The deplorables don't want to learn a new skill. That's the whole point. Trump promised them thier old lives back.
Playing dumb, or just willfully ignorant. Good to be you eh?
Looks like guilt by political association to me. Find a loon among the opposing party and tie all other members to loon thinking. I think you may have done some of that with the debt thing with democrats. I am profoundly debt averse but I am also rather luck in that I have never gone under to any of it, having worked sufficiently hard and having the moral uprightness to meet my obligations according to the rules. Lucky, as I said, so while I could flatter myself that I am the agent of my success and financially capable, the facts are that while I went down a road that offered the a path to success, I got there because there were no disasters. Thus, as a liberal, I do not have the moral attitude that I won because of my personal virtue, not that it didn't factor in, but that many who do not succeed do not deserve my contempt because they didn't. I was lucky and they may not have been. In shout the issue of debt vs debt free or debt free plus, is not a moral issue to me. I prefer to be debt free but when I look at a situation like the DNC I don't see it as a pertinent issue in the sense that it shows moral weakness. But I also don't dismiss that possibility. I would try to discover the facts without prejudging what I am looking at.I understand what the Pizza Gate is. Just not getting what it has to do with the topic...
Thus, as a liberal, I do not have the moral attitude that I won because of my personal virtue, not that it didn't factor in, but that many who do not succeed do not deserve my contempt because they didn't.
You voted for a candidate that willingly pushes conspiracy theories, such as that. One issue voting is for simple minds...so when you say that you're in it for the supreme court seat, it's easy to lump you on with the other simple minds, such as those who actually believed pizza gate was real. They're on your side.I understand what the Pizza Gate is. Just not getting what it has to do with the topic...
Subsidize a behavior and you get more of it.
If you’re evil plan is to get more of it, leading to dependent and loyal voters that will keep you in power, when you run out of other people’s money you get bloodshed.
It happens every time. Therefore, your system is inherently evil.
"When you lose to somebody who has 40% popularity, you don't blame other things -- Comey, Russia -- you blame yourself," Schumer, the top ranking Democrat in the Senate, told The Washington Post over the weekend. "So what did we do wrong? People didn't know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that."http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/24/politics/schumer-clinton-2016/
Some additional info on the Schumer thingi I think is interesting.
Critical thinking. I'm down for some more."When you lose to somebody who has 40% popularity, you don't blame other things -- Comey, Russia -- you blame yourself," Schumer, the top ranking Democrat in the Senate, told The Washington Post over the weekend. "So what did we do wrong? People didn't know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that."
What is this blasphemy?
"When you lose to somebody who has 40% popularity, you don't blame other things -- Comey, Russia -- you blame yourself," Schumer, the top ranking Democrat in the Senate, told The Washington Post over the weekend. "So what did we do wrong? People didn't know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that."
What is this blasphemy?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/24/politics/schumer-clinton-2016/
Some additional info on the Schumer thingi I think is interesting.
"When you lose to somebody who has 40% popularity, you don't blame other things -- Comey, Russia -- you blame yourself," Schumer, the top ranking Democrat in the Senate, told The Washington Post over the weekend. "So what did we do wrong? People didn't know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that."
This is an apt description of the liberal brain defect, being so right as to be unable to see anybody who doesn't know it as anything but a fool and all that is required to win is to point out that fact. All this results in is that the fools vote Republican and they win because there isn't a fool on the planet who thinks he or she is. Well almost, anyway."When you lose to somebody who has 40% popularity, you don't blame other things -- Comey, Russia -- you blame yourself," Schumer, the top ranking Democrat in the Senate, told The Washington Post over the weekend. "So what did we do wrong? People didn't know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that."
What is this blasphemy?
Yup, but that isn't enough in my opinion. The message has to be real, practical, and argued for and proven to be working. Liberals need Americans to give them a chance by not voting a blocking sized house and senate. They need control and they need to prove to be effective. They need to teach.Schumer is picking up the same theme I've had about the election. The party needs to be a movement for meaningful, positive, change. Can't just exist to tear down others. Gotta inspire and lift the American people up out of despair.
You're missing a big part of what the Democrats and liberals are missing - you need to convince the majority of people that any benefits from those policies will actually accrue to them. As of now folks like Jhhnn are the image of the party and their prime directive is to stick it to the rich and give to the poor and unworthy with the middle class getting crumbs if anything. Policies like "we covered x more people with health insurance" isn't going to register for the middle class since they're not one of those x number of people plus are probably being stuck with lots of the costs. Unless and until Dems focus on middle class problems (for the ~$30-80k income set) instead of the poor they'll probably lose.
Democrats probably took for granted that they didn't need to pander to lower-middle-class types because the GOP doesn't even hide the fact that they are out to destroy them in exchange for more tax cuts for the super-wealthy. Big mistake. America's lower-middle-class really is that stupid. Sorry lower-middle-class. Not going to rescue you from your decision this time. Enjoy your forthcoming homelessness.Actually what she was standing on was basically a platform that said "things are pretty good in this country, we just need to tweak some things to make it even better." For the progressive urban "creative class" upper class or upper-middle class pulling down six figure incomes she was basically correct and Obama had spent much of his administration addressing issues important to this creative class.
Where Clinton messed up is that for 'flyover state' blue or white collar workers firmly in the working or middle class that message fell completely flat since they wanted a 'change' election; some to the point where they wanted someone to burn down the entire system and start over. At best they would have been pleased about some of her positions but 'meh' to outright opposed to some of the other core 2016 Dem agenda items. The middle class was being told by Clinton the economy was great but they didn't feel it, and a lot of her mental energy seemed to be directed at issues that were at best tangential to them even if they polled well theoretically (e.g. alternative energy rarely generates enthusiasm unless the voter was one of the few who actually got a job out of the deal). "Black Lives Matter" and issues like bathroom access for transgendered are wayyyyyyyy down the list of average middle class voter concerns.
Winning message for Democrats next time needs to focus on 3 things: (1) We're going to help you get and keep a well-paying job. (2) We're going to help you get your debt under control and start making progress towards your financial goals, and (3) we're going to focus on fixing or improving the government services you use and see every day like roads, hiring more teachers and police officers, and clearing regulatory backlogs and approval delays. Fill in the tree with the policy details for how you'll accomplish those things, but that's the formula for convincing middle class voters that you 'get' their concerns and priorities. If a randomly selected middle class parent in Ohio or somewhere similar can't understand and be able to articulate "hey, here's how this policy would positively impact me" immediately after hearing your ideas then it's not the right idea. Yes, the progressive core of urban >$100k earners won't be as enthusiastic about this list as they would about the Paris climate accord or labeling GMOs or other pet causes, but you might actually win the next election.
Actually what she was standing on was basically a platform that said "things are pretty good in this country, we just need to tweak some things to make it even better." For the progressive urban "creative class" upper class or upper-middle class pulling down six figure incomes she was basically correct and Obama had spent much of his administration addressing issues important to this creative class.
Where Clinton messed up is that for 'flyover state' blue or white collar workers firmly in the working or middle class that message fell completely flat since they wanted a 'change' election; some to the point where they wanted someone to burn down the entire system and start over. At best they would have been pleased about some of her positions but 'meh' to outright opposed to some of the other core 2016 Dem agenda items. The middle class was being told by Clinton the economy was great but they didn't feel it, and a lot of her mental energy seemed to be directed at issues that were at best tangential to them even if they polled well theoretically (e.g. alternative energy rarely generates enthusiasm unless the voter was one of the few who actually got a job out of the deal). "Black Lives Matter" and issues like bathroom access for transgendered are wayyyyyyyy down the list of average middle class voter concerns.
Winning message for Democrats next time needs to focus on 3 things: (1) We're going to help you get and keep a well-paying job. (2) We're going to help you get your debt under control and start making progress towards your financial goals, and (3) we're going to focus on fixing or improving the government services you use and see every day like roads, hiring more teachers and police officers, and clearing regulatory backlogs and approval delays. Fill in the tree with the policy details for how you'll accomplish those things, but that's the formula for convincing middle class voters that you 'get' their concerns and priorities. If a randomly selected middle class parent in Ohio or somewhere similar can't understand and be able to articulate "hey, here's how this policy would positively impact me" immediately after hearing your ideas then it's not the right idea. Yes, the progressive core of urban >$100k earners won't be as enthusiastic about this list as they would about the Paris climate accord or labeling GMOs or other pet causes, but you might actually win the next election.
"When you lose to somebody who has 40% popularity, you don't blame other things -- Comey, Russia -- you blame yourself," Schumer, the top ranking Democrat in the Senate, told The Washington Post over the weekend. "So what did we do wrong? People didn't know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that."
What is this blasphemy?
Yup, but that isn't enough in my opinion. The message has to be real, practical, and argued for and proven to be working. Liberals need Americans to give them a chance by not voting a blocking sized house and senate. They need control and they need to prove to be effective. They need to teach.
Schumer is picking up the same theme I've had about the election. The party needs to be a movement for meaningful, positive, change. Can't just exist to tear down others. Gotta inspire and lift the American people up out of despair.
What does "wreck the election" even mean?If Trump was found guilty or they had undeniable proof that he colluded to wreck the election yes I would. Until then I would rather wait for our justice system to work as it should.
Hillary's message was "real, practical, and argued for and proven to be working." America does not give a shit about any of that. All they care about is sound bites taken out of context, headlines that aren't supported by the articles they'll never read, and bashing liberals.Yup, but that isn't enough in my opinion. The message has to be real, practical, and argued for and proven to be working. Liberals need Americans to give them a chance by not voting a blocking sized house and senate. They need control and they need to prove to be effective. They need to teach.
Sorry lower-middle-class. Not going to rescue you from your decision this time. Enjoy your forthcoming homelessness.
Can't teach those who refuse to learn. Tribalism FTL.Yup, but that isn't enough in my opinion. The message has to be real, practical, and argued for and proven to be working. Liberals need Americans to give them a chance by not voting a blocking sized house and senate. They need control and they need to prove to be effective. They need to teach.
Oh okay making the United States into a worldwide laughingstock no big deal I'll let it go. I'm sure the whole world has memories as short as the average American.Trump isn't worth having a mental breakdown over. The sun will still rise tomorrow. I for one, will be there to greet it.
Hillary's message was "real, practical, and argued for and proven to be working." America does not give a shit about any of that. All they care about is sound bites taken out of context, headlines that aren't supported by the articles they'll never read, and bashing liberals.
Oh okay making the United States into a worldwide laughingstock no big deal I'll let it go. I'm sure the whole world has memories as short as the average American.
Two million Americans file bankruptcy every year due to medical bills. If you don't think health costs affect the middle class, you haven't been paying attention. There is this little thing called lifetime limit. When you reach that with your insurance company, YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN and you are no longer part of the middle class. We are about the only first world nation where massive medical problems are also guaranteed to impoverish you.
We need single payer and a health tax. We see it working all over the civilized world. The vast majority of Democrats and a increasing number of Republicans (I believe it is up to around half now) support it. As more conservatives in the middle class are destroyed by medical bills, even more will turn around. As more people become aware of how well the countries with universal health care are doing, even more will support it.
America's health care isn't in the top 10. I doubt it is even in the top 20 (according to Business Insider it is number 37). It is the most expensive by a country mile and provides less than most first world nations.
http://www.therichest.com/expensive...top-10-best-health-care-systems-in-the-world/
http://gazettereview.com/2016/04/countries-with-the-best-health-care/
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-healthcare-systems-in-the-world-2012-6
This is where you're not getting it. The average middle class person already has employer subsidized health insurance. It's an imperfect system and we should have never gone down that road but the ship has already sailed. When one of those employed middle class persons hears "single payer" they don't see some new benefit to them (remember they already have health insurance via their job) apart from continuation of insurance should they lose that job until they get a new job that offers health insurance again, and you could offer them something like that without needing to go full single payer. You can argue that such a short-term job loss need scenario is unrealistic all you want but that's the thought pattern the middle class has. When you start advocating for single payer they see that it as a means to benefit others and what's worse is they will typically believe (not altogether incorrectly) that the middle class will be the ones footing the bill for it. You see it as some amazing universal social benefit, the middle class sees it as another welfare scheme they won't benefit from (they hope!). While they wouldn't necessarily object to allowing taxpayer money to help expand coverage to the poor that simply cannot be the primary benefit they see. Unless and until you can explain (with believable cause/effect and numbers to back it up) how 'single payer' or any other system that's not the current one directly, immediately, and primarily helps the middle class (while demonstrating how middle class paying for the healthcare of the poor would reduce costs to the middle class) then single-payer is basically a non-starter. You could say that it would cover 100 trillion additional uninsured, unless you make healthcare cheaper for all it's going to fail.