Except this was inevitable and many in their party knew was going to happen. As I posted above people like Crenshaw still defending and enabled much of this with McCarthy being one of the biggest enablers. This isn't all on Trump as he was an opportunist and grifter who took advantage of the situation. That situation was created when the Republicans decided that stoking grievance was the path to victory. The Republican establishment hold a lot of this blame. They decided that it was worth it to get court appointments, gerrymander districts and rewrite election laws to keep them in power if they could build up an angry base. Anger is a strong motivator but anger isn't a good strategy to govern. McConnell, McCarthy, et al. though believed that as long as they could control things and even if the base was just driven by anger they could still govern. Well they should've seen this when Sarah Palin suddenly became the most popular Republican. When Michelle Bachmann was considered a thought leader. When the Ted Cruzs and Paul Gosars started becoming power brokers. When in the words of Lindsey Graham a kook and a racist captured the Republican nonimantion and then presidency. That decision to make this less a party of ideas and good government to a party of grievance and nationalism opened it up for extremists, conspiratos and grifters to step in.
There is idealism and trajectory and trends. Calling out a system that isn't sustainable in the long run isn't idealism. It's realism and possibly nihilism. This system of rampant acceptance of bribery in our political system is simply not sustainable. And get your head out of your ass. This is a debate and discussion forum. This isn't where real action happens. In the real world yes I vote for the "lesser of two evils". Here we discuss politics, societal problems etc So it's completely fair to bring up rampant accepted corruption in our political system. Virtue signaling would be abstaining from voting because of naïve nihilism (this is the correct term you should use) that both sides are the same. There is a meaningful difference between the two worthy to go out and vote for. But here we discuss. Not ignore and cheerlead because you think it's going to effect material conditions in the outside world.
I want to talk about the things she hasn't accomplished because of baseline political corruption that is rampant. Do you think the ACA propelled American accessibility and affordability for basic healthcare services like cancer screenings, routine check ups to the level of actual places on this planet that exist today implying it isn't naïve idealism as humans have already figured it out mostly when it comes to accessibility and affordability to healthcare services? The ACA has worked in the sense that it allows middle class centrists who have decent access to healthcare to forget the problem exists still still allowing record profits for the private health insurance industry to continue. So yes, politically the ACA has worked wonders.
I'm a very firm believer in that this country does best when there is actual political debate leading to negotation and hard fought compromises. There is a place for conservative thought regarding the size and role of government. The only really serious debate on that isn't from the loudest voices on the Republican side. It's not the Ted Cruz's or Josh Hawleys but from Democrat Joe Manchin and Republicans that have been tarred as RINO's like Mitt Romney.
This is probably best discussed in another thread such as "The State of the Democratic Party" since there isn't and has never been a serious Republican health care plan, except for the one Mitt Romney put in place. That said I don't think anyone thinks the ACA goes far enough but when it was passed and even now there is very little chance of something along the lines of a British National Healthcare plan passed in the US. You can blame corruption but there isn't even the votes among the Democratic electorate to get something like that passed.
Dude you are just like the Boeberts and the Gaetz of the world you just want to see **** burn in favor of getting the system you want. The system has been doing fine for over 200 years actually the system has been going on since the dawn of time in one way or another and the system you want is the one that has proved unsustainable because humans will always be greedy and try and get extra. I am not the one with the head up his ass, you are the one always ******** on Pelosi. Nobody is ignoring anything and nobody is actually discussing this topic with you, so either make a thread about it or stop hijacking threads with your Pelosi hate.
Ya I'm part of a coalition of extremists trying to make Bernie Sanders speaker of the House and impeach and remove the acting president and vice president to turn Bernie into the next authoritarian ruler. I didn't read anything beyond that first sentence of that post. It isn't worthwhile I assume based on the first sentence.
Yes it has what are you talking about? nothing is perfect and nobody has a utopia there is no perfect health system on the planet.
Sorry, I believe you are mischaracterizing everything I say. Please have baseline respect and address the content of what I type please. And calm down.
Yeah I did. Morals are defined by culture and population, what is immoral for one person is moral for the next. What does any of that have to do with making sure the trains are running on time?
That's a nice aspirational view but besides it not being very realistic I don't think it's really that good of an idea or practical. Saying you would like a politician that has all of that power but is just content with a middle class lifestyle makes a great story but is rarely true in human culture. Romans and many since then loved the story of Cincinnatus, the Roman general who was made dictator during a crisis and when the crisis ended quit and went back to plowing his fields. Yet Roman history itself shows that was an exception. A very recent example is the idea of Effective Altruism where very smart people have been encouraged to go make a ton of money, but live frugally and donate most of it. We saw how well that works in practice with SBF. For me I'm not going to hold someone who has gotten a lot of power from also becoming wealthy and I think ambition and even greed to a certain extant can be a positive motivator. What I would hold them to is to ethics that would make them much more transparent and reduce conflicts of interests. This is the same argument I brought up regarding why we should see Trump's tax returns and really anyone seeking high public office. I will agree that Pelosi isn't the most ethical or transparent but I don't expect her to have a middle class lifestyle.
In this case, conflict of interest between personal wealth and legislation fully intended on public good with zero comprise for personal gain in shaping government policies. I believe that is how morality and integrity precisely is relevant in politics and governance.
LOL. That's a nice one, you are the king of mischaracterization and nothing I posted was a mischaracterization, you just like moving the goalpost. I don't have a baseline of respect for you or most thing you post, and I am certainly not riled up, so I don't need to calm down. I see we are now at the point of deflection and gaslighting I am done here.
Bernie Sanders has been in public office for how many years? He does live a comfortable upper middle class lifestyle. He even owns like 3 homes. There is a gradient right? It's a bad faith argument here to just view this in binary terms. There is an extreme. There is an extreme that reaches a point of not being sustainable. At that point, calling it out isn't idealism, it's pragmatism. Pelosi joined Congress in 1987. Before Congress her husband and her had no where close to 9 figures of wealth. Her wealth didn't grant her power. Her power granted her wealth. Big difference. Before Congress Pelosi was upper middle class and well connected.
Okay but I mean... What did I type before where you were willing to say I'm the same as Marjorie Taylor Green and Matt Gaetz? What justifies you saying that to the point where you would be rationally offended if I said you are mischaracterizing me?
That's the thing you don't recognize that you are an extremist and you constantly want to wreck **** just to get the governance you want.
