Progressives (Liberals)

Rob
‏

@philosophrob
Nov 28
More
Rep. Nancy Pelosi doesn't support federally legalizing cannabis (H.R. 1227). She's received $430,835 from the Beer, Wine & Liquor industry.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi doesn't support Medicare For All (H.R. 676). She's received $616,609 from the Insurance industry.

Is there a connection?

Or they didn’t know about it. Which is by far the most likely reason.

Doubt it.

These donations are from thousands of individual CITIZENS (for the 1000th time).

Pelosi doesn’t know who barely any of these people are and certainly isn’t giving favors to random people donating $500.

@thehill
Nancy Pelosi: "When I was Speaker and President Bush was president, he treated me and the office I hold with great respect. He would jovially call me Number Three." http://hill.cm/ItzjEOz

Companies in which Rep. Joe Kennedy III owns shares:

Alphabet
Amazon
Anheuser-Busch
Bank of America
Chevron
Eli Lilly
Exxon Mobil
Gilead
J.P. Morgan
McDonald's
Merck
Microsoft
Monsanto
Nestle
Wal-Mart
Wells Fargo

So.....an index fund?

I swear you have almost no idea what you’re bitching About most of the time.

https://earloftaint.com/2018/11/29/whats-in-that-head/

Are you absolutely sure that she opposes federally legalizing cannabis? It may or may not be a high priority, but it doesn't mean she opposes such a law.

We all know that Pelosi supported a public option. I have never heard of Pelosi ever ruling out Medicare For All. I have never heard Pelosi say that Medicare For All is off the table. I believe if she had the votes to get Medicare For All pass, she would push for the passage. It all comes down to whether or not she have the votes.

Just because you didn’t hear of it has no bearing on whether or not it happened.

It did happen.

She, Hillary, and other Dems said Medicare for All will not happen. They are paid off to make sure it won’t.

The proof as they say is in the pudding. Will people continue to defend Pelosi and her friends in two years, when the Republican agenda continues to advance in ways they could have prevented?

If her leadership results in us gaining back some of what we lost to 45 and making progressive gains, will you still see only negatives in her?

Republicans control the Senate and the Presidency..and now, in part thanks to some voters, the Supreme Court. They control 3/4 of the government bodies that can advance their agenda.

OF COURSE their agenda will advance.

People like you help get them elected. Then they advance their agenda. It's NOT rocket science.

Edgar's thought process.


"I'm relying on this boulder to stop the entire flow of the river and if it can't do that it's the boulders fault not mine for putting it there."



"And in two years my solution to stopping the flow of the river will be to remove that boulder because it wasn't able to do the impossible job I wanted it to; then the river will stop....somehow...."

If she can demonstrably advance the agenda for the people I will gladly change my tune. After all, it's positive progress that matters to me, not personalities. So far, she is slipping into the loser strategy of old.

Exactly how is that? What would you suggest she does right now besides trying to get the House Dems all on the same sheet of music?

I have made numerous posts about what I think should be done. In the first place she needs to stake out actual positions for the people, not corporate donors. She has already got key corporate stooges in place, so she has already limited herself.

After some further searching, I did find a 2017 article of Pelosi opposing Medicare For All.

Pelosi is a strong supporter of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

Pelosi is also a strong supporter of a public option.

I believe she is also a strong supporter of Medicaid expansion.

Yes, you are correct that Pelosi has opposed Medicare For All.

Here is a link to that article: https://freebeacon.com/issues/pelosi-bucks-medicare-legislation-not-litmus-test/


I still haven't found anything showing Pelosi opposing legalizing cannabis.

I was listening to a podcast that tried to breakdown what all of these politicians mean when they say "Medicare for All." It seems that like snowflakes, no two politicians are alike when discussing MFA.

I don't think the solution is to scrap the ACA and start with something new. Something brand new is not likely to pass and Pelosi is right that with the way government works, until they have the votes it's not worth the time to debate the extreme position. Work on incremental improvements so that the leap to MFA isn't one that the public can't get behind.

Start with lowering the age requirements for Medicare. It's 67 today, start reducing it by a year or two every few years. This will get the sickest people in the private insurance market out of the system and make it more affordable for all the younger people still in it.

Also expand subsidies and Medicaid.

Also add a public option into the ACA marketplace.




I would support a Medicare for All bill. I would support these changes that I outlined FIRST.

I think "opposed" is a bit much.

If she had 50 votes for Medicare for All in the house, I don't think she'd vote 'Nay'.

As I said, the proof is in the pudding. We are worse off every election cycle, regardless of who owns the White House and the Congress. Who can you blame but those in a position to make it better?