I'm going to address Stein first. A single payer health care system is the only justifiable health care system IF we want to consider health care a fundamental right. Is it?? In my opinion, yeah. What made Sanders so attractive to me was that he was unwilling to give the insurance industry access and therefore control of the health care system, in short, making the entire greedy, cut throat paper pushing industry into a buggy whip. What Obama did was outrageous, forcing free Americans to honor a greedy industry's terms, hence trying to force Americans to submit to oligarchic control, but I digress.
That's fine but Obama didn't have 60 votes for Medicare for all, not even close. It will zero out several multi-billion companies, and there was no chance of that happening, 0%. So he did the possible, and many countries with UHC have private insurers playing a critical role. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the argument that Obama didn't do the impossible, so what he could do, which included a huge expansion of Medicaid, was illegitimate and shouldn't have been done.
To your - I think - second point, both Democrats and Republicans pander to big money. I've never denied it. But there is a big difference between being surreptitious about it and being blatant about it.
What's the difference on the ground?
The Democratic elitists try to deny their corporate interests, their monetary aspirations, or their nefarious interest in quashing freedom, but it's right there evidenced in their legislative efforts. And they mislead the public about their true intent. The Democratic elites were the ones that attempted to discount Snowden's startling revelations about government intrusion. But it was the likes of Paul and mostly Republican effort that pushed for reform.
That's some serious revisionist history there. Most of those abuses were part of the Bush II War on Terror that had signoffs from both parties, and it was Bush II who argued effectively that the Commander in Chief could do pretty much what he wanted in the war on terror, including torture people, including American citizens.
As I recall, certain Democrats only got on board when they found out that they themselves were victims of our government security agencies, of which we have too many, but again, I digress.
I don't think you recall correctly. There are opponents of the national security state in the Democratic party and the libertarian leaning members of the GOP.
As far as Trump lying, I actually think people give him too much credit. Everybody lies, I suppose, but most of our two party politicians make a habit of it. I think for them it's a question of political survival, and the power they have must be addictive. So, they take credit for things they shouldn't; they misrepresent their motives; they stonewall claiming it's to benefit Americans - ie Pelosi's gang right now - when it's really about securing their own jobs and defeating any challenges to their hold on the country. With Trump, I just don't think he's as calculated as his detractors would like to believe, and lying for nefarious reasons takes both calculation and consistency, of which he has neither. Thanks!!
But you're pretending he's not lying. He lies almost every day. We've never seen anything like it. And then for the lies you cannot deny, you're attributing innocent motives to Trump while attributing sinister motives to Democrats. At least you could be consistent if you're going to pretend to be opposed to both parties. If you are, hold them both to the same standards. You're pretty hilariously putting the bar for Trump and the GOP in the ditch.
No offense, but it's why I don't really trust people who claim to be Jill Stein supporters. On the policies, there is no question the Democrats are FAR closer to Stein than are Republicans, but somehow you reserve all your serious criticism for Democrats.
Just on healthcare, the GOP position is to dismantle all the ACA, including Medicaid expansion, including the protection for pre-existing conditions and move us further from Medicare for all. The Democratic position is if not Medicare for all then a big expansion, more subsidies, for the ACA that gets us closer to MFA. And yet it's just another BOTH SIDES to you. IMO, it's not - there is a clear advantage to the Democratic position over the NOTHING the GOP proposes, except to undo all the progress of the ACA including Medicaid expansion that's helping millions of poor Americans, and the subsidies helping millions more. The hole is the problem - those outside the income range subsidies who still cannot afford healthcare. The GOP offers nothing to solve that problem, because it will cost money.
