I agree. However, saying that one side panders to a certain race/race politics/etc. is drastically different than saying that you are going to be called a racist.

It is the same thing as GOP saying that the dems pander to minorities/want minority votes etc. This is drastically different than being called a racist. This is what was initially brought up.

Thanks! these are at least two articles that imply (which was requested) dems are for open borders, while at the same time acknowledging that they are not. Talking about the criminal/civil infraction difference that was discussed above.

"That moment was perhaps the Democratic Party's most significant step yet toward embracing a policy of open borders."

But leading Democrats who have previously insisted that they oppose open borders seem to be inviting that very outcome.

While I understand your position , as someone who has followed the R side of Pesidentiwl politics since Reagan we will have to agree to disagree.

It hasn’t been pandering. It’s consistently portraying R candidates for President as racist.

The fact that it may or may not be true in this case doesn’t change the previous pattern or the previous intent

Agree to disagree my man!

In this room, if we end there, it’s a win win in my book

    You're looking for someone to say "I'm for open borders", but the reality is that it's the sum of their positions and where the immigration law is currently. Lefty Andrew Sullivan lays things out, then asks'
"How, I ask, is that not practically open borders?", then goes on to point out why the answers he gets to the question are hollow. Agree or disagree, but he lays it out well.

http://nymag.com/...-on-immigration.html

National consensus? Wow! Do you live in the United States?

They might if their college and med school costs go away.
Many years ago, idealists did enter medicine, only to be lured into the higher paying specialities when tuition was biting into their lifestyles.

---

RayGovett
Hughson CA
Be Prepared-- Strike Swiftly -- Who Dares Wins- Without warning-"it will be hard. I can do it"

Cost of tuition aside, only a certain percentage of the population is going to be mentally capable of making it through med school whereas demand for medical services is likely to continue to rise. If your compensation plan drives away doctors in their prime, then you're just going to make things much worse.

Andrew Sullivan is not left learning. Unless by lefty you mean southpaw. Then maybe.

It's the same logic as the far right has pushed since Rush Limbaugh came onto the seen. If we just elected a solid conservative (AKA far right loon), the dems don't stand a chance. In a way, Trump confirmed this in both the fringe right and the fringe left now see their opportunity. Trump isn't making any gestures to moderates or expanding his umbrella. He knows if he can get his solidly loyal base to turn out, guys like me who vote no matter what, will still hold our nose and pull the lever.

The dems seem to be following the same strategy. If they can get a radical that will motivate the far left that often takes their toys and go home when their favored candidate loses, the loyal voters will pull the lever for them over trump.

This is a very cynical period of time when both parties aren't making any effort to reach out to 70-80% of the population.

I liked what I heard from Delany and Bullock. Ryan was also right when he called out that no feasible gov't policy could possibly provide the level of care that union negotiated Cadillac plans could, let alone at a cheaper rate. And just because Bernie "wrote the damn bill" doesn't mean anything. It would still have to pass, and more importantly get funded with money we don't have. Yes, I know, neither side is fiscally responsible. But holy cow, his plan is crazy it fantasyland math and to many people are getting high on their own supply.

On an interesting note, I've long argued that Obamacare was a bell that couldn't be unrung. The concept of the US moving back toward any sort of free market system is fantasyland. Obamacare wouldn't be replaced by anything with less gov't or without basic gov't operation. I was laughed at by many in my circles. But rational republican and democrats agreed. A system that had gov't guaranteed basic care with the ability to purchase better care would be in place until democrats ran on the concept of "why shouldn't you have the same access to better care, free of charge", and destroy that system that would be better than what we have now.

Well, I was half right. We won't get there until it is absolutely necessary. I listened to a bi-partisan effort to reform care. The left is already calling a system where those with means can buy supplemental care or even pay for better care out of pocket a non starter. To them, the only option is a comprehensive care system that rivals the best insurance policies. Like bernies fantastical plan. The right on the other hand, wants to move back toward cash based plans that disproportionately benefit those with means. HSA are not readily available to all employees, let alone the unemployed.

So we're stuck with what we have until the system reaches critical mass and has to be fixed. Then we may end up with my original prediction, with the debate being on what constitutes the basic/essential care. Why, because the left isn't satisfied with a workable system that is equal for all, and the right is too blind to realize we'll never move back to a private run system.

God help us all.

There are no radical, far left democratic candidates in my opinion. Far left would be calling for the seizure of the means of production, NOT "Let's stop letting people die because they can't afford insulin."