• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wait, Want? First San Fran Nan says no impeachment and now . . .

Bullseye

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
47,705
Reaction score
16,576
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
. . . she poo poos Medicare for All? WTF? Pretty soon she'll be endorsing tax cuts, and paying for Trump's wall out of her personal fortune! :eek:


Full disclosure Nan isn't giving up on ACA (apparently, she still hasn't read it), or Single Payor.
 
Bullseye said:
. . . she poo poos Medicare for All? WTF? Pretty soon she'll be endorsing tax cuts, and paying for Trump's wall out of her personal fortune! :eek:


Full disclosure Nan isn't giving up on ACA (apparently, she still hasn't read it), or Single Payor.
Click to expand...

I suspect her pollsters told her that...

1. Trying to win the 2020 election on "anti-Trump" and "pro-socialist" is a good way to lose.

2. She had better nip this "freshman Rep" problem in the bud or her House Elites will lose donors in droves.
 
Mycroft said:
I suspect her pollsters told her that...

1. Trying to win the 2020 election on "anti-Trump" and "pro-socialist" is a good way to lose.

2. She had better nip this "freshman Rep" problem in the bud or her House Elites will lose donors in droves.
Click to expand...
I think you got it right. She still clings to "fixing" ACA and transitioning to single payor.
 
Bullseye said:
. . . she poo poos Medicare for All? WTF? Pretty soon she'll be endorsing tax cuts, and paying for Trump's wall out of her personal fortune! :eek:


Full disclosure Nan isn't giving up on ACA (apparently, she still hasn't read it), or Single Payor.
Click to expand...
Impeachment & removal is a political act, and removal via impeachment has a high bar (67%). It's far easier to remove at the ballot box, which only requires 51%, and the time frame is about the same (2020).

She is being eminently smart here; I'd do the same.
 
Bullseye said:
. . . she poo poos Medicare for All? WTF? Pretty soon she'll be endorsing tax cuts, and paying for Trump's wall out of her personal fortune! :eek:
Full disclosure Nan isn't giving up on ACA (apparently, she still hasn't read it), or Single Payor.
Click to expand...

The language she used seemed to imply she'd be all for a bipartisan impeachment party that wouldn't divide the country.

It's possible she is trying to leave room for the GOP to get on board w/ impeachment when the time comes.

If the Dems and GOP fight over impeachment now, it'd be harder for the GOP to change their mind later.
 
Bullseye said:
. . . she poo poos Medicare for All? WTF? Pretty soon she'll be endorsing tax cuts, and paying for Trump's wall out of her personal fortune! :eek:
Full disclosure Nan isn't giving up on ACA (apparently, she still hasn't read it), or Single Payor.
Click to expand...


Not sure what is going on with the old crow, but nobody is taking her serious anymore.

The present bunch of presidential 2020 candidates are not going to stop offering medicare for all and the house members like the vulgar Tlaib and the repulsive Al Green continue their impeachment efforts.

I think the old bat has lost it ... and doesn't know it yet. (grin)
 
I’m not sure why people would be surprised. She is a corporate Democrat, not a progressive one.

I do agree with her about impeachment, though. It would be a waste with the current Senate anyway.
 
Bullseye said:
. . . she poo poos Medicare for All? WTF? Pretty soon she'll be endorsing tax cuts, and paying for Trump's wall out of her personal fortune! :eek:
Click to expand...

Her points about the benefit design of Medicare vs ACA-regulated commercials plans is correct. Medicare has no out-of-pocket limit, ACA plans do. Granted, "Medicare for all" people generally don't really mean Medicare for all, they mean something substantially more generous than Medicare for all. But then that gets at her point about the revenue-raisers to make it a reality.

Full disclosure Nan isn't giving up on ACA (apparently, she still hasn't read it), or Single Payor.
Click to expand...

Consensus Democratic position.

9273-figure-10.png


And yeah, she's read it.
 
Greenbeard said:
Her points about the benefit design of Medicare vs ACA-regulated commercials plans is correct. Medicare has no out-of-pocket limit, ACA plans do. Granted, "Medicare for all" people generally don't really mean Medicare for all, they mean something substantially more generous than Medicare for all. But then that gets at her point about the revenue-raisers to make it a reality.



Consensus Democratic position.

9273-figure-10.png


And yeah, she's read it.
Click to expand...
Anyone tell AOC? :eek:

51% is hardly a consensus - a slim majority is more like it.
 
The Dems will start up again after Trump is reelected in 2020
 
Pelosi has been an opponent of every effort to use impeachment hearings since Watergate, regardless of party. She thinks they are more divisive and distracting for all three branches of govt, than luminating or impactful. This is not news. Her support of reforming ACA is also longstanding. Dems who voted for her as speaker, knew these stances, if I knew these stances.
 
btthegreat said:
Pelosi has been an opponent of every effort to use impeachment hearings since Watergate, regardless of party. She thinks they are more divisive and distracting for all three branches of govt, than luminating or impactful. This is not news. Her support of reforming ACA is also longstanding. Dems who voted for her as speaker, knew these stances, if I knew these stances.
Click to expand...

The far left socialists are delusional in thinking that they have more power than they actually do. They are not only a minority in the scheme of things, they are a very miniscule minority.
 
Moderate Right said:
The far left socialists are delusional in thinking that they have more power than they actually do. They are not only a minority in the scheme of things, they are a very miniscule minority.
Click to expand...

Question: Do you agree that the political spectrum shifts over time? Or do you think it’s static?
 
Vidi said:
Question: Do you agree that the political spectrum shifts over time? Or do you think it’s static?
Click to expand...

Of course it shifts. That's why we have a Republican/Democratic teeter tawter that goes back in forth and both sides are stupid enough to think when it swings back to their side that it will last forever. The fact is, neither Democrats or Republicans have the answer. When Democrats are in power and institute their policies the voters get mad at them and vote their asses out. Then voters don't like Republican policies and vote their asses out. And it keeps on swinging back and forth like the energizer bunny because neither side actually gets the clue that none of their policies work. And here we are back in 2016 all over again when Democrats believed that the Republican party is dead and will never be heard from again. But, both sides have the system rigged so that only one of the two of them can win.
 
Moderate Right said:
Of course it shifts. That's why we have a Republican/Democratic teeter tawter that goes back in forth and both sides are stupid enough to think when it swings back to their side that it will last forever. The fact is, neither Democrats or Republicans have the answer. When Democrats are in power and institute their policies the voters get mad at them and vote their asses out. Then voters don't like Republican policies and vote their asses out. And it keeps on swinging back and forth like the energizer bunny because neither side actually gets the clue that none of their policies work. And here we are back in 2016 all over again when Democrats believed that the Republican party is dead and will never be heard from again. But, both sides have the system rigged so that only one of the two of them can win.
Click to expand...

Not exactly what I meant but I agree with everything you just posted.

I was referring to the shifting political spectrum of the parties themselves. But as it’s the next day, I’ve forgotten where I was going to go with it so I’ll let it drop lol
 
Vidi said:
Not exactly what I meant but I agree with everything you just posted.

I was referring to the shifting political spectrum of the parties themselves. But as it’s the next day, I’ve forgotten where I was going to go with it so I’ll let it drop lol
Click to expand...

Well, a few years ago when Obama was president part of the Republican party went to the extremes and tore the party apart. We had people running as Republicans who weren't really Republicans because they knew they couldn't win unless they called themselves Republicans. And, guess what? The same exact thing has been happening on the left now. Socialists have come out, tearing the Democratic party apart and now we have people running as Democrats who aren't really Democrats because they know they can't win unless they call themselves Democrats. You are making the same error I talked about in my previous post if you think the country as a whole is shifting to the left. The only thing we have happening is the Republican party is split with a minority faction being extremist and the Democratic party is split with a minority faction being extremist. It all kind of balances itself out to a net no shift. And, those on the left make the mistake in thinking that their loud mouths equal more votes. They don't. One loud mouth only has one vote. 100 loud mouths only have 100 votes and one million loud mouths only have one million votes. One loud mouth does not make two votes, just as one million loud mouths don't make two million votes.
 
Moderate Right said:
Well, a few years ago when Obama was president part of the Republican party went to the extremes and tore the party apart. We had people running as Republicans who weren't really Republicans because they knew they couldn't win unless they called themselves Republicans. And, guess what? The same exact thing has been happening on the left now. Socialists have come out, tearing the Democratic party apart and now we have people running as Democrats who aren't really Democrats because they know they can't win unless they call themselves Democrats. You are making the same error I talked about in my previous post if you think the country as a whole is shifting to the left. The only thing we have happening is the Republican party is split with a minority faction being extremist and the Democratic party is split with a minority faction being extremist. It all kind of balances itself out to a net no shift. And, those on the left make the mistake in thinking that their loud mouths equal more votes. They don't. One loud mouth only has one vote. 100 loud mouths only have 100 votes and one million loud mouths only have one million votes. One loud mouth does not make two votes, just as one million loud mouths don't make two million votes.
Click to expand...


I would argue that Trump is the Tea Party President.

As far as the Democratic Party and the socialists? I see it more as a return to FDRs Democratic Party.

It will be nice to have an actual American Left again.
 
Vidi said:
I would argue that Trump is the Tea Party President.

As far as the Democratic Party and the socialists? I see it more as a return to FDRs Democratic Party.

It will be nice to have an actual American Left again.
Click to expand...

Well, I think the Tea Partiers would disagree with you on the Trump thing. I don't believe FDR was a full fledged whacko like these socialists are. Hell, there's apparently a congressional plan for paying reparations to slave descendants. Next up, Native Americans. After that, spending 93 trillion dollars on the Green New Deal, including rebuilding or renovating every single building in the US. And Bernie wants to let millions of criminals go. Their job plan? Get rid of Amazon's 115K per year jobs with benefits and force Walmart and McDonalds to pay $15 per hour. These people need a rubber room where they can't hurt themselves.
 
Last edited:
Moderate Right said:
Well, I think the Tea Partiers would disagree with you on the Trump thing. I don't believe FDR was a full fledged whacko like these socialists are. Hell, there's apparently a congressional plan for paying reparations to slave descendants. Next up, Native Americans. After that, spending 93 trillion dollars on the Green New Deal, including rebuilding or renovating every single building in the US. And Bernie wants to let millions of criminals go. Their job plan? Get rid of Amazon's 115K per year jobs with benefits and force Walmart and McDonalds to pay $15 per hour. These people need a rubber room where they can't hurt themselves.
Click to expand...

I take offense at the term wacko, good sir! Lol

As far as Walmart and McDonalds go,

Let me ask you this:

A local business needs a full time janitor. The business decides that it’s willing to pay $10 an hour to the 40 hour a week employee. But the cost of living in the area demands that a person make at least $11 an hour just to survive.

What does it say if the business wouldn’t pay a living wage?
 
Vidi said:
I take offense at the term wacko, good sir! Lol

As far as Walmart and McDonalds go,

Let me ask you this:

A local business needs a full time janitor. The business decides that it’s willing to pay $10 an hour to the 40 hour a week employee. But the cost of living in the area demands that a person make at least $11 an hour just to survive.

What does it say if the business wouldn’t pay a living wage?
Click to expand...

You look at the whole thing through tainted glasses. Not everyone needs a living wage. Does a 17 year old living at home working at McDonalds need a living wage? Does a senior citizen wanting to supplement their social security need a living wage? Does a part time college student need a living wage? If the janitor's wife is working and making $10 per hour then if he takes this job then between the two of them they are making $20 per hour, $9 per hour more than the living wage in your mythical city. If you need to make more than minimum wage to live then you should get a job making more than minimum wage. Not everyone needs a living wage, therefore minimum wage and living wage are two different things.
 
Moderate Right said:
You look at the whole thing through tainted glasses. Not everyone needs a living wage. Does a 17 year old living at home working at McDonalds need a living wage? Does a senior citizen wanting to supplement their social security need a living wage? Does a part time college student need a living wage? If the janitor's wife is working and making $10 per hour then if he takes this job then between the two of them they are making $20 per hour, $9 per hour more than the living wage in your mythical city. If you need to make more than minimum wage to live then you should get a job making more than minimum wage. Not everyone needs a living wage, therefore minimum wage and living wage are two different things.
Click to expand...


That’s a lot of not what I asked.
 
Vidi said:
That’s a lot of not what I asked.
Click to expand...

Not all people need a living wage. It is not necessary for the minimum wage to be a living wage. You refuse to understand this. You work on the assumption that everyone needs a living wage. They don't.
 
Moderate Right said:
Not all people need a living wage. It is not necessary for the minimum wage to be a living wage. You refuse to understand this. You work on the assumption that everyone needs a living wage. They don't.
Click to expand...


Again, not what I asked. You’re expanding the scope of the question in order to espouse a philosophy rather than have a discussion. In one case you made the person 17, then you gave him a wife, then a senior citizen. You did all of this and failed to answer the question.

But let’s answer your objection:

I grew up in Missouri, when I was 13 I started working part time. Missouri had a minimum wage, but they also had a student wage which was lower. I see no reason that can’t be applied again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom