Democrat Party Civil War Begins

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
1
36
Voters are Fired Up for Single Payer Creating Dilemma for Democrats


On Sunday, June 4, the same day that Our Revolution, a Democratic Party group that arose from the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, organized rallies and die-ins to highlight the number of people dying in the United States due to lack of access to health care, the New York Times published an article, “The Single Payer Party? Democrats Shift Left on Health Care", prominently on the front page and above the fold.

The article quotes RoseAnn DeMoro, head of National Nurses United, saying, “There is a cultural shift. Health care is now seen as something everyone deserves. It’s like a national light went off.” Minnesota Congressman Rick Nolan was also quoted, saying that rank and file Democrats “are energized in a way I have not witnessed in a long, long time.” Nolan is correct in stating that following the Democrat’s large loss in 2016, the party needs “a more boldly ‘aspirational’ health care platform.”

Democratic Party voters have been strong supporters of single payer health care for a long time. Polls have consistently shown that super-majorities of Democratic Party voters want single payer, but Democratic Party candidates keep telling them that they can’t have it. The Democratic Party has refused to add Medicare for All to its healthcare platform despite resolutions introduced by single payer advocates. Even the Congressional Progressive Caucus refuses to include single payer health care in their “People’s Budget.”

In 2009, with a Democratic President and majorities in the House and Senate, single payer health care was off the table. Instead, the “public option” was used to divide the Democratic Party voters and convince them that they were asking for too much. Democrats were told that the public option would be more politically feasible and would create a “back door” to single payer. Many were fooled. And the joke was on them because even the public option, which I call the “Profiteer’s Option” was never meant to be in the final legislation.

While the New York Times wrongly blames the liberal and centrist Democrats for not supporting a public option, it was actually the White House and Democratic Party leadership that kept it out of the final bill. In December of 2009, public pressure was working to convince the Senate to include a public option in its healthcare bill. That’s when leadership stepped in to stop them.

This was the Democratic Party’s deal with the devil. They rejected their voter base and went with the donor class to create and market a health law, the so-called Affordable Care Act, that protected the profits of the medical-industrial complex, and it backfired. In the 2010 election, 63 Democratic incumbents lost their seats in Congress and the party has been in decline ever since with a record low number of elected officials nationally. On issue after issue, the Democratic Party betrayed its base and voters finally gave up, choosing either to vote for other parties or not vote at all.

The question now is whether the Democrats will change.

So far, despite the title of the New York Times article, the answer is no. Although there is widespread voter support for single payer, Nancy Pelosi says the party is not going there and is funneling advocates’ energy to the state level, even though state single payer systems are not possible without federal legislation. At the national level, Democrats are paying lip service to Medicare for All: “We need to get there eventually but right now our task is to fix the ACA” is the current talking point.

The reality is that the political currents have shifted. The public is not going along with the con. People want solutions to the healthcare crisis, not more tinkering with the current failed healthcare system. Across the country, the message is clear that the public supports National Improved Medicare for All. And whichever political party in power embraces this will see a surge in popularity.

Voters are Fired Up for Single Payer Creating Dilemma for Democrats | Dissident Voice
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
The war rages...

Camille Paglia Blames Dems for Destroying Journalism - 'It Is Going to Take Decades to Recover'


Paglia called what she said the Democratic Party had done to journalism “absolutely grotesque” and warned it would take decades to recover.

“It’s obscene,” she said. “It’s outrageous, OK? It shows that the Democrats are nothing now but words and fantasy and hallucination and Hollywood. There’s no journalism left. What’s happened to The New York Times? What’s happened to the major networks? It’s an outrage.”

“I’m a professor of media studies, in addition to a professor of humanities, OK?” she continued. “And I think it’s absolutely grotesque the way my party has destroyed journalism. Right now, it is going to take decades to recover from this atrocity that’s going on where the news media have turned themselves over to the most childish fraternity, kind of buffoonish behavior.”
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,198
113
D’oh! The TV network famously branded “fake news” by President Trump just saw its new anti-Trump poll backfire big time.

CNN’s latest unscientific poll asked more than 3 million people: “Should Trump be investigated for obstruction of justice?”

As of Tuesday afternoon, only 33.6 percent said “yes” and twice as many – a whopping 66.4 percent – said “no.”
CNN Trump-hater poll has shocking result for network

There is a NEW media which is not fake news and it apparently seems to be working not too badly
:)
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Some Democrats are starting to turn their ire toward Nancy Pelosi

http://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/06/21/some-democrats-are-starting-to-turn-their-ire-toward-nancy-pelos/22534445/

What does one have to do to buy themselves an election!

 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Pelosi (CA) and Schumer (NY)... and the Democrats are still confused why they are getting trounced election after election.
 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
1
36
Corporate Democrats' Ties to Wal-Mart's Long Record of Fighting Workers' Rights


Walmart has led a high-profile campaign against raising their workers receiving a $15 minimum wage, forming a union, and receiving full benefits. In 2016, Walmart increased their minimum wage to $10 an hour but for many, they remain a symbol for everything wrong with how corporate America treats their workers. Since 2011, OUR Walmart has provided a space for workers to organize.

Hillary Clinton's ties to Walmart run deep. From her tenure as a member of the company's board from 1986 to 1992 to the lobbying firm co-founded by her campaign chair John Podesta currently representing Walmart as a company. Fellow board member John Tate, who served with Clinton from 1988 to 1992, called labor unions, "Blood-sucking parasites."

Throughout her time at Walmart, Clinton reportedly never spoke up on behalf of labor unions or workers. Alice Walton, the daughter of Walmart founder Sam Walton, donated $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund and $25,000 to the Ready for Hillary PAC in 2015.

MIKE SAINATO: So Hillary Clinton was a board member of Walmart during Bill Clinton's governorship of Arkansas. Can you tell me a little bit about your feelings on Hillary Clinton's strong ties to Walmart?

DON ANDREWS: It's honestly disgusting. This is the thing. As an associate, there's 1.4 million of us in America and our choice was between a former Walmart executive as one of the major party leaders and someone who eventually went on to appoint our CEO, Donald Trump, he appointed our CEO on our Economic Advisory Board. That's why as an associate I've been telling other associates we can't trust the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton's the main reason. Bernie, that's one reason I volunteered for Bernie when he ran because he was the first major party candidate I ever heard talk about the associate and not the company itself.

So I mean, just seeing the direction the Democratic Party's going and seeing the Clinton ties with Walmart it was a slap in the face to the so-called party that's supposed to represent labor. It showed us, the labor in the country, that the Democratic Party sure as heck does not have our back. In fact, to be honest, they're no different than the Republicans in a lot of ways.

MIKE SAINATO: Can you expand on that a little? You know, Donald Trump is doing a lot of things to hurt, you know, people in the demographics that work at Walmart and a lot of different communities all across the country. So can you expand on the Democratic Party continuing to fail working-class, low income, middle-class employees and those individuals?

DON ANDREWS: Yeah, I mean, let's start with the Fight for 15 for example. I mean, the Democratic Party, I look at Seattle, I can't remember the name of the city councilwoman-

MIKE SAINATO: Kshama Sawant


DON ANDREWS: I remember hearing her talk about one of the biggest opponents to the Fight for 15 was the Democrats. The thing is is because a lot of the Democrats have ties with these major corporations, I mean, Tony Podesta, John Podesta's brother, and John Podesta was the campaign organizer for the Clintons, he is a lobbyist for Walmart. So you look at the ties are there. That's what I tell people. I mean, you've got six people that have about the same amount of wealth as one third of the bottom of America and, yes, they're no different than the Koch brothers. They put their money where they see it will benefit them and that's why they don't have a problem throwing money to the Republicans or the Democrats because they're one and the same. Either way, they're going to fight against 15. They're going to fight against healthcare for workers. They're going to fight against things like paid time off that workers need because they're going to say it hurts business needs.

So I mean there's plenty of evidence there to show that the Democrats and Republicans it doesn't matter who we elect, we're going to get the same result. That goes from everything from the labor issues to foreign policy and things like Syria.

MIKE SAINATO: How do you think Progressives should push Democrats or elect them out of office so that we have a Democratic Party or even a new third party that actually represents these issues and the interests of most Americans?

Corporate Democrats' Ties to Wal-Mart's Long Record of Fighting Workers' Rights: Part 1
 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
1
36
The mere prospect of single payer, however, has elicited swift derision from some corners of the party, with Dick Gephardt, the former Democratic House minority leader, laughing off the idea at a health insurance conference earlier this month.

“Not in my lifetime,” scoffed Gephardt, when asked if the United States will ever adopt such a system.

Gephardt, who serves as a Democratic “superdelegate” responsible for choosing the party’s presidential nominee, was asked about the possibility of single payer at the Centene Corporation annual investor day conference at The Pierre, a ritzy five-star hotel in New York City.

Centene, which merged with Health Net two years ago, is a health insurance company that sells coverage in 28 states. At the conference, which included investors and Centene executives as well as lobbyists, an unidentified participant asked Gephardt about whether the industry should fear being replaced by a single-payer-style system. Such a move, the questioner remarked, would present an “existential threat.”

“There is no way you could pass single payer in any intermediate future,” Gephardt declared. America, he added, has the “greatest health care system in the world, bar none.” And while single payer would provide universal coverage, there would be less quality and innovation without the “involvement of the private sector.”

The claim that single payer suppresses innovation is an old argument that does not stand up to scrutiny. Most medical innovation in the U.S. are already government funded, through universities receiving federal subsidies and grants, as well as through the National Institutes of Health. A single-payer insurance system, like Medicare, would simply negotiate for lower prices from providers, and would likely steer savings towards greater investments in research and development. Claims about lower quality care are also highly disputed, given that countries with single payer and tightly regulated universal health systems perform much higher than the U.S. in a range of health outcomes.

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/01/dick-gephardt-single-payer-health-insurance-lobbyists/
 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
1
36
The incredible group-think that has seen the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, President Obama, the Clinton campaign and most of the corporate media braying that Vladimir Putin scandalously upended American democracy and threw the election to his favored candidate Donald Trump is based on a ludicrous premise. That premise: that the election went Trump’s way because several tens of thousands of voters in a few states — Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin — switched away from Clinton to Trump because of an alleged (and factually unproven) Russian “hack” of DNC and of Hillary campaign chair John Podesta’s emails.

According to this conspiracy theory — and that is what it is — the “Russian” hack, with the results allegedly passed on to Wikileaks, and the resulting release of emails that showed that the DNC had conspired to throw the primary election to Clinton, and that revealed the contents of Clinton’s secret sycophantic quarter-million-dollar speeches to Wall Street banks, explain those narrow Trump wins in three key swing states.

What is ludicrous about this alleged conspiracy is that Sanders supporters already knew the DNC was in bed with the Clinton campaign. They’d already learned that first hand from Hawaiian Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), who quit in disgust back in late February, saying that the DNC was undermining Sanders and working for Clinton. As for the bank speeches, Clinton did all the damage herself by refusing to disclose what she’d said in those extravagantly paid gigs, and by getting caught in a lie that she couldn’t release the texts because they were “under the control” of the banks (she actually owned the copyrights). She also hurt herself by lying and saying during one debate that she hadn’t asked for the high fees when in fact her agent had demanded them.


This infuriating information was all out there way before Wikileaks started releasing the documents in had in its possession.

The truth is that it was Clinton’s own actions that lost her the support of Sanders voters. Her repeating lying about Sanders during the campaign, and her gratuitous dissing of Sanders and his supporters even after it was becoming clearer that she would win the primary because of the corrupt support she had lined up from the party’s unelected so-called “super delegates,” and her decision in the fall, after winning the nomination, to ignore the 13 million Sanders voters from the primary and instead to pursue the support of what she hoped were disenchanted Republican voters upset that Donald Trump had won the Republican nomination, all doomed her in the general election.

The anger among Sanders backers by the time of the convention at the end of July was palpable and was demonstrated when over 700 Sanders delegates walked out of the convention en masse, many tossing their convention credentials over the tall security fence. Clearly they were not going to back Hillary Clinton in November. And those delegates represented millions of voters back in their home states. (See: Jeffrey St. Clair’s Bernie and the Sandernistas: Field Notes From a Failed Revolution.)

Hillary Clinton didn’t lose Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and most importantly Florida because a small percentage of voters switched from her to Trump in those states. She lost those states because millions of Sanders voters nationally, and hundreds of thousands of Democrats and independent progressives in those key states decided not to vote for her because they were disgusted by both her and the Democratic Party.

In other words, even if the Russians did hack the DNC and Podesta emails, and even if the leaked emails (all of which by the way were true and accurate, not fake or doctored!), did manage at the last minute to persuade a few thousand Clinton voters to switch their votes to Trump, or to simply not vote for Clinton, that only had an impact because so many hundreds of thousands of more progressive voters had already written her off as a voting option. The races in those states never should have been that close in the first place, and wouldn’t have been had the Clinton campaign not played so dirty in the primary, and then been so patronizing and vengeful towards the Sanders campaign and Sanders voters after gaining the nomination.

The “false news” about Russians hacking US democracy, pushed by the Clinton campaign, sclerotic Democratic Party leadership, elements within the intelligence establishment and the Obama administration and parroted endlessly by the corporate media and by normally sentient liberals usually quick to condemn “conspiracy thinking,” doesn’t bode well for any real effort to wrench the Democratic Party away from its thoroughly discredited corporatist political stance, and raises the prospect of further Republican gains in the coming off-year Congressional elections in 2018.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that the only way forward is going to have to be an abandonment of the Democratic Party by progressives and its replacement by a genuine progressive socialist party that is clearly of and for working people, and for those who cannot find work in this increasingly dystopic America.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/1...-because-she-blew-off-sanders-and-his-voters/
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,198
113
Right, the dnc still hasn't released those russian hacked servers to the fbi

"Hacked DNC servers: Will government ever be given access?
Published July 07, 2017 Fox News

NOW PLAYING
Could a probe of Hillary's email server be reopened?
As President Trump reportedly questions Russian President Vladimir Putin on alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election, there is a growing focus on a different, as-yet-unanswered question: Where are the Democratic National Committee servers that were allegedly breached by Russian hackers, and has anyone in the government been able to look at them?

The notion that Russia interfered with the U.S. election is based in part, if not largely, on an investigation into the DNC's computer servers. The servers themselves, however, have yet to be viewed by a single government agency. Some lawmakers are hoping to change that amid growing questions surrounding the Russia narrative."

While Comey suggested that his investigators believed they had sufficient information to understand the problem, he admitted in January before the Senate Intelligence Committee that his investigators were denied access to the physical servers. "Forensic folks always prefer to get access to the original device or server that's involved," he suggested.

Comey couldn't say why his people weren't given access,

Hacked DNC servers: Will government ever be given access? | Fox News

I guess after the Seth Rich murder everyone is still a widdle bit scared to look.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
ah yeah....comey sticks out of a crowd like a blimp at a skeet shoot
;)

They would much rather run the risk of getting hacked than let the FBI help them secure their servers. And all of the leaked DNC emails confirmed that the DNC had a reason to be concerned.