Hillary Clinton Get's it. Will her supporters listen?

Hillary was invited to the table. They talked over policy and she had a strong voice on the platform.

That is what we are talking about here. And Bernie will probably not be given a cabinet position.

When was she invited to the table? In what way did she have a strong voice in the platform before Obama was even officially elected President? I am sure if Bernie wants to he can talk to Hillary about the platform. That does not mean she has to go with his platform or adopt his polices. Hillary was not made SOS until after Obama was elected, not before he was in office. Perhaps she was made SOS because Obama simply thought she was qualified, after all he did work with her and knew what she was capable of.

I have never denied there should be some improvements made in the current health care, but I and a lot of experts, more than agree with Bernie's plan, agree that Bernie's plan is risky, costly and not likely to pass. There is no way Americans are going to be able to afford to pay for both Bernie's health care plan and free universities and community college and the other sweeping changes he wants to make just as soon as he can get a revolution started to make it happen. It ain't gonna happen.

I have about three links in my previous post from CNN, Washington Post and Vox which had a lot of fact based reasons why Bernie health care plan is not feasible. You just refuse to face reality.

Revelette,

Are we arguing about personality or about policy? I have no interest in arguing about personality. You don't need to worry about Hillary Clinton. She is not some hapless poor woman who stumbled into this seat. The is a seasoned, well-connected politician who is as able to work the process to her advantage as well as anyone can.

My support for Bernie has never been personal. I like the guy, but I can give you several examples where he and I disagree (can you do this with Hillary). I supported Bernie because I thought that his policies were better for the country. I still do. Now I accept that he has lost, and I am supporting Hillary in the general election.

It is always part of the process for the losing side and the winning side to work out their differences in the convention. The losing side, especially when he or she gets a large number of votes, does have some leverage in the party platform. Their delegates get to vote on the platform. This was true with Hillary. And, this is true with Bernie.

My advice to you is to stop taking this so personally. Hillary is a politician. Bernie is a politician. Obama was a politician. None of them were helpless victims. All of them are part of a process of push and pull and give and take that is the way that politics are done.

Hillary's goal right now is to unite the party. Part of that goal is for her to work out differences with Bernie. She won... so she has the upper hand and the biggest voice in setting the agenda. Bernie got lots of votes, so he has some leverage to shape the party platform.

If you continue to see this in terms of Hillary being victimized... you are going to be doing the opposite of what the Hillary campaign, and the Democratic party need and standing in the way of us uniting the party.

This isn't personal.

I'd be wary once the term "single payer" is introduced to a conversation. The Left seems to have some sort of weird mythology surrounding the term, and they don't understand what the term even means.

The trouble is, most of those countries don't actually have a single payer system.

The article is in error. Most of western Europe is not single payer. In fact, I am not aware of any country in western Europe that is single payer (although there might be a solitary example tucked away somewhere).

PBS doesn't have a liberal bias (nor do they have a conservative bias).

Possibly they are biased towards moderates.



Yes, but most of those systems are not actually single payer.



See above about most of those systems not actually being single payer.

Incidentally, the "Public Option" (which was never actually removed) was never single payer either.

These days once the term "single payer" enters a conversation, reality is quick to exit.

I was arguing about policy, made a point of it to show it is more than about thinking Bernie is not electable with me than perhaps others. Also, I do disagree with Hillary on foreign policy, I think she shows too much favoritism in her desire, perhaps, to keep her support with her Jewish base in NY and other places, towards Israel and not enough support for Palestinian troubles. But I put that on balance on points where I disagree with Bernie Sanders and figured that in the end she doesn't differ too much with Bernie Sanders or Obama when you come right down to it.

I have never seen Hillary as victimized, you simply ascribe things to me which are not there. I simply don't think Hillary needs to do more than others who have won primaries in order to get support from her fellow democrats including the one she defeated. (when she does)

So what are you here to argue about? Both of us want Hillary to win in the general election. I think you agree with me that we need to unite the party.

I am disappointed that my guy didn't win, but I am not angry. I want Hillary to beat Trump. This election doesn't change my position. All I am saying is that Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters should now be on the same side.

Are you on board with that?

I suppose we disagree a little bit about what happened in 2008 and how resistant some Hillary supporters were to join the Obama campaign.... but in the end this doesn't matter at all, it is all a normal part of partisan politics. I have been on both sides now, and it is a little more pleasant to be on the winning side than the losing one. But that's life.

In the end we are on the same side. And the less that Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters keep attacking each other, the better it will be for our candidate... who happens to be Hillary... in her goal to win the election.

For anyone on the Democratic side to say "I will stop being a jerk when they stop being a jerk" is not a good thing for Hillary.

That's not favoritism. The Palestinians are thugs who refuse to make peace and who go around trying to murder children every chance they get. They deserve no support.

Hillary is merely doing the right thing.

The following countries have what might be called a "no payer" system. Hospitals are owned and operated by the government. Doctors and nurses are government employees. There are no medical bills at all for the most part.

Great Britain, Spain, most of Scandinavia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and Cuba.



The following countries have a heath insurance marketplace where people select from a variety of insurance plans. The insurance plans are tightly-regulated and all are non-profit, but they function like a typical insurance plan in that people pay money for their insurance. Since there are lots of different insurance companies competing, it might be called a "many payer" system.

Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland, and parts of Latin America.



The following countries have a "single payer" system, where all medical bills are paid by the taxpayers.

Canada, Taiwan, and South Korea.



Source:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/models.html

How about if they say:

I wasn't kidding when I said Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar who has no actual core values and will do just about anything for power and wealth. I didn't say this because she was running against Bernie Sanders who I really want to be president, but because I can't stand her. As a result I can't, in good conscience vote for her.

You seem to be quite condescending towards the depth of feeling for HRC of some of your fellow Berners

And quite the partisan after all.

So when a fellow Republican makes the same pitch to me about Trump, I should forget about what I think of him and join the Team?

Are you honestly not going to vote for the Republican nominee even if it is Trump? I have never said I wasn't a partisan. I am a partisan, I have no trouble saying that "any Democrat is better than any Republican". For the past 30 years I have voted that way... and that is what I teach my children.

I believe that nearly all Bernie supporters will end up voting for Hillary (I did say "nearly all" rather than "all") if only to vote against Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.

I'm a rad in some ways. I was impressed when Robert mentioned his visit to a hospital in Costa Rica, now some years ago, good care and, if I remember, free and lately he mentioned one could also have access to insurance and the care from that. I suppose that is the european way too.

I'm a Guardian reader and from a lot of comments there, the NHS is in deep doo doo. From here, it sounds like a dive to despair, which I take is political, re austerity.

I've said it before and I will say it once more. I am not voting for Donald Trump.

I've only been marginally enticed to consider voting for him as a reaction to the disgusting displays of violent thugs "protesting" his appearances and trying to shut him down. If I thought that his winning might put a stop to such tactics in the future I just might vote for him, but, of course, it won't. These jackboot tactics from the Left are just beginning and a Republican victory in November will only ensure they continue and probably get worse.

Anyone who slashes someone's tires and tries to justify it by saying the "Vote Trump" bumper sticker is "hate speech" is just a thug, and a potentially dangerous one at that.

I like the fact that he is shaking things up; especially in the GOP, and I like the fact that he couldn't care one whit about what is or isn't PC, and I even like that he has the potential for finally stripping away any working class support for the Democrats, but he would make a terrible president and I won't vote for such a person.

I've taught my kids conservative principles and my values. The two don't necessarily always overlap, but then I don't expect them to adhere to my teachings just because I'm their father. Above all else I've tried to teach them to form their own opinions based on the facts and not to blindly follow any group - political party, religion, social movement etc.

Any Democrat is not better than any Republican and any Republican is not better than any Democrat. That's tribal nonsense - partisan.

I'm voting for Gary Johnson assuming he's the Libertarian candidate (and that's a very safe bet). He would make an exceedingly better president than either Clinton or Trump. In doing so I will be exercising my right to vote and casting a ballot for someone I respect. I won't be leaving the voting booth feeling tainted by the choice between the only two people who have a shot at being president but for whom I have no respect.

I know, you're OK with HRC, so you won't be voting for someone for whom you have no respect, but your mantra means you would vote for someone for whom you had no respect, just because they were a Democrat and not a Republican. Sorry, but for that, I have no respect. Vote for whomever you want for whatever reason you have. Your option, your right. And if you like, you can tell Sanders supporters they should "grow up" and vote for Clinton in November, but the ones who tell you to shove it will gain my respect, for the little it is worth.

Unfortunately, I think you're right. Most Sanders supporters will end up forgetting all of their principles and voting for Clinton because she's the Democrat, just as most Bush, Rubio, Cruz et al supporters will forget theirs and vote for Trump, just because he's not Clinton. It's a shame, because it perpetuates the rancid control the two parties have on our system, but hey, at least there's a chance they can say they voted for the winner!

unfortunately, weven though I agree with the sentiment, if one "wastes" thweir vote by punching a chad for a candidate that cant possibly win, you may actually be assuring Trumps victory by casting a symbolic vote for someone who you admire.
Think about this in 2016, IS Trump the worst possible thing for the Union? Does he represent a "wake-up call" for the dysfunctional body politic? As Warren Buffet said (sorta ) yesterday'

'Trump couldnt possibly **** up the economy too badly and he might just as well be a good thing for politicians to realize where American public opinion is sitting at this time".

Trump is not a conservative no matter how much hes lied to us.(Hes more a hyper-fascist oligarch) Does his rise constitute a message to the GOP that their candidates are really not "Conservative enough" I feel its quite the opposite.
I think Trump represents a counter charge to the Limbaughian hair burning uber-Conservatives and Tea BAggers

So, I guess one conversation is about what to do if you've given up on the anti-establishment revolution.

There's another conversation happening in American politics describing our to-the-death fight against the moneyed power that has turned the US into their own personal fiefdom and the journalists and lawmakers who helped them do it.

It's called Bernie or Bust.

http://www.politicsintheusa.com/liberals-dont-understand-bernie-bust-movement-allow-explain-way-may-clearer-detailed-used-hearing/

It's a growing option for you.

If you feel pressured by the democrat establishment, know that they have had the same tools available to them to manipulate you that got our country into this disgusting situation in the first place.

We've been played royally. Don't continue to submit to the same damn thing over and over while William Wallace is on the damn field of battle just waiting for you to vote to give him a chance to swing that sword.

#BernieorBust

Quote Lash:


When Barack Obama first took office, the country had LOST 6 Million Full Time jobs the previous year. Now the country has GAINED 2.5 Million Full Time jobs in the last 12 months alone, and 5 Million Full Time jobs in the last two years. That's leadership, and that is heading the country in the right direction.

Don't listen to the doomsayers trying to get you to throw yourself out of a tenth story window. We have largely put the great recession behind us, and things are heading upward.

Here are the official numbers for Full Time jobs in GW Bush's last year and also for the last two years under Obama.
GW Bush's last year:
Jan 2008.......121.435 Million Full Time jobs
Jan 2009.......115.818 Million Full Time jobs
Total: LOSS of 5.62 Full Time jobs

Last two years under Obama:
Jan 2013.......115.759 Million Full Time jobs
Jan 2014.......117.569 Million Full Time jobs
Jan 2015.......120.662 Million Full Time jobs
Total: GAIN of 4.9 Million Full Time jobs

Check the official numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
http://i1382.photobucket.com/albums/ah279/LeviStubbs/Full%20Time%20jobs%20jan%202000%20thru%20dec%202015_zpsf7e5n8i8.jpg