Dems call Rick Scott's campaign plan a fundraising "godsend"

[pecksniff]

Business Insider.

The Trumpian midterm reelection plan Republican Sen. Rick Scott had hoped would electrify colleagues has instead reenergized Democrats in both chambers, sparking nationwide campaign ads, fundraising appeals, and fresh lines of attack against GOP lawmakers on the ballot this fall.

The 11-point strategy, which Scott developed on his own and unveiled February 22, takes conservative-fueled culture wars and MAGA priorities to another level — prompting fellow Republicans to characterize it as "polarizing" and "silly." In addition to imposing new taxes on low- and middle-income earners currently exempt from federal collections, Scott declares war on national mask mandates, local school boards, and race relations in general.
"Sen. Rick Scott's plan to raise taxes on working families and seniors by more than $100 billion is a godsend to Democrats. Hope he keeps it up," a Senate Democratic leadership aide said of the Florida Republican's freestyle "Rescue America" package.
Democrats all over the US have moved quickly to tie the plan to Republican candidates given that Scott leads the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the main campaign arm for the Senate GOP. Opposition researchers have pounced on the issue particularly because Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, hasn't released a policy plan.

 

[BluesDriver66]

Once again Democrats offering nothing beyond, "At lest we're not as bad as the other guy". That strategy will work as well as it did with Trump. It's an opportunity to raise money for party bosses and that's about it.

 

[ll74]

They actually responded with a real plan. Because Democrats are the party with actual policy plans...Rick Scott's plan is DOA..it raises taxes

 

[YDB95]

It's certainly a plus with voters who are paying attention this far out. But most aren't. The parallels to the Contract With America in 1994 are obvious, but it's only fair to recall most voters didn't know what the CWA was at the time. It was March 1995 before a bare majority of voters even knew what it was, and even then there were people still confusing it with NAFTA.

 

[BluesDriver66]

They actually responded with a real plan. Because Democrats are the party with actual policy plans...Rick Scott's plan is DOA..it raises taxes

Democrats are the party of losers whose policy plans don't win elections and if they do happen to win one by accident you can guarantee they will fail at getting their policies into law. "Actual policy plans" are worthless if you're unwilling to fight for them and never get them enacted.

 

[ll74]

Democrats are the party of losers whose policy plans don't win elections and if they do happen to win one by accident you can guarantee they will fail at getting their policies into law. "Actual policy plans" are worthless if you're unwilling to fight for them and never get them enacted.

Perhaps check the 2020 results.
As well as the ACA and infrastructure plans by both current and previous Democratic Presidents.

Republicans don't have policies....they prefer not governing

 

[YDB95]

Perhaps check the 2020 results.
As well as the ACA and infrastructure plans by both current and previous Democratic Presidents.

Republicans don't have policies....they prefer not governing

Don't mind him, he's doing what the deplorables do best: projecting.
The Republicans have two goals when they get elected: cut taxes for the rich as much as they can, and make sure government doesn't function beyond the bare minimum. The Democrats' problem is really the exact opposite: they do offer up specific, meaty plans...but those cannot be boiled down to eight-second soundbites, nor do they lend themselves to a concise elevator pitch like "We stand for low taxes, balanced budgets, a strong military and traditional values." I guess the problem with that elevator pitch is too many voters have come to understand that it's nonsense: they mean low taxes for the rich only, they've brought record deficits for going on 40 years, there's a difference between a strong military and spending hundreds of billions on stuff we don't need, and 'traditional values' is just a nice word for bigotry. But "The Democrat Party doesn't have any ideas of its own" is even more concise, and it's also prone to confirmation bias by people who choose to know nothing about the Democrats' ideas because they hate what they do know.

 

[BluesDriver66]

Perhaps check the 2020 results.
As well as the ACA and infrastructure plans by both current and previous Democratic Presidents.

Republicans don't have policies....they prefer not governing

The ACA is the Republican health care that was the

Perhaps check the 2020 results.
As well as the ACA and infrastructure plans by both current and previous Democratic Presidents.

Republicans don't have policies....they prefer not governing

The Republican health care scheme born at the right wing Heritage Foundation? The plan that gives billion dollar windfall profits to insurance corporations while millions of Americans go without health care and 45,000 die each year? And we couldn't even get a public option holding both houses of Congress and the White House?

The rest of the civilized world has had universal health care for decades. The ACA is an embarrassment and not something to crow about.

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage​

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/st...s-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a09b4bb42f107f197d72dfefee27fd55-pjlq

 

[BluesDriver66]

Don't mind him, he's doing what the deplorables do best: projecting.
The Republicans have two goals when they get elected: cut taxes for the rich as much as they can, and make sure government doesn't function beyond the bare minimum. The Democrats' problem is really the exact opposite: they do offer up specific, meaty plans...but those cannot be boiled down to eight-second soundbites, nor do they lend themselves to a concise elevator pitch like "We stand for low taxes, balanced budgets, a strong military and traditional values." I guess the problem with that elevator pitch is too many voters have come to understand that it's nonsense: they mean low taxes for the rich only, they've brought record deficits for going on 40 years, there's a difference between a strong military and spending hundreds of billions on stuff we don't need, and 'traditional values' is just a nice word for bigotry. But "The Democrat Party doesn't have any ideas of its own" is even more concise, and it's also prone to confirmation bias by people who choose to know nothing about the Democrats' ideas because they hate what they do know.

I've been a life long Democrat since I was old enough to vote. What I'm not is some party hack that accepts failure and corruption or falls for good cop/bad cop scams put on by both political parties beholden to the same corporate entities that legally bribe both parties.

Fun fact: Democratic top contributor is a fucking Republican.

Democratic National Cmte​

Top Contributors, 2020 cycle​

[TR]
[TD]Mike Bloomberg 2020[/TD]

[TD] $18,002,945[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Alphabet Inc[/TD]

[TD] $2,332,163[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Microsoft Corp[/TD]

[TD] $1,815,169[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bain Capital[/TD]

[TD] $1,759,111[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]University of California[/TD]

[TD] $1,635,713[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Valor Equity Partners[/TD]

[TD] $1,471,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Renaissance Technologies[/TD]

[TD] $1,367,842[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Blackstone Group[/TD]

[TD] $1,122,447[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Kleiner, Perkins et al[/TD]

[TD] $1,031,005[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Amazon.com[/TD]

[TD] $973,453[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bessemer Venture Partners[/TD]

[TD] $962,800[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Grosvenor Capital Management[/TD]

[TD] $935,900[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Stanford University[/TD]

[TD] $832,213[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Baupost Group[/TD]

[TD] $763,651[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Centerbridge Partners[/TD]

[TD] $720,318[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]EIG Global Energy Partners[/TD]

[TD] $710,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]General Catalyst Partners[/TD]

[TD] $698,800[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Harvard University[/TD]

[TD] $684,729[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Walt Disney Co[/TD]

[TD] $644,583[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Hellman & Friedman[/TD]

[TD] $620,332[/TD]
[/TR]


https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/contrib.php?cmte=DNC&cycle=2020

 

[ll74]

The ACA is the Republican health care that was the

The Republican health care scheme born at the right wing Heritage Foundation? The plan that gives billion dollar windfall profits to insurance corporations while millions of Americans go without health care and 45,000 die each year? And we couldn't even get a public option holding both houses of Congress and the White House?

The rest of the civilized world has had universal health care for decades. The ACA is an embarrassment and not something to crow about.

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage​

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/st...s-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a09b4bb42f107f197d72dfefee27fd55-pjlq

Hahaha..taking credit for Obama's healthcare policy...good job.

Absolutely happy with the ACA as a solid starting point to universal healthcare.

 

[BluesDriver66]

Hahaha..taking credit for Obama's healthcare policy...good job.

Absolutely happy with the ACA as a solid starting point to universal healthcare.

Hahaha..taking credit for Obama's healthcare policy...good job.

Absolutely happy with the ACA as a solid starting point to universal healthcare.

No it was not a good start. What we got the Republican/Mitt Romney's health care plan. Norway has had universal health care for over a hundred years. 45,000 dead Americans every year for no good reason is a disgusting legacy for the nation as a whole and Democrats in particular.


The Massachusetts health care reform, commonly referred to as Romneycare,[1] was a healthcare reform law passed in 2006 and signed into law by Governor Mitt Romney with the aim of providing health insurance to nearly all of the residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The law mandated that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a minimum level of insurance coverage, provided free and subsidized health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% and 300%, respectively, of the federal poverty level (FPL)[2] and mandated employers with more than 10 full-time employees provide healthcare insurance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform

 

[YDB95]

No it was not a good start. What we got the Republican/Mitt Romney's health care plan. Norway has had universal health care for over a hundred years. 45,000 dead Americans every year for no good reason is a disgusting legacy for the nation as a whole and Democrats in particular.

Why lay it at the feet of Democrats when it's the Republicans who have been doing everything they could to prevent any reform whatsoever from taking place? Sure, I wish the Dems tried harder when they had full control, but as we've seen for the past year, it is rarely if ever as simple as that. On the other hand, it IS simply the case that the Republicans have taken every opportunity they could to block any and all reform, and have tried their hardest to undo what little progress has been made.

As for "Democratic top contributor is a fucking Republican", Mike Bloomberg has been a Democrat all his life except when he ran for mayor of NYC, because it was easier to win a Republican primary for that office.

 

[ll74]

No it was not a good start. What we got the Republican/Mitt Romney's health care plan. Norway has had universal health care for over a hundred years. 45,000 dead Americans every year for no good reason is a disgusting legacy for the nation as a whole and Democrats in particular.


The Massachusetts health care reform, commonly referred to as Romneycare,[1] was a healthcare reform law passed in 2006 and signed into law by Governor Mitt Romney with the aim of providing health insurance to nearly all of the residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The law mandated that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a minimum level of insurance coverage, provided free and subsidized health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% and 300%, respectively, of the federal poverty level (FPL)[2] and mandated employers with more than 10 full-time employees provide healthcare insurance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform

So you're saying that the Democrats made healthcare for all a priority and then passed major legislation to address it when their opposition was against such measures.

Got it. Thanks for the confirmation.

Make sure to give them the credit when they move the bar even higher on accessible healthcare for all and the Republicans vote in unison against it.

 

[Champakian]

Uh....,


I love the smell of desperation in the morning.


All the losing predicts that have fallen after thee
All the lonely feelings and the burning memories
Everyone they left behind each time we closed the door
Losing predicts lost forevermore

 

[Chobham]

Shades of the dems reaction to Gingrich's "Contract with America."

 

[Champakian]

They would win on a "Contract with Russia."

(AKA the glorious restoration of the Soviet.)

 

[YDB95]

Shades of the dems reaction to Gingrich's "Contract with America."

As I noted above, most voters hadn't even heard of the Contract With America until well after the 1994 election. The Republicans' gains that year were because people were furious with Clinton, not because of any warmed-over right-wing talking points Gingrich offered up.
Come to think of it, though, that does suggest the Dems' reaction to Scott's nonsense will also come to nothing for the time being. If the voters aren't paying attention, they deserve whatever they get.

 

[BluesDriver66]

So you're saying that the Democrats made healthcare for all a priority and then passed major legislation to address it when their opposition was against such measures.

Got it. Thanks for the confirmation.

Make sure to give them the credit when they move the bar even higher on accessible healthcare for all and the Republicans vote in unison against it.

So let me get this straight. Democrats should not advocate for anything that Republicans oppose in unison. Which is everything. So Democrats should only advocate for what Republicans want? If that's the case what's the point in voting for Democrats? That's the most ass backwards, defeatist, cuckholding, strategy to lose elections and fail at providing for voters I've ever heard.

Oh yeah, you don't have to worry about giving credit when they move the bar even higher on accessible healthcare. They oppose it.


Fun Fact:

Democrats rejected efforts to amend the party’s platform to show support for Medicare for All and legalizing marijuana, as they moved the document closer to adoption by delegates to next month’s convention. The document, approved Monday by the party’s platform committee, aligns closely with presumptive nominee Joe Biden’s campaign proposals.

https://khn.org/morning-breakout/democratic-platform-nixes-medicare-for-all/

 

[ll74]

So let me get this straight. Democrats should not advocate for anything that Republicans oppose in unison. Which is everything. So Democrats should only advocate for what Republicans want? If that's the case what's the point in voting for Democrats? That's the most ass backwards, defeatist, cuckholding, strategy to lose elections and fail at providing for voters I've ever heard.

Oh yeah, you don't have to worry about giving credit when they move the bar even higher on accessible healthcare. They oppose it.


Fun Fact:

Democrats rejected efforts to amend the party’s platform to show support for Medicare for All and legalizing marijuana, as they moved the document closer to adoption by delegates to next month’s convention. The document, approved Monday by the party’s platform committee, aligns closely with presumptive nominee Joe Biden’s campaign proposals.

https://khn.org/morning-breakout/democratic-platform-nixes-medicare-for-all/

Which party was responsible for the ACA and which party has attempted to dismantle and repeal it at every turn?

I'm for compromise....but have no idea what the fuck this whole back and forth is about anymore....Rick Scott's plan is shit....the Republican party likes to just do what Trump wants....his plan won't go anywhere and the party will continue to not stand for anything.

 

[BluesDriver66]

Why lay it at the feet of Democrats when it's the Republicans who have been doing everything they could to prevent any reform whatsoever from taking place? Sure, I wish the Dems tried harder when they had full control, but as we've seen for the past year, it is rarely if ever as simple as that. On the other hand, it IS simply the case that the Republicans have taken every opportunity they could to block any and all reform, and have tried their hardest to undo what little progress has been made.

As for "Democratic top contributor is a fucking Republican", Mike Bloomberg has been a Democrat all his life except when he ran for mayor of NYC, because it was easier to win a Republican primary for that office.

Endless excuses for endless failures. "We have an opposition party so it's okay to lose all the time.", "Getting outsmarted by Republicans on every issue is the best you'll get from us.", "We have to work across the aisle with the fascists and racists to make sure their concerns are met before we can pass legislation". The Democrats are the party of defeatism and failure.

Bloomberg is a fucking Republican. WTF is wrong with you? Have you been cucked so bad you refuse to believe your own lying eyes? He votes Republican. He runs for office as a Republican. He endorses Republican candidates. He contributes MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to Republican causes and candidates. This is really Trump supporter level stupidity you're displaying here. You're smarter than that.



...critics seized on the millions he spent earlier in his political career to boost Republicans for the House and Senate.

...$12 million to boost Republicans in Congress

...Bloomberg spent $6 million through his Super PAC Independence USA to support pro-gun control Republican Sen. Pat Toomey

Bloomberg’s super PAC spent nearly $3 million in support of then-Illinois Rep. Bob Dold between 2012 and 2014 as well as millions more in support of other Republicans running for both the House and Senate over the years.

Bloomberg gave $250,000 to a super PAC supporting South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham's re-election bid in 2014 and in 2012 raised money for then-Sen. Scott Brown's re-election bid against challenger Elizabeth Warren. Bloomberg also donated to a number of other Republicans in Congress over the years, including Sens. John McCain and Susan Collins.

Bloomberg also gave to former President George W. Bush and Rudy Giuliani.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blo...cans-drawing-democrats-fire/story?id=69233257

 

[BluesDriver66]

Which party was responsible for the ACA and which party has attempted to dismantle and repeal it at every turn?

I'm for compromise....but have no idea what the fuck this whole back and forth is about anymore....Rick Scott's plan is shit....the Republican party likes to just do what Trump wants....his plan won't go anywhere and the party will continue to not stand for anything.

Where have you been? Republicans will oppose any and everything the Democrats put forth even if it's the Republican/Mitt Romney's Health care policies. The ACA delivered windfall profits to insurance corporations just as it was designed to do. It also leaves millions of Americans uninsured just as it was designed to do.

Citing opposition as reasons for endless failure is pure bullshit. All competitions require defeating the opposition. This excuse is laughable in all other context.

 

[pecksniff]

Endless excuses for endless failures. "We have an opposition party so it's okay to lose all the time.", "Getting outsmarted by Republicans on every issue is the best you'll get from us.", "We have to work across the aisle with the fascists and racists to make sure their concerns are met before we can pass legislation". The Democrats are the party of defeatism and failure.

What party is better?

 

[BluesDriver66]

What party is better?

The one that provides universal health care for it's citizens like every other civilized nation on Earth.

 

[YDB95]

The one that provides universal health care for it's citizens like every other civilized nation on Earth.

Even if neither party is all we want on that score, one is a lot closer to that than the other and you know it.

 

[pecksniff]

The one that provides universal health care for it's citizens like every other civilized nation on Earth.

So vote Socialist.