Of course Sanders will compromise. Roosevelt, LBJ, Reagan, everyone. compromises. The difference is Hillary will go to Wall Street or big pharma, the private prison industry etc. -- her contributors-- and make an initial offer that she thinks will not stop further contributions from them and then will essentially have to start negotiating against herself when Wall Street or big phama etc. push back.
We dont need voter ID Laws. What we need is a federal voter registration standard. If voter registration standards are set (in an acceptable manner), ID laws are pretty pointless. Im not terribly big on federal standards (see most social issues), but this is one item that should be controlled at a federal level.
I was watching the end of the debate yesterday and when the candidates were asked to name the two most influential people in their lives, I turned to my son, and said Clinton was going to bring in Obama to smear Sanders. So predictable. Hillary is the odds on favorite to win the nomination. The dems establishment wants her to win as evidenced by the superdelegates bs. However, she must thread lightly on trying to smear Sanders, a most principled man as far as politicians go. She will need his support if she is the eventual nominee.
Except we've had a 8 years of a president who has been moving the country leftward in the face of historic opposition. Liberals though are expressing buyer's remorse though over that President and feeling like he betrayed their cause. This is the problem, that frankly plagues both Liberal and Conservatives, it is being enamored of extreme rhetoric and believing that all it needs is a true believer in office and that will actually change things to their favor. Expectations though quickly get dashed once the cold reality of that there actually is an opposition as determined as your side along with a lot of people in the middle who have to be won over. Frankly the same frustration that I hear out of Tea Partiers and the Conservatives fueling the Cruz campaign sound very similar to the Sanders' supporters. "The leadership has sold out our beliefs.. We need someone who has been consistent in their beliefs and will take on the establishment ."
You were here in 2008. During the primaries I was pretty vocal in my opposition to Obama and frequently tangled with Batman Jones over that. My primary criticism was that Obama lacked in experience at the national level. I said back then that all the Hope and Change talk was going to run up against the hard reality of dealing with entrenched opposition and the difficulties of getting legislation passed and judging by the reaction of many who Liberals who did support Obama 8 years ago that did actually come true. That said I will give Obama a lot of credit for getting as much done as he did. Yet you don't seem to understand the concept since you consider that just because something works well in for a small population means it will work well for a population several times that size. You make snarky remarks yet have not responded with anything of substance explaining why scalability may or may not be an issue in regard to whether health care in Denmark can apply to the much much larger US or that executive experience in a very small city can apply to a country about 75 times the size. This might sound snarky but it's not. I don't think in your lifetime we will have a single payer national health care system along the lines of Western Europe. As noted before it took 40 years to pass the relatively mild ACA and the opposition towards it hasn't decreased. We might have some sort of national health care but it will likely be fairly different. Even if the political will was there to build a Western European NHS it would still take years to figure out how to just administer it and transition from the system now without major disruptions to our economy. Again a scalability issue. New systems for record keeping, management, resource allocation, fraud prevention will have to be developed. You really don't understand scalability. The current US population is about 320 million. That is 4 times the size of Germany. Further the US population is much more diverse than Germany. As opposed to a frustrated radical hoping for a revolution?
Once again I think y'all are getting way to worked up about Super Delegates. Unless the DNC really wants to destroy the party if Sanders wins the primaries decisively many of the Super Delegates will switch. You just need to look at 2008 when many Clinton delegates switched to Obama.
Triumph interviewing a bunch of Sanders supporters, this is why we are doomed. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/j556MWGVVqI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Exactly right. "Compromise" has become such a dirty word..."progress" (incremental or otherwise) is dismissed out of hand...common ground or common cause is regarded as "surrender" or "defeat"... ...by-products of a larger phenomenon of self-gratifying, me-first, win-at-all-costs, no-surrender-no-retreat, gloom-and-doom posturing that has us at each others throats even on things we generally hold some agreement on... ...we talk about "...slippery slopes..." as a way to talk ourselves onto edges of cliffs we shouldn't even be close to approaching in the first place... Have it on good authority that no idea can descend into manifestation without an imperfection. I don't think anyone's ideas (at either political extreme in this country), is the basic problem, per se. I don't think anything worthwhile comes to any of us without the realization that there has to be an acknowledgment of (and within reason, respect for) the other side of the argument. "Winning" in a democracy, to me, can't ever be predicated on how much of your own way you "get"... or on how much you humiliate or destroy your "opposition"... ...I would have thought MMA would help curb some of that bloodlust among a lot of us (Bread and Circuses, et al)... ...the idea that we didn't have to do anything about our healthcare "system" was unthinkable just a few years ago... ...and don't get me started on the clumsy, start-and-stop, raggedy "progress" we've made racially... ..but the thinking has to be to bring the ideas forward...talk about them in the light of day...and find some things to agree on and go from there... Often I'll take on a devil's advocate position, for all intents and purposes, when I join in anything around here, just so that I can gain a perspective I might not have had before... ...I have learned a tremendous amount of things here just by listening to differing points of view...and whether or not I ultimately accept or reject a line of thought isn't as important to me as being made aware of as many different viewpoints as possible. I know that things don't happen in a vacuum...and conspiracy theories are nice to have around and all, especially for such active and fertile and disillusioned minds as ours... ...but I am given hope, even watching the Presidential candidacy of Donald Trump metastasize... and the "socialist" popularism of Bernie Sanders... ..that some people might actually be ready to talk about some things that are really happening in this country... ...I mean, you know... ...aside from the n!ggers impregnating the young white girls, or the Mexicans storming over the borders, or howevermany gay people want to experience marital (and then subsequently, ex-marital) bliss...or why it's more infuriating to some people how immature a 26-year old black quarterback is in losing a game than a governor of a state suspending democracy in certain towns and poisoning its residents to save a couple of dollars here or there... ...look, I have a dream too, okay? ...most of them, I'm reminded often, involve Kenyan overlords with magic cellphones...
When a presidential candidate can retweet white supremacists and no one, in the public or media, bats an eye.... That is why we are doomed. But seriously. FoxNews is why we are doomed.
This is a gross overstatement. It was repeatedly reported that Obama virtually neutered liberals like Nancy Pelosi once he got into office. During the ACA negotiations, Obama masterly crafted a deal to get compliance form key companies in the health insurance industry, while silencing the left-most activists. When it came to the stimulus package needed to clean up the Bush-era mess, Obama pushed for less than many leftists wanted. When Pelosi and her crew wanted to investigate, for the historical record, the lead up to the Iraq War, Obama shut that down stating we needed to look forward. The complaints aren't born out of religious commitment to ideology. And especially not in a way comparable to the right (who by the way have managed to get most of their economic ideas enacted from Reagan to Bush). They are born out of the idea that in that historic moment, when the ideas of the Republican party had demonstrably nearly destroyed Western capitalism and devastated western society, that when Democrats had a mandate to act, Obama pressed for less when the opposition was at its weakest. And that is the key. When Democrats had control of both chambers and the bully pulpit, Obama settled. Sure blue dog democrats were gonna be an obstacle and Lieberman was gonna dash anything he thought the far left would like, but there are folks rubbed raw by how Obama held secret meetings with Republicans and none with the left contingent in congress. Even if that was all that was realistically possible, how Obama, a New Democrat, treated the progressives has not been forgotten by the progressive leaders. It was after American voters handed Republicans control of Congress that Obama's willingness to compromise has been generally accepted. What is he supposed to do in the face of Congressional gridlock? Obama has had a pretty remarkable presidency. Aspects of the stimulus package, advances on gender equality, and the ACA will be in history books (at least the ones not managed by Texas conservative education boards). Obama will get his due. But not all of the complaints aren't illegitimate or misguided or just ideological. Google and limit to his first year in office. The evidence is there. (Hint: start with Krugman.)
That was really funny. Those are some seriously cowed and PC kids. So afraid of offending anyone they literally have trouble describing a person. Wait....don't want to use the word "person". Could be considered offensive. I'll just say living organism fitting the description of a homo sapien. Wait...can't say "homo". Damn...
Considering - just for example - how offended evangelical conservatives get when someone wishes them 'Happy Holidays' in December, it's pretty disingenuous to act like the Left has a monopoly on oversensitivity.
The problem with America is that there aren't enough young people that are judgemental racist a-holes. Got it.
How dare you assume the organisms in this video are considered "young people". Don't you know that it is judgmental to assume any living organism is "young" simply by observing their outward appearance? Have you checked to see whether this is offensive to them or not? Apparently you don't "Got it".
