Progressives (Liberals)

@edgarblythe,

Obviously a bad move (says me with no economics training). But your indictment of "establishment democrats" would be far more accurate if you'd said, "Two Dems appointed by Schumer are on board while another, appointed by Obama, is not along with one interviewed Dem congressperson". That is all the piece tells us.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

Certainly no possible reason that the ******* Kaiser Foundation might skew facts and responses...

What leads you to believe they would? What "better" related facts do you have to offer?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

A note following a tweet covered in the piece

Quote:

A screenshot of one of the more than 20,000 tweets that Sirota deleted yesterday.

1 Reply

Quote:

Gonna have to bench your ass, Porsche man. Your batting average is sinking your team.

BIG SWINGS.....STRIIIIIIIIIKE!!!

Post like that do you no good. Nor anyone else.

Re Sirota

Quote:

In 2003 Newsweek profiled Sirota as a "political operative" skilled at "hacking out a daily barrage of anti-Bush media clips, commentary, and snappy quotes" who made "guerrilla attacks on the Bush administration" and who was "well schooled in the art of Washington warfare."[1] According to the article, Sirota's main weapons were computer emails. Sirota was described as the "Internet child of the Clinton War Room generation."[1] Former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta said of Sirota: "I just saw he had an eye for critique and the instinct for the jugular."[1]

...Some other journalists and political analysts have criticized Sirota. In his article comparing two approaches to progressive politics, statistician Nate Silver disparaged Sirota's approach as "playing fast and loose with the truth and using some of the same demagogic precepts that the right wing does."[53]

And he was a fellow at the Center for American Progress

I've followed David since I got on twitter a long time ago. For the most part, I agree with him. But he is no innocent.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

1) Your math is wrong. 2) This data shows that there are more people thinking they would benefit than people thinking they would lose, in spite of all the fear-mongering.

1 Reply

@blatham,

How do you agree with him and also say he’s no innocent.

His followers/ friends have known him pre-Bernie campaign, and he’s an honest, up-front guy.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

1) Your math is wrong. 2) This data shows that there are more people thinking they would benefit than people thinking they would lose, in spite of all the fear-mongering.

My math is fine. Reread my post. Note the term “roughly.”

There are significant numbers of people who don’t think Medicare for all will benefit them at all. Another group thinks they will be worse off.

Even a significant number of those who are currently uninsured think that.

1 Reply

@blatham,

The people’s stated desire vs the rich Kaiser insurance/ healthcare consortium...
I’m with the people. You seem to be with the insurance company.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

39+26=65, not 70.

There are more people thinking it will benefit them, than people who think it will disadvantage them. That's a positive; it means there's potentially significant popular support for the measure.

It's not all gloomy and dark. If Vermont did it, others can. Maybe your family could benefit. Now, gime a smile.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Why are you doing this...again?

100-31 = 69

I said:

Quote:

Roughly 70% of Americans don't think that Medicare for All would make them better off at all (with 26% of those thinking they'd be worse off).

1) 31% said they’d be better off.
2) That means 69% don’t think they’d be better off or don’t know if they would be
3) 69% is roughly 70% (hell, so is 65%)
4) c’mon, give me a smile

So is my math off or is your reading comprehension off?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

The "don't know" answers are not shown and explain the difference. The figure you're after is simply 39+26=65. So your math was indeed off.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote:

How do you agree with him and also say he’s no innocent.
His followers/ friends have known him pre-Bernie campaign, and he’s an honest, up-front guy.

I was reading him long before the Bernie campaign. I said I mostly agree with him as regards policy issues and as regards his long-standing attacks on the role of money in US politics. But I have found him increasingly extremist over the last five years or so.

When I say he's no innocent, I am referring to his past activities as described in the wikipedia quote. And I'm wondering if there is anyone else who has worked for Podesta at the Center For American Progress (kind of dead center of the Dem "establishment", yes?) who you are prepared to advocate for.

He did a stint at AIPAC as well which doesn't mean he's a dick but, again, that's an "establishment" entity.

A mistake a lot of you guys supporting Sanders are making is promoting the progressive (white) and establishment (black) dichotomy. Partly, that is a reflection of a general set of differences that one can validly draw. But the other part is the use of this us versus them false dichotomy drawn for Sanders' electoral purposes and that the side where trolls (actors whose intentions are different from what they claim) working to cause dissention on the left.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

The “don’t knows” ALSO don’t think they’ll be better off. So my math is right.

I’ve got no more interest in this pedantic discussion, your misreading of my post (twice), and your inability to admit you were wrong.

You can have the last word; don’t care.

1 Reply

@blatham,

You’re talking to a person who used to vote republican.
People with open minds can and do change.

I’ve followed him extensively for a few years, and went back to check these accusations when they began to trickle out several months ago.

I’m satisfied.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote:

The people’s stated desire vs the rich Kaiser insurance/ healthcare consortium...
I’m with the people. You seem to be with the insurance company.

Don't say things like that. It's silly. There is no question whatsoever that I have been advocating for bringing the US medical system into line with what we here in Canada or the northern Europeans states (and others) enjoy. You could go back to the period where Clinton first got into office and put Hillary in charge of the project. You can find numerous instances of me pointing the infamous Bill Kristol memo from that period which set out a strategy for the Republicans to kill the effort. You could be right that the Kaiser figures quoted above are skewed. But you'd have to bring conflicting data to make your case.

1 Reply

@blatham,

I’ve not seen any conflicting data, and I’ve looked.

I’d love to see data that showed me that people support Medicare for all, and losing their current health insurance, and having to pay more in taxes, and possibly having to wait for care depending on need.

I, personally, am willing to do all of those things....I just haven’t seen any evidence that enough Americans are on board.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote:

I’ve followed him extensively for a few years, and went back to check these accusations when they began to trickle out several months ago.

I’m satisfied.

Not "accusations". Historical facts. They don't mean he's a bad guy but they do tell us about how he has operated politically and who with. Those aren't irrelevant. Are you going to let Podesta off the hook so easily?

Quote:

I’m satisfied.

And that's ok. But if you are inconsistent in your means of identifying bad guys from good guys, your arguments/claims lose much of their value.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Sure.

0 Replies

@blatham,

You and plenty of others here consider me a bad guy because I used to feel quite differently about a few political issues.

You don’t think a person can change her mind.

Sirota did.
I did.

A change of heart in politics is nothing.

Why was it ok for Obama and Clinton and Biden, but not Sirota and Lash?
The hypocrisy!!

2 Replies

@blatham,

I’ve never heard of the guy before.

I just found it interesting that with the talk of bias against Sanders that here we are with concrete fact; a journalist writing columns in print against Sanders opponents, while working for the guy. This wasn’t 5, 10, 20 years ago...this was since December and just announced by Sanders campaign today, after being presented with the Atlantic going public with this secret info.

Not to mention, it doesn’t much square with Bernie’s plea to his supporters to be respectful and set old grudges aside.

Don’t care much beyond that.

1 Reply

Progressives (Liberals)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know