Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Comments from conservatives and liberals alike in these threads seem more about lodging put-downs and insults over anything much more intelligent than that, but if you would like to consider a bit more about liberal thinking and/or sentiment, you might find this interesting.
Obama was a disappointment. Hillary as well. Disappointment that helped bring about POTUS Trump, an abomination...
"The Obama of 2008 was to be this century’s FDR, signifying a moment of lasting realignment and transcendent progress — rather than one of growing alienation and despair culminating in the election of Donald Trump. But the liberalism of 21st century America, it turns out, is ill-equipped to achieve the transformative change it once so loftily promised: not because it made a noble attempt and failed but because it never really sought this change to begin with.
While Obama may not have been sincere, a great many of his voters were, and the millions who embraced his message revealed a genuine hunger for transformative change.
Now all we need is a political movement that actually seeks it out.
Obama, just like every President for the last 40 years sold out to the Corporate State and did almost nothing to stop the flood of money which has corrupted our legislature ever since the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Obama was another centrist bureaucrat like the Clintons and the Bushes.
I get your point though; people wanted a change no matter what, only problem is that they completely miscalculated what the cost of that change was going to be when they voted for Trump. Anarchist thinking in many ways - let's tear it all down rather than trying to fix what we have. Meaningful change takes time, effort and intelligent planning. Abrupt and thoughtless change like we see from Trump will very likely throw us into the ditch for generations to come.
Obama voters I encountered were generally not sincere as your claim. They were hypocrites based on whether it was Bush, Trump, or Obama doing it.
Take for example the Obama voters on here that applauded candidate Obama for saying a president can't strike a country without congress unless it is an immediate threat, then looked the other way when President Obama did just that, then threw a tantrum when Trump did the same thing. Some even lied and claimed Obama didn't or it is okay if you trust the president, all hypocritical BS.
It is early, but you can make the same kind of argument about most Trump voters.
I believe many Trump supporters are sincere. Many voted who had never voted before or hadn't in years. Is he doing a good job? That is a question that has no answer at this stage, it is too soon to judge, but his voters, many of them, voted for change and they are getting it.
Interesting...
Why can we not answer whether Trump is doing a good job at this point? Why is it too soon? How long are we expected to wait and why?
Sure seems to me that we can and should judge what Trump has done and/or not done, just like we would any other POTUS. Of course we cannot know what will happen in the future, maybe Trump will improve on his performance, do fewer dumb things. Maybe he will actually get some legislation passed instead of meaningless EOs, but we can judge based on the present, or we risk suspending judgement as it seems too many Trump supporters are always wanting to do. "The jury is always out" with Trump supporters, no matter what Trump says or does...
"Every day brought a new bombshell. On Monday, it was reported Trump shared classified information with Russia. On Tuesday, it emerged that Trump had pressured then FBI director James Comey to stop an investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. On Wednesday, a special counsel was appointed to investigate Trump and his ties to Russia. By Thursday, all of Washington was trying to catch its breath and dreading the next push alert for breaking news.
However, by week’s end, even some Republicans on Capitol Hill were starting to openly wonder about impeachment.
Justin Amash, an arch-conservative congressman from Michigan, conceded that, if Trump had asked his FBI director to shut down an investigation, it would be grounds for impeachment.
When his comments were published, it sparked an unlikely backlash from another Republican. Carlos Curbelo of Florida earned a correction when the liberal magazine Mother Jones described Amash as the first Republican to mention impeachment. Curbelo wanted it on the record that he had mentioned impeachment first. However, neither of the two Republican lawmakers voted for Trump in the 2016 election."
Obama said from the beginning he was NOT going to do single payer. It's too bad that this was just about the only thing he didn't go back on.
I've covered this many times. One speech from many years ago was uncovered where he mentioned single pay. When he ran he NEVER ran on it. Ever.
Not true.
Obama was originally for a single payer system, then made a political decision to do what he thought would have a better chance of success, which is sadly what entrenched powerful interests can require in our political system...
By last week, it became clear that Obama and his allies in Congress will use their legislative leverage to prevent even a debate about single payer. Here’s the Associated Press: “Baucus and many others, including President Barack Obama, say single-payer is not practical or politically feasible.”
“Everything is on the table with the single exception of single-payer,” Baucus said.
My guess is that Obama still believes in what he originally says, because he knows the evidence about the supremacy of a single-payer system is irrefutable. But I’m also guessing that he’s afraid of being attacked by moneyed interests that enjoy the status quo, and he’s surrounded himself by Clintonites who, after the health care debacle of the early 1990s, aren’t interested in antagonizing the insurance industry.
Much as the article that started this thread explains. What is never explained, however, is just what these political assessments involve and whether Obama was right to do what he could instead of insisting on what he knew was best. That sort of political calculation is what a divided Congress and special interests force upon every politician. One not so great aspect of democracy is the need to compromise, or instead of moving the needle at least somewhat, you don't move at all.
Obama was originally for a single payer system, then made a political decision to do what he thought would have a better chance of success, which is sadly what entrenched powerful interests can require in our political system...
By last week, it became clear that Obama and his allies in Congress will use their legislative leverage to prevent even a debate about single payer. Here’s the Associated Press: “Baucus and many others, including President Barack Obama, say single-payer is not practical or politically feasible.”
“Everything is on the table with the single exception of single-payer,” Baucus said.
My guess is that Obama still believes in what he originally says, because he knows the evidence about the supremacy of a single-payer system is irrefutable. But I’m also guessing that he’s afraid of being attacked by moneyed interests that enjoy the status quo, and he’s surrounded himself by Clintonites who, after the health care debacle of the early 1990s, aren’t interested in antagonizing the insurance industry.
Much as the article that started this thread explains. What is never explained, however, is just what these political assessments involve and whether Obama was right to do what he could instead of insisting on what he knew was best. That sort of political calculation is what a divided Congress and special interests force upon every politician. One not so great aspect of democracy is the need to compromise, or instead of moving the needle at least somewhat, you don't move at all.
Your article backs up what I said......there was one speech many years ago......That is hardly a position. As a candidate and as president he did NOT advocate, push, try and do anything to bring us to single payer.
I would agree, and a good many for very similar root causes. I wish they had found a Republican that wanted to fix those issues, instead of just egging on the hatred and other nonsense.
Blame the primaries for that. By the time primary voting came to my state, the choices were Trump and Cruz, neither of whom I liked. And the press seemed to love Donald Trump at that time (obviously a ploy to get him to win the primaries so Hillary could beat the Republican in a season where people were ready to flip after eight years of the other party).
I sat out the primary because I couldn't see myself voting for either of those two, and the choice on the other side seemed assured. I was going to sit out the general election as well, but then came the violence in California against Trump supporters and I just couldn't stand it. I figured I was throwing away my vote for Trump, but it was only for three reasons. One, Trump wasn't possibly going to win so it didn't matter. It was just a protest vote. Two, the violence against Trump supporters and the horrible way everyone treated his supporters. And three, the only promise I felt he could keep was on immigration since he didn't even need to get laws passed since the laws were already there. I didn't really care about a wall, and quite honestly I wouldn't have cared if they gave amnesty to everyone who had been here at least five years. I just wanted the situation on our border with unaccompanied minors stopped. But I voted with the absolute conviction that Trump was going to lose. I have a feeling I was not alone.
I'm sure that many people who didn't vote for Hillary stayed home with the absolute conviction she would win anyway. That's why the press really did you guys a disservice.
After the election I had some hope that Trump could be more able to work with both sides since he's not like the Freedom Caucus. I think if the Democrats tried to work with him, he may have been a great president. Not a party above country type. And maybe he could be a little like LBJ, get a lot accomplished because he knew how to negotiate where everyone got something they wanted. But the Democrats were never going to work with him, and some of their supporters are just as crazy as they were during the election. Now we all lose.
Your article backs up what I said......there was one speech many years ago......That is hardly a position. As a candidate and as president he did NOT advocate, push, try and do anything to bring us to single payer.
The insurance lobby is one of the biggest in DC, and it takes too much money to win elections these days. No politician in America is going to go against the insurance lobby.
singlepayer is a non-starter, until its proponents answer the questions that most are asking about it
even most republicans would be for a singlepayer
if the liberals would only answer two questions
we want real care....quality care...not care like the Dept of health horror clinics..so will you guarantee the quality of care
and
HOW are you going to pay for it
two questions the liberals avoid like the plague
so I will ask YOU the two questions :
1. can you confirm singlepayer (government controlled) would be QUALITY CARE...or would it be crap care like at the department of health (government) clinics
2. how are you going to pay for it.........bet most wont even consider answering this question (since singlepayer would cost 3-6 trillion per year to cover 320 million people)..... I give you a hint...one way is to get rid of income tax, and to tax spending
if you don't have the answers...then I would bet you are asking them too
Singlepayer and the debate over how to make it happen should NEVER be a "non-starter" or off the table...
Unfortunately, and as I am sure you are aware, providing health care coverage is an extremely complicated challenge that involves lots of players in both the private sector (health care providers, pharmaceuticals, insurance carriers, etc.) and public sector (the POTUS, Congress, Medicaid, Medicare, federal, state and local governments, exchanges, etc.).
"Now, I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," he added. "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated." -- Trump
Of course in classic Trump style, because HE didn't know the subject was "unbelievably complex," nobody knew. Also of course, many of us knew better and still do.
Guarantee of quality care is a tall order whether you are getting health care with or without government assistance or help, as demonstrated by all too many malpractice suits, problems and frustrations that existed before the ACA. Obviously, there needs to be a manner in which to check the runaway health care costs while also providing the profit incentive for those involved to compete in terms of delivering the best health care possible. That's a general statement, I know, but to get into all it takes to make all these "moving pieces" to function in concert takes a good deal more than a comment in this thread/forum.
If you are really interested in the answers to your questions, simply Google the case for a single payer system and how it is made to work as best as can be expected (IE, not perfectly, like the ACA is far from perfect still).
How to pay for it? How do we pay for our military complex, and just what is that expense compared to all other countries? How do we do that? Another important question for all to ask is WHO should pay for what and how much. Even Trump admits/agrees the most wealthy can and should pay more, just for starters...
I'm not sure what you are looking for BUT I've often argued that those who want single payer are their own worse enemy. They refuse to condemn those who oversee poor decisions. It was a huge mistake for Obama to not fire a large number of people running the V.A. and make sure it was run correctly.
Now the opponents still have the VA to point to as to why they do not want single payer.
It's a complicated issue. If it was me, I would bring every single soldier home and cut off all foreign aid and start there. From there we would have to see what we are left with.
Perhaps, and more the sort of evidence that the answer, the better way(s), require a multifaceted approach of many adjustments across the board, to reduce tax payer burden where it most makes sense and increase tax revenues where and how it most makes sense.
on this point we agree. I have no expectation that we recover from this for quite some time and only after things get vastly worse.
You, me and McCain...
This hesitiation was shared by Senator John McCain of Arizona, who compared the situation to “a centipede”. He added: “I guarantee you there will be more shoes to drop, I can just guarantee it.”
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
