Alexandria Occasional-Cortex and the "Green New Deal".

[Gopher Gary]

Everyone should get over Bernie and Biden. They had their chance and they blew it. The democrats need something better than cold stale leftovers from the last election, so those two need to step aside and make room for someone who hasn't already maxed out their life expectancy. 

[Gopher Gary]

Way to kill the thread, Jack. 

I'll sling mud with you guys. So which one of you commie pseudo-tree huggers is going to pay for my new electric car?  I'm little so I wont mind one of those teeny tiny ones that's the least expensive.

You get a clear plastic ball and will love it.

Come on man, I can't travel long distances in that. It doesn't even have to be a new electric car, I'd settle for a used one. I'm totally willing to compromise for the sake of the environment. 

You'd just chew the wires and it wouldn't work.

Hush up. I'm about to score Sugarbutt a free scooter basket. 

[odeon]

Everyone should get over Bernie and Biden. They had their chance and they blew it. The democrats need something better than cold stale leftovers from the last election, so those two need to step aside and make room for someone who hasn't already maxed out their life expectancy. 

This I agree with.

[Gopher Gary]

OMG I WIN!!

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

[Jack]

The real conspiracy theory behind her is she's a plant. That's doubtfully true, but she's still probably the most divisive and destructive force in the democrat party. It seems to the benefit of the republicans to give her a lot of attention.

[Calandale]

The right has been painting the widening ideological chasm between the major parties
as both sides' fault for so long, when the Dems are basically where they were in the
70's and 80's (or where Conservative Republicans of the era were in some cases - people
who couldn't be in today's party, like Reagan). Well, if you're gonna get accused and pay
for something, you might as well own it, I guess. Because, as it's been, the con-job has
been somewhat effective, without doing a damned thing to energize the real base.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

The right has been painting the widening ideological chasm between the major parties
as both sides' fault for so long, when the Dems are basically where they were in the
70's and 80's (or where Conservative Republicans of the era were in some cases - people
who couldn't be in today's party, like Reagan). Well, if you're gonna get accused and pay
for something, you might as well own it, I guess. Because, as it's been, the con-job has
been somewhat effective, without doing a damned thing to energize the real base.

Cal, why you aint been drinking the Kool Aid?

I heard a few people say that HRC was a good candidate because politically she was similar to a typical conservative Republican candidate from a few decades earlier. And yet by modern standards she is painted by some a dangerous leftist, a socialist.

You have debates driven by rightist ideology. The ideology, for example, that governments cannot run anything efficiently. That the private sector can run healthcare more efficiently. And yet the US has by a significant margin the most expensive healthcare in the world by $ value and as a percentage of GDP (both per capita) with some of the worst outcomes. This is a fact.

[Jack]

The right has been painting the widening ideological chasm between the major parties
as both sides' fault for so long, when the Dems are basically where they were in the
70's and 80's (or where Conservative Republicans of the era were in some cases - people
who couldn't be in today's party, like Reagan). Well, if you're gonna get accused and pay
for something, you might as well own it, I guess. Because, as it's been, the con-job has
been somewhat effective, without doing a damned thing to energize the real base.

Obama was often called a conservative, even a republican, largely because of his continuation of the Bush administration's security and defense policies, and leading the US through 8 years of armed conflict after conflict. Though it was also because he was very economically conservative and received a lot criticism from the left for protecting corporate profits. Even the ACA was a republican health policy, and Obama's senior advisor openly said Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan was the template for Obama's plan. The only reason it didn't receive republican support is because a democrat put it on the table. There lies the true chasm, and it is the fault of both sides. In a different thread you once said to me, compromise in government is a thing of the past, and that's absolutely true. It's an all or nothing game of voting blocks.

[Jack]

The right has been painting the widening ideological chasm between the major parties
as both sides' fault for so long, when the Dems are basically where they were in the
70's and 80's (or where Conservative Republicans of the era were in some cases - people
who couldn't be in today's party, like Reagan). Well, if you're gonna get accused and pay
for something, you might as well own it, I guess. Because, as it's been, the con-job has
been somewhat effective, without doing a damned thing to energize the real base.

Cal, why you aint been drinking the Kool Aid?

I heard a few people say that HRC was a good candidate because politically she was similar to a typical conservative Republican candidate from a few decades earlier. And yet by modern standards she is painted by some a dangerous leftist, a socialist.

You have debates driven by rightist ideology. The ideology, for example, that governments cannot run anything efficiently. That the private sector can run healthcare more efficiently. And yet the US has by a significant margin the most expensive healthcare in the world by $ value and as a percentage of GDP (both per capita) with some of the worst outcomes. This is a fact.

Would rather see the government prove it can provide for the people who need them. It's a fact the majority of Americans simply don't need government health coverage, and the ones who do should be the priority.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

I recently had an emergency medical procedure, involving a brief stay in hospital. Without universal health care it would have cost me a small fortune. I would guess $10K to $20K, certainly a lot more if it had been in the US. With universal health care it cost me.... a train fare to get to the hospital. And AUD$10 for eye drops. That's it. I didn't even have to pay for the crap food they gave me.

It's far from perfect, many things that should be covered are not and there are waiting lists for many non-emergency treatments. I don't have private cover, but it really is a good idea if you want to avoid those waiting lists.

Every country with nationalised health care spends less on health care than the US does. By every measure. Every. Single. One.

[Jack]

So what if the US spends more on healthcare? What does that have to do with the government providing healthcare to people who don't have it? Have read different reports ranging from 9-13% still uninsured. It's estimated 20% of the uninsured can afford it and choose not to, and 25% qualify for government coverage but don't seek it for whatever reason. The other 55% are simply falling through the cracks left by the ACA. Why does there have to be universal healthcare to provide for those people?  Americans also have a higher median income and lower cost of living than many other countries, what does that have to do with government failing to provide for those in need?

[Gopher Gary]

If it makes anyone feel better, in the last month Trumps approval ratings have risen back up to 45%, the same as during his first month in office. 

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

There's a problem with compromise.

You can either dig your heels in or you can meet the other side halfway in order to get stuff done.

Imagine a situation where you have a nominally right-wing party and a nominally left-wing party. The left-wing part keeps on compromising and moving closer to the centre. The right-wing party responds by.... moving further and further to the right.

After a while the compromises of the left have actually dragged it so far to the right that it has gone way past the centre and is now further to the right than the right-wing party was when they got started. The right-wing party, on the other hand, has kept moving so far to the right that the rest of the world is starting to draw comparisons with the Third Reich.

The left-wing party is now in a situation where anyone who actually gives a fuck about working people, and wants billionaires to pay some tax, and who doesn't want to destroy the planet in pursuit of profits.... starts to look like an extremist even by the standards of the formerly left-wing party. And then when they start to finally dig their heels in over the more extreme measures that the far-right wants to implement.... they get accused of not wanting to compromise any more.

[Jack]

That seems to be based in the assumption the right is filled with extremist and the left isn't. It was said at the beginning of this thread, both sides has its extremists, they aren't the core of their party, and it's a bad idea to give them too much attention. That's all true and comparing the right to Hitler is no less absurd than comparing the left to Stalin. Jack will hold out hope for the moderates of both sides.