Democrat Andrew Gillum Calls For Confederacy. CNN's Cuomo Loves It


imagine what the reaction from the media and the Democratic party would be like if a Republican would have called for a confederacy. The cries of racism and trying to bring back slavery would be deafening. Yet we have not even a peep from them when a Democrat says it… CNN even likes the idea.


Well, the Dem party created the first one. Maybe it’s just in the party’s DNA.

(joking here.)


Not a joke they really know most Americans not on a coast are not to thrilled with socialism and reject the fate of Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba.


Of course it is very misleading for the Daily Wire to make the headline “Andrew Gillum Calls For Confederacy” thus giving the impression he is talking about a separation from Federal authority, like the South in the Civil War. Of course Gillum was talking about a potential implementation of “Medicare for All” involving the cooperation of several states to bargain with heath care providers on behalf of the participants. It is not much different than the Great Lakes Water Compact, which also a confederacy of eight states. No one compares that to Jefferson Davis’ Confederacy.


Right and all us Americans on the coasts look enviously at Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba.:roll_eyes:


Maybe because Democrats and media people would actually read the article, or listen to the speaker, and see what he’s talking about, there probably wouldn’t be the “cries of racism and trying to bring back slavery” that you anticipate.


Too funny.

“I like that confederacy of states,” Cuomo replied. “I haven’t heard that before.”

This explains it. He doesn’t know history. The US started out as an evil confederacy under the ‘Articles of Confederation’.


It was not evil. It was merely ineffective. But that is neither here nor there because Gillum was not talking about that kind of confederacy. Is the Great Lakes Water Compact also an evil confederacy? That’s the kind of confederacy he was talking about.


Yeah, the guy had a valid point but it is funny with the Democrats asking for another (limited) ‘Confederacy’.

Maybe afterwards Bernie Sanders could ask for a National Socialist Third Reich. :slight_smile:


I agree, quite frankly. I don’t think that was Gillum’s Intention at all.
That said, separation from federal authority is the practice in sanctuary states and cities, which Gillum seems to support.
So, right charge but the wrong topic


While I understand the irony of his using the term, the fact is there is nothing wrong with states working together on particular services.
Better that than using the general government to dictate healthcare.
The issue is twofold, both about the judgement of the candidate:

  1. government stinks st healthcare. Period. State government might be better than central government, but government stinks at healthcare.
  2. the idea of partnering with California, a fiscal basket case, should scare Floridians to death


It also stinks to need health care and not be able to afford it. That really stinks.


And ACA made it much more expensive.

Additionally, the American people paid billions of dollars a year making healthcare available to anyone who needed it. It is a false narrative that people in America could not get healthcare.


The ACA is imperfect, but it did make health care available to people who didn’t have access to it before. And my point still stands unchallenged, that needing health care and not being able to afford it really sinks.

… because we already have socialized health coverage from Medicaid. But without that, the narrative would be true.


Patently untrue. It may have made health insurance available, but healthcare was always available. ACA is more than imperfect, it is pathetic.

There is a difference between a safety net, and socialized healthcare. But that said, you can see that your statement above is factually untrue. ACA did not help that situation, and for millions who had coverage they wanted, it made it worse.


The fact the hospitals exist and doctors’ offices exist means health care is “available”. But unless someone pays for it, it isn’t really available. Unless you have health insurance, you don’t have access.

Only in degree.

And for those who had no coverage at all, it made things much better. Also consider this: Two years ago the ACA had a 40% favorable view of the ACA. Today it is around 50%. (Unfavorable rating has fallen to 40%) If the ACA were as terrible as you say, one would think that as time went on, more and more people would realize it. But actually less people think it is a bad idea compared to two years ago. And that is with two years of Trump in office, who has been no booster of the ACA. So perhaps the ACA is not the disaster you think it is.


Andcwell they should charge for their products and services-to make a profit commensurate with market forces. But it is factually incorrect that health insurance is the only way to access healthcare. It is certainly the standard way, but there are more and more alternatives to health insurance. Additionally, health insurance was far less expensive prior to ACA for most people who had it. It isn’t so much the people who didn’t have it that ACA harmed, but the people who did.

No. In actuality. Socialism places the government in charge of the means of production, either by strict control or ownership. A safety net doesn’t confiscate private ownership of the means of production.

Ask the people who lost their plans. Ask the people whose plans cost significantly more now than before.

Part of that improvement might be because of the elimination of the authoritarian individual mandate.


There are still many people for whom these alternatives are **not available.""

not going to deflect to the cost of ACA. Please address my comments directly.

Not deflecting there either. The question was the difference between a safety net and socialized health insurance (which is what the ACA is). This is not the same as classical socialism. Try to avoid buzz words. They don’t prove anything.

The poll asked everybody. Of course if you selectively ask the “losers” in the ACA, you are going to get 100% disapproval. The fact is, the ACA is getting more popular overall.

Except that if you look at the graph of popularity over time, the popularity began to rise before the individual mandate was repealed.


Including me.

If we are to talk about availability, cost is s primary issue. It placed an unnecessarily highercost burden on millions of people.

Which I directly responded to. Government can provide a safety net without taking over the means of production.
ACA does interfere with the market place because it dictates what must be in an insurance plan, as well as other factors. That is precisely why it forced costs up.
Medicaid is a reasonable safety net, if done at the state level. Healthcare provided to those in need. It would be much better if charities did it, but the ACA model hurts healthcare in America


Again, the ACA is not perfect. I am speaking mostly of the principle of universal health care, rather than trying to defend a specific implementation of it. Although I do think the ACA, for all its faults, is not as bad as you say, as witnessed by its rising popularity, even under Trump.

I am not a fan of those aspects of the ACA. But if they were removed and the rest of the ACA retained, we could still have a very beneficial health policy.

Except that they won’t.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit