Obama to net $400K for Wall Street speech

[Padawanbater2]

You know that's absurd. There's a huge difference that you overlook, simply because of campaign contributions?

I don't believe it's absurd at all. Obama has done some good things, but he's also done some bad things, and all we ever hear out of partisan establishment Democratic supporters are the good things, never the bad things. In fact, as you can plainly see, whenever anyone, even a progressive, criticizes any of his policies, they get labeled a racist (even if they voted for him!).

We didn't rule on Citizen's United, their scotus appointees did.

So, we're stuck with it. I expect our side to compete.

They made the rules and it could be decades until we can change it.

Accepting corporate money and super PAC money to win elections is not the rule. You simply believe it is because that's how the system has been working for so long and you've been bombarded by propaganda that tells you we have to take it to be able to compete. This is an opinion, not a fact. Sanders and Trump both utilized a populist message during the campaign and they were both extremely popular, especially Sanders amongst the grassroots. If the entire Democratic party came out tomorrow and signed a pledge that said they won't accept corporate money or super PAC money, and highlight the fact that Republicans do and that makes them beholden to their corporate interests, they would win in a landslide until they don't anymore. People are fed up with this shit, across the nation, both red and blue as Sanders has demonstrated by receiving standing ovations in deep red districts.

Your constant pounding on Democrats isn't strengthening the party, and your desire to move the party further left doesn't match the current political climate.

You work with what you have and do the best you can.

The current Democratic party is as much an obstacle to progress as the Republican party. Once enough of them are unseated by actual progressives, then we will build unity. I have no desire to unify with a party that doesn't support single payer healthcare or campaign finance reform. That party is already dead to me.

The people, progressives, are already there. They simply don't have a viable party to support. On every major issue except gun control, a majority of the country swings left. Every poll demonstrates this. Healthcare, education, minimum wage, the drug war, for profit prison, wars and the military industrial complex, the list is endless. The problem is we don't have a party that champions these issues because Democrats by and large are not beholden to their constituents, they're beholden to their corporate donors because they're the ones who fund their campaigns. If they're not happy with what Joe Politician does, they won't donate to him again. This ensures Joe does their bidding or gets primaried by someone who will.

 

[UncleBuck]

The current Democratic party is as much an obstacle to progress as the Republican party.

^^^^this is delusional.

 

[Padawanbater2]

^^^^this is delusional.

They enacted a right-wing healthcare plan when they had a supermajority in congress and could have passed single payer

The desire to do so wasn't there because even Democrats are beholden to their corporate donors

 

[ttystikk]

You know that's absurd. There's a huge difference that you overlook, simply because of campaign contributions?

We didn't rule on Citizen's United, their scotus appointees did.

So, we're stuck with it. I expect our side to compete.

They made the rules and it could be decades until we can change it.

Your constant pounding on Democrats isn't strengthening the party, and your desire to move the party further left doesn't match the current political climate.

You work with what you have and do the best you can.

That's his way of working to make our country a better place, he's got every right to it any way he likes within the boundaries of the law and quite frankly, I agree with it.

Incrementalism HASN'T WORKED.

I vehemently disagree with the assertion that our country has simply stepped to the right. We the People have seen or voices and even rights to vote at all increasingly under attack, ignored and marginalized.

How does that support your 'moving to the right' conclusion?

 

[UncleBuck]

They enacted a right-wing healthcare plan when they had a supermajority in congress and could have passed single payer

The desire to do so wasn't there because even Democrats are beholden to their corporate donors

^^^^this is delusional. every word of it.

 

[UncleBuck]

Incrementalism HASN'T WORKED.

I think the appropriate tactic here may be to ... accept incremental but consistent change

 

[Padawanbater2]

^^^^this is delusional. every word of it.

No, those would be the facts. The Affordable Care Act was implemented under a supermajority in congress during Obama's first term as president. Democrats chose to enact Romneycare instead of single payer.

You have no explanation for that. It proves the Democratic party does not actually support single payer, even when they have total control of government. Just listen to all these establishment Democrats at town halls being called out by their constituents, Dianne Feinstein argued she doesn't support it because she believes "it's a total government takeover of healthcare"!, Sanchez from San Diego doesn't support it because "well, there's just no chance of it passing..."..

So, Democrats don't support single payer when they have control, and they don't support single payer when they don't have control.. So, if you believe America should get onboard with every other modern nation in the world and adopt single payer, you're shit out of luck at the moment because neither party supports it.

They support a big wet kiss to their insurance and pharmaceutical industry donors

 

[Justin-case]

No, those would be the facts. The Affordable Care Act was implemented under a supermajority in congress during Obama's first term as president. They chose to enact Romneycare instead of single payer.

You have no explanation for that. It proves the Democratic party does not actually support single payer. They support a big wet kiss to their insurance and pharmaceutical industry donors

If it's such a give away to donors, why is the GOP so desperate to repeal it?

 

[Padawanbater2]

If it's such a give away to donors, why is the GOP so desperate to repeal it?

Because their plan gives more to their donors than the Affordable Care Act

 

[UncleBuck]

No, those would be the facts. The Affordable Care Act was implemented under a supermajority in congress during Obama's first term

that's literally fake news.

 

[Justin-case]

Because their plan gives more to their donors than the Affordable Care Act

It's not perfect, everyone agrees. Baby steps, after all that is who we are dealing with. Just think, Obama care auctully made grown men cry, like children.

 

[UncleBuck]

It's not perfect, everyone agrees. Baby steps, after all that is who we are dealing with. Just think, Obama care auctully made grown men cry, like children.

he should tell the 20+ million people with insurance now how bad obamacare and the democrats are.

 

[Padawanbater2]

he should tell the 20+ million people with insurance now how bad obamacare and the democrats are.

Single payer would have covered everyone. Maybe you should tell the 27 million still uninsured under the Affordable Care Act they should just shut up and take what they can get. I'm sure they'll understand

 

[UncleBuck]

Single payer would have covered everyone. Maybe you should tell the 27 million still uninsured under the Affordable Care Act they should just shut up and take what they can get. I'm sure they'll understand

there wasn't enough support for a public option but yeah, just say 'single payer' three times into a mirror and no probz.

fucking naive child.

 

[Padawanbater2]

there wasn't enough support for a public option but yeah, just say 'single payer' three times into a mirror and no probz.

fucking naive child.

They had the votes to pass it, they didn't. There wasn't support for it because the Democrats in office didn't support it. The people did.

 

[UncleBuck]

What objective fact can you point to that supports the idea of incrementalism being a successful political strategy or what people actually want?

Obama's campaign slogan in 08 was "Hope and Change" for fucks sake, that doesn't mean incrementalism. That's not why people voted for him, to keep the Bush years going, just change it a liiiiittle bitty bit.. If he campaigned on that shit, nobody would have voted for him. That's why Sanders did so well and why Trump won. Nobody want's to continue this shit, nobody supports it. Americans are making slave wages, living paycheck to paycheck and your winning strategy is "well, just wait a little bit longer guys, the relief is coming, trust me!"?

Go fuck yourself with that shit.

you're right, americans want a soviet style revolution fueled by the anger of mediocre white kids like you.

 

[UncleBuck]

They had the votes to pass it, they didn't. There wasn't support for it because the Democrats in office didn't support it. The people did.

colorado just had a vote on it and it failed 80-20. democrats only had a supermajority for 72 days.

you peddle fake news and mediocre white anger almost exclusively now.

take a fucking chill pill.

 

[Justin-case]

What objective fact can you point to that supports the idea of incrementalism being a successful political strategy or what people actually want?

Obama's campaign slogan in 08 was "Hope and Change" for fucks sake, that doesn't mean incrementalism. That's not why people voted for him, to keep the Bush years going, just change it a liiiiittle bitty bit.. If he campaigned on that shit, nobody would have voted for him. That's why Sanders did so well and why Trump won. Nobody want's to continue this shit, nobody supports it. Americans are making slave wages, living paycheck to paycheck and your winning strategy is "well, just wait a little bit longer guys, the relief is coming, trust me!"?

Go fuck yourself with that shit.

I can't change the way half the country feels, derp.

 

[ttystikk]

...

Push for more, but accept the increment- that's how the right did it. I agree it can seem like an apparent contradiction.

 

[UncleBuck]

i'd rather obama go speak to wall street than anyone else. can anyone else name a more influential and admired person who could change the culture of greed on wall street?