Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Senator Bernie Sanders is still a hero to millions on the left, especially those disaffected with the Democratic Party. Sanders, who caucuses with the Democrats but has always been an Independent, showed during the primary that he could galvanize passionate supporters but couldn't capture the Democratic nomination. Sanders' fans say he was treated unfairly and should just start his own party. Others think he should try to reform the Democrats. What do you think?

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The Wall Street Wing of the DNC can't be reasoned with.

I support walking away.

#1 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-02-14 02:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What's funny is that Bernie says he won't do this because he wants to reform the Democrats.

But starting another paty would do more towards reforming the Democratic Party than anything else Bernie could possibly do. As long as they think they can take voters for granted, they will never change. And they can take voters for granted in the absence of options.

#2 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-14 02:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"But starting another paty would do more towards reforming the Democratic Party than anything else Bernie could possibly do." - #2 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-14 02:26 PM

Dividing one of only two major political parties is "reforming" it?

More like destroying it.

#3 | Posted by Hans at 2017-02-14 02:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

It needs destroying. It's been hobbling around on life support for the past 8 years, and the best it can offer America is Hillary Clinton as a candidate.

#4 | Posted by cookfish at 2017-02-14 02:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It needs destroying." - #4 | Posted by cookfish at 2017-02-14 02:34 PM

Spoken like a true Republican.

"It's been hobbling around on life support for the past 8 years..."

For the past seven presidential elections, spanning almost 25 years of American history, the Democratic nominee for president won the popular vote (plurality or majority) in 6 of those 7 elections.

In that same time period they won 4 of those 7 elections for president.

That is hardly "hobbling around on life support."

#5 | Posted by Hans at 2017-02-14 02:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"...and the best it can offer America is Hillary Clinton as a candidate." - #4 | Posted by cookfish at 2017-02-14 02:34 PM

Who won 3,000,000 more popular votes than Trump.

#6 | Posted by Hans at 2017-02-14 02:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 5

Dividing one of only two major political parties is "reforming" it?

More like destroying it.

#3 | Posted by Hans at 2017-02-14 02:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

They just lost an election to Donald Trump because their can't miss candidate couldn't pull her head out of Wall St's rear end long enough to deliver an actual message to voters.

They're doing a pretty good job of destroying themselves.

#7 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-14 02:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

****More than 1,030 seats.*****

That's the number of spots in state legislatures, governor's mansions and Congress lost by Democrats during Obama's presidency.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Damn, that's not even hobbling, Hans. That's like dragging your two useless legs on the floor around after you while you pull yourself around by your arms.

A better analogy would be your head. Remember when it didn't glisten in the sun so much that planes avoided your general direction? Well, all those hairs are now gone, just like all of those Dem seats that have vanished. And just like your follicles, they ain't coming back.

#8 | Posted by cookfish at 2017-02-14 02:48 PM | Reply

Who won 3,000,000 more popular votes than Trump.

And who is sitting idly by the phone now, waiting for some one, anyone, to call. Just like you tonight on Valentines Day.

#9 | Posted by cookfish at 2017-02-14 02:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 5

"They just lost an election to Donald Trump because their can't miss candidate couldn't pull her head out of Wall St's rear end long enough to deliver an actual message to voters." - #7 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-14 02:47 PM

Yep.

There's plenty of reasons why Clinton lost the electoral college.

Just as there are plenty of reasons why she won the popular vote.

Multi-dimensional thinking isn't just for intelligent people.

Perhaps you should try it.

#10 | Posted by Hans at 2017-02-14 02:54 PM | Reply

"****More than 1,030 seats.*****" - #8 | Posted by cookfish at 2017-02-14 02:48 PM

Here's a little game you can play to see just how historically important and relevant all that is:

Without using Google or the Internet, answer these questions:

1. Which political party was in the majority in the 73rd Congress, the 89th Congress, and the 94th Congress?
2. What was the breakdown of the political affiliation of the governorships and legislatures around the country during those Congresses?
3. For extra credit, what were the political environments in the country which supported those elections?
Remember: No using Google or the Internet.

#11 | Posted by Hans at 2017-02-14 02:56 PM | Reply

Why would he form his own party when there are already like-minded groups in existence?

www.dsausa.org
socialistparty-usa.net

#12 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-02-14 03:47 PM | Reply

There's plenty of reasons why Clinton lost the electoral college.
#10 | POSTED BY HANS

And Soros' neoliberal agenda will not win again.

#13 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-02-14 03:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"And Soros' neoliberal agenda will not win again." - #13 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-02-14 03:56 PM | Reply | Flag: Meaningless gibberish overheard on "talk" radio

#14 | Posted by Hans at 2017-02-14 03:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Bernie announced yesterday that he was not going to start a new political party

#15 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-02-14 04:20 PM | Reply

"Dividing one of only two major political parties is "reforming" it?"

If the Dems were to shed their devotion to those on the left, they would probably stand a strong chance at pulling away voters who had traditionally gone Republican because they aren't on the left...Even while holding their nose at some of the Repub party's more ridiculous platforms and concerns. Personally, I'd like to see the Dem party become more Libertarian-and it looks like it may be going more that direction.

Take those voters from the Repubs, and it will be that party hobbling along on life support. I don't think the snake handlers carry enough clout.

#16 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-02-15 08:56 AM | Reply

Bernie announced yesterday that he was not going to start a new political party

#15 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-02-14 04:20 PM | Reply

He's choosing irrelevance. He's choosing to be a mascot for people who disdain him, cheated against him and who can be bought but not reasoned with.

His heart may be in the right place but he doesn't seem to have real leadership qualities.

#17 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-15 12:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Should Sanders Start His Own Political Party?

No. He should just start an organization that informs voters about which candidates have a record of working toward the same goals as him. Rejecting corporate money and control. Fighting for the middle class and poor, protecting the environment, opposing wars, all the common sense smart stuff democrats abandoned in pursuit of campaign cash.

He just needs to make a SANDERS APPROVED brand or website so voters can go see who they should be voting for if they agree with sanderss priorities.

He is what the democrat party is SUPPOSED to be already. He doesn't need to change, they do.

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-02-15 03:42 PM | Reply

Personally, I'd like to see the Dem party become more Libertarian-and it looks like it may be going more that direction.

#16 | Posted by madbomber

Great so people will be able to choose between environment destroying republicans and environment destroying democrats.

#19 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-02-15 03:44 PM | Reply


...Others think he should try to reform the Democrats...

In order to reform the Democratic Party, one must first determine where the Party currently is, and where the Party should go.

Then you look at the info, and determine whether or not it is better to reform or replace.

By my eyes, if the Democratic Party can get rid of the Wall Street influence (especially now that the Wall Street influence seems to have taken up a new home in Goldman Sachs South, a.k.a., the White House), then Sen Sanders may do well with reform.

#20 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-02-15 03:44 PM | Reply

By my eyes, if the Democratic Party can get rid of the Wall Street influence (especially now that the Wall Street influence seems to have taken up a new home in Goldman Sachs South, a.k.a., the White House), then Sen Sanders may do well with reform.

#20 | Posted by LampLighter

Not if this site is any indication.

Hillary supporters think the only thing wrong with the democratic party is the voters who don't want to vote for corporate sellout candidates. Instead if finding a few actual liberal candidates, the think they can scold tens of millions of liberal voters into voting for bankers puppets.

#21 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-02-15 05:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hell yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CP of USA

#22 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-02-15 05:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#8 | Posted by cookfish

The number of seats lost has a LOT to do with the highly scientific gerrymandering the Republicans did after they won control in a number of states during the 2010 election. The gerrymandered a lot of swing states - not just already red ones. They won that on the ACA and all the fear over it.

#23 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-02-15 05:08 PM | Reply

#23 | Posted by GalaxiePete

To add to that - redistricting should not be a prize awarded to the party in control at that moment as this results in effect discrimination against those not in the controlling party and leads situations where an actual minority can control politics. Think of the Electoral college wins by the Republican party. It should be at least bipartisan with equal members - no tie breakers. If there is no compromise there should be a prescribed method for automatic redistricting. Such as start with a random location in the state create rectangular borders and grow the district until it has the prescribed number of people. That alone will scare them into creating a plan.

#24 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-02-15 05:19 PM | Reply

To add to that-Dem candidates LOSING ELECTIONS had more to do with it with it than anything. You know, like the one a few months ago. It was in all the papers.

#25 | Posted by cookfish at 2017-02-15 06:55 PM | Reply

Republicans would be celebrating in the streets if Sanders decided to create a new party. We live in a two party, winner take all, nation. Deal with it. Folks like Sully, etc. need to focus their arguments on the founding fathers who set it up this way on purpose. Argue with James Madison. I'm just reporting the facts.

#26 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 08:32 AM | Reply

Republicans would be celebrating in the streets if Sanders decided to create a new party. We live in a two party, winner take all, nation. Deal with it. Folks like Sully, etc. need to focus their arguments on the founding fathers who set it up this way on purpose. Argue with James Madison. I'm just reporting the facts.

#26 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 08:32 AM | Reply

That's a lie. The "founding fathers" never said anything about setting up a two party system. Folks like you need to learn that you can't just rewrite history because your assigned position would make more sense if you did.

#27 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-16 09:19 AM | Reply

"The "founding fathers" never said anything about setting up a two party system."

"Did the Founding Fathers Really Want Two Parties?"

www.huffingtonpost.com

I would never argue that the founding fathers wanted a two party system but only that it was inevitable in a winner take all system. If you want to have a Parliamentary system I'd be fine with that, if you want run off type elections, I'd be fine with that but in our system third parties result in Donald Trump and I'm not fine with that. That isn't opinion, BTW, it's simple mathematics. You don't like it argue with Archimedes.

#28 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 09:55 AM | Reply

#28 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 09:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

Whatever. There is nothing about our system that necessitates that we only have two parties. It was not set up as a two party system. And you're delusional to think that "third parties" have anything to do with Trump winning. Trump won because people were pissed off with establishment Republicans and Democrats. Its the domination of the two corrupt parties that led to President Trump.

#29 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-16 10:01 AM | Reply

"I'd be fine with that but in our system third parties result in Donald Trump and I'm not fine with that.
#28 | POSTED BY DANNI "

It also resulted in Bill Clinton but I imagine you were probably fine with that. I think you should watch what you wish for in changes to the election process, etc. If Trump brings back jobs (and he already has), secures the border (he already has begun despite Lib opposition), and doesn't start any wars (he has started less than Obama through the 1st month), that 1000+ seats lost by Dems during Obama's reign will look like small potatoes.

#30 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 10:08 AM | Reply

"It also resulted in Bill Clinton but I imagine you were probably fine with that"

Of course she is...but that's not even a fair comparison. A strong (relatively speaking) 3rd party candidate truly did give us Bill Clinton.....but no third party gave us Donald Trump.

2 ------ ------ ------ candidates for president gave us Donald Trump. We lowered the bar so ------- low that we have to pay the price for it.

Yes, I've always agreed Hillary was the better of the 2 but Americans just had enough of it and became disillusioned. Add to it, it was piss poor campaign management. Hillary was oblivious to how vulnerable she was in those swing states.

#31 | Posted by eberly at 2017-02-16 10:13 AM | Reply

"but no third party gave us Donald Trump.

#31 | POSTED BY EBERLY "

I disagree completely. Donald Trump IS the third party. That is why he still is at war with his own party. 30 years ago, Trump of today would have been described as a mainstream Democrat. It was the shifts in both parties (GOP towards globalist, big business, neocons and Dems towards extreme SJW causes, globalist trade, open borders) that opened a wide chasm in the middle that Trump slotted neatly into. He won the silent majority of working class and union families from both former parties. It is the religious nuts, SJW, and globalists that have been shut out of the system. We have a 3rd party in power already.

#32 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 10:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Whatever. There is nothing about our system that necessitates that we only have two parties."

Donald Trump thanks you for that. You pretend that our system isn't what it is, fine, but realize that we will continue to have leaders who are elected by minorities instead of majorities. Our present President was elected with 46% of the vote. You want third parties then create a system with runoff voting, til then face reality, third party voters drain votes from whichever party is closest in their views to themselves and enables the party most antagonistic to their views to win; as in Donald Trump. But hey, that's logic, something you seem to think we should reject so that our votes for Jill Stein make sense, when those votes actually enabled Donald Trump.

#33 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 10:31 AM | Reply

32

interesting perspective. I'm guessing that those who agree with you would say they are sorely disappointed with their 3rd party president.....

#34 | Posted by eberly at 2017-02-16 10:35 AM | Reply

"It also resulted in Bill Clinton but I imagine you were probably fine with that."

I'll admit I was but I won't deny that Ross Perot created the victory for Bill Clinton. I especially despised George H.W. Bush over cocaine importation, Iran Contra, his unnecessary war with Iraq and other things but he would have won the election if Perot hadn't have been a spoiler.

#35 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 10:36 AM | Reply

"I disagree completely. Donald Trump IS the third party."

You may "feel" that way but Trump was the nominee of the Republican Party and they stood squarely behind him throughout the election season and, for the most part, still are.

#36 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 10:37 AM | Reply

#31 | Posted by eberly at 2017-02-16 10:13 AM | Reply

I agree with you but it isn't just that. The other problem is, when you have a two party stranglehold on the system, the leading candidates are determined by a relatively small number of party members who vote in primaries. And given that the two parties both have large base of unquestioning voters, anyone who gains one of those two nominations has a strong chance of becoming president. So a guy like Trump was able to to insult and clown his way through the primaries against a weak field. And then all it took was for Hillary to run her campaign like an unappealing elitist reptoid and Trump wins.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were other viable candidates because we're not relying on two failing parties to produce decent candidates? Wouldn't it be nice if the disconnected party loyalists who vote in primaries weren't able to put someone a coin flip away from the presidency? Wouldn't other choices act as a safety mechanism?

#37 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-16 10:38 AM | Reply

"He won the silent majority of working class and union families from both former parties."

And no he absolutely did not. He received 3,000,000 fewer votes than Hillary Clinton, without Interstate Crosscheck disenfranchising 1.1 million voters in swing states she'd be President today. Sorry, I do not have to be stupid and believe the lies and accept the refusal of MsM to cover that story, it is a true story and is being covered outside of the United States where the media isn't controlled by 6 corporations.

#38 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 10:40 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I agree with you but it isn't just that. The other problem is, when you have a two party stranglehold on the system, the leading candidates are determined by a relatively small number of party members who vote in primaries."

I don't disagree with that part of your thinking, I just disagree with the logical path to victory that you seem to think a third party candidate can have. There isn't one, if Teddy Roosevelt couldn't win running third party no one else is going to either.

#39 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 10:42 AM | Reply

third party voters drain votes

#33 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 10:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Save your anti-democratic hyperbole. Nobody drains votes from anyone. Nobody owes their vote to the corrupt political organization to which you are beholden. Peddle your totalitarian nonsense to someone else. Not buying.

#40 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-16 10:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Not buying."

I don't care what you do Sully, I'm just explaining the fact of life to you. You're old enough now, someone needs to educate you about reality. Now run away back to la-la land where your preferred candidate will never win an election and people like Donald Trump will. Then wave your silly third party flag and cheer cuz you did the right thing. Meanwhile the nation endures Donald Trump. And, you are full of crap, voters have a responsiblity to help elect a candidate who will do the least harm to America, it isn't electing a beauty queen. Look at the DISASTER that is unfolding right now and own it, it's yours. You did this. I and others like me tried to warn you but, oh no, you were a Puritopian and you know so much better than us ordinary folks. Your brilliance and your high morals have brought us utter disaster.

#41 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 10:49 AM | Reply

I'm ok with a viable third party. There's no reason every issue, every election, every candidate has to fit into one of two predetermined boxes. I have voted third party before.

Good luck, though. It seems the number of voters open to third parties are few and far between.

#42 | Posted by cbob at 2017-02-16 10:49 AM | Reply

I just disagree with the logical path to victory that you seem to think a third party candidate can have. There isn't one, if Teddy Roosevelt couldn't win running third party no one else is going to either.

#39 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 10:42 AM | Reply

Its the same path to victory as anyone else. People just need to get over their belief that they must vote for R or D. Its that simple. Its the voters, not the system.

#43 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-16 10:49 AM | Reply

And just so you remember clearly, I told you and others like you, right here that I would not forgive their arrogance if it resulted in a victory for Donald J. Trump and it did. I will never stop reminding fools like you.

#44 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 10:50 AM | Reply

"I don't care what you do Sully, I'm just explaining the fact of life to you."

No, you're not. You're lying to me with this "drain votes" nonsense. Hillary was not entitled to a single vote: fact. Not a single vote that went elsewhere was hers: fact. There is no such thing as draining votes: fact. The very concept is anti-democratic: fact.

"You're old enough now, someone needs to educate you about reality. Now run away back to la-la land where your preferred candidate will never win an election and people like Donald Trump will. Then wave your silly third party flag and cheer cuz you did the right thing. Meanwhile the nation endures Donald Trump. And, you are full of crap, voters have a responsiblity to help elect a candidate who will do the least harm to America, it isn't electing a beauty queen. Look at the DISASTER that is unfolding right now and own it, it's yours. You did this. I and others like me tried to warn you but, oh no, you were a Puritopian and you know so much better than us ordinary folks. Your brilliance and your high morals have brought us utter disaster."

The disaster is caused by people like you who insist on championing horrible voting habits with "lesser evil arguments". Lots of people who voted for Trump did so because they were sick of Hillary and identity politics and the left in general. They chose their "lesser evil". Just like you do. If everyone were a 'puritopian' we don't end up with Trump. The people who voted for Trump justify their vote using the same words you do.

#45 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-16 10:55 AM | Reply

I will never stop reminding fools like you.

#44 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 10:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

And as your arguments are invalid little turds, I will rub your nose in them every time you address them my way. Enjoy the latest snoot full.

#46 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-16 10:56 AM | Reply

"If Trump brings back jobs (and he already has)..." - Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 10:08 AM

No he hasn't.

#47 | Posted by Hans at 2017-02-16 10:57 AM | Reply

"And as your arguments are invalid little turds, I will rub your nose in them every time you address them my way. Enjoy the latest snoot full."

Pathetic. At least I have a real, logical argument that is in agreement with folks like Bernie Sanders.

#48 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 10:58 AM | Reply

........and the saga continues, Wu Tang! Wu Tang!

#49 | Posted by bocaink at 2017-02-16 11:02 AM | Reply

I hope people realize this debate is playing right into Trump's hands, but as a student of political science, it is the most fascinating debate.

In truth, both sides are correct, which makes it hard (except Sheeple, who is just a Republican hack in 'sheep's' clothing.

The truth is both sides need to be addressed, but our world would be better off right now in every imaginable situation. This argument should have been tabled for a year. I don't care if Clinton was impeached or the Bros did what with who, but it needed to wait until Trump was eliminated.

You guys were impatient and it cost us dearly. For that, I certainly agree with Danni, as I have vocally warned. You guys messed up who didn't vote for Hilbot. Your denial of such shows the immaturity that often comes with impatience. I don't disagree that the Democratic party needs to be severely challenged to reform. But the need to make sure Donald Trump isn't president trumped that argument, or should have trumped that argument in November.

Don't run around here like "I told you so." We told YOU so and YOU didn't listen.

#50 | Posted by bocaink at 2017-02-16 11:08 AM | Reply

""He won the silent majority of working class and union families from both former parties."

And no he absolutely did not. He received 3,000,000 fewer votes than Hillary Clinton, without Interstate Crosscheck disenfranchising 1.1 million voters in swing states she'd be President today.

#38 | POSTED BY DANNI"

LOL. The 3M votes is a meaningless number and irrelevant to my point. Those 3M votes were heavily weighted towards CA and NY and those are not 'working class and union' States. Michigan, Ohio, WI - are. CA and NY are SJW, corporate mega corporations offshoring jobs, and Wall Street. They are fringe states in that regard and that is why you need to expand your message beyond those 3 special interest groups if you want to win a national election. Even within those states, your people are highly concentrated into a few urban areas which is why you still continue to lose seats across all levels of government. As for disenfranchising voters - I don't think any working class person (of whom 99.999999% have valid ID) were disenfranchised. With that said, I am happy for you to continue to harp on that point as the reason for why you lost rather than trying to fix the core problems with your platform. You are in for a miserable 8+ years unless you change your policies to reflect the priorities of working class families - even if that means alienating your illegal alien voter base.

#51 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 11:15 AM | Reply

At least I have a real, logical argument that is in agreement with folks like Bernie Sanders.

#48 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 10:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

Your argument isn't logical. There is no such thing as 'draining votes'. The entire thing is premised on your misguided and unethical belief that votes ae owed to your corrupt little club.

And you DNC drones are funny when it comes to Sanders. The stuff that Bernie says that makes sense, you ignore in favor of runing a corporatist. And not only that, but you support a party infrastructure that regarded him as nothing more than a nuisance.

But when he says something stupid like "Keep supporting a party even if it abandons you in favor of Wall Street", all the sudden he's some sort of prophet.

Ridiculous.

#52 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-16 11:16 AM | Reply

"And you DNC drones are funny when it comes to Sanders. The stuff that Bernie says that makes sense, you ignore in favor of runing a corporatist.
#52 | POSTED BY SULLY"

To be fair, even Sanders folded like a cheap suit to back the person MOST opposed to his core values of jobs for working class people, no more war, and reigning in Wall Street. I think even he would have supported the wall if he actually cared about the heroin epidemic in his state which is caused in large part by cheap Mexican heroin crossing the border. Holding up Sanders as some sort of non-party guy is just laughable with that history.

#53 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 11:21 AM | Reply

You guys messed up who didn't vote for Hilbot.

#50 | Posted by bocaink at 2017-02-16 11:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ridiculous. She is an objectively horrible person and I'm glad she's not president. Its a shame that party drones couldn't reject her. But the party told you it was her turn so did what you were told. We need more options as a safe guard against unethical voters nominating horrible people. The more options the better.

#54 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-16 11:23 AM | Reply

"Ridiculous. She is an objectively horrible person and I'm glad she's not president."

And the millions of Americans who will lose their health insurance when they repeal Obamacare think you're more about your ego than about your country.

#55 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 11:26 AM | Reply

To be fair, even Sanders folded like a cheap suit to back the person MOST opposed to his core values of jobs for working class people, no more war, and reigning in Wall Street.

#53 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

True. He's pretty weak. I saw Charlie Rose beat him up during a PBS interview. Rose's behavior and reason for going after Sanders were ridiculous but Sanders gave up on defending himself rather quickly. It would have been very easy for him to put Rose his place but Sanders just refused. And there was nothing be gained by doing so.

#56 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-16 11:27 AM | Reply

And the millions of Americans who will lose their health insurance when they repeal Obamacare think you're more about your ego than about your country.

#55 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 11:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

I was thinkig about my country. You're the one who is loyal to a party and not your country.

#57 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-16 11:29 AM | Reply

"But the party told you it was her turn so did what you were told.
#54 | POSTED BY SULLY "

For the good of the country, I hope this continues. I hope the Hillary legend grows about how she was cheated out of the election by voter fraud, a corrupt electoral college system, and her platform was rock solid. As a wrote on another thread, it took the GOP 8 years and a candidate like Trump to finally slap the GOP into the reality of the depths of the Bush presidency. They basically ran 2 Bush clones in Romney and McCain thinking that the globalist, pro-war policies were not the reasons why their support sunk with voters. The Dems are in the same stage of delusion.

#58 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 11:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I think even he would have supported the wall if he actually cared about the heroin epidemic in his state which is caused in large part by cheap Mexican heroin crossing the border."

Boats. Remember the cocaine cowboys? Here in S. Florida we do, they used boats. Walls haven't stopped anything ever. Great Wall of China didn't, the Maginot line didn't. As I was discussing earlier with someone, back before Reagan when an illegal alien was discovered working for an employer, that employer was fined $10,000.00 so most employers didn't hire illegal aliens. REagan put an end to that and put the blame on poor people struggling to find a way to feed their families. I personally witnessed INS coming into the factory I worked at and then discovering illegal aliens working, they weren't Mexicans though. They were French Canadians. The boss got big fines and they didn't work there any more. America is a dumb country that allows the rich to manipulate us with talking points. Walls don't prevent illegals from working here, big fines will and hey big fines are way more financially beneficial to our treasury than expensive walls are.

#59 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 11:31 AM | Reply

"And the millions of Americans who will lose their health insurance when they repeal Obamacare think you're more about your ego than about your country.

#55 | POSTED BY DANNI"

Save your tears for when it actually happens. Trump stated repeatedly that no one in the country would go without healthcare. With the failing dam in CA due to Dem incompetence and 'railroading' money to pet projects threatening flood 200,000+ people, the Dems need to to divert all resources to a real crisis and away from your and Chuck Schumer's waterworks for a next few weeks.

#60 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 11:34 AM | Reply

"I was thinkig about my country. You're the one who is loyal to a party and not your country."

No Sully, I'm not loyal to a party or to a country, I'm loyal to the citizens of my country. I want what is best for us and my ego doesn't need a massage. I can accept that we hold primaries and one candidate wins in the party I mostly agree with, then I go out and vote for that candidate and hopefully win so that millions don't lose health insurance, people like my own daughter who will not be able to buy healthcare insurance at all without Obamacare. That's reality, you live in lala land.

#61 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 11:35 AM | Reply

"I'm loyal to the citizens of my country"

You're loyal to Sully and me?

That's funny.

#62 | Posted by eberly at 2017-02-16 11:38 AM | Reply

"Boats. Remember the cocaine cowboys? Here in S. Florida we do, they used boats. Walls haven't stopped anything ever.

#59 | POSTED BY DANNI"

Do you really believe that Trump's 'secure the border' consists entirely of building a giant wall with one big door through which everyone will pass? Nobody will man the wall and we will completely ignore coasts? If so, I think you are being willfully ignorant. You don't strengthen your argument when you do that, you just look foolish.

#63 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 11:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Save your tears for when it actually happens. Trump stated repeatedly that no one in the country would go without healthcare."

Who are you, someone who lost their job convincing folks to attend Trump University?

#64 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-02-16 11:39 AM | Reply

"you just look foolish."

Says the poster with the handle: InTrumpWeTrust.

#65 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-02-16 11:41 AM | Reply

"Says the poster with the handle: InTrumpWeTrust.

#65 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY"

I had to eat the Obama turd sandwich for 8 long years. Now it is your turn. He isn't your president?

#66 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 11:44 AM | Reply

"Save your tears for when it actually happens. Trump stated repeatedly that no one in the country would go without healthcare."

So, Trump is planning on instituting a single payer system, Medicare for all? Yay! If not, Trump's promise that "no one in the country would go without healthcare" is worth as much as a degree from Trump University.

#67 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-02-16 11:47 AM | Reply

"So, Trump is planning on instituting a single payer system
#67 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY"

I don't know what country you live in, but poor people today already have access to healthcare via emergency rooms. Even with that 'illegal' under Obamacare which was supposed to solve this problem, there are still tens of millions of people that don't have 'healthcare' today as you choose to define it. The ~4M people that actually are covered now under Obamacare that could afford care and chose to opt into the Obamacare system will move onto to something else. Frankly, I just want Congress to keep the "Pre-existing Condition" part of the law and dump 100% of everything else. Everything else was just a burden on those that actually had healthcare already.

#68 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 11:53 AM | Reply

" Trump stated repeatedly that no one in the country would go without healthcare."

But he hasn't proposed any workable plan, you can't give consumers who have a pre-existing condition the right to buy healthcare insurance without providing insurers a way to pay for it. Trump just ended the mandate so how are insurers going to be able to afford to insure those with pre-existing conditions?

#69 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 11:54 AM | Reply

"The ~4M people that actually are covered now under Obamacare that could afford care and chose to opt into the Obamacare system will move onto to something else."

Yeah, they'll go back to what they had before. No healthcare insurance at all, just show up at the ER.

#70 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 11:56 AM | Reply

"But he hasn't proposed any workable plan

#69 | POSTED BY DANNI"

Since when is not having read a plan a reason for you not to support it? Nancy Pelosi needs to know.

#71 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 11:57 AM | Reply

"Boats. Remember the cocaine cowboys? Here in S. Florida we do, they used boats. Walls haven't stopped anything ever.
#59 | POSTED BY DANNI"

Then why does Obama's home have a wall around it?

It's pretty simple, walls raise the cost of entering, lowering the incidence.

You speak in false dichotomies.

That being said, Bernie should start another party, Democrats are dysfunctional at this time. I would donate...

#72 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-02-16 12:00 PM | Reply

I don't know what country you live in, but poor people today already have access to healthcare via emergency rooms.

That's not health care for anybody who wants to live a healthy life. Emergency room care is the most expensive, least effective care in terms of longevity and wellness. Nobody who actually gives a crap about the health of non-wealthy Americans would tout emergency room access.

It's also a great way for our government to spend the most money on health care for the least effect.

Frankly, I just want Congress to keep the "Pre-existing Condition" part of the law and dump 100% of everything else.

Do you also want a unicorn that poops soft serve ice cream in your favorite flavor?

There's no way to make insurers ignore pre-existing conditions without a law like Obamacare that makes all Americans pay into the private insurance system.

If Trump drops Obamacare but keeps that requirement, our private insurance system will collapse.

#73 | Posted by rcade at 2017-02-16 12:01 PM | Reply

"Yeah, they'll go back to what they had before. No healthcare insurance at all, just show up at the ER.

#70 | POSTED BY DANNI "

That is not actually true. These people have shown the ability - just not the willingness to play. So, they can gamble and go without insurance and be bankrupted by emergency care or they can buy a private plan. For those that are too poor to pay - yeah, they can use emergency care as they have for the last 40+ years and that is preferable to me as at least then the government is not mandating MY plan which has nothing to do with these people.

The truly sad irony for the Dems will be when - in 4 years - we look back and see that Trump has brought 20+ million people under company provided insurance plans as a result of bringing back good paying jobs for Americans - steelworkers, bridge builders, factory workers, etc. It is going to blow your minds when you see the impact of workforce participation skyrocketing after the "part-time" jobs program of Obama. You will look back and try to rationalize how the 4M under Obamacare is equivalent to the 20M brought under insurance by Trump.

#74 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 12:03 PM | Reply

"Then why does Obama's home have a wall around it?"

ER, how many times did intruders go over the WH fence?

"Since when is not having read a plan a reason for you not to support it? Nancy Pelosi needs to know."

Obamacare was working pretty well until Marco Rubio eliminated the risk corridors which caused the insurance companies to raise rates.

#75 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 12:04 PM | Reply

"I don't know what country you live in, but poor people today already have access to healthcare via emergency rooms."

Yeah, and hospitals were going broke because of it. FYI: Being able to show up in an emergency in an emergency room is not the same as having healthcare. If you show up in the ER with 4th stage breast or prostate or colon cancer, for example, that is not the same as having healthcare that will allow you to treat the disease or could have allowed you to detect the disease earlier.

"Frankly, I just want Congress to keep the "Pre-existing Condition" part of the law and dump 100% of everything else."

That's white of you, but that ain't how it's going to work. You told Danni to "Save your tears for when it actually happens." Well, the same can be said of you and your reassurances.

#76 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-02-16 12:05 PM | Reply

"So, they can gamble and go without insurance and be bankrupted by emergency care or they can buy a private plan."

No you are pretending again, millions simply couldn't afford healthcare insurance without Obamacare. Pretending is the only way opponents of Obamacare can justify their opinions. But, at least realize you are pretending. Don't lie to yourself.

#77 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 12:07 PM | Reply

"There's no way to make insurers ignore pre-existing conditions without a law like Obamacare that makes all Americans pay into the private insurance system.
If Trump drops Obamacare but keeps that requirement, our private insurance system will collapse.

#73 | POSTED BY RCADE"

That is simply a ridiculous argument. Obamacare has brought about 4M people (mostly poor) into the healthcare system. For your assertion to be accurate, removing premiums paid by these 4M people (by not mandating that they have insurance) will somehow bankrupt the system - sorry, that is ridiculous. In fact, a huge portion of people with pre-existing conditions get coverage each and every year now through group plans. The pre-existing exemption would actually only affect a very small portion of rate payers and would be easy to implement.

#78 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 12:09 PM | Reply

"That's white of you,

#76 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY"

That is very racist of you.

#79 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 12:10 PM | Reply

"The truly sad irony for the Dems will be when - in 4 years - we look back and see that Trump has brought 20+ million people under company provided insurance plans as a result of bringing back good paying jobs for Americans"

It is very doubtful that Trump will be President 4 months from now. The scandals are too big, too treasonous and it isn't going away. But, after reviewing your ideas about healthcare, such as the pre-existing condition prohibition, without any measure to fund it, makes me realize you live your life pretending.

#80 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 12:11 PM | Reply

"That is very racist of you."

Okay, how's this: that's very rich or at the very least upper middle-class of you.

#81 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-02-16 12:15 PM | Reply

When I used the phrase that's white of you, it had not racial connotations in my mind. But apparently it does for you, so to be PC, I will rephrase my comment: That's big of you. Which is what I meant.

#82 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-02-16 12:21 PM | Reply

"It is very doubtful that Trump will be President 4 months from now.

#80 | POSTED BY DANNI"

Want to make a bet on that? You name the terms. "Very doubtful" would seem to me that you are saying there is less than a 50% chance he is still president in 4 months. Sorry, but I find you certifiably insane if you actually believe that.

#83 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 12:21 PM | Reply

"When I used the phrase that's white of you, it had not racial connotations in my mind

#82 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY"

I am confused, if not a racial connotation, what connotation did you have in mind?

#84 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 12:22 PM | Reply

"Obamacare was working pretty well until Marco Rubio eliminated the risk corridors which caused the insurance companies to raise rates."

Ironic that Danni is crying that insurance companies have been denied billions in tax payer dollars to ensure their continued obscene profits.

#85 | Posted by eberly at 2017-02-16 12:25 PM | Reply

Want to make a bet on that?

#83 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02

I don't think Donald will finish this term either. There's more than one thing that can get him.

But bet with you? I don't even think you're from here.

#86 | Posted by Zed at 2017-02-16 12:25 PM | Reply

She used the term satirically, perhaps you're too dense to get that but the rest of us got exactly what she meant.

#87 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 12:25 PM | Reply

"Ironic that Danni is crying that insurance companies have been denied billions in tax payer dollars to ensure their continued obscene profits."

Their profits, since ACA was passed are limited by the 80/20 and the 85/15 rules. I'm fine with them making that level of profit, before ACA they were claiming a much larger share of our insurance dollars.

#88 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 12:27 PM | Reply

OH, and the 80/20 and 85/15 rules didn't give them 20% or even 15% profit, that was the amount they could retain for everything from advertising to salaries. The rest had to be all spent on healthcare services and rebate checks went out to consumers when they retained over that 20% or 15% respectively.

#89 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 12:29 PM | Reply

"I'm fine with them making that level of profit"

www.salon.com

LOL

You're a fool to keep buying that whole 80/20 -------- from the start. That was a little carrot for you to focus on while they developed a way to use Obamacare to get richer and richer.

#90 | Posted by eberly at 2017-02-16 12:31 PM | Reply

For me, that's white of you is an old saw like birds of a feather flock together or a stitch in time saves nine. To me it means: that's big of you or as this Urban Dictionary definition states:

"Used to describe someone who thinks they've done a great deed, charitable action or sacrifice, but in reality they've done very little to help the human condition."

To be honest, I never really thought about the history of the word:

"In Jamaica in 1765:

A: I built the slaves a church to hang out in on Sundays, even though I didn't have to.
B: Well, that's mighty white of you.

In Harlem in 2010:

A: I'm feeling so generous, I'm gonna eat my food right next to you so you can enjoy the smell.
B: Well God damn, that's mighty white of you - How could I ever repay you for such a selfless act? "

www.urbandictionary.com

To me it has always had more to do with fake generosity in general than it has had to do with white privilege in particular.

#91 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-02-16 12:33 PM | Reply

"You're a fool to keep buying that whole 80/20 -------- from the start."

"Medical loss ratio returns $2.4 billion to consumers
Insurance carriers sent $469 million in rebates to consumers in 2015"

www.healthinsurance.org

Now I am not that naive to believe that more didn't need to be done but you prefer to argue with me than with the Republicans who post here. If the Republicans were willing to work with the Democrats we could have done more to rein in insurance company profits but they are owned by the insurance companies and slaves don't do things against their masters.

#92 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 12:39 PM | Reply

Now that I think about it, I always equated the use of the word white in this context with white light, white being a symbol of good as opposed to black, the absence of light, being a symbol of evil, not in the racial sense, but in the wicked witch of the west being dressed in black and the Glinda the good witch being dressed in white sense. Maybe that fact alone is symbolic of my own white privilege, or maybe as Trump has said, we're all too hung up on political correctness. Either way, since the term does have racial connotations from the past, I'll try to remember not to use it unless I actually mean it in racial terms.

#93 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-02-16 12:43 PM | Reply

"Insurance carriers sent $469 million in rebates to consumers in 2015"

Yep.....$129 a year per family that got one.

BFD

and it's dwindling down lower and lower.

nice.....but irrelevant in the big picture. You think "80/20" means they make less profit. They aren't ....they are making more and more profit than ever before.

and you're complaining it's not enough!!!!!! That you wish more of your tax dollars went to them in subsidies.

#94 | Posted by eberly at 2017-02-16 12:51 PM | Reply

"They aren't ....they are making more and more profit than ever before."

But they were doing it by insuring more people.

"That you wish more of your tax dollars went to them in subsidies."

If we can't get a single payers system then, yes, if that's what it takes to insure millions of people who otherwise would not have insurance. If I had my way though, we wouldn't need insurance companies at all, we'd all be on Medicare. Younger people would be required to pay premiums, that would make Medicare solvent forever by making the risk pool younger and healthier.

#95 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 12:57 PM | Reply

"But they were doing it by insuring more people."

don't expect them (insurance companies) to say "thanks"

I understand the rest just fine.....I just think it's ironic and damn funny.

#96 | Posted by eberly at 2017-02-16 01:00 PM | Reply

"For me, that's white of you is an old saw like birds of a feather flock together

#91 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY"

As I wrote on a different thread yesterday, it is 100% your right to hold racist thoughts and post racist things. We live in a free society so it is on me, as the listener, to decide whether to continue reading your posts, etc. So, when I see something that is clearly a racist term, I will inform the person but they can do with that whatever they like. I respect that you have actually looked further into the term as I have never seen it used as anything but as a racial term. So, good on you for accepting new information and correcting your behavior based on it. I can respect that.

#97 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 01:16 PM | Reply

"Younger people would be required to pay premiums, that would make Medicare solvent forever by making the risk pool younger and healthier.

#95 | POSTED BY DANNI"

More baby-boomer inter-generational theft. Can't you just stop with my SS and Medicare dollars you have already stolen?

#98 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 01:17 PM | Reply

"So, good on you for accepting new information and correcting your behavior based on it. I can respect that."

Has anyone ever told you that you are a pretentious jerk before? Gal doesn't need to get your approval for her words, she has posted here for years and no one that has been here would ever accuse her of being a racist. I ususally suspect those who are judgemental of being what they accuse others of being.

#99 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 01:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#99

The TrumpTrustTroll appears to be unaware of the use of colloquialisms as humor.... which is understandable for humorless trolls.

The very fact that he trusts a supreme con artist like Trump indicates a general lack of awareness in all things.

#100 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 01:23 PM | Reply

"Gal doesn't need to get your approval for her words
#99 | POSTED BY DANNI"

I never gave approval or disapproval for her words. I was merely complimenting her/him on acknowledging the term they used was racist (whether intentional or not). For intelligent debate to progress, people need to agree on a certain set of facts. Personal attacks like the one you used to start your post do nothing to further any debate. You should not get all huffy when someone simple points out a fact. Now, about that bet on Trump lasting 4 months...you have terms yet?

#101 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 01:24 PM | Reply

Really, why would INTRUMPWETRUST even be posting in a thread asking if Bernie Sanders should start his own political party? I mean, I don't care but it does seem a bit odd.

#102 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 01:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Now, about that bet on Trump lasting 4 months...you have terms yet?"

With the Republicans in charge of Congress, I wouldn't bet on anything except that we will be screwed.

#103 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 01:30 PM | Reply

-we will be screwed.

Raped, more like.

But authoritarian loving Trump trolls will be grateful for even that.

#104 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 01:31 PM | Reply

Crosscheck disenfranchising

Nope, didn't happen, conspiracy theories notwithstanding.

believe the lies and accept the refusal of MsM to cover that story

I don't see much "MsM" coverage of conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, captured aliens or smoke stacks on the moon either. But you paid $2.99 for the half truths, exaggerations and ignorance of Palast, so you're invested in peddling his conspiracy theory.

is being covered outside of the United States

What, that one article by Palast published in Al Jazeera? As for US media, did you forget about the one he wrote for Mother Jones, iirc?

#105 | Posted by et_al at 2017-02-16 01:35 PM | Reply

If not, Trump's promise that "no one in the country would go without healthcare" is worth as much as a degree from Trump University. -#67 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-02-16 11:47 AM

Has he actually said that, though? Not saying that you're wrong, but I thought he was calling for access to healthcare. Here's from his campaign page: "create sound public policy that will broaden healthcare access, make healthcare more affordable and improve the quality of the care available to all Americans."

#106 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-02-16 01:36 PM | Reply

"Has he actually said that, though?
#106 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE"

He did during the debates - several times.

#107 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 01:52 PM | Reply

"Has he actually said that, though?" - #106 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-02-16 01:36 PM

"President Trump has said that people will not go without coverage," she said. "And he means that," adding a repeal of the law will be quickly followed by a replacement.

"He said it during his press conference just last week," she said.

Took, maybe, 1 minute to find that.

#108 | Posted by Hans at 2017-02-16 01:54 PM | Reply

#106 "We're going to have insurance for everybody," Trump said. "There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can't pay for it, you don't get it. That's not going to happen with us." People covered under the law "can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better."

. . .

"It's not going to be their plan," he said of people covered under the current law. "It'll be another plan. But they'll be beautifully covered. I don't want single-payer. What I do want is to be able to take care of people," he said Saturday.

www.washingtonpost.com

#109 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-02-16 01:54 PM | Reply

"As I wrote on a different thread yesterday, it is 100% your right to hold racist thoughts and post racist things. We live in a free society so it is on me, as the listener, to decide whether to continue reading your posts, etc. So, when I see something that is clearly a racist term, I will inform the person but they can do with that whatever they like. I respect that you have actually looked further into the term as I have never seen it used as anything but as a racial term. So, good on you for accepting new information and correcting your behavior based on it. I can respect that."

My intent was not racist as I explained. I have used that phrase numerous times in my life and never once with racist intent. The term may have been clearly racist to you, but it wasn't to me. I have always thought of the term and used it as the definition I cited describes:

"Used to describe someone who thinks they've done a great deed, charitable action or sacrifice, but in reality they've done very little to help the human condition."

If I used the term in that way, does that make me a racist? I don't believe so, but if so, unwittingly. You are free to think otherwise.

#110 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-02-16 02:03 PM | Reply

Trump thinks insurance companies take care of politicians and vice versa. He also thinks insurance companies make a fortune, and so can afford to cover people with pre-existing conditions without the individual mandate:

Q: Senator Rubio, you said that Mr. Trump thinks part of ObamaCare is pretty good. Which part?

RUBIO: The individual mandate. He said he likes the individual mandate portion of it; I don't believe that should remain there. We need to repeal ObamaCare completely and replace it with a system that puts Americans in charge of their health care money again.

TRUMP: I agree with that 100%, except pre-existing conditions, I would absolutely get rid of ObamaCare. I want to keep pre- existing conditions. It's a modern age, and I think we have to have it.

Q: The insurance companies say is that the only way that they can cover people with pre-existing conditions is to have a mandate requiring everybody purchase health insurance. Are they wrong?

TRUMP: I think they're wrong 100%. Look, the insurance companies take care of the politicians [and vice-versa]. The insurance companies are making an absolute fortune. Yes, they will keep preexisting conditions, and that would be a great thing.

www.ontheissues.org

#111 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-02-16 02:08 PM | Reply

Trump has long been a fan of universal health care:

We must have universal health care

I'm a conservative on most issues but a liberal on health. It is an unacceptable but accurate fact that the number of uninsured Americans has risen to 42 million. Working out detailed plans will take time. But the goal should be clear: Our people are our greatest asset. We must take care of our own. We must have universal healthcare.

Our objective [should be] to make reforms for the moment and, longer term, to find an equivalent of the single-payer plan that is affordable, well-administered, and provides freedom of choice. Possible? The good news is, yes. There is already a system in place-the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program-that can act as a guide for all healthcare reform. It operates through a centralized agency that offers considerable range of choice. While this is a government program, it is also very much market-based. It allows 620 private insurance companies to compete for this market. Once a year participants can choose from plans which vary in benefits and costs.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.206-208 & 218 , Jul 2, 2000

www.ontheissues.org

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.206-208 & 218 , Jul 2, 2000

#112 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-02-16 02:12 PM | Reply

But then he evolved on the issue:

Q: in 2000, you wrote that you're a liberal on health care, and you supported a Canadian-style system, where the government acts as an insurer. Is that what you still believe?

A: You know, I looked at that. I looked at it very seriously. Some people don't agree with me on this: I want everyone to have coverage. I love the free market, but we never had a free market. Even before ObamaCare, it wasn't really free market. As an example, in New York, when I wanted to bid out my health insurance, we had boundaries. I could only go in New York. If I wanted to bid it out to a company from California or New Jersey, anywhere--you get no bids.

Q: But the single payer, you're not interested anymore?

A: No. No, these are different times. And over the years, you are going to change your attitudes. You're going to learn things and you're going to change. And I have evolved on that issue. I have evolved on numerous issues.

Source: CNN SOTU 2015 interview series: 2016 presidential hopefuls , Jun 28, 2015

#113 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-02-16 02:15 PM | Reply

"My intent was not racist as I explained.
#110 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY "

I don't know the personalities on here. I found this board by accident trying to go to drudgereport.com. Given your actions after I told you of the racial connotations, I 100% believe you that you did not use it as a racist term intentionally. I actually compliment you for taking the time to research the term. This is a good thing and more people should do this type of action when confronted with new information.

#114 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 02:16 PM | Reply

"I don't know the personalities on here. I found this board by accident trying to go to drudgereport.com."

I had you pegged as an old poster with a new name.

"Given your actions after I told you of the racial connotations, I 100% believe you that you did not use it as a racist term intentionally. I actually compliment you for taking the time to research the term. This is a good thing and more people should do this type of action when confronted with new information."

I've used the term on here before. One time someone did tell me it was racist. I apologized but didn't look into the etymology of the term or think about why it had never struck me as racist. This time I did.

#115 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-02-16 02:29 PM | Reply

#114

Mighty white of you, son,

#116 | Posted by Zed at 2017-02-16 02:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"We have to repeal ObamaCare, and it can be replaced with something much better for everybody. Let it be for everybody. But much better and much less expensive for people and for the government. And we can do it."

Source: 2015 announcement speeches of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Jun 16, 2015

Like I said, Donald has evolved, and revolved, on the issue of health care, which is why I have no confidence in whatever plan he and the GOP finally come up with:

"Obamacare is a heat-seeking missile that will destroy jobs & small businesses; it will explode health-care costs; and it will lead to health care that is far less innovative than it is today. Every argument that you'd make against socialism you can make against socialized health care, and any candidate who isn't 100% committed to scrapping Obamacare is not someone America should elect president. Repealing Obamacare may be one of the most important and consequential actions our next president takes."

Source: Time to Get Tough, by Donald Trump, p.121-122 , Dec 5, 2011

#117 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-02-16 02:34 PM | Reply

Took, maybe, 1 minute to find that. - #108 | Posted by Hans at 2017-02-16 01:54 PM
Maybe take another minute and find one that answers what I asked? I didn't ask if Conway also thought he said that. Or is that your way of letting us know that you think Conway is 100% right on things?

#109 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-02-16 01:54 PM
Thanks Gal Tuesday

#118 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-02-16 02:35 PM | Reply

"Mighty white of you, son,

#116 | POSTED BY ZED"

And that is how a racist outs themselves. Thanks for letting me know I can ignore you from here on out.

#119 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 02:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

The TrumpTrustTroll appears to be unaware of the use of colloquialisms as humor.... which is understandable for humorless trolls.

The very fact that he trusts a supreme con artist like Trump indicates a general lack of awareness in all things.

(Highly Repeatable)

#120 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 02:37 PM | Reply

I apologize if this was said up-thread:

If liberals want to maintain any real power in this country a Sanders Party is probably the worst way to go about it. An effective split of the Democratic Party would give the GOP permanent power-status.

A similar thing happened early in the 20th Century with the Populist Party. The Democratic Party ruthlessly destroyed the Populist Party and they had to, out of self-preservation.

#121 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-02-16 02:38 PM | Reply

#119

Never been ignored by a Russian before.

#122 | Posted by Zed at 2017-02-16 02:41 PM | Reply

#122 LOL Mighty white Russian of you, Zed. (One of my favorite drinks, btw.)

#123 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-02-16 02:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Thought I recognized a Russian accent in his posts.... lmao.

#124 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 02:45 PM | Reply

easy to know if Hillary was the problem or any argument you can create:

If Obama or Bill Clinton (disregarding the amendment) ran for office, would Trump be in office?

Hillary was the problem.

#125 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-02-16 02:55 PM | Reply

"...and find one that answers what I asked?" - #118 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-02-16 02:35 PM

Your impotent semantic games are just that: games.

You're welcome.

#126 | Posted by Hans at 2017-02-16 02:56 PM | Reply

"If liberals want to maintain any real power in this country a Sanders Party is probably the worst way to go about it. An effective split of the Democratic Party would give the GOP permanent power-status." - #121 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-02-16 02:38 PM

100% correct.

#127 | Posted by Hans at 2017-02-16 02:57 PM | Reply

"...as I have never seen it used as anything but as a racial term." - #97 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 01:16 PM

When all you have are lies then lying's just about all you can do.

#128 | Posted by Hans at 2017-02-16 03:01 PM | Reply

I totally understand liberals' frustration, and in many instances disgust, with the Democratic Party.

I think the party has gone way off the rails in some areas but it's still the only real option for those who wish to see left-leaning policies implemented.

Better off trying to fix what's broken and improve what you have then to chuck it away and just cede power to the GOP IMO.

#129 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-02-16 03:04 PM | Reply

100% correct.

#127 | POSTED BY HANS

That's why the liberals need to push Sanders to take over the DNC much like Trump took over the RNC.

Trump is a third party President in elephant clothing. Bernie was a third party candidate in donkey clothing. None of the true elephants could overthrow Trump, but the true donkey in HRC was able to overthrow Sanders. Of the final four candidates, HRC is arguably the only one that could be legitimately considered a partisan hack.

#130 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-02-16 03:05 PM | Reply

If liberals want to maintain any real power in this country a Sanders Party is probably the worst way to go about it. An effective split of the Democratic Party would give the GOP permanent power-status.

A similar thing happened early in the 20th Century with the Populist Party. The Democratic Party ruthlessly destroyed the Populist Party and they had to, out of self-preservation.

#121 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-02-16 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why would a liberal care about the Democratic Party?

#131 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-16 03:07 PM | Reply

"Better off trying to fix what's broken and improve what you have then to chuck it away and just cede power to the GOP IMO." - #129 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-02-16 03:04 PM

Again, 100% correct.

#132 | Posted by Hans at 2017-02-16 03:09 PM | Reply

"Why would a liberal care about the Democratic Party?"

Because every progressive thing that has happened since the Great Depression came from the Democratic Party. The Democrats have protected SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. reliably for 80-90 years. You appear to want to desert the party because, it being a large party made of of millions of people who don't all agree on everything, it doesn't represent all of your own personal views as closely as you would like. That's the price we pay for building a consensus party that has enough members to actually win elections. You are welcome to be your own individual party or to join some minor party but you won't accomplish much and if there are enough like you the Republicans will pick apart the carcass of what is left of the New Deal and the Great Society.

#133 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 03:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#133 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 03:15 PM

Extremely Newsworthy, danni.

I wish I had more than just a single Newsworthy flag to give it.

Thank you.

#134 | Posted by Hans at 2017-02-16 03:16 PM | Reply

Thank you Hans!

#135 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 03:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why would a liberal care about the Democratic Party?

#131 | POSTED BY SULLY

Because the Democratic Party is currently the only vessel they have for enacting policies that liberals favor.

#136 | Posted by jeffj at 2017-02-16 03:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

NW, Danni.

The "partys are the same" meme is looking dumber and dumber daily.

#137 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 03:19 PM | Reply

Personally, I would love for a couple of more parties to emerge as contenders to the GOP and the Democratic Party. I just don't think it's ever going to happen.

#138 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-02-16 03:20 PM | Reply

"Because the Democratic Party is currently the only vessel they have for enacting policies that liberals favor." - #136 | Posted by jeffj at 2017-02-16 03:18 PM

And for a 3rd time, 100% correct

(I'm sensing a theme here.)

#139 | Posted by Hans at 2017-02-16 03:20 PM | Reply

The thing about the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, they change according to who gets involved in them. The Republican Party of today is far different from what it was in Nixon's era. Nixon started the EPA for crying out loud. If those liberals who aren't happy with the Democratic Party got involved in the party the way the Tea Party did with the Republican Party I think we can see that big changes can come much more quickly than you might expect. There are many groups trying to affect the direction of the party right now and they are gaining millions of followers. The Democratic Party will be much more progressive, IMHO, in two years, in four years. It will push back against the Republicans who are beginning to overreach and are even making their own base unhappy. It's gotten so bad that the Republicans in Congress, who have next week off for the purpose of going home and meeting with their constituents, aren't planning any town hall meetings nor are they answering the phones in their offices because they are getting so much bad feedback from voters who have buyers' remorse.

#140 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 03:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Because the Democratic Party is currently the only vessel they have for enacting policies that liberals favor.

#136 | Posted by jeffj at 2017-02-16 03:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

The DNC is center-right.

#141 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-16 03:27 PM | Reply

Because the Democratic Party is currently the only vessel they have for enacting policies that liberals favor.
#136 | Posted by jeffj at 2017-02-16 03:18 PM | Reply | Flag:
The DNC is center-right.

#141 | POSTED BY SULLY

I don't see the DNC as center-right, but we can agree to disagree on that.

My point was that of the 2 political parties, liberals will get more of what they want when the Democratic Party is in power than when the GOP is in power.

#142 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-02-16 03:31 PM | Reply

"The Republican Party of today is far different from what it was in Nixon's era." - #140 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 03:25 PM

Indeed. I mean, can you imagine one of today's Republicans saying this:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." - President Dwight Eisenhower, Republican
Today, those very people Eisenhower called "stupid" are Trump, Trump's cabinet and the leadership of the US House and Senate.

#143 | Posted by Hans at 2017-02-16 03:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"My point was that of the 2 political parties, liberals will get more of what they want when the Democratic Party is in power than when the GOP is in power." - #142 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-02-16 03:31 PM

Going for broke: 100% agree

#144 | Posted by Hans at 2017-02-16 03:33 PM | Reply

this is the dumbest wishful drinking thread i've seen.
hahahha

#145 | Posted by klifferd at 2017-02-16 03:39 PM | Reply

My point was that of the 2 political parties, liberals will get more of what they want when the Democratic Party is in power than when the GOP is in power.

#142 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-02-16 03:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's a pretty bleak outlook though. If you're a pro-war corporatist, you have two parties to choose from. If you're not, you can settle for the less extreme pro-war corporatist party. Just seems like giving up fixing things out of fear that things could get marginally worse.

#146 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-16 03:43 PM | Reply

That's a pretty bleak outlook though.

Agreed.

Like I said, I would love to see at least 2 (if not more) new political parties become players in our political system. But until that happens the Democratic Party is the best choice liberals have right now.

#147 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-02-16 03:47 PM | Reply

-giving up fixing things

Would be throwing away your vote to someone with absolutely no chance of winning, thereby giving up on affecting at least some change, no matter how minor you might consider it.

Oh, and the merely "less extreme" meme is also lame....

Hillary Clinton's quiet revolution
Nobody's noticed, but she's running on an ambitious plan to remake the American social compact.

www.vox.com

#148 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 03:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

No pro-war candidate could win the nomination of the Democratic Party today. The party was changed significantly by Bernie, and then Hillary's loss pretty much sealed the deal. The is no sense in going back to the policies that the Clintons supported.

#149 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 03:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-giving up fixing things
Would be throwing away your vote to someone with absolutely no chance of winning, thereby giving up on affecting at least some change, no matter how minor you might consider it.

I disagree with your premise. First off, I don't view voting for someone other than a (D) or (R) constitutes 'throwing away your vote'. On this we can agree to disagree.

Secondly, as it pertains to the 2 parties, an increased level of 3rd Party voting and voter apathy does lead to introspection, although it's usually done in secret. While Democrats have been very busy publicly blaming everything but themselves for this election loss, privately they are asking themselves: Where did we go wrong? Maybe not so much right now, but it will happen very quickly as time progresses. Who knows, they may end up as a better and stronger party as a result.

#150 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-02-16 03:57 PM | Reply

-First off, I don't view voting for someone other than a (D) or (R) constitutes 'throwing away your vote'.

www.drudge.com

- an increased level of 3rd Party voting and voter apathy does lead to

Italy or France with hundreds of parties and rule by loudest idiots.

#151 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 04:00 PM | Reply

the loudest idiots.... Edit Function!!

#152 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 04:01 PM | Reply

No pro-war candidate could win the nomination of the Democratic Party today. The party was changed significantly by Bernie, and then Hillary's loss pretty much sealed the deal. The is no sense in going back to the policies that the Clintons supported.

#149 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

There's no record to back that up so I guess we'll have to see. I tend to go by what they did most recently in the absence of new info.

#153 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-16 04:01 PM | Reply

Italy or France with hundreds of parties and rule by loudest idiots.

#151 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

We have two parties. Who is in charge right now? The loudest idiot.

#154 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-16 04:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#154

Yes, the result of 3rd party voting... is this thing on?

www.drudge.com

#155 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 04:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"American Democracy is the bestest and only true political system that works."

Yawn.

#156 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-02-16 04:13 PM | Reply

Corky,

I've been a dedicated 3rd party voter my whole life. I keep hoping one will reach that magic 5% threshold that could make one a viable alternative. I'm old enough to accept that is a pipe dream but hopeful enough to keep dreaming.

Trying to lay Trump at my feet just won't fly. Obama won without my vote, Bill won without my vote. Hillary never had my vote and had there not been a third party alternative I would have abstained from the presidential vote.

I get where you are coming from but trying to blame all third party voters and trying to assign all third party votes to Hillary is not a winning or even accurate argument.

#157 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2017-02-16 04:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Tao,

Check the link I gave and the preceding discussion.

Party building is usually fine, and depending on where you live your vote might not be consequential anyway... BUT, as Bernie Sanders warned his supporters, this was not a year to throw away their vote as a protest because Trump.

#158 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 04:18 PM | Reply

" I tend to go by what they did most recently in the absence of new info."

We should be getting a clue when the Dems elect their new party leadership. I hope we don't get Wasserman-Schultz-lite. We need more like the old Howard Dean.

#159 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-16 04:19 PM | Reply

"Most voters who happen to have voted 3rd party are voters in general, not dedicated 3rd party voters. Were you to observe after election surveys, you would find that most 3rd party voters would have voted for a major party candidate rather than abstaining from voting at all."

So what's the solution CORKY? A demand that ALL American citizens vote? Demands that there only be two choices?

The beauty of democracy is giving people the opportunity to choose, which is cemented in the first amendment; two powerful concepts celebrated as solidly American. Yet, your desired end justifies up-ending the traditionally established democratic means?

#160 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-02-16 04:19 PM | Reply

btw, Ross Perot reached that threshold... he got 19 percent of the vote. But his candidacy had unintended consequences for his supporters; helping to elect Bill Clinton.

#161 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 04:20 PM | Reply

Yes, the result of 3rd party voting... is this thing on?

#155 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 04:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Trump didn't run as 3rd party. Nobody who voted for Trump was a 3rd party voter.

#162 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-16 04:25 PM | Reply


-So what's the solution CORKY?

Education would be helpful... and that's hard to do because Republicans depend on the uneducated for their majority votes.

Calling objective mainstream news fake when one doesn't like it, as Trump does, is also unhelpful to democracy.

The two-party system, like all others, has advantages and disadvantages, and although it is not specifically in the Constitution, it's premise is there which is why we have it.

www.washingtonpost.com

#163 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 04:26 PM | Reply

#162

You already lost that argument at the link I provided.... per the quote in 160 that rsty provided.

And you couldn't possibly be dumb enough to think you didn't.

Hopefully not, anyway

#164 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 04:30 PM | Reply

Trump didn't run as 3rd party. Nobody who voted for Trump was a 3rd party voter.

#162 | POSTED BY SULLY

True, but plenty of traditionally third party voters did vote for Trump. They rightly viewed him as a third party candidate in elephant clothing; something that Bernie had going for him for the opposing side.

For me, had Bernie been the Democratic nominee, I would have voted for him even though I traditionally vote thrid party mainly because I viewed him as a third party candidate being forced to utilize the necessary means of winning the WH. I believe my stance parallels many other traditionally third party voters who voted for Trump.

#165 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-02-16 04:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#165

Spot on.

Sully plays silly semantic games, acting as if 3rd party votes can have no real world effect on the results.

"Most voters who happen to have voted 3rd party are voters in general, not dedicated 3rd party voters. Were you to observe after election surveys, you would find that most 3rd party voters would have voted for a major party candidate rather than abstaining from voting at all."

#166 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 04:40 PM | Reply

I know a couple of anarchists that actually came out to vote. Guess who they voted for: His name starts with a T.

Third party voters voting for Trump wanted a legitimate revolution; the "drain the swamp" meme was very attractive, yet they still wanted more disruption. IMO, traditionally third party voters who voted for Trump are the true losers in this go around. They wanted borderline anarchy and all they get is a shell of a mainstream, rubber stamping politician.

#167 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-02-16 04:41 PM | Reply

You already lost that argument at the link I provided.... per the quote in 160 that rsty provided.

And you couldn't possibly be dumb enough to think you didn't.

Hopefully not, anyway

#164 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Once again, Corky posts a link that doesn't support what he claims it does.

And what kind of fool links to his own post as proof of anything? LOL

No, you did not win any argument. Your entire position is based on assigning votes from other candidates to Hillary, which is wrong on every level - logically, ethically, mathematically, etc.

#168 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-16 04:41 PM | Reply

True, but plenty of traditionally third party voters did vote for Trump. They rightly viewed him as a third party candidate in elephant clothing; something that Bernie had going for him for the opposing side.

For me, had Bernie been the Democratic nominee, I would have voted for him even though I traditionally vote thrid party mainly because I viewed him as a third party candidate being forced to utilize the necessary means of winning the WH. I believe my stance parallels many other traditionally third party voters who voted for Trump.

#165 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-02-16 04:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you think he would have won if he ran as an independent?

How many votes did he get from "traditional third party voters" and how many votes did he get from people who vote straight GOP in every election?

It is silly to pretend that the two party grip on the voting public didn't produce Trump. Any jackass with a D or R after their name has a puncher's chance in the general election due to party loyalists voting for the letter.

#169 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-16 04:45 PM | Reply

"Most voters who happen to have voted 3rd party are voters in general, not dedicated 3rd party voters. Were you to observe after election surveys, you would find that most 3rd party voters would have voted for a major party candidate rather than abstaining from voting at all."

#166 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 04:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

You're quoting a source that has zero credibility: You

Seriously, who does this?

#170 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-16 04:46 PM | Reply

-Your entire position is based on assigning votes from other candidates to Hillary, which is wrong on every level - logically, ethically, mathematically, etc.

It is correct factually.

"Most voters who happen to have voted 3rd party are voters in general, not dedicated 3rd party voters. Were you to observe after election surveys, you would find that most 3rd party voters would have voted for a major party candidate rather than abstaining from voting at all."

You ran away after that fact yesterday. And you have nothing new to say today.

Most voters are not dilettantes like yourself, they are voters who would have in most cases voted for one of the major party candidates had they not voted 3rd party.

You can continue to deny this reality and continue to look foolish if you like.

#171 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 04:46 PM | Reply

Third party voters voting for Trump wanted a legitimate revolution; the "drain the swamp" meme was very attractive, yet they still wanted more disruption. IMO, traditionally third party voters who voted for Trump are the true losers in this go around. They wanted borderline anarchy and all they get is a shell of a mainstream, rubber stamping politician.

#167 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-02-16 04:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

True. But Trump didn't win because third party voters voted for third party candidates, which is the BS that Corky is peddling.

What you are claiming is that Trump won because some people who usually voted third party voted for him as the GOP nominee. AND I'm sure you realize that most of his voters are just plain old Republicans.

He didn't win because a third party exists. He won because the two party stanglehold on our system gave him a chance once he won the GOP primaries. He won as a Republican.

#172 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-16 04:50 PM | Reply

You ran away after that fact yesterday. And you have nothing new to say today.

Most voters are not dilettantes like yourself, they are voters who would have in most cases voted for one of the major party candidates had they not voted 3rd party.

You can continue to deny this reality and continue to look foolish if you like.

#171 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Having something to do other than trash Corky's tired argument for the Nth time =/= running away, Cretin.

There is no getting around the fact that the only way your math works is if you assign the vast majority of third party votes to Hillary, without any logical reason for your doing so.

#173 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-16 04:52 PM | Reply

Do you think he would have won if he ran as an independent?

No.

How many votes did he get from "traditional third party voters" and how many votes did he get from people who vote straight GOP in every election?

I don't know. My response was pure speculation based upon the reasonings behind the popularity of candidates like Trump, Sanders, and Cruz.

It is silly to pretend that the two party grip on the voting public didn't produce Trump. Any jackass with a D or R after their name has a puncher's chance in the general election due to party loyalists voting for the letter.

True, which is what I think CORKY is trying to point at, only both your and my suggestion is that said grip produces negative impacts such as being given the impression that we are forced to choose between two poor candidates. I understand CORKY's incistance that "This is the nature of the beast and we must toe the line if we want to move beyond the deplorable workings of the Right," but I also understand the ramifications of toeing that line and the benefits that third parties play within the two party system. If it wasn't for the potential of a third party, I doubt the DNC would have supported Bernie AT ALL!! It was the popularity of third party politics that forced Hillary to the left and the RNC towards the middle. Imagine the authoritarian context we'd be experiencing now (regardless of Trump or Hillary being elected) had third parties been banned!

#174 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-02-16 04:57 PM | Reply

"Most voters are not dilettantes like yourself, they are voters who would have in most cases voted for one of the major party candidates had they not voted 3rd party."

which one?

#175 | Posted by eberly at 2017-02-16 04:57 PM | Reply

The vast majority of 3rd party voters would have still voted for one of the major parties had they not voted 3rd party.

As a matter of fact, a significant percentage of people who say they will vote 3rd party actually vote for a major party when they get to the polling booth.

Were you to familiarize yourself with these facts, perhaps you wouldn't continue denying them... but hey, I'm an optimist.

#176 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 04:58 PM | Reply

He won because the two party stanglehold on our system gave him a chance once he won the GOP primaries. He won as a Republican.
#172 | POSTED BY SULLY

Yes and yes. No argument from me here and I'd imagine this is the one space you and CORKY agree on as well.

CORKY can correct me if I'm wrong...per usual :-P

#177 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-02-16 04:59 PM | Reply

"As a matter of fact, a significant percentage of people who say they will vote 3rd party actually vote for a major party when they get to the polling booth."

who is disagreeing with that?

#178 | Posted by eberly at 2017-02-16 04:59 PM | Reply

Were you to familiarize yourself with these facts, perhaps you wouldn't continue denying them... but hey, I'm an optimist.

#176 | POSTED BY CORKY

I think something that should be taken into consideration here is that the polls were SO off the mark. Even exit polling didn't show the true nature of what was going on.

Hence, your suggestion that exit polls reveal "a significant percentage of people who say they will vote 3rd party actually vote for a major party when they get to the polling booth" should be taken with a grain of salt and not necessarily as "a matter of fact." But again, that's just my opinion.

#179 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-02-16 05:01 PM | Reply

= Cretin.

One can always tell when an argument is being lost, right?

Sully is so invested in being a "rocking chair voter"; one who sits comfortably in the middle so he can casually cast aspersions at both sides... that facts are irrelevant to him.... kinda like his first love, Donald.

#180 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 05:02 PM | Reply

The vast majority of 3rd party voters would have still voted for one of the major parties had they not voted 3rd party.

As a matter of fact, a significant percentage of people who say they will vote 3rd party actually vote for a major party when they get to the polling booth.

Were you to familiarize yourself with these facts, perhaps you wouldn't continue denying them... but hey, I'm an optimist.

#176 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 04:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Didn't you agree earlier that Trump won alot of traiditionally 3rd party voters over?

So why would you assume that most 3rd party votes would have gone to Hillary? Doesn't make sense when Trump was the one with oustider appeal.

You're just pointing fingers for no reason.

#181 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-16 05:03 PM | Reply

-should be taken with a grain of salt

The polls that were off were predictive polls about what might happen.

Exit polls of voters are about what did happen.... and they have for decades said the same thing I said about 3rd party voters being voters first.... they would have in most cases voted for someone, even if it was not a 3rd party candidate.

Which is only common sense anyway.

#182 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 05:06 PM | Reply

who is disagreeing with that?
#178 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Me, I guess. But my disagreement is not based on firm facts, simply speculation and distrust in polling methods from election start to election finish.

#183 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-02-16 05:07 PM | Reply

Exit polls of voters are about what did happen.... and they have for decades said the same thing I said about 3rd party voters being voters first.... they would have in most cases voted for someone, even if it was not a 3rd party candidate.

Exit polls from the 2016 presidential election showed Hillary Clinton winning four crucial swing states that, when the final vote tallies came in, were actually won by Donald Trump. The discrepancy between the exit poll results and the raw vote total count has led to suspicions that the election was "rigged" in favor of Trump.
heavy.com

Not sure of the accuracy regarding the above, but it's something to consider.

#184 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-02-16 05:14 PM | Reply

#181

Your HDS is showing.... and you are moving goalposts again.

Our argument was about your claim that third party votes could in no way help Trump... which is ludicrous on it's face.

Nowhere did I say they were the sole reason he won. And I supported what I said...

www.drudge.com

www.drudge.com

#185 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-16 05:14 PM | Reply

"I think something that should be taken into consideration here is that the polls were SO off the mark." - #179 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-02-16 05:01 PM

The interesting this is, the polls got the popular vote nearly right.

It was how 3 individual states would go in the electoral vote where they missed the mark... and, of course, that's what really counted on election day.

#186 | Posted by Hans at 2017-02-16 05:19 PM | Reply

My #186: "The interesting this is.." should be "The interesting thing is..."

#187 | Posted by Hans at 2017-02-16 05:20 PM | Reply

"Education would be helpful... and that's hard to do because Republicans depend on the uneducated for their majority votes.
163 | POSTED BY CORKY "

Please, please keep pounding this drum. I look forward to the continued decimation of the Democrat party as long as you sing this tired and incorrect song. Hint, there is a HUGE, HUGE difference between uneducated and 'non-college educated'. Every study ever done has concluded that the tendency to vote GOP increases with an increase in income. The Dems have fooled themselves as to what constitutes 'education' and it is borne out in the completely non-marketable skills they possess. The truth is the Dems have a completely bi-modal income distribution with the completely low-IQ (college 'educated' and dropouts) being controlled by the Uber wealthy (Soros, Bezos, Zuckerberg) pulling the strings that keep the other 99% of Dem voters poor. You fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Hint, I would bet my last dollar you are on the left side of that income distribution.

#188 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 06:22 PM | Reply

We need a Labor party for many reasons, the most obvious being that the pro-war corporatists will not let go of the DNC.

#189 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-02-16 07:21 PM | Reply

"the Democrat party" - #188 | Posted by InTrumpWeTrust at 2017-02-16 06:22 PM

In the USA there is no such thing as "the Democrat party."

Get back to us when you've been able to figure out the difference between a noun and an adjective.

#190 | Posted by Hans at 2017-02-16 10:44 PM | Reply

There's one of the many reasons now.

#191 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-02-16 11:06 PM | Reply

Democrats and Republicans have conspired together to lock out third parties and restrict debate topics. Nader made it clear Sanders took the only feasible path under those circumstances and did a helluva job widening the debate and informing the public.

#192 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-02-16 11:45 PM | Reply

The Dems have fooled themselves as to what constitutes 'education' and it is borne out in the completely non-marketable skills they possess.

Quite the broad brush you're stroking with, eh? Your hyperbole and exaggeration make you look silly, just like a few knee jerk libbies here on the DR.

#193 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-02-17 12:32 AM | Reply

Having more than 2 viable political parties would do this country nothing but good.

Actual compromises, alliance building, the death of all-or-nothing wedge political strategies, is beneficial to everybody.

#194 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-02-17 08:47 AM | Reply

Actual compromises, alliance building, the death of all-or-nothing wedge political strategies, is beneficial to everybody.

#194 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-02-17 08:47 AM | Reply:

Everbody except the people who own the two existing major parties. And vicariously, their devoted plebs.

#195 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-17 09:19 AM | Reply

"Everbody except the people who own the two existing major parties. And vicariously, their devoted plebs."

no one "owns" a political party, they might rent it but they don't get to own it. Both major parties have dramatically changed directions in my own lifetime and will probably do so again in my lifetime. Instead of incessant whining you ought to get involved in changing the Democratic Party. Whining accomplishes nothing but I will admit, you really are good at it. Your political views steer you in a direction that will affect nothing. I even agree with you on many things but affecting reality is still important to me so I compromise with others so that we can actually affect change. Without compromise there is no progress.

#196 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-17 09:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Instead of incessant whining you ought to get involved in changing the Democratic Party.

#196 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2017-02-17 09:40 AM | FLAG:

Join up! Be for rent! lol

#197 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-02-17 09:54 AM | Reply

Instead of incessant whining you ought to get involved in changing the Democratic Party. Whining accomplishes nothing but I will admit, you really are good at it. Your political views steer you in a direction that will affect nothing. I even agree with you on many things but affecting reality is still important to me so I compromise with others so that we can actually affect change. Without compromise there is no progress.

#196 | Posted by danni at 2017-02-17 09:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

You want to know how to get political parties to change? Stop supporting them. Don't give them money or votes. They don't care what people who they can take for granted want and have proven this many times over. They do care about how to get money and votes out of people who aren't giving them money and votes.

And save the "whining" schtick. I'm voicing opinions just like everyone else here. If I'm whining then we're all whining. The hypocrisy of that gimmick is too obvious for it to be effective.

#198 | Posted by Sully at 2017-02-17 10:02 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#188 | POSTED BY INTRUMPWETRUST

Hates statistics.

#185 is NW....

#199 | Posted by Corky at 2017-02-17 12:57 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort