2020 Election

That is, assuming Medicare for All works. When I hear "Medicare", I think of a program I don't expect to benefit from because it will run out of money in less than a decade. Of course, that could be fixed by a government disposed to do so, but it's still an uncertainty.

 

We're not a monolith and this is the primary season. I believe what we're doing is individually deciding which candidate best represents our interests and then we'll all go vote as individuals. Whichever candidate gets the most votes will then push their agenda.
And in the meantime we're discussing and exchanging ideas on HF

Congress usually flips every few years by the way.

 

The two party system and the way votes count in your country should be destroyed

 

Medicare for all is a misnomer really, as it wont be an extension of our current Medicare program. It would be a single payer program that would take the place of Medicare, medicaid, and private insurance

But if what you're saying is true, that millions of elderly who depend on Medicare will be left with no access to healthcare in less than 10 years....then we've got a really huge health crisis on our hands that needs to be addressed immediately

 

Yeah
This thread is a good example of the need for a third party (or more!).
Some of us here are pretty ideologically opposed, and yet we're all supposed to be represented by the same party.

It's a little absurd

 

Damn it, you're right. We're just trying to get rid of Trump so we can install a new puppet Democrat that will push an agenda Republicans approve of. That's the smart thing to do.

 

Brilliant Neon !

Yes, just what we need another puppet government just like the one we have . Of course it'll come with a little tweak here and there in order to deceive the masses into believing change has finally arrived while our slave masters , (you do remember them ? ), the banksters, brokerage houses, industrial titans, big pharma, insurance lobby, military industrial complex and the rest of the 1% continue to call the shots from their golden corridors.

Real change will not happen while playing footsie with the 1% in order to gain power.

 

Real change won't happen without them. Do you really think that the president we have now is pretty much like the ones we've had in the past, including Obama? Same ol', same ol'? If so, that's where we radically differ. One more term of Trump and dystopia may be here to stay, and I promise you won't like it!

 

You are wise beyond your years. I am all in if you want a revolution. A revolution that actually changes things, but to have that, you need the majority of the population to be all in. Talk is cheap, action not so much.

 

I get your sarcasm, but you, and Melial don't seem to understand that trump is your enemy, at least I hope so, and not pragmatic democrats.

 

Selling the laws of this country to lobbyists isn't pragmatism. It's oligarchy and it's tyranny. I do want Trump out, but it's never not the time for progressive change. We don't have time to waste anyway. A decade, that's what we've got to act on climate change. Of course, we're not going to. We're basically screwed at this point, if the threat was ever real. But this underlines the fact that all progressive policies are for the here and now. They can't wait.

Besides that, this is all just assuming, for some unknown reason, that a progressive candidate can't beat Trump. Bernie Sanders could wipe the floor with Trump. The problem is, people don't want to progress as a nation. Even the Democrats are elitist scum who want a lower caste and an upper caste of people. They don't want a happy, contented working/lower class. They want us to suffer, because it helps them to see how good they have it.

 

If that's true, how do you propose to change anything? When we're talking about getting rid of the influence of our "slave mastrs'--i.e., "the banksters, brokerage houses, industrial titans, big pharma, insurance lobby, military industrial complex and the rest of the 1%", we're obviously talking revolution. Even the great revolutionary thinkers like Marx, Lennin and Trotsky recognized that the precondition to successful revolution was a revolutionary situation. Lennin recognized the danger of premature revolution, and criticized 'left wing communism" as an "infantile disorder."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Left-Wing%22_Communism:_An_Infantile_Disorder .
Currently, at a time of full employment and a record-high stock market, conditions don't seem ripe for revolution. Most people don't feel like slaves groaning under tyranny, so are not inclined to follow the revolutionaries into the unknown. "A tweak here, a tweak there" will suit them just fine. Problem is, if enough Democrats talk like you do, people will be ready to crown the Donald Fuhrer for life.

 

Republicans are just as bad, if not worse, than Democrats. Democrats are just a bigger disappointment to me. I expect Republicans to not give a shit about the poor and needy and working people of the world. But I was raised in a Democratic household where that sort of thing was looked down upon. And now I find that the Democrats are really no different. Everybody's just looking out for number one.

The time is always ripe for the one revolution we'll always need, and that is one of compassion and consideration for the less fortunate. A great wealth of people in this country are not doing very well at all. Many are on the poverty line. Many are dying because they can't afford their medicine. A good stock market isn't changing that. It hit record highs, and the situation in this country is still the same. Our infrastructure is screwed. There is vast homelessness. Flint still doesn't have clean water. Etc. etc.

If you're talking about violent bloodshed, then you're in the Lenin vein of what it means to be a revolutionary. Guys like that thirst for glory, and believe violence is glorious. But a real revolution comes from within. Capitalist doctrine would have us all believe that greed and selfishness are the basic constructs of human nature, and if you don't reject that very premise...if you go along with it like it's fun and games...I don't know what I can tell you. I do expect more from humanity, however. Many of us do. We find that attitude unacceptable.

 

I

I agree with everything you wrote.

 

This is simplistic and black and white
I feel like I've put a fair bit of nuance into the opinions I've shared here and they shouldn't be condensed into "yOu tHiNk bIdEn iS tHe EnEmY"
One thing, I dont consider myself a Democrat. I often vote third party. Sometimes I vote Democrat.
I didnt vote for a Democrat at all after 2008, until the primary when Bernie ran in 2016. That's 8 years of washing my hands clean of the party.
I'm very disillusioned with the two party system and I think both parties are beholden to corporate interests. Monied interests have cost our country a lot. We've fallen very far behind the rest of the first world.
Republicans are largely to blame for that but Democrats haven't done much to clean up the Republicans' mess either. And at the end of the day both parties are working for the same donors.
And here you are telling me I have no reason to be critical of another Democrat who wont really do anything to progress this country forward and who takes a lot of money from corporate donors.

I know Trump sucks but Trump is a symptom. If we dont get someone in office who is willing to make big changes we're going to have another Trump sooner rather than later.
And again, this is the primary season. It's a little too early to start talking about holding my nose to vote against Trump when there are a few pretty intriguing candidates who have released some really good policy and who arent beholden to corporate donors.
I'm pretty excited about the possibility of voting FOR someone rather than against someone.
You dont have to agree with me but you should probably not condescend to me and tell me I dont understand. I think I have a pretty good understanding.
By the way pragmatic generally tends to be a term used to describe candidates who wont really do anything to piss off their corporate donors, or piss off Republicans. Spineless politicians.

 

I think Elizabeth Warren is pragmatic

Bernie, I will admit, is more focused on the big picture (which is a good picture to focus on) and sometimes ignores the smaller details...but presidents are surrounded by aides as well as their cabinet for a reason, you can be a big picture leader and surround yourself with small details people and still be a pragmatic president.

 

I tend to agree with John Ladd
There are some ethical, conscientious companies out there but they're generally the exception rather than the rule.
Which is fine, I have no problem with businesses being about their bottom line, but that's precisely why it's important to keep corporate money out of politics; because the government has a responsibility to temper the excesses of corporate greed and environmental waste to protect the consumer, and they cant do that if all elected officials are paid for by the same industries that need regulation.

Anyways as far as financing, there is more than one candidate proving successful campaigns can be funded by the people

 

even progressives.
Note: some of the post on here espouse a utopian point of view. A utopian government will never exist as long as there is money in politics.

 

It's not money that's the problem. It's specifically the people, certain people who can't handle having money, who shouldn't have a lot of money in the first place, because they are innately bad people. But money can be utilized wisely in the hands of good people. I don't think it necessarily corrupts. It's just that it's all that matters to really stupid people.