Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Soulless): ‘Nobody Dies Because They Don’t Have Access To Health Care’

[moonbladem]

Of course, neither he, his family nor the GOP ever have to find out if that's true.

Comments

[lightframes]

“I keep wondering why they want to kill me,” Jacqueline Church Simonds, who has coverage thanks to Obamacare, told HuffPost.

Damn, that's incredibly sad.

[moonshaz]

I know, right? And it just adds insult to injury when some asshat like this one has the unmitigated gall to stand in front of a roomful of people and blithely claim that "Nobody dies because they don't have access to health care." I mean, are you freaking KIDDING me? What cave has this douche cannon been living in? He deserved to be ripped apart for making such an asinine and flat out factually untrue statement. Rme

[lovedforaday]

big reason why i don't think the jacobin/intercept neoliberal wahrgarble is anymore convincing than anything the establishment dems are doing. there's a party who sucks, but are mostly imperfect and there's a party that literally doesn't care if poor citizens die.

[moonshaz]

big reason why i don't think thejacobin/intercept neoliberal wahrgarbleis anymore convincing than anything the establishment dems are doing.

I don't know if it's just me, but I'm going to ask anyway, lol...

I find this comment confusing, and I'm really unclear about what you intended to convey, particularly the part I've bolded.  I googled "jacobin"  but didn't get anything that was very helpful in understanding what you mean here. I'm assuming the word has some specific meaning here (beyond the apparent historical reference), but I can't work out what that is, particularly in the context of what Democrats are currently doing.

I'm not sure what "intercept" means in this context, either. I have some theories, but I don't want to assume anything. And I really don't have any idea how either "jacobin" or "intercept" relates to "neoliberal."

In particular, it would a big help if you could elaborate on what thing(s) the "establishment dems" are doing that you find unconvincing. Or maybe just give an example or two?

In closing, I realize

[lovedforaday]

The Jacobin is a Progressive website and magazine similar to the Intercept. They post essays that often show up here, there's one on the front page right now.

The big thing that annoy me about the Dems, and the Progressives for that matter, is their, imo, mistaken belief if they reach out more to White people, or in the progressives case, keep the "identity politics" talk to a minimum, they'll vote for Dems in bigger numbers. That ship has sailed and it sailed 30 plus years ago. Time to shore up the devoted base and quit taking them for granted and focus on shit like voter suppression (real voter suppression not independents can't vote in primaries "voter suppression").

[blackjedii]

Except - and lord know I say that a lot - that may work in California, or New York, and it may win the Dems the Senate, but forgetting about "white people" (which is such a muddled thing anyway since there is no collective anyone) will not hand them the House of Reps. You need geographical advantage to get the numbers for that, and the Dems don't have it.

I'd also point out that a southern Dem is different from a San Francisco Dem, who is probably different from a Rhode Island Dem. Hence why I side-eye the idea of purity tests and/or falling back on identity politics as a catch-all for defining groups in different parts of the country.

tl;dr either way it's all about districting and who you can get to vote where. And voter suppression is only a small part of it when you don't even bother running candidates because "the data doesn't support it"

[sophranius]

That is my representative y'all. I've called his office... many times these past few months. It doesn't mean anything though.

[moonshaz]

I feel the same way about my congressman, Peter Roskam. He's so spineless he refuses to even have townhall meetings,  because "they always turn into shouting matches," according to him. Which, afaic, is a fancy way of saying he's too chickenshit to stand up and defend his positions in front of a room that contains people who might disagree with them.

I do have at least some hope of getting him voted out nest year. This district (or rather the portions of various districts that were cobbled together a couple of years ago to form the current grrymandered mess) has historically been red, but there are a fuck ton of us who can't stand Roskam and can't wait to start campaigning for whoever ends up running against him in 2018. Among other things, Trump is pretty unpopular in these parts, and Roskam has pretty much supported all of his evilnesspolicies right down the line so far (including voting yes on both versions of the AHCA), which is definitely going to hurt him.

Between Roskam and the Illinois gubernatorial race, I know exactly where

[screw_reality]

[blossombunny]

ugh fuck republicans :/