Originally Posted by MordecaiK

There is a world of difference between the way Obama handled McConnell and Boehner and FDR's "Martin Barton and Fish speech

Yes there is, but you are missing the most important difference. Obama was dealing with McConnell and Boehner in ca. 1934-37 (cycle equivalent) in a world where the GOP controlled part or all of Congress, while FDR's speech was in 1940, after nearly 8 years of continuous Democratic control of the government. Also FDR was not a lame duck, in just a few days he was to win an unprecedented third term. The 1940 cycle equivalent is still in our future. it will be the next president (if a Democrat) who will deal with the Martin Barton and Fish of this 4T. And the response will strongly colored by the balance of power and our position in the cycle.

Rulers do not have sole power to direct history as they wish. They have to work within the constraints imposed by historical dynamics.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I saw the same thing. And this is still perfectly possible* All you have to do to get single payer, is to let Medicare bargain with the drug companies and to participate in the ACA exchanges. The premiums must be set so as to not incur any loss to the Medicare system. A simple modification. Sanders wants to scrap the ACA and delay single payer for who knows how long.

-- what do you mean by "delay single payor"? Bernie wants to lower the Medicare age to 0 asap. As soon as somebody is born they'll be covered with Medicare (do you know you got a month to get a newborn baby on health ins?) Yeah Bernie wants to get rid if those stoopidass exchanges. They will be superfulous anyhow bcuz everybody will be on Medicare

*Why do you suppose the GOP have been fighting the ACA with everything they got. I posted back in 2009 that the ACA was a political WMD the GOP had to defeat before it too hold. If Democrats win in 2016, then the ACA will be here to stay.

-- let's hope not bcuz it's a scam

Originally Posted by playwrite

... If one is naïve enough to believe that anything Bernie has offered to get the nomination has even a slight chance of being accomplished, then you might find him credible.

If you're full-bore into Clinton Hater Derangement Syndrome, you might find Sanders artful smear of Clinton as credible.

The real problem, however, is if Bernie is the nominee, his credibility is going to get shredded in the general. And if he survives that, what made him seem credible will be what isolates him in the WH as the crabby old guy who can get nothing done - abandoned by the same people that abandoned Obama when they didn't get their promised magic ponies. Saviors tend to get crucified by their own people.

This has absolutely nothing to do with hating the Clintons, or Hillary in particular. It's not just a philosophical difference either. Its a strategic decision to move the country onto a new path ... much as Reagan did in 1980. It may not work, but fighting an ongoing war of attrition has proven to be fully self defeating. Something needs to change. If you missed the link in the last posting by mockingbirdstl, then here it is again. Keep in mind that the poster is a PhD student, so these are the thoughts of a Millennial ... and not atypical I'm sure.

Einstein's dictum about repeating past failures applies here in full. We know what doesn't work ... not even under the tutelage of a brilliant and charismatic POTUS.

Originally Posted by playwrite

There is the judiciary including the SCOTUS, and that is a change your children will be living with.

And that is an excellent example of how the two tactics will play out.

With President Sanders we'll get an in-your-face, in a highly public way, SCOTUS nominee and give the GOP Congressional Critters not only an excuse to hold up the confirmation indefinitely but to rally their amygdala-dominated for the 2018 mid-terms. By then, the crabby-old-man-isolated-in-the-WH meme will be in full bloom and the disappointed former BernieBros coupled with foaming-at-the-mouth amygdala-dominated will result in a landslide for the GOP - just in time to set the stage for the 2020 census and locking in gerrymandered GOP dominance for another decade.

This scenario is what makes the usual run-of-the mill cynicism of maybe-a-GOPer-in-the-WH-won't-be-so-bad stupid and suicidal.

On the other hand, with President Clinton, most of the work for the SCOTUS nominee will be behind the scenes. Likely, the BernieBros, still-seething over their savior's nomination lost, will see the eventual nominee as a sellout which will actually help the nominee get through the confirmation process and not hand the GOP the touchstone to motivate their amygdala-dominated into a mouth-foaming 2018 voters. Then, some SCOTUS decisions taking the juice out of campaign funding, protecting pro-choice, limiting guns, etc. will make it clear to everyone what HC accomplished

The stakes are very high; its not the time to just let the chips fall where they may on the empty set of promises just to show how frustrated you are - the other side doesn't give a shXt how you feel.

You are looking at the wrong picture here. Sanders is reconnecting with average Americans, because he refuses to use the language of identity politics. That's why Trump is doing well too. Decoupling the white working class from the GOP is worth the short term risks. This is the long game now, because the short game has been an abject failure.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I wanted to address this separately because I think it goes to the very heart of why Sanders is appealing particularly to the young and those of us who see our younger selves in their enthusiasm.

There is this sense that Sanders will bring to Washington the power of the people to move Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan to get on the socialist train or else!

Or else what, exactly?

You only move people to change if they are threatened. Hillary is a whipping post for the entire GOP, because she fails to motivate the people the Mitch McConnnels and Paul Ryans need to get elected. She's a perfect foil. Sanders and Trump have changed that paradigm. McConnell and Ryan won't be happy to see Trump in the WH either.

Originally Posted by PW ...

We know that around 30% of voters are on the extreme opposite end of the political spectrum, and at least as vocal; to the extent those folks are represented by Senators and by gerrymandering Representatives, those Congress critter will NEVER accept Sanders' agenda. That alone has been shown to frustrate even a 'moderate' agenda of Obama. If you add those on both sides of the aisle that would have some doubts about a "socialist agenda" (because that meme will be constantly pounded on), the likelihood of anything moving for Sanders is nil.

So what happens then?

There may be a period of head banging. The Sanders' message is simple: lift the country up from the bottom. The votes tend to be where Bernie is looking for them, if they'll rally. If they do, the rest takes care of itself .. if not now, then 2018 or 2020.

Reagan had the benefit of deregulation under Carter to make his march to the right palatable. Bernie may need to do the same for some other President to follow.

Originally Posted by PW ...

We lived through a time of major social upheaval and protest against the Vietnam War, that took years. And sorry, as much as single payer motivates the Left, it ain't an unjust war with 58000 dead.

And really, do you think the Millies are up for that?

Are you counting on Twitter shXtstorms from Millies to force those GOP meanies to do the right thing?

Is there an app for that?

No war is needed. Once ignited, self interest will be more than enough. At the moment, anyone not in the top 10% has been moving backwards. That's a lot of people.

Originally Posted by Odin

Frankly, I no longer give a shit what people like you think, anymore. You are completely mired in Establishment conventional thinking and are no different than all the other Boomer Clinton supporters who can't help themselves from shitting on Millennials.

You will in the general if Sanders is the nominee.

He's going to be sliced and diced by the GOP. Clinton has treated him with the daintiest kid gloves in comparison.

His chances of winning in the general are slim, but they are absolutely zero without people like me.

I'm smart enough to support whoever the Dem is to keep a GOPer out of the WH, but there's plenty of people like me who are toying with the idea of staying home to not only get Kinser's hoped-for suicide pact of a GOPer driving the national car back into the ditch again, but to allow today's Far Lefty need for their own George McGovern in order to grow a brain.

Myself, I'll support Sanders and hope he gets elected, even though it will inevitable bring about the task of defending him for four years with his former BernieBot supporters - just like I did with the '08 Obamatrons when they abandoned their prior savior.

Originally Posted by Odin

Hillary will give in to the Republicans on all the things that matter and hide that with superficial BS that lets her make a BS list that "proves" to gullible idiots how "progressive" she is.

If you think Hillary, who is 100% corrupted by monied interests wants to bite the hand that feeds her and enact campaign finance reform then YOU are the delusional one.

There is a 93% overlap in Clinton and Sanders voting record; could be higher if Sanders wasn't an ammosexual.

I know its hard for one with Clinton Hater Derangement Syndrome to read that and comprehend; and your's is a particularly virulent.

But read that simple line a couple times and try to let it sink in. It could open a whole new world to you.

Most Democrats have supported campaign finance reform all along, and so have the Justices that Democratic presidents appointed. Republicans stand in the way. Many Democrats use the current system because they don't want to unilaterally disarm themselves.

But Sanders is doing a great thing by relying on individual contributions.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

A President Sanders has a bully pulpit to organise opposition to Republican congresspeople who stand in his way. FDR did that. There is a world of difference between the way Obama handled McConnell and Boehner and FDR's "Martin Barton and Fish speech (on a much harder sell than the New Deal, getting involved in the struggle against Hitler) See http://livefromthetrail.com/about-th...lano-roosevelt

If they don't give in, THAT"S when we may see some more radical solutions like a Constitutional Convention to change some of these rules, possibly leading to a break-up and partial solutions in liberal parts of the Union. It is at the state legislature level that Bernie's Army might well prove most effective if deployed there. Even the realistic threat of a ConCon in which EVERYTHING would be up for grabs might force some very conservative congresspeople to reconsider their positions. It comes down to a refusal of liberals and progressives to let themselves be bullied by conservatives as they have been since the 1990s. Unlike a lot of people who talk revolution, I think Bernie really means it.

And if you have been reading the stories from the Mideast, we may soon have another Vietnam--even before the next President takes office. Saudi Arabia and Turkey are demanding that the US commit troops to fight with them against ISIS AND the Assad Regime and the Russians. Bernie (or Trump) may not be able to say "Hell no! We won't go! if we are already there. https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/0...-iii-in-syria/


Twiiter ShXstorms can turn into flash mobs very easily, as we saw with Occupy. And Tahrir Square. At least SOME Millies ARE Civics, known for courage. And even Artists have some courage. After all, the Freedom Riders were War Baby Artists. So yes, Millies can generate a great deal of "people power". Especially if an incumbent President Sanders pulls a Corazon Aquino and calls them out. And refuses to allow federal troops or federal agencies to be active in suppressing them. Refusing to allow the US Government to suppress protesters is something a President CAN do unilaterally.

Bernie called and says he wants to talk to directly about being one of his rebel army's generals!


He's sending a motorcade to pick you up -





Honestly, you all have so much farther to fall than even the '08 Obamatrons. It's going to be really ugly.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Odin is indeed delusional; most Democrats have supported campaign finance reform all along, and so have the Justices that Democratic presidents appointed. Republicans stand in the way. Many Democrats use the current system because they don't want to unilaterally disarm themselves.

But Sanders is doing a great thing by relying on individual contributions.

I suspect campaign finance reform won't come until a large number of people become really serious about not voting for candidates who take corporate money. Corporate money has to become more of a red flag indicating a corrupt politician than a benefit to securing election. One can only hope Sanders makes it work and that other politicians start copying him.

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- he can take his case to the ppl when he wants something done. That's what Roosevelt did with his radio fireside chats. He'd say "I want to do this, that, & the other thing but the repugs won't go along" & folx would get on their congresscritturs the next day. Bernie can do the same with social media. He's already using it with awesome results. Ever notice how whenever somebody trashes him ppl send him $? Not sure how that would translate once he's in office, but I'm pretty sure Bernie will know to motivate Congress to do what he wants


-- the Donald will simply pull the troops out if he don't want them there. Bernie will probably have to resort to more oblique tactics



--- this would be one such oblique tactic

pssss, Bernie is not FDR, neither McConnell or Ryan are Hitler, single payer is not the opposite of the Great Depression, and your fellow Americans, even t-baggers on their worse days, are not Nazis - well, at least not most of them.

If this is your basis for supporting Sanders, then I have little doubt that you will get what you deserve.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

No, his job was to win. Your political views prevent you from seeing Obama from the left. Obama was more conservative than Clinton, (you would have to read his books to know this since he hid it well during the campaign). Once in office he showed this by spending way too much time trying to compromise with Republicans. You can tell he's not a African American (he's a Kenyan American--big difference) or he would have known better. I voted for him because he had a plausible theory of change, and because I believed that with Obama there was an outside shot at a 60 seat majority in the Senate (I had it pegged at 58 for Clinton). I cannot complain. Yeah he's done stuff I don't like, but since I set up in advance what I would have done if I were he, I find that a lot of the stuff he's done I don't like is stuff I would have done. So I can't blame him for making the same mistakes I would have made.

Clinton is not a bad choice (again from my perspective) since now it is clear where the lines lay. There will be no attempts at triangulation. She knows that the Republican Congress will do everything in their power to sabotage anything she tries to do. She will be able to do little--unless the economy collapses (50% probability in my estimation). She will then have powerful leverage. Not everyone on the Right believes the economic bullshit Republican politicians peddle to their voters. Clinton will have all the Democrats in Congress, all Ryan will need to stave the collapse is as few dozen Republican votes, of which there are more than enough.

But Ryan cannot easily cave to Clinton, he will want to horse trade. He will want a partial rescue that prevents collapse, but ensures most working class Americans get hit hard. If Clinton goes for this, Republicans will win the 2020 election, and they will inherit a tepid recovery from a crash they can blame on Democrats. That is, they will be Obama's situation and will probably win their next term. With a new gerrymandered map the GOP will be in place for dominance for the next decade or two after 2020. This scenario is a win for the GOP.

If Clinton refuses, we fall into depression. She is crushed in 2020, Republicans come to power with huge Congressional dominance and a highly gerrymandered map. But they will inherit a depression, which will keep on falling as it did under Hoover. The remaining Democrats in Congress will not cooperate with the GOP rescue plan; they will have top pass it on 100% partly-line votes, like Obama had to. There is no way a GOP with a major Tea Party contingent will pass any sort of rescue, so it won't happen. They will either decide to let the market sort it out (the decision they made in 1929) or start a war, figuring WW II got us out of the Depression.

In the first case the depression will get worse and worse until Republicans are driven from power in 2022-6, just like they were over 1932-36. In the second case the war won't work, because it will be a conservative war. Recall the libertarian nostrum "War is the Health of the State". Big wars create big changes, none of them good for capitalists, which is why free market conservatives traditional oppose big wars. But the reason why WW II ended the Depression was BECAUSE it was the "health of the state", that is it was boku stimulus. The Republican war won't pull the country out of the depression any more than the Iraq war brought back 1990's prosperity. So they will now have a depression AND a war. Either way 2024 will then be a big-time wave election against the Republicans who will have over four years openly destroyed the country. It will be 1932 all over again.

Of course either way Clinton is fucked. She cannot win by normal* means unless Ryan agrees to play ball. He controls her fate.

But plenty of people on the Right are going to be aware of these scenarios. There will be pressure** on Ryan to play it safe, let Clinton have her rescue plan. By avoiding a depression nobody gets the blame for making one, and the political situation remains as it was in 2016, with Republicans dominant at the state level and in Congress, and the Dems holding the Presidency. They can live with that. There will be other opportunities to get Clinton. So maybe Ryan decides to play ball.

Then again all of the above only becomes possible if there is a panic in the next recession, which I believe is only 50% likely. So we are talking about probabilities on top of probabilities that are really hard to game.

*There is Playwrite's scenario depicted in the graphic with Hillary holding a big knife. I don't deem this likely at all, but who knows?

**There is zero chance the GOP will play ball with a socialist, the optics alone will destroy the party. Thus a Sanders presidency will deliver either GOP dominance for decades, or gives us a depression (and probably a war too). This is why I don't want him to be president. But I do support him in the primary because I think that an insurgent candidate who calls himself a (democratic) socialist and speaks of a (political) revolution who does really well with the Democratic base will stiffen Clinton's spine against caving to Ryan, and maybe make Playwrite's scenario* more appealing--if it comes to that. This gives more leverage to Clinton, whom I think has an excellent chance to be the next president--assuming we are in a 4T.

Not bad scenarios/analysis, but just a couple things -

- the '08 financial mess will not happen again, that's an 80-year thing. Politicians have survive recessions before and will likely do it again. The lost of aggregate demand is a slow grind that will shift the peaks and valleys lower but not in a catastrophic way. There's a lot of automatic stabilizers that will come into play that a GOP House will not be able to do anything about. All bets, however, are obviously off if we put a non-Trump GOPer in the WH - they'll strangle the economy in response to even a mild recession.

- you're forgetting demographics. The GOP is losing 2% of the electorate with every 2-year election; that's another 4% by 2020.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You are looking at the wrong picture here. Sanders is reconnecting with average Americans, because he refuses to use the language of identity politics. That's why Trump is doing well too. Decoupling the white working class from the GOP is worth the short term risks. This is the long game now, because the short game has been an abject failure.

I think Sanders speaks from genuine concern and eagerness to serve (the greatest potential trait of a Virgo ) .

He was a pioneer activist in the civil rights movement, who put his body on the line to oppose segregation. So, is that identity politics? He needs to make clear, perhaps through his ads, that his history and proposals are a lot closer to the concerns of African Americans than those of any other candidate.

But Trump? I don't see how he's NOT waging "identity politics." His targeting of Mexicans and Muslims, and his peculiar (and not altogether false) brand of nationalism, is identity politics. He appeals to those white working class folks who are afraid of the increasing racial and cultural diversity of the country. Trump wants to make America great again. I'm sure he sincerely thinks he can. But that's an identification with "America," at a time when we need to identify with the world. And what does "make America great again" mean? Keeping immigrants out? Anti-immigration is the key aspect of identity politics on the right. Trump sees that button and presses it for his political advantage.

Identity Politics has its point, when oppressed groups seek their freedom. But its eventual goal has to be, as Sanders says, to realize and act on the knowledge that "we are all in this together." And that's a spiritual attitude that comes through in Sanders' approach, character and personality. He is an honest and ethical activist, who has been following his heart and true vocation since his earliest days.

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- what do you mean by "delay single payor"? Bernie wants to lower the Medicare age to 0 asap. As soon as somebody is born they'll be covered with Medicare (do you know you got a month to get a newborn baby on health ins?) Yeah Bernie wants to get rid if those stoopidass exchanges. They will be superfulous anyhow bcuz everybody will be on Medicare

And Bernie's going to bring you one of these too!

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- let's hope not bcuz it's a scam

Ah, sorry, but over 12 million people with ACA insurance would disagree with you-



and over 14 million on expanded Medicaid as well -



You're not one of those 'Progressives' that already had insurance and don't really give a shxt about anyone else?
But I can see why you might have that viewpoint -

Originally Posted by playwrite

There is the judiciary including the SCOTUS, and that is a change your children will be living with.

And that is an excellent example of how the two tactics will play out.

With President Sanders we'll get an in-your-face, in a highly public way, SCOTUS nominee and give the GOP Congressional Critters not only an excuse to hold up the confirmation indefinitely but to rally their amygdala-dominated for the 2018 mid-terms. By then, the crabby-old-man-isolated-in-the-WH meme will be in full bloom and the disappointed former BernieBros coupled with foaming-at-the-mouth amygdala-dominated will result in a landslide for the GOP - just in time to set the stage for the 2020 census and locking in gerrymandered GOP dominance for another decade.

This scenario is what makes the usual run-of-the mill cynicism of maybe-a-GOPer-in-the-WH-won't-be-so-bad stupid and suicidal.

On the other hand, with President Clinton, most of the work for the SCOTUS nominee will be behind the scenes. Likely, the BernieBros, still-seething over their savior's nomination lost, will see the eventual nominee as a sellout which will actually help the nominee get through the confirmation process and not hand the GOP the touchstone to motivate their amygdala-dominated into a mouth-foaming 2018 voters. Then, some SCOTUS decisions taking the juice out of campaign funding, protecting pro-choice, limiting guns, etc. will make it clear to everyone what HC accomplished

The stakes are very high; its not the time to just let the chips fall where they may on the empty set of promises just to show how frustrated you are - the other side doesn't give a shXt how you feel.

The polls are giving some conflicting indications on whether the nomination race will shift in Bernie's direction. Most still give Hillary an advantage.

I doubt there's much difference between the way the GOP hardliners (that's most of them) would treat Hillary and the way they would treat Bernie, or their SCOTUS nominees. The only hope, perhaps a vain one, for either one of them to get anything much done that requires congress, is for the people to rally to their side and elect a Democratic congress despite the gerrymandering. That's a gigantic task, but Bernie is more-likely to accomplish it, because that's his agenda and his talent.

Bernie has shown that he can work with others and compromise to get things done, without abandoning his principles. That still means very little, given the nature of the GOP. But I am less pessimistic about how Bernie would be treated as opposed to Hillary. Bernie Sanders is a genuine leader and inspires people. He may be no Jack Kennedy, but he could be an FDR. Too bad he'll probably be too old to assume the role when the time is right.

Bernie is very vulnerable to withering Republican attacks for his "socialism" during the campaign and after, no doubt about that. Even so, the polls as well as the cosmic signs say he can do as well or better than the more "mainstream" Hillary. There's abundant reason to doubt that Bernie can pull it off, and that a "socialist" (even a "populist" one) can actually get elected president in the United States of Capitalist America; in the America that Rubio thinks we are, and that we want to continue to be. But, these ARE interesting 4T times, and many people are restive, and they are getting more and more ready for drastic change.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This has absolutely nothing to do with hating the Clintons, or Hillary in particular. It's not just a philosophical difference either. Its a strategic decision to move the country onto a new path ... much as Reagan did in 1980. It may not work, but fighting an ongoing war of attrition has proven to be fully self defeating. Something needs to change. If you missed the link in the last posting by mockingbirdstl, then here it is again. Keep in mind that the poster is a PhD student, so these are the thoughts of a Millennial ... and not atypical I'm sure.

Einstein's dictum about repeating past failures applies here in full. We know what doesn't work ... not even under the tutelage of a brilliant and charismatic POTUS.

With you (and for Rags as well), I'm not suggesting that its about Clinton hate. On the other hand, there are obviously those here whose cerebral lobes have been turned off by exactly that hate.

I also agree it is about strategy, I would lower it to actually being about tactics.

Your underlying assumption with "something needs to change" is it will be for the better. I see Sanders in the WH as being much more of risk of things becoming worse exactly because of his assumed tactics.

You know that there isn't a chance in hell of any of his magic ponies becoming reality through an immovable GOP House. I'm pretty sure you're not banking on Millies to do anything more when called upon other than adding some 'likes/dislikes' to Facebook pages in protest; maybe the more committed ones will go join a drum circle somewhere but I doubt it will last as long as Occupy Wall Street - too many distractions and where are they going to plug in their PlayStations? Compare their 'fever' to that of what it took years to barely accomplish in the 60s.

So exactly what do you think is going to happen when all of Bernie's jumping up and down gets him even less than what Obama got? You really think the Debs, Odins and others wanting their faux revolutionary are going to stick around? If not, what happens to Bernie? SNL skits alone are going to kill him off as a political force and set the GOP up for big wins in 2018 and 2020 - that's game over for you and me.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You are looking at the wrong picture here. Sanders is reconnecting with average Americans, because he refuses to use the language of identity politics. That's why Trump is doing well too. Decoupling the white working class from the GOP is worth the short term risks. This is the long game now, because the short game has been an abject failure.

If that decoupling only required speeches and being really really really outraged, you might be right.

Sorry, but it is going to take actual results. Otherwise, it just becomes everyone is lying and apathy sets in. Apathy is what the 1% want more than anything from the other 99%

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You only move people to change if they are threatened. Hillary is a whipping post for the entire GOP, because she fails to motivate the people the Mitch McConnnels and Paul Ryans need to get elected. She's a perfect foil. Sanders and Trump have changed that paradigm. McConnell and Ryan won't be happy to see Trump in the WH either.

Just because McConnell and Ryan's world is worse than Clinton doesn't make Trump's world at least as bad.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There may be a period of head banging. The Sanders' message is simple: lift the country up from the bottom. The votes tend to be where Bernie is looking for them, if they'll rally. If they do, the rest takes care of itself .. if not now, then 2018 or 2020.

Reagan had the benefit of deregulation under Carter to make his march to the right palatable. Bernie may need to do the same for some other President to follow.


No war is needed. Once ignited, self interest will be more than enough. At the moment, anyone not in the top 10% has been moving backwards. That's a lot of people.

The fundamental mistake people are making is thinking this is some sort of revolution against some amorphous middle that ranges from Clinton to Ryan. Is about the most preposterous shxt one could dream up, and I think that's why it is such an easy sell - I use to make a living at this.

This is not a revolution, this is a civil war.

Treat it as a revolution and your own zealots are going to step aside when you don't (because you can't) deliver and let the other side disembowel you as they move on to their next savior.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think Sanders speaks from genuine concern and eagerness to serve (the greatest potential trait of a Virgo ) .

He was a pioneer activist in the civil rights movement, who put his body on the line to oppose segregation. So, is that identity politics? He needs to make clear, perhaps through his ads, that his history and proposals are a lot closer to the concerns of African Americans than those of any other candidate.

But Trump? I don't see how he's NOT waging "identity politics." His targeting of Mexicans and Muslims, and his peculiar (and not altogether false) brand of nationalism, is identity politics. He appeals to those white working class folks who are afraid of the increasing racial and cultural diversity of the country. Trump wants to make America great again. I'm sure he sincerely thinks he can. But that's an identification with "America," at a time when we need to identify with the world. And what does "make America great again" mean? Keeping immigrants out? Anti-immigration is the key aspect of identity politics on the right. Trump sees that button and presses it for his political advantage.

Identity Politics has its point, when oppressed groups seek their freedom. But its eventual goal has to be, as Sanders says, to realize and act on the knowledge that "we are all in this together." And that's a spiritual attitude that comes through in Sanders' approach, character and personality. He is an honest and ethical activist, who has been following his heart and true vocation since his earliest days.

Why is Trump winning? He is practicing almost picture perfect counter-identity politics. Will he win friends in the Latino community? Actually, he might. he gets credit for being totally honest, even though he's dancing a lot more than he's crusading.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Ah, sorry, but over 12 million people with ACA insurance would disagree with you-

In Massachusetts it's as much Romney Care as Obama Care, but I'm one who is covered and am very pleased to be covered. Still, I can see why it is called a scam. The insurance companies are skimming a lot off the top. For a while I was doing pay as you go. As soon as Romneycare started coming in, the prices of prescription drugs started to skyrocket. One of the wrinkles is that those who refuse to play along with the scam get scammed big time. Prices are being inflated through the roof and I've no doubt that the insurance companies are taking their cut.

I'd prefer single payer. I think ACA is a scam. It's just the best scam we've got.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... Ah, sorry, but over 12 million people with ACA insurance would disagree with you-


and over 14 million on expanded Medicaid as well -


You're not one of those 'Progressives' that already had insurance and don't really give a shxt about anyone else?
But I can see why you might have that viewpoint -

I have yet to meet one person excited (or even happy) about having the ACA insurance, unless they received close to the maximum subsidy. It's like whack-a-mole. Get everyone insured, and the insurers get in bed with the providers. Now, we need to address that. Following that fix (assuming it happens a some point), then we'll have to address Big Pharma.

The healthcare system is getting even more broken than it was, and guaranteeing a steady flow of money may be part of the cause. We need to impose some order, but the "Freedom Caucus" just yells OPPRESSION!, and we back off. If we ever get to the point that we understand that the needs of all outweighs the desires of the few, we may make progress. Not yet, though.

Originally Posted by playwrite

With you (and for Rags as well), I'm not suggesting that its about Clinton hate. On the other hand, there are obviously those here whose cerebral lobes have been turned off by exactly that hate.

I also agree it is about strategy, I would lower it to actually being about tactics.

Your underlying assumption with "something needs to change" is it will be for the better. I see Sanders in the WH as being much more of risk of things becoming worse exactly because of his assumed tactics.

You know that there isn't a chance in hell of any of his magic ponies becoming reality through an immovable GOP House. I'm pretty sure you're not banking on Millies to do anything more when called upon other than adding some 'likes/dislikes' to Facebook pages in protest; maybe the more committed ones will go join a drum circle somewhere but I doubt it will last as long as Occupy Wall Street - too many distractions and where are they going to plug in their PlayStations? Compare their 'fever' to that of what it took years to barely accomplish in the 60s.

So exactly what do you think is going to happen when all of Bernie's jumping up and down gets him even less than what Obama got? You really think the Debs, Odins and others wanting their faux revolutionary are going to stick around? If not, what happens to Bernie? SNL skits alone are going to kill him off as a political force and set the GOP up for big wins in 2018 and 2020 - that's game over for you and me.

Neither one of us is young anymore, so our path off the planet is relatively short (20 years +/-) and reasonably well defined (unless you have plans to the contrary, we're not starting the next Instagram or Snapchat). Millies, on the other hand, have decades to go before they rest, and it's just now dawning on them that they own this, like it of not. I don't know how they will react, but they have the most to gain and lose by making good or bad choices.

Reactionaries win when no one opposes them. They make opposition very hard and failure highly costly. Then again, they are inherently weak. Other than money, they lack resources and numbers.

Originally Posted by playwrite

If that decoupling only required speeches and being really really really outraged, you might be right.

Sorry, but it is going to take actual results. Otherwise, it just becomes everyone is lying and apathy sets in. Apathy is what the 1% want more than anything from the other 99%

Reagan ran it the other way by being his congenial self, and not much more. It's hard to know what tips the balance, but it happens. Why not this time? The justification is certainly there.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... The fundamental mistake people are making is thinking this is some sort of revolution against some amorphous middle that ranges from Clinton to Ryan. Is about the most preposterous shxt one could dream up, and I think that's why it is such an easy sell - I use to make a living at this.

This is not a revolution, this is a civil war.

Treat it as a revolution and your own zealots are going to step aside when you don't (because you can't) deliver and let the other side disembowel you as they move on to their next savior.

I don't disagree. I do disagree about who is on which side. If you read the article by Benjamin Studebaker that was posted earlier (or this one on Sanders in particular), then you saw the argument that the DLC and the GOP are much the same. They are authoritarian and, more or less, conservative on economic issues, all eyewash propaganda to the contrary.

Sanders is neither, and it's time to make the point that a left-libertarian is a better choice. If the point is never made, then how does anyone get the option to select it?

What you do counts a lot more than what you say, and Sanders is consistently NOT part of the authoritarian right.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I have yet to meet one person excited (or even happy) about having the ACA insurance, unless they received close to the maximum subsidy. It's like whack-a-mole. Get everyone insured, and the insurers get in bed with the providers. Now, we need to address that. Following that fix (assuming it happens a some point), then we'll have to address Big Pharma.

The healthcare system is getting even more broken than it was, and guaranteeing a steady flow of money may be part of the cause. We need to impose some order, but the "Freedom Caucus" just yells OPPRESSION!, and we back off. If we ever get to the point that we understand that the needs of all outweighs the desires of the few, we may make progress. Not yet, though.

A few years ago I started to do intensive auditing of not only the insurance AOBs but also the providers' claims and coding. At this point I am 100% convinced of two things:
1) The quality levels at both ends suck eggs.
2) And in cases where there are not booboos going on, there is a serious cat and mouse game going on. A sad percentage of care providers I thought were OK are actually thieves on an ongoing basis - e.g. upcode / submit fraudulent claims for work never done, etc, as SOP.

Some simple auditing and enforcement could hit a lot of low hanging fruit.