The wee basic step we should strive for is to make the treatment available to all those suffering from cancer.
right. so the slow death. the one you were previously criticizing.
In politics, the first wee basic step we should strive for is not a complete revolution without the support of the masses, but to put in power someone who, if not better, doesn’t ruin more the already tragic and delicate system we have, to give us time to organize better.
Good thing clinton and harris had all that support of the masses, love how they managed to get all that support from the masses. Im glad me not voting for them didn’t matter, because ‘the masses’ supported them so much!
The party doesn’t want medicare4all, hence why they didnt pass it when they had the power to, or use some of the executive’s powers to get as much non-means tested heathcare to the people as possible.
since you all seem to get your one-liner responses from the same text file, i’m gonna follow your example and repost another comment from this post
Democrats haven’t had 60 senators since 1979. They had 58 in 2010 for exactly 72 days and tried to pass public option healthcare but only 1 independent voted with them so they settled for the lesser medicaid expansion that the current Republicans are gutting in the budget. For the record, that medicaid expansion passed with supermajority as every singe Republican voted nay.
You only need a simple majority to remove the filibuster. We elected them to use their power, not to let their hands be tied by rules that never seem to stop them or the republicans from doing bad things.
Dems could have simply gotten rid of the filibuster and passed free healthcare with 50 votes, and shown an entire generation of voters that politics is a viable means of achieving positive social change. But they genuinely do not want this because the donor class does not want this, so they let the rules stop them.
For the dems, a generation of energized, politically active 20-30 year olds is a problem to overcome.
right. so the slow death. the one you were previously criticizing.
In politics, the first wee basic step we should strive for is not a complete revolution without the support of the masses, but to put in power someone who, if not better, doesn’t ruin more the already tragic and delicate system we have, to give us time to organize better.
And uhh yeah we kinda failed at that
Good thing clinton and harris had all that support of the masses, love how they managed to get all that support from the masses. Im glad me not voting for them didn’t matter, because ‘the masses’ supported them so much!
deleted by creator
and how does that relate to politics, especially seeing as you are actively sabotaging the party that wants medicare/medicaid
The party doesn’t want medicare4all, hence why they didnt pass it when they had the power to, or use some of the executive’s powers to get as much non-means tested heathcare to the people as possible.
since you all seem to get your one-liner responses from the same text file, i’m gonna follow your example and repost another comment from this post
You only need a simple majority to remove the filibuster. We elected them to use their power, not to let their hands be tied by rules that never seem to stop them or the republicans from doing bad things.
what’s that to do with medicare?
Dems could have simply gotten rid of the filibuster and passed free healthcare with 50 votes, and shown an entire generation of voters that politics is a viable means of achieving positive social change. But they genuinely do not want this because the donor class does not want this, so they let the rules stop them.
For the dems, a generation of energized, politically active 20-30 year olds is a problem to overcome.