Wouldnt put it past ikes to buy a new computer, especially since I though he said he was moving anyway.

Yeah, but you shilled against HRC and for trump, like, nonstop.

If it comes down to you doodling 'HD+BS' inside hearts and 'Mrs. Dan Sanders' and so forth when you were supposed to be paying attention during realpolitik101 class, then I probably have to double down on my door-slamming analogy.

Sure - I think you start with the surefire cases (descendants of slaves, victims of illegal property seizures) to which a direct financial harm can be traced and include them in a class to be paid reparations. Then you find ways to expand the class (people denied housing loans in redlined districts & their children) to a larger and larger population that suffered measurable discriminatory harms.

That's largely what the first TNC link I posted was about, btw. In addition to the quote there, he said this:

Put more simply: if even the Democratic candidates that believe themselves to be on the radical left side of the party refuse to take stronger positions on racial justice, how will the party ever move left on that issue?

It's hard to only single out a couple quotes, the entire article is a must-read.

Yeah if only more people had stuck their head in the sand regarding valid criticisms of Clinton as a candidate and the actions of her campaign, and more people had disregarded the real threat and chance of a Trump victory then something something something Trump

Just because of the timing, also from that TNC article:

Goofy,

I appreciate your post. Though I do have to ask, how much? And who decides? And/or what method of determining such things fairly and rationally can be conceived? And you say to some and then more, but what are the logistics of making those decisions and levels and cuts and on and on. And what about those that fall just outside of your decisions being incensed and decrying your decision unfair?

Of course I am just trying to highlight what I meant by the difficulty and logistics and implementation of such a huge endeavor. It is one thing to morally support the general idea, and another to fully envision and implement.

But of course something beats nothing. But a lot of my focus is that something being UBI, free healthcare and free education. Couple that with not imprisoning minorities for nonviolent crimes and I think those things would be great for helping to reduce racial inequality.

And of course sadly we are welcoming in full republican control of the federal government so all of these things are wayyyyy further away than had Hillary won or the democrats had a stronger showing in the states.

At least technology and other first world countries are at least somewhat preparing for the path the world needs to go down?

so "something [on UBI/healthcare/education] beats nothing", but you are still talking about work emails that showed approximately no wrongdoing?

He's concern trolling of course. Not sure why some people haven't caught on.

You made an account like 6 weeks after the DNC, Bernie was literally out stumping for Hillary, and you were in here getting your ****ing popcorn looking into ****ing Pizzagate.

If I was you I would be, like I said, absolutely wracked with grief that all my smug libtard owning with out-of-context Wikileaks quotes and insane conspiracy **** might have in some small way contributed to Obama 2008 voters deciding that Hillary and Trump were both just as bad.

But instead you're, too this day, owning libtards about Obama's foreign policy. Literally the same ****ing schtick.

The tragic death of Democratic party has absolutely nothing to do with attracting "people" like Dan. They are not good activists, they aren't good allies, and they can't be relied upon because you never know when he'll see some spicy memes or really well done utoobz and go back to being a libertarian.

^^^ this

is the opposite of

this vvv

You see that right? You had your head in the sand searching for secret emails.



You talk about corporate-friendly neoliberalism while an actual corporatist fascist won the white house.

Damn, y'all are really going back to the arguments from the primary now!! If I recall correctly the Lewis statement about Sanders and Clinton directly contradicted what he wrote in a book about when he first met the Clintons so either in the book or in his statement he was full of it. To me this was politics to minimize that Bernie had really fought for civil rights from a young age while Clinton didn't have that kind of record. The headlines were horrible for Bernie and it's not like he could attack Lewis for what was said as that would've looked even worse so he gave an I got nothing but respect for Lewis spiel and moved on. Lewis some days later clarified his comments that just because he didn't meet Sanders it didn't mean Sanders wasn't there but by that point the damage was done. He also clarified his Clinton statement to more closely resemble what he wrote in the book. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/john-lewi...bernie-sanders

The way you guys keep writing "the damage was done" and **** really makes it seem like you think Lewis owed some duty of being nice to a guy he wasn't endorsing. Were you guys also playing ombudsman over every statement about Clinton made by Sanders endorsees?

It's bizarre. We just went through a campaign where Trump accused Ted Cruz's dad of killing JFK and you're still holding a grudge over this ****?

Get the **** out of here with this ****. "My political opponents are saying things that, well, they are true, per se, but they aren't as flattering to me as I'd prefer"??

*sigh* economics is the way out for democrats. if minorities are going to become so embittered that they're not point 1 on the agenda that they'll also vote against their interests then we as a country are just plain screwed.

I don't think Lewis or anyone owes anything to anybody nor do they have to fight the game based on a set of principles. I think the way he went about it was obvious politics and was meant to minimize the very real record Sanders has of fighting for civil rights that was better than Clinton's. Regardless, I was just surprised to check in on the thread and see arguments about something that was so long ago so I rehashed my memory about what happened. I have no grudge towards Lewis as he clearly, like most, thought Hillary was gonna win and played the game to set up for that.

Lol that europd is holding a grudge about it. He's not ' you guys ' and he gets more than one post on it after trolls made a hundred posts on it before it's bizarre as if it's some obsession he won't let go of.

There's no question the way forward is making inclusive appeals to the material well-being of the electorate, but this faux naivete of pretending Clinton and the DNC were doing something underhanded or inappropriate by playing "obvious politics" is really harmful because it plays into Trump's nihilistic "drain the swamp" ****.

It is absolutely critical that our next batch of candidates make the case that government can and will do good things, this **** where random everyday politics is seen as corrupt was CRITICAL to what killed Clinton's favorability.

new computer wouldn't do anything. They aren't tracking mac addresses. Resetting his modem could be enough to get a new IP address though. Or changing carriers.

Confused as all hell as to what you wrote here!?

I was responding to Fly and getting your back.

You are not "you guys" and the fact that you responded after all the ****ty posts in this thread between him and Dan is not you holding a grudge. It's you reading the thread and having a completely reasonable comment about what is happening right now in this thread.

oh, thanks for clarifying!

Grunching:

Basically the pushback in this thread is that eliminating Medicare would be undesirable, pointing out the merits of Medicare. Of course reforming Medicare to increase the probability it remains sustainable is what he's arguing for. He didn't indicate that he wants to eliminate Medicare and he certainly didn't argue that there is no merit to the entitlement.

#creatingstrawmenftw

Entitlements in the US are already pretty piss poor and Republicans want to roll them back even further. We can be generous and say that because Republicans have an ideological commitment to make sure the wealthy are taxed less and receive more income they cannot commit to easy ways to make Medicare "sustainable". Of course there are other programs which never run into the sustainability question, namely the military although they too have outlays. So why does Medicare continuously need to be sustainable, but the military doesn't? What's the difference? The answer is Medicare is seen as an entitlement and entitlements are always unsustainable and because the prior that Republicans cannot commit to more taxation in favor of entitlements the ratchet can only go one way, down.

So we could say that people might abstractly believe in the idea of Medicare but in reality making it as small as possible is the end goal. Does that mean that, in reality, people don't care about Medicare? I think it does. There's a whole shell game, millions of dollars, reams of paper dedicated to removing money from it, how does so much get dedicated to something that someone simply wants to make sustainable and could easily be done?

So I'd have to ask why all the sophistry if they're simply trying to make Medicare sustainable?

Pretty sure Hillary didn't lie about turning over all work related emails either, Dan.

First of all the difference between an entitlement like Medicare and a discretionary spending item like defense is that defense spending is subject to year to year budgeting while Medicare is not. Second of all I invite you to read the CBO reports on what their models indicate for the solvency of Medicare. Third I invite you to go over how the govt does the accounting for Medicare. After reviewing the CBO reports and Medicare accounting you may come to the conclusion that Medicare unchanged is totally sustainable. That's cool. Then you can point out to BoredSocial why he is wrong.

I will state that entitlement outlays are an ongoing increasing portion of Federal govt budget.

That's pretty dishonest.

The R's refuses to raise government revenue