's time in office. If US healthcare costs were half what they are now, that would be less incentive for businesses to move elsewhere. If US healthcare costs were half what they are now, people could better afford to weather a drop in property prices. You know Canada also lost some factories to Mexico, right? However, they don't have hundreds of thousands of people going bankrupt over healthcare costs. They don't have tens of thousands of people dying due to a lack of healthcare coverage. They don't have over a million people, like cancer victims traveling to India for chemo, for affordable healthcare. Etc. But hey, no, healthcare is suddenly now way down the list of importance, for Dore knobs.
Neutering Glass-Steagall was not directly responsible for the 2008 crash. It was responsible for banks becoming "too big to fail", but had little to do with the housing market. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, was a Republican bill. Almost every single Republican lawmaker voted for it. Why the hell would a Republican president have been unable to sign it into law? Would his hand have magically dropped off, or something, if he tried to sign it? You make zero sense, claiming a Dem president was required, to do this or that. If Republicans wanted to pass it, but somehow couldn't, what was the obstacle?
Have you looked at John McCain's voting record, who he picked as a VP, etc.?
You clearly don't know what an "ad hominem" actually is. You should refrain from using the term.
Nina has been on multiple progressive channels, since her loss. There's zero evidence she still "loves" Jimmy, since he publicly abandoned her. Some video of Jimmy's wife, talking to her sometime before they publicly abandoned her, isn't evidence she still does. Most people aren't fond of being publicly abandoned. She seems to be on the "fake", "fraud", "sellout", progressive channels, rather than his. Seems to indicate she loves those who supported her to the end, more.
Again, I'm the one who wants to replace M4A no votes with M4A yes votes. Your the one that doesn't want even a single M4A yes vote in congress, and wants to let Republicans rule for decades to come. You're the one supporting an idiot who promoted tossing 10m of the poorest Americans off of Medicaid expansion, as the better option.
Republicans are not the party of workers. Their healthcare plan will be out in a couple weeks (repeat this for years). Every single one voted against a national $15 minimum, or it would have passed. You're making up nonsense. Sounding even more like a far right fan, with every post.
I know exactly who corporate Democrats are. I'm the one who wants to keep replacing them with more progressives ... force them out ... toss them in a ditch. You're the one actually proposing a fantasy that you can move them left, by letting them lose, even though there's zero evidence of their previous losses moving them left.
Again ... blue, no matter who, works both ways, and is how some progressives manage to win their seats. It's the only possible way Bernie could have won a general election. I can only assume you never wanted Bernie to win.
1
-
@Fuwuzworsh Even if the broader progressive caucus isn't puritan enough, for you, the Justice Dems, who don't take any corporate donations, have won more seats in 4 years, than the most popular third party has in 50. AOC, alone, won more seats, in her first year, than the most popular third party has in 50. Even just 1 seat is immeasurably times better than zero seats, zero bills, zero amendments, zero votes, zero influence, ...
They didn't know shit. They were brainwashed by lying scum Republican leadership, that the election had been stolen. Their cult leader tried to overthrow the democratic process and install himself as an unelected dictator, and you're lumping the other guy amongst the worst authoritarians in history, because of what? Masks, vaccines, or some stupid nonsensical bullshit? You're a right wing loon, faking being progressive.
1
-
@Fuwuzworsh Rofl. You say I don't grasp things, but I'm the one, literally, calling them "corporate Dems", and I'm the one who doesn't think corporate Dems are changeable. They need to be replaced. You're the one promoting some fantasy, where they suddenly see the light, and change their ways, after losing an election (which has never happened anytime they've previously lost elections).
A cult is when one loudmouth convinces tens of millions of people not to believe any other politicians, any election officials, any judges, any lawyers, any scientists, any doctors, any media ... even to not believe their own lying eyes, if they contradict the words of their supreme leader. Yeah, the Trump cult is a cult. You're definitely one of Dore's far right fans.
There are already vaccine mandates for public school kids. There are already vaccine mandates for immigrants. You have to show ID to drink, drive, smoke, gamble, hunt, fish, carry a gun, etc., etc. The law makes you cover your junk in public. Businesses can require shirts, shoes, suits, ties, or whatever dress code. They can require their own ID, membership. Schools can have dress codes. You're clearly deranged and making a mountain out of a molehill. Did you know that Australia's covid death rate would translate into about 20k total US covid deaths? Instead, it's pushing 800k ... over 700k unnecessary deaths and you're crying about things that have already been going on for decades and decades.
Listening to a broad, worldwide, consensus of the vast majority of scientists and doctors, is exactly not like a cult, that hangs on the word of a single, or very few, uninformed dufus. Seems like you're a fan of two cult leaders.
1
-
1
-
@Fuwuzworsh Which Republicans aren't "professional elites"? What are some pro worker Republican policies?
Yeah, fascists tend to draw in disgruntled members of society, by blaming others for all their woes. Guess what, they don't end up doing anything for them. Dore is the kind of "leftist" that ends up on the wrong side of a Night of the Long Knives, dabbling with extremist ancap Boogaloos, that want to start a civil war, and white nationalists, like Tucker. They'd be shooting a lot of leftists, and minorities, if they ever got their civil war.
Republicans voted against a public option. Republicans all voted against the $15. Oh sure, they'll end listening to doctors and scientists, just like they've done with climate change. Freedumb!!
1
-
1
-
@Fuwuzworsh Again, like I said, even if the broader progressive caucus isn't puritan enough, for you, a dozen Justice Dems, that don't take any corporate donations, is still an immeasurably better start, than starting from scratch, with a fantasy scenario. As for the broader progressive caucus, a minority doesn't have the power to pass anything they want, they don't have the power to block bipartisan bills that don't need their votes to pass. They can block some highly partisan bills, but that's it. So, if a Manchin doesn't care if that highly partisan bill gets passed, you want to see progressives take an all, or nothing, stance, and likely get absolutely nothing. You want to see mainstream media (mainstream = the media the majority of Americans consume) blaming progressives, over, and over, and over, for nothing getting passed, and think that will benefit progressives?
Once again, you show your "bravery", your willingness to sacrifice those without clean drinking water getting clean drinking water; your willingness to sacrifice those without broadband getting broadband; your willingness to sacrifice making even small improvements for the environment and stick to the do absolutely nothing about climate change status quo; your willingness to sacrifice poor families having a hard time paying for childcare getting free childcare; your willingness to sacrifice the elderly, and disabled, getting home care benefits; your willingness to sacrifice the homeless, and those struggling with housing, getting more affordable housing; your willingness to sacrifice hungry children getting food; your willingness to sacrifice those who need hearing aids getting free hearing aids; etc; etc; etc. Your "I'm taking my ball and going home, because I didn't get exactly what I wanted" attitude, is so incredibly "brave". So much better, for the poor, hungry, homeless, elderly, and disabled, to get absolutely nothing, at all, than to get small improvements.
Wait ... what? You harped on me about mentioning the mathematical reality of needing a majority, and now your fantasy is to completely replaced the Democratic party with some perfectly perfect puritan progressive party ... which would mean replacing the current majority. You repeatedly argued that you wouldn't need a majority, that you'd just have to make them lose enough, to force them to change (that decades of history doesn't support). Now your fantasy is to not only magically get all progressive votes, but all Democratic party votes? That's pretty ambitious, I must say. Incredibly unrealistic, and you're seeming incoherent, but ambitious nine the less.
Yes, they have been challenged by the left, in primaries (when the majority of progressives do their voting), and lost to a number of progressives. Whether you accept there's 100, a dozen, 8, or even 1, progressives in congress, all those numbers are better than zero. If you don't accept there are any, then you're likely too puritan, and unlikely to work with the vast majority of other progressives, to ever accomplish anything.
The constitutionality of vaccine mandates have been challenged before. None were found to be unconstitutional. You don't get a vaccine, you can't go to public school, but can go to private school = you don't get a vaccine, you can't go to work, but can start a business from home.
The polio vaccine was given to millions of kids within a couple years of it being developed. Phase I testing of current vaccines started over a year ago. In your "expert" opinion, how long does it take, exactly, to deem a vaccine safe? And, actually, the covid mortality rate is about 1%, while the polio paralysis rate is about 0.5%, and the polio mortality rate is about 0.05%. Plus, the polio vaccine is also multiple shots, not just one, and they do keep track of whether your due for a new dose.
There are absolutely tons of rules for the road, as well as licensing, safety standards, and insurance requirements, while the automobile accident mortality rate is only 0.25%. Not being allowed to just hop in an uninsured, unsafetied, vehicle, without a license, and go drinking and driving, without a seatbelt, driving at any speed you want, and ignoring whatever lights or signs you want, is so authoritarian, when the mortality rate is so low, am I right?
The military are required to get vaccines, and take shots for this, or that, when traveling abroad. All kinds of businesses require you to wear protective gear, for your job and a bunch are mandated by OSHA (no, they didn't pull out, they're awaiting a court decision and, no, a common stay doesn't mean anything has been decided about constitutionality). Seriously, there are a crap ton of rules and laws, in society. The vast majority are no big deal, but have to be followed daily.
Also, if you're eating hot dogs, eating fast food (any restaurant food, for that matter, where you're just trusting what's being handed to you), drinking pop or even tap water, taking whatever drugs your doctor prescribes, etc., etc., but then make a big fuss about not knowing exactly what's in a vaccine (that has an ingredients list) that has passed safety standards across the world, then I think you're just a big baby, and babies can't make decisions for themselves, or the community. Only some extreme health nut, who watches everything that goes into their body, and knows what every little thing is, has some unhypocritical grounds for wanting to know exactly what's in a vaccine, that has passed global safety standards. Grow the f*ck up, already. Over 700k unnecessary deaths, over 140k orphans, and you're crying about nonsense.
Again, Republicans just voted against a national $15. They, and conservative Dems, just negotiated a public option out of the BBB. Keep dreaming.
1