Agreed. We seemed somewhat close with Bernie, but we saw how that ended. But he had support, and he could’ve held more power over the DNC if he had refused to endorse Hilary without MAJOR concessions from the party.

But that could’ve ended with Trump winning in 2016, and nobody wanted that, so he sold out his values and toed the party line. Didn’t seem to work out.

I think you’ve hit on major common ground, that all people should be able to see. The extremely wealthy have too much power and they are an extreme minority. Until someone, or a coalition of people stand up for that single issue and are willing to vocally withhold support from mainstream Dems, this problem will never be addressed in the US

Yes, but if you pledge unconditional support to the lesser of 2 evils, they have no incentive to ‘be better’ - they can just be slightly less evil than the monster who gets worse every day.

I did vote blue even though I wasn’t happy about it and it mainly came down to ‘i really haven’t done much to express my distaste over the past 8 years, why am I choosing to protest the Dems today?’

But I do think this is a turning point for me. I want to be having these conversations more often, I want to be more involved, and I want to make it known to the people in charge: what can they do to earn my vote. I think starting to define what are the universal ideals we can agree on is a great conversation to have over the next few weeks.

Just like it’s been approved for the past year.

“Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.”

Right, that’s the part I take issue with. Why is there a profit on a public good?

I agree with all of the restrictions in place, but those have gotten weaker over time, when they should’ve gotten more restrictive. The problem with allowing them to profit is that over time, the profit gives them more bargaining power which allows them to erode the oversight and avoid all consequences for breaking the regulations.

I get your point, but I have trouble understanding how acting in the public interest and charging over operating costs can be compatible, especially in public service areas like hospitals/medicine and education.

“Is there any reason why this needs to be a taxpayer subsidized organization?”

Public safety? Is that a good enough reason? We should be subsiding more things that are in the public interest - programs that benefit the public should never be run by for-profit corporations.

The original draft probably said “nearly a 300% increase” and then the editor didn’t know the difference between percent increase and basic multiplication.