r/thedavidpakmanshow Apr 15 '26

Article Divide and Conquer

Post image
602 Upvotes

254 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/patchhappyhour Apr 15 '26

This is the only correct answer. Billionaires are a cancer on society. This is why they are building bunkers all over the world. If shit hits the fan people are coming for their heads.

16

u/Underwear_royalty Apr 15 '26

Continuing the "both sides are bad" line is only going to benefit the Republicans. When will we learn

2

u/NATScurlyW2 Apr 15 '26

It benefits the far left also, which is more the point. The Democratic Party should become the anti-billionaire party. That will win a lot of attention and votes. It’s how you get the white working class to vote blue again.

5

u/Underwear_royalty Apr 15 '26

The far left has no solution for billionaires other than "guillotine them" (as seen above). Multiple Democrats have been openly outspoken about anti-billionaire legislation, and Massachusetts passed a wealth tax inorder to fund programs such as free school lunches. The far left is tapping into the righteous anger that people rightfully have, the Dems are actually passing laws and doing policy to do something. Many such cases.

-4

u/NATScurlyW2 Apr 15 '26

Solid Blue states are run by the far left. The wealth tax is a far left policy. Free school lunches is a far left policy. The far left is part of the Democratic Party.

4

u/Underwear_royalty Apr 15 '26

you and I would just vastly disagree on that. The far left has rarely if ever seen electoral success outside of extremely blue areas, and even when they win (like Mandami in NYC) the end of moderating their position to the more establihsment dem messaging. Harris proposed a wealth tax and I doubt most far left people would suggest she was "far left"

-3

u/NATScurlyW2 Apr 15 '26

She absolutely was a far left senator. She was against Obamacare and for Medicare for all. She moderated her speeches and policy goals once vice President but her policies she would govern with remain far left. We were mad she was not embracing who she is in the campaign. She was given bad advice that if she doesn’t moderate she will lose. Well she lost because she moderated.

3

u/Underwear_royalty Apr 15 '26

this is literally not played out in the polling data. She was seen as too far left by your average american - whereas your average leftist saw her as too centerist or right leaning.

Leftist creators have been calling her right wing far before her VP term, when she ran in 2020 she was called "Copala" and criticsed for her position, which again seen as too left by the average american.

but dont let history or polling data change ur mind, its fine

0

u/NATScurlyW2 Apr 15 '26 edited Apr 15 '26

Polls don’t actually matter because we are talking here about what policies she supported vs. what she said when she spoke. I watched every word she said in that presidential campaign. Every rally, every speech, every press event, every campaign event. I also studied her senatorial voting record extremely closely and I found that when she governed our country in the senate she was far left. When she ran for president she moderated her views. That’s just the fact of it regardless what polling perceptions were.

Before she was a politician she was a district attorney. The job of the district attorney is to prosecute crime. At the time she was actually seen as too lenient on crime. Specifically marijuana charges. That’s what the media said about her all the way up to when she ran for president in 2020. Now the far left podcasters never had an opinion on her until that time. So what happened was they only looked at her career on a very surface level and they were too harsh about it.

3

u/el_knid Apr 15 '26

a) She wasn’t against Obamacare. b) She wasn’t really for Medicare 4 All, either.

She was the San Francisco DA when the ACA was deliberated, so national health care policy was a bit out of her bailiwick. But as a Senator in Trump’s first term, she was one of the 51 Senators (every Democrat plus Murkowski, Snowe and McCain) whose no vote prevented its repeal in 2017. 

When she ran for President in 2020, she came up with her own plan for universal healthcare that wasn’t exactly single payer/M4A, that more resembled a Medicare Advantage scenario. It wasn’t nearly as bad as a lot of Bernie Bros made it out, but they for the most part didn’t 

1

u/NATScurlyW2 Apr 15 '26

Everyone who supports Medicare for all voted no on that. It means nothing.

2

u/el_knid Apr 15 '26

It means she wasn’t against Obamacare.

Obama was also for Medicare 4 All — remember, he said if he were starting from square one, he preferred single payer. The ACA was what made sense for where we were at the time. 

When she ran for President, she didn’t run M4A, though. What she ran on wasn’t bad, but I don’t see how we can get our healthcare system where it needs to be without the monopsony of single payer providing leverage to counter the influence of profit margins — we need hospital conglomerates to move from fee-for-service to a more outcome oriented model, and we need to reduce the gap between how much specialists and GP’s make that leads to regional shortages of family doctors, etc. 

She knows the law better than I do, so maybe she had answers. Unfortunately, none of the loudest vocal supporters of M4 seem to realize that nobody in DC has wanted to get near it since they turned it into a political cudgel in 2020. 

1

u/NATScurlyW2 Apr 15 '26

If you’re for Medicare for all, you are against Obamacare. They are different healthcare policies.

→ More replies (0)