politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
You really want universal Healthcare?
Suspend Medicare for 5 years, the boomers hate socialized medicine already, let's respect their wishes.
Suddenly, you'll have a functioning national polity capable of rational discourse again.
Bruh....
The first time it was part of a presidential platform was Teddy Roosevelt in 1912.
If all it took was people dying off, we'd have gotten it by now. The problem is we keep trying, getting a tiny crumb, and then get stalled another 20 years by our own party because we just got something.
Affordable care act was 2010, so we might get another crumb when Harris is getting ready to leave her second term. That way the progressive in the primary would get under cut on healthcare against the moderate because they'll frame asking for more as being against what we just got.
I just legitimately don't understand why more people don't see it, it's blatantly obvious on a long enough timeline.
The only way we get universal healthcare is if we refuse to shut up about it.
I already get it. I'm a disabled vet, but it's just insane to me hearing what the majority of Americans have to deal with
Propaganda and brainwashing. It's powerful, especially when you have other things to think about and can't take the time to consider and diffuse it. The vested interests in the current system are savvy and willing to spend to protect their profits.
I wouldn't call ACA a tiny crumb, but most of the cookie. My mom didn't live to see it, but had she lived long enough, ACA would have literally saved her life. It's exactly what she needed for the preceeding twenty years and didn't get.
Agreed. What happened at Charlottesville in 2017 and on Jan 6, 2021 shows that our opponents include many younger folks. This isn't going to just die out over time.
Thank you for your service. But I wouldn't call that universal in the same way that the ACA is not universal (unless the donut hole gets filled).
I suspect Harris looked at this poll or something like it. Americans don't know what they want, but they do know what they don't want, and that's too much change at one time. Which is a shame because Obama ran on Hope and Change. But by the time he took office, the gap between people who said that they thought the Government should take responsibility for quality healthcare and those who say that it's none of the Government's business shrank from like +40 to almost 0, and only in a matter of 2 years. Then he passed the ACA, and that number went negative. Between Progressives leaving him high and dry and moderates saying he went to far, Obama just got creamed on this. And I'm sure Harris wants to serve more than one term, especially if the Trumpster Fire is still kicking around in 2028!
By the same token she needs Pennsylvania and 58% of registered voters want to ban fracking because it negatively effects them....
Like you said, the people know what they don't work, but both candidate have explicitly said they won't ban fracking.
If Harris is doing what you're saying and just trying to win, why not ban fracking?
Couple of ideas here:
Jesus, the ACA took literally every penny of political capital Obama had, and he walked in with more than any Dem president in decades.
If he hadn't wasted his and our time on the ACA we could have passed something useful, like campaign finance reform, though that would have been dismantled too, you still have to work on it, CU is killing this country.
You have a 5th grader's appreciation of politics.
Healthcare needs to be fixed in a completely different way, the insurers need to be staked through the heart, and the providers not far after, otherwise nothing you do will matter, there's simply too much money involved.
In fact it wasn't quite enough in the end as he actually was focused on two major arcs:
The ACA and the DREAM act. The ACA made it but the DREAM act failed (and we ended up with DACA instead).
I don't want to give up on the dreamers, but OTOH, instead of focusing on them perhaps he could have had more successful results spending that effort and capital on your plan? Though of course hindsight is 20/20.
No, the only chance to get campaign financing reform was to make that the only press, 100%, and go all in on one roll.
The thing is: afterwards he would have had capital left, but after the ACA he just made more political hostility, that's what happens when your opposition party can spend a whole term fundraising and getting lobbied because you're touching a political third rail.
If he'd managed serious campaign finance and lobbying reform, he could have used that win to neutralize his opposition and land either the ACA or the dreamers.
Actually maybe he could do campaign finance and the dreamers, the problem is for the ACA he would have been constantly threatened and bargained with the dreamers, and those bargains would have to be cashed in anyway to close the deal, ACA was such a political battleground it forced everyone to mobilize for war footing.
The GOP were desperate for a rallying cry against Obama and he gave it to them on a platter.
Ah, yes that makes sense. Either ACA or DREAM would have burned thru too much on it's own, so that would have had to be the first one and then ACA/DREAM as the second act.