news 2024 US Election Megathread 🇺🇸🏛️

[Communion]

14 minutes ago, Kassi said:

She tried

She didn't - as exemplified by her refusing to co-sponsor the first single-payer bill introduced In Congress.

 

15 minutes ago, Kassi said:

Pelosi and Hillary put a single payer health care bill in front of Congress

This is why you're being made fun of. Trying to lie and lie and lie and snap at us over basic historical fact like that the Health Security Act of 1993 would not establish a single-payer healthcare system is cult ****.

[Vermillion]

 

[Vermillion]

 

[Kassi]

52 minutes ago, Communion said:

She didn't - as exemplified by her refusing to co-sponsor the first single-payer bill introduced In Congress.

 

This is why you're being made fun of. Trying to lie and lie and lie and snap at us over basic historical fact like that the Health Security Act of 1993 would not establish a single-payer healthcare system is cult ****.

H.R.1200 - American Health Security Act of 1993

H.R. 1200, AMERICAN HEALTH SECURITY ACT OF 1993 H.R. 1200 would create a single-payer program of national health insurance modeled after the Canadian system. The bill, coauthored by Congressmen Jim McDermott and John Conyers, was introduced in March 1993 and has 91 current cosponsors.

 

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/18504

 

Co-Sponsors: https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/1200/cosponsors

• Rep. Pelosi, Nancy [D-CA-8], Date: 03/03/1993

 

Which congressional government site do you want to argument with? The CBO or the legislative archives?  

 

Cause while you do that I'm going to go enjoy my Saturday. 

[Vermillion]

 

[Harrier]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I believe that Bernie did say to Warren that a woman could not defeat Donald Trump. I don't think Liz just made that up, it's too specific and inflammatory.

But everyone misses the point: it's not that Bernie is a sexist, it's that Bernie (rightly) believed the American public is sexist  What was dishonest about Warren in that situation was the way she attempted to use that issue to frame Bernie as if he was saying a woman shouldn't be president, and we see Hillary doing the exact same thing.

 

Like Hillary is writing a whole ass book about why a woman has not yet been president, but then takes issue with someone saying that they don't think the public is ready. Make it make sense!

 

Option 2 is he also might have said that to Warren when what he really meant was I don't think you, Elizabeth Warren, can defeat Donald Trump  And if so, he was right about that too. He would not have run if he thought she could beat him, that's the reality.

[Communion]

2 hours ago, Kassi said:

H.R.1200 - American Health Security Act of 1993

This is cult ****, honestly. 

 

"H.R.1200 - American Health Security Act of 1993" (introduced March 1993 that sought to ban duplicative coverage by insurance on services offered by Medicare)

----is not the same bill as----

"H.R.3200 - Health Security Act of 1993" (introduced Nov 1993 that sought to establish an insurance mandate and "competitive market between insurers" aka HillaryCare), which you yourself advocate Pelosi+Hillary pushed:

 

3 hours ago, Kassi said:

Pelosi and Hillary put a single payer health care bill in front of Congress

https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3600

 

As well, the keyword was original.

 

The first bill that introduced language to ban duplicative coverage (the key feature of single-payer) was in 1991 by Sanders via H.R.2530 - National Health Care and Cost Containment Act. Martin Russo's competing "single-payer bill" at the same time didn't ban duplicative coverage. This discrepancy inspired Conyers, as his H.R.5500 - Health Care for Every American Act of 1992 takes inspiration from Bernie's. In 1993, Conyers and Sanders then work with McDermott to introduce H.R.1200 - American Health Security Act of 1993, their answer to the healthcare debate.

 

 

One could give Pelosi credit for being a co-sponsor, but as you yourself said, she eventually abandoned the AHSA she claimed to originally support to instead advocate for HillaryCare! A different bill!  A turnaround that was shocking at the time given that Pelosi herself criticized HillaryCare as unaffordable for the poor:

 

Maybe we can take her reversal of support for McDermott's bill to mean she did support it but simply wanted President Clinton to have some kind of legislative "win". The issue being that she's either refused to support of voted against Medicare For All every time it has been put forward, including when Conyers' took over the bill for McDermott over the last two decades:

 

2001 - American Health Security Act of 2001, McDermott - No

2003 - Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, Conyers - No
2005 - Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, Conyers - No
2007 - United States National Health Insurance Act, Conyers - No
2009 - Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, Conyers - No
2011 - Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act, Conyers - No

2013 - Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act, Conyers - No

2015 - Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act, Conyers - No

2017 - Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act, Conyers - No

2019 - Medicare for All Act of 2019, Jayapal - No

2021 - Medicare For All Act of 2021, Jayapal - No

 

If I supported something, would I refuse to vote for it or refuse to co-sponsor it over the course of 20 years?

 

Have fun enjoying your Saturday with your cult, sis!

 

 

"MADAM SPEAKER! MADAM SPEAKER! MADAM SPEAKER! MADAM SPEAKER!"

Edited August 13, 2022 by Communion

[Communion]

2 hours ago, Harrier said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I believe that Bernie did say to Warren that a woman could not defeat Donald Trump. I don't think Liz just made that up, it's too specific and inflammatory.

But everyone misses the point: it's not that Bernie is a sexist, it's that Bernie (rightly) believed the American public is sexist  What was dishonest about Warren in that situation was the way she attempted to use that issue to frame Bernie as if he was saying a woman shouldn't be president, and we see Hillary doing the exact same thing.

 

Like Hillary is writing a whole ass book about why a woman has not yet been president, but then takes issue with someone saying that they don't think the public is ready. Make it make sense!

 

Option 2 is he also might have said that to Warren when what he really meant was I don't think you, Elizabeth Warren, can defeat Donald Trump  And if so, he was right about that too. He would not have run if he thought she could beat him, that's the reality.

The missing context too is also that their meeting was about which one of them should run and arguing over who would have a better chance.  They both clearly didn't want the other running, knowing it could divide the left. There was reporting at the time that Warren's pitch to get Bernie not to run at their meeting was reiterating that she could more easily unite different factions as a progressive but not a political outsider.

 

Which itself was Bernie's pitch to her in 2016, that she had a wide appeal for a progressive and could beat Hillary to get the Democratic nomination, this all before Donald Trump as a political entity would enter our lives.

 

She clearly didn't like that he had a new confidence in his brand of progressivism and thus the attempt to usurp all the momentum from him with the now infamous video 'proving' her ancestry in late 2018 and then announcing her candidacy a week before he announced. 

Edited August 13, 2022 by Communion

[Vermillion]

 

[ZORBIT]

I spectate here very often & I would just like to say that the banter most of you all bring in this thread & overall updates, has opened different views for me to see US politics (especially as a DACA dreamer trying to thrive in limbo right now) even though I don’t agree with some posts; Ms Communion & Espresso keep doing your thing! 

[Thuggin]

7 hours ago, Harrier said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I believe that Bernie did say to Warren that a woman could not defeat Donald Trump. I don't think Liz just made that up, it's too specific and inflammatory.

But everyone misses the point: it's not that Bernie is a sexist, it's that Bernie (rightly) believed the American public is sexist  What was dishonest about Warren in that situation was the way she attempted to use that issue to frame Bernie as if he was saying a woman shouldn't be president, and we see Hillary doing the exact same thing.

 

Like Hillary is writing a whole ass book about why a woman has not yet been president, but then takes issue with someone saying that they don't think the public is ready. Make it make sense!

 

Option 2 is he also might have said that to Warren when what he really meant was I don't think you, Elizabeth Warren, can defeat Donald Trump  And if so, he was right about that too. He would not have run if he thought she could beat him, that's the reality.

Exactly, even if you really hate Bernie, anyone with at least half a functioning brain cell (AKA not deranged K-Hivers) would have interpreted it this way.  There is a difference between saying "I don't think a woman would be able to win in 2020 because of misogyny" and "I don't think a woman has what it takes to be President". The latter statement would just be so extremely out of character it's laughable. The former is no different from one of Hillary's many arguments on why she lost in 2016.  I think a gay person has no chance of becoming President any time soon. That doesn't mean I don't think a gay person would make a great President. Bernie wanted Warren to run in 2016. The results of the 2016 election probably made him worrisome of another female Presidential candidate's chances in 2020. I feel like the true reason Warren did what she did was she still felt a little insulted he would suggest a woman wouldn't be able to win, despite knowing how he meant it. In her mind, she probably felt like it was long overdue for America to take a chance on a woman and that continuing attitudes of skepticism over a woman's electability would lead to women never getting the chance to be President. And then, because she wanted the nomination, she weaponized it against him knowing that a lot of people would interpret it in the least charitable way. I also think Bernie handled the accusation poorly by simply denying it and nothing more. Unfortunately, it turned into a game of he-said she-said. But I also get why he did that. Saying "Yes, that conversation did happen but..." would have ended right there because the media would have gotten the soundbite they were looking for.

[Harrier]

1 hour ago, Thuggin said:

Exactly, even if you really hate Bernie, anyone with at least half a functioning brain cell (AKA not deranged K-Hivers) would have interpreted it this way.  There is a difference between saying "I don't think a woman would be able to win in 2020 because of misogyny" and "I don't think a woman has what it takes to be President". The latter statement would just be so extremely out of character it's laughable. The former is no different from one of Hillary's many arguments on why she lost in 2016.  I think a gay person has no chance of winning President any time soon. That doesn't mean I don't think a gay person would make a great President. Bernie wanted Warren to run in 2016. The results of the 2016 election probably made him worrisome of another female Presidential candidate's chances in 2020. I feel like the true reason Warren did what she did was she still felt a little insulted he would suggest a woman wouldn't be able to win, despite knowing how he meant it. In her mind, she probably felt like it was long overdue for America to take a chance on a woman and that continuing attitudes of skepticism over a woman's electability would lead to women never getting the chance to be President. And then, because she wanted the nomination, she weaponized it against him knowing that a lot of people would interpret it in the least charitable way. I also think Bernie handled the accusation poorly by simply denying it and nothing more. Unfortunately, it turned into a game of he-said she-said. But I also get why he did that. Saying "Yes, that conversation did happen but..." would have ended right there because the media would have gotten the soundbite they were looking for.

Agreed. Both parties handled that situation poorly. Warren unfairly weaponizing it against Bernie in her desperation, and Bernie not being honest about the fact that that conversation likely did happen. Obviously Warren's crime is worse we all agree there, but in fairness I can understand why she was offended on the debate stage because he did, in essence, call her a liar.

It was a moment where emotions, hurt feelings, and late-campaign desperation overcame any sense of pragmatism or progressive cooperation. I wouldn't be surprised if both of them regret it especially since in the past 2 years they've been close allies in the battle against Manchin & Sinema.

 

Reflecting on everything that happened, the Warren campaign's actions reeked of hurt & betrayal above all else. I am empathetic about it to some extent because I do think some of the attacks on her were unfair, especially when the Bernie campaign was flagging post-heart attack. Things like Nina Turner calling her a 'copycat', or some Bernie staffers participating in the snake narrative. I do think the Bernie campaign threw the first punches after a long period of friendliness (though not Bernie himself). But there was also an very unearned sense of entitlement to progressive support, and her base was simply weak.

 

In any case, I don't want her to run again. Not endorsing Bernie after she dropped out is pretty unacceptable, regardless of hurt feelings. She burned bridges that shouldn't be rebuilt.

[ClashAndBurn]

1 hour ago, Thuggin said:

The results of the 2016 election probably made him worrisome of another female Presidential candidate's chances in 2020.

Personally, I'd be more concerned about the female candidates' instincts rather than the fact that they were female. They were pretty much all terrible.

 

Marianne's politics were arguably the best, of course, but her persona was off-putting, sad to say. People wouldn't vote for her simply for the fact that she's regarded as a bit of a gadfly, which is how Larry David attempted to portray Sanders on SNL, but inadvertently made him look cooler than his primary opponents on there anyway, so  

 

Tulsi's value came from her being marginally anti-war (though that stance is negated by her being pro-drone strike against Muslims), her willingness to admit that the DNC rigged the 2016 primary against Sanders, and her calling out establishment hacks like Kamala Harris. I still think she stood a chance at being VP until Hillary smeared her as a Russian asset and made her persona non grata with the party, since she was Biden's attack dog and actively did more to defend him than anyone else during the debates.

 

Warren? Her instincts were garbage, and she thought she (as a race-faker) had any chance at the Vice Presidency when the elitist identitarians in the Democratic Party were screaming their heads off for the emptiest black woman possible. So she backstabbed Bernie and became one of the most valuable path-clearers for Biden's campaign by keeping the progressives split and being deliberately divisive with her sexism smear ensuring that her voters would pick Biden instead.

 

Klobuchar? Abusive to her staff. Doesn't need to be anywhere near public office anymore at all, especially with her involvement in making sure George Floyd's killer cop stayed employed by refusing to prosecute him after "several instances of dubious conduct."

 

Kamala? We're seeing the results of having her anywhere near a seat of power right now so current reality speaks for itself  

 

Gillibrand? Even emptier than Kamala, and her campaign was sunk two years before when she ousted Al Franken from the Senate anyway.

[Kassi]

5 hours ago, Communion said:

This is cult ****, honestly. 

 

"H.R.1200 - American Health Security Act of 1993" (introduced March 1993 that sought to ban duplicative coverage by insurance on services offered by Medicare)

----is not the same bill as----

"H.R.3200 - Health Security Act of 1993" (introduced Nov 1993 that sought to establish an insurance mandate and "competitive market between insurers" aka HillaryCare), which you yourself advocate Pelosi+Hillary pushed:

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3600

 

As well, the keyword was original.

 

The first bill that introduced language to ban duplicative coverage (the key feature of single-payer) was in 1991 by Sanders via H.R.2530 - National Health Care and Cost Containment Act. Martin Russo's competing "single-payer bill" at the same time didn't ban duplicative coverage. This discrepancy inspired Conyers, as his H.R.5500 - Health Care for Every American Act of 1992 takes inspiration from Bernie's. In 1993, Conyers and Sanders then work with McDermott to introduce H.R.1200 - American Health Security Act of 1993, their answer to the healthcare debate.

 

 

One could give Pelosi credit for being a co-sponsor, but as you yourself said, she eventually abandoned the AHSA she claimed to originally support to instead advocate for HillaryCare! A different bill!  A turnaround that was shocking at the time given that Pelosi herself criticized HillaryCare as unaffordable for the poor:

 

Maybe we can take her reversal of support for McDermott's bill to mean she did support it but simply wanted President Clinton to have some kind of legislative "win". The issue being that she's either refused to support of voted against Medicare For All every time it has been put forward, including when Conyers' took over the bill for McDermott over the last two decades:

 

2001 - American Health Security Act of 2001, McDermott - No

2003 - Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, Conyers - No
2005 - Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, Conyers - No
2007 - United States National Health Insurance Act, Conyers - No
2009 - Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, Conyers - No
2011 - Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act, Conyers - No

2013 - Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act, Conyers - No

2015 - Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act, Conyers - No

2017 - Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act, Conyers - No

2019 - Medicare for All Act of 2019, Jayapal - No

2021 - Medicare For All Act of 2021, Jayapal - No

 

If I supported something, would I refuse to vote for it or refuse to co-sponsor it over the course of 20 years?

 

Have fun enjoying your Saturday with your cult, sis!

 

 

"MADAM SPEAKER! MADAM SPEAKER! MADAM SPEAKER! MADAM SPEAKER!"

Idek how to respond to this cause it’s so untethered from reality. 
 

Pelosi maneuvering to getting ~only~ 90% of Americans access to healthcare because she couldn’t exactly hack 100%, what with Bernie’s Senate dropping the public option, Republicans zeroing out the individual mandate, and the Supreme Court dashing Medicaid expansion, isn’t some colossal failure of effort on Pelosi’s part. It’s an indictment of a political system resistant to change and, conversely, serves as a shining display of Pelosi’s singular strength of will.

 

I don’t think you realize how crazy it sounds  making Pelosi not “co-sponsoring” a bill for show, that she had done so before, a character flaw over the fact of her actually DELIVERING healthcare to millions of people.  
 

At minimum, it shows where your true priorities lie: in the aesthetic rather than the material. But wbk. That’s what the left has been about since Bernie took the spotlight. 

[Kassi]

As long as we're relitigating the 2020 primary for no reason, it’s worth noting that there’s a difference between thinking a woman couldn't win and saying that to dissuade a woman from running, and in that difference lies the big problem with Bernie’s alleged statements.

 

Warren’s interpretation was likely spot on, but of course we, as a society, are keen to give Bernie a charitable assessment because, almost by definition, women in politics must pay a gender tax as the price of participation.
 

And we see it time and again: Kirsten Gillibrand taking a political hit for Al Franken's lifetime of ass-grabbing, Hillary being dinged for Bill’s improprieties, Pelosi’s historic leadership being taken for granted, and even AOC, whom I loathe, being nailed by the left for failing to advance M4A as a sophomore congresswoman when Bernie’s own 30 year record of inaction is ripe for the picking. 

[ZORBIT]

51 minutes ago, Kassi said:

Idek how to respond to this cause it’s so untethered from reality. 
 

Pelosi maneuvering to getting ~only~ 90% of Americans access to healthcare because she couldn’t exactly hack 100%, what with Bernie’s Senate dropping the public option, Republicans zeroing out the individual mandate, and the Supreme Court dashing Medicaid expansion, isn’t some colossal failure of effort on Pelosi’s part. It’s an indictment of a political system resistant to change and, conversely, serves as a shining display of Pelosi’s singular strength of will.

 

I don’t think you realize how crazy it sounds  making Pelosi not “co-sponsoring” a bill for show, that she had done so before, a character flaw over the fact of her actually DELIVERING healthcare to millions of people.  
 

At minimum, it shows where your true priorities lie: in the aesthetic rather than the material. But wbk. That’s what the left has been about since Bernie took the spotlight. 

We get it, you will dick ride Pelosi till she's DEAD, no matter how hard you strive to skew her in a positive light; her foundation is gutter rotten and you nor anyone else can change that because you are not Pelosi herself at the end of the day. Buena Suerte dying on that hill Ms Kassi 

-  ATRL spectator

[Kassi]

17 minutes ago, ZORBIT said:

We get it, you will dick ride Pelosi till she's DEAD, no matter how hard you strive to skew her in a positive light; her foundation is gutter rotten and you nor anyone else can change that because you are not Pelosi herself at the end of the day. Buena Suerte dying on that hill Ms Kassi 

-  ATRL spectator

I mean, I can’t say I care. I survived the 4 era on ATRL when everyone was sure Beyoncé was over. And the valuable lesson I learned that era is that talent always wins. And Ms. Pelosi is probably the most talented legislator (not to be confused with Obama, the most talented politician) of our times. 

Yes, it is true that Ms. Pelosi has a flood of misinformation to fight uphill against, but at the end of the day, the truth is the truth. For example, user Communion going on about how…

 

“Pelosi eventually abandoned the AHSA she claimed to originally support to instead advocate for HillaryCare! A different bill! A turnaround that was shocking at the time given that Pelosi herself criticized HillaryCare as unaffordable for the poor. ”

 

…when we have video of Bernie, literally right behind Hillary, doing the same thing is well… unmoving.

 

 

 

So while I’m 100% grounded in what I believe and know to be true, I do understand that those with a shallower understanding of politics and ignorance toward our legislative history are susceptible to far-left framing.  That’s why I’m here to correct the record. 

[ClashAndBurn]

43 minutes ago, Kassi said:

Kirsten Gillibrand taking a political hit for Al Franken's lifetime of ass-grabbing

Not you defending Gillibrand whose hypocrisy around #MeToo and forcing out Franken while supporting Tara Reade's rapist is entirely what helped to kill the entire movement she leveraged to force Franken out and elevate herself as a women's champion when her fake persona never amounted to anything more than a joke, just like her predecessor.  

[Kassi]

14 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Not you defending Gillibrand whose hypocrisy around #MeToo and forcing out Franken while supporting Tara Reade's rapist is entirely what helped to kill the entire movement she leveraged to force Franken out and elevate herself as a women's champion when her fake persona never amounted to anything more than a joke, just like her predecessor.  

Girl didn't you say Biden's presidency was over in 2021?

 

How about you reflect on that reality first before coming in hot with some easily debunked Tara Reade non-sense?

 

[ClashAndBurn]

1 minute ago, Kassi said:

Girl didn't you say Biden's presidency was over in 2021?

 

How about you reflect on that reality first before coming in hot with some easily debunked Tara Reade non-sense?

 

Biden's presidency WAS functionally over until Joe Manchin decided he felt sorry for him and decided to offer him the least bit of mercy he had to offer.  

 

There won't be any legislation with Republicans taking back the House. Unless Biden decides he wants to team up with McConnell and McCarthy to do something like, idk, defunding Social Security and Medicare, like he's always wanted to.  

[ClashAndBurn]

 

 

[Sergi91]

 

[Kassi]

 

[ClashAndBurn]

Personally hoping The Squad actually go all out and rebel against Hakeem Jeffries. Ideally his tenure as caucus leader (no guarantees he ever actually becomes Speaker, considering Dems might not have any majorities for the next 20 years) is made as much a living hell as possible.

[Vermillion]

1 hour ago, ClashAndBurn said:

 

 

That reminds me of this: