The Democratic Presidential Debates

1115116118120121125

Comments

  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 15,662
    pjl44 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    pjl44 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    pjl44 said:
    dignin said:
    pjl44 said:
    pjl44 said:
    Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?
    Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination. 

    Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.

    democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.

    The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.

    You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.

    Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.


    This does not look so republican to me-

    • Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
    • Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
    • Allow people to keep their private insurance
    • Cap health care prices
    • Lower drug costs
    • Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
    • Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums
    A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.

    The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.

    "Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"

    Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States 


    This is redundant to his "Improve the ACA" plank. We would have both? How would they differ and how would eligibility for each differ? It tells me he either doesn't know what he's talking about or he just wants the political capital of advocating for both (even though it makes no sense).
    With the ACA, you are on an exchange for private insurers.  It does not offer you the chance to purchase any form of gov't facilitated insurance.  The choice option would provide that option.  
    Most ACA plans include some government subsidy. Most Medicare beneficiaries have supplemental private plans. Unless you're massively overhauling both systems there is a ton of redundancy. If someone is eligible for both, why are they shopping two sets of hybrid plans?
    Yes true on both, but you don't have to buy supplemental insurance for medicare.  I'm just not sure that the planks are redundant.  But if you think of it from a political marketing perspective, they feel different.  I guess I don't necessarily agree with your hypothesis that Bloomberg doesn't understand the difference.  The man isn't stupid. 
    I agree that he's probably more disingenuous than stupid, but I'm allowing for either. For all of the crowing about excessive overhead in health care costs, setting up side-by-side redundant systems (even if they *feel* different to consumers) is creating massive administrative waste.
    Agreed and administrative costs is certainly one of the more compelling arguments against nationwide health care.  
  • Though I don't like Sanders' chances much, it would be pretty hilarious if he won the nomination and beat Trump since Trump seems to think that sticking up for Sanders in this manner might help him win the Dem nomination, and in Trump's mind, make for an easier general election opponent than say Bloomberg...

    Don't think this has much or anything to do with wanting Bernie to win to have an easier opponent, but just to keep pushing the narrative of the DNC and the democrats being corrupt.
    Everything Trump does is calculated to benefit him. He rants more than enough about the Dems and the DNC being corrupt without mentioning Bernie to push that narrative. He wants Sanders. Most Republicans do. 
    I don't think Trump thinks Bernie will be elected. Just like 2016. 

    Prove the bastard wrong.
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commetsPosts: 18,233
    edited February 14
    IMO Bernie loses the general election....but I fear anyone will to GW Trump
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • IMO Bernie loses the general election....but I fear anyone will to GW Trump
    Grand Wizard?
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 22,577
    ecdanc said:
    ecdanc said:
    ecdanc said:
    ecdanc said:
    dignin said:
    pjl44 said:
    pjl44 said:
    Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?
    Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination. 

    Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.

    democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.

    The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.

    You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.

    Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.


    This does not look so republican to me-

    • Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
    • Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
    • Allow people to keep their private insurance
    • Cap health care prices
    • Lower drug costs
    • Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
    • Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums
    A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.

    The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.

    "Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"

    Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States 


    Yes, but is that really the measuring stick?

    I'm baffled by the people here who think M4A is some pie-eyed betrayal of DNC principles. Harry Truman of all people supported a universal system (that went farther than FDR and the New Deal). Christ, if Harry fucking Truman showed up in 2020, he'd be labeled a Socialist! 

    Probably Eisenhower would be labeled a liberal as well. That's the point and it's why moderation is the proper vote in 2020.

    The point is to WIN. The electoral college gives a disproportionate voting power to the swing states and trumps base.

    We risk everything if we start giving the oppositions socialist argument validity with a too progressive plan right now.

    The 2 oldest Justices are liberal and over 80 and might need to be replaced between now and Jan 2025. 

    We could be risking a 7-2 supreme court. That could be staunchly conservative for at least 30 years and ANY liberal healthcare mandate would be out the window until 2055.
    You and I have very different definitions of what it means to win, so maybe don't use "we" when responding to me. 

    "We" was referring to the Democrats as in the topic of this thread.

    Instead of thinking my comment is personal, how about addressing the risks of locking in a conservative court for 30 years? I'm assuming you are down with that.
    The ideological distance between Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia is smaller than the distance between me and Bernie Sanders. The narrowness of your political horizons lead you to ask questions that miss the point. 
    And yet another deflection. Are you okay with a conservative Supreme Court with a 7-2 majority for the next 50 years? It’s a yes or no question. And, how does that help your friend POC who’s doing all that organizing, outreach and advocacy? Unless he wears a MAGA hat?
    You always say I'm deflecting when I reject the premises of your questions. You're creating a false dichotomy and insisting I choose one side of it. I'm refusing. 
    How is that a false dichotomy? Are you naive enough to believe that Team Trump Treason will appoint liberal or middle of the road SCJs? Or that once appointed, they’ll find their soul and do the right thing? So which side or parts of a side do you choose?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commetsPosts: 18,233
    IMO Bernie loses the general election....but I fear anyone will to GW Trump
    Grand Wizard?
    If the hat fits....
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,557
    ecdanc said:
    ecdanc said:
    ecdanc said:
    ecdanc said:
    dignin said:
    pjl44 said:
    pjl44 said:
    Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?
    Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination. 

    Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.

    democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.

    The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.

    You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.

    Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.


    This does not look so republican to me-

    • Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
    • Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
    • Allow people to keep their private insurance
    • Cap health care prices
    • Lower drug costs
    • Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
    • Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums
    A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.

    The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.

    "Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"

    Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States 


    Yes, but is that really the measuring stick?

    I'm baffled by the people here who think M4A is some pie-eyed betrayal of DNC principles. Harry Truman of all people supported a universal system (that went farther than FDR and the New Deal). Christ, if Harry fucking Truman showed up in 2020, he'd be labeled a Socialist! 

    Probably Eisenhower would be labeled a liberal as well. That's the point and it's why moderation is the proper vote in 2020.

    The point is to WIN. The electoral college gives a disproportionate voting power to the swing states and trumps base.

    We risk everything if we start giving the oppositions socialist argument validity with a too progressive plan right now.

    The 2 oldest Justices are liberal and over 80 and might need to be replaced between now and Jan 2025. 

    We could be risking a 7-2 supreme court. That could be staunchly conservative for at least 30 years and ANY liberal healthcare mandate would be out the window until 2055.
    You and I have very different definitions of what it means to win, so maybe don't use "we" when responding to me. 

    "We" was referring to the Democrats as in the topic of this thread.

    Instead of thinking my comment is personal, how about addressing the risks of locking in a conservative court for 30 years? I'm assuming you are down with that.
    The ideological distance between Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia is smaller than the distance between me and Bernie Sanders. The narrowness of your political horizons lead you to ask questions that miss the point. 
    And yet another deflection. Are you okay with a conservative Supreme Court with a 7-2 majority for the next 50 years? It’s a yes or no question. And, how does that help your friend POC who’s doing all that organizing, outreach and advocacy? Unless he wears a MAGA hat?
    You always say I'm deflecting when I reject the premises of your questions. You're creating a false dichotomy and insisting I choose one side of it. I'm refusing. 
    How is that a false dichotomy? Are you naive enough to believe that Team Trump Treason will appoint liberal or middle of the road SCJs? Or that once appointed, they’ll find their soul and do the right thing? So which side or parts of a side do you choose?
    Because there are alternatives. No. No. Still refusing.                                              

    Pudding in and pudding in--don't feel like methadone. 
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,557
    ecdanc said:
    ecdanc said:
    ecdanc said:
    ecdanc said:
    dignin said:
    pjl44 said:
    pjl44 said:
    Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?
    Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination. 

    Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.

    democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.

    The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.

    You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.

    Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.


    This does not look so republican to me-

    • Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
    • Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
    • Allow people to keep their private insurance
    • Cap health care prices
    • Lower drug costs
    • Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
    • Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums
    A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.

    The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.

    "Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"

    Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States 


    Yes, but is that really the measuring stick?

    I'm baffled by the people here who think M4A is some pie-eyed betrayal of DNC principles. Harry Truman of all people supported a universal system (that went farther than FDR and the New Deal). Christ, if Harry fucking Truman showed up in 2020, he'd be labeled a Socialist! 

    Probably Eisenhower would be labeled a liberal as well. That's the point and it's why moderation is the proper vote in 2020.

    The point is to WIN. The electoral college gives a disproportionate voting power to the swing states and trumps base.

    We risk everything if we start giving the oppositions socialist argument validity with a too progressive plan right now.

    The 2 oldest Justices are liberal and over 80 and might need to be replaced between now and Jan 2025. 

    We could be risking a 7-2 supreme court. That could be staunchly conservative for at least 30 years and ANY liberal healthcare mandate would be out the window until 2055.
    You and I have very different definitions of what it means to win, so maybe don't use "we" when responding to me. 

    "We" was referring to the Democrats as in the topic of this thread.

    Instead of thinking my comment is personal, how about addressing the risks of locking in a conservative court for 30 years? I'm assuming you are down with that.
    The ideological distance between Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia is smaller than the distance between me and Bernie Sanders. The narrowness of your political horizons lead you to ask questions that miss the point. 

    Do you live in the states?

    Scalia believed the 2nd amendment was ironclad that there was zero room for regulation despite that word being in the actual text 

    Scalia believed homosexuality should be illegal

    Scalia believed the wealthy corporations are people and have a right to spend unlimited amounts of money o politics while hiding in secrecy 

    Scalia believed the govt had zero right to set up a health care exchange.

    Scalia believed the constitution does not limit gender discrimination

    Scalia believed the constitution can not limit any restriction placed on a women's right to choose 


    So yeah, he and Ginsberg are real tight.

    The topic is about Democrats winning in 2020. IRL. Not some hope of a philosophical society that could exist in 2112.

    That only buys us (America) more Republicans this year. 
    Lived in the US my whole life--why do you ask?

    I'm quite familiar with everything you just said about Ginsberg and Scalia--now go back and read what I said again, because I meant it. 

    Lastly, are you the topic police? 

    I asked because I would think the hope is to move the country to the left, in small enough steps the the dems get enough conservative support to win the election 

    I thought we started this by criticizing Bloombergs plan as not liberal enough. The only other interpretation of the Scalia comment is you are very conservative. 
    The goal is to move the country left, but you aren’t. 
    Pudding in and pudding in--don't feel like methadone. 
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 2,082
    IMO Bernie loses the general election....but I fear anyone will to GW Trump
    Grand Wizard?
    I was thinking "George W" who was also immensely popular (albeit in different was and for different reasons) and was unlikely to lose to anyone in 2004.

    I just don't see anyone from this motley crew winning. Bernie is going to lose the moderate votes because "socialism."  And everyone else fails the purity tests (in some cases more than just that).
    The 2020 election is already over.
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 2,566
    ecdanc said:
    ecdanc said:
    ecdanc said:
    ecdanc said:
    dignin said:
    pjl44 said:
    pjl44 said:
    Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?
    Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination. 

    Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.

    democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.

    The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.

    You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.

    Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.


    This does not look so republican to me-

    • Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
    • Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
    • Allow people to keep their private insurance
    • Cap health care prices
    • Lower drug costs
    • Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
    • Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums
    A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.

    The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.

    "Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"

    Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States 


    Yes, but is that really the measuring stick?

    I'm baffled by the people here who think M4A is some pie-eyed betrayal of DNC principles. Harry Truman of all people supported a universal system (that went farther than FDR and the New Deal). Christ, if Harry fucking Truman showed up in 2020, he'd be labeled a Socialist! 

    Probably Eisenhower would be labeled a liberal as well. That's the point and it's why moderation is the proper vote in 2020.

    The point is to WIN. The electoral college gives a disproportionate voting power to the swing states and trumps base.

    We risk everything if we start giving the oppositions socialist argument validity with a too progressive plan right now.

    The 2 oldest Justices are liberal and over 80 and might need to be replaced between now and Jan 2025. 

    We could be risking a 7-2 supreme court. That could be staunchly conservative for at least 30 years and ANY liberal healthcare mandate would be out the window until 2055.
    You and I have very different definitions of what it means to win, so maybe don't use "we" when responding to me. 

    "We" was referring to the Democrats as in the topic of this thread.

    Instead of thinking my comment is personal, how about addressing the risks of locking in a conservative court for 30 years? I'm assuming you are down with that.
    The ideological distance between Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia is smaller than the distance between me and Bernie Sanders. The narrowness of your political horizons lead you to ask questions that miss the point. 

    Do you live in the states?

    Scalia believed the 2nd amendment was ironclad that there was zero room for regulation despite that word being in the actual text 

    Scalia believed homosexuality should be illegal

    Scalia believed the wealthy corporations are people and have a right to spend unlimited amounts of money o politics while hiding in secrecy 

    Scalia believed the govt had zero right to set up a health care exchange.

    Scalia believed the constitution does not limit gender discrimination

    Scalia believed the constitution can not limit any restriction placed on a women's right to choose 


    So yeah, he and Ginsberg are real tight.

    The topic is about Democrats winning in 2020. IRL. Not some hope of a philosophical society that could exist in 2112.

    That only buys us (America) more Republicans this year. 
    Lived in the US my whole life--why do you ask?

    I'm quite familiar with everything you just said about Ginsberg and Scalia--now go back and read what I said again, because I meant it. 

    Lastly, are you the topic police? 

    I asked because I would think the hope is to move the country to the left, in small enough steps the the dems get enough conservative support to win the election 

    I thought we started this by criticizing Bloombergs plan as not liberal enough. The only other interpretation of the Scalia comment is you are very conservative. 

    No, the other interpretation is that he is much further to the left, which I think posting history would support. 

    Yes that was tongue in cheek, which is not smart internet commenting by me.


  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 15,662
    OnWis97 said:
    IMO Bernie loses the general election....but I fear anyone will to GW Trump
    Grand Wizard?
    I was thinking "George W" who was also immensely popular (albeit in different was and for different reasons) and was unlikely to lose to anyone in 2004.

    I just don't see anyone from this motley crew winning. Bernie is going to lose the moderate votes because "socialism."  And everyone else fails the purity tests (in some cases more than just that).
    The 2020 election is already over.
    So you're saying Bernie has no liabilities, whereas the remainder of the candidates do?
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 2,566
    ecdanc said:
    ecdanc said:
    ecdanc said:
    ecdanc said:
    ecdanc said:
    dignin said:
    pjl44 said:
    pjl44 said:
    Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?
    Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination. 

    Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.

    democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.

    The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.

    You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.

    Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.


    This does not look so republican to me-

    • Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
    • Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
    • Allow people to keep their private insurance
    • Cap health care prices
    • Lower drug costs
    • Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
    • Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums
    A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.

    The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.

    "Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"

    Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States 


    Yes, but is that really the measuring stick?

    I'm baffled by the people here who think M4A is some pie-eyed betrayal of DNC principles. Harry Truman of all people supported a universal system (that went farther than FDR and the New Deal). Christ, if Harry fucking Truman showed up in 2020, he'd be labeled a Socialist! 

    Probably Eisenhower would be labeled a liberal as well. That's the point and it's why moderation is the proper vote in 2020.

    The point is to WIN. The electoral college gives a disproportionate voting power to the swing states and trumps base.

    We risk everything if we start giving the oppositions socialist argument validity with a too progressive plan right now.

    The 2 oldest Justices are liberal and over 80 and might need to be replaced between now and Jan 2025. 

    We could be risking a 7-2 supreme court. That could be staunchly conservative for at least 30 years and ANY liberal healthcare mandate would be out the window until 2055.
    You and I have very different definitions of what it means to win, so maybe don't use "we" when responding to me. 

    "We" was referring to the Democrats as in the topic of this thread.

    Instead of thinking my comment is personal, how about addressing the risks of locking in a conservative court for 30 years? I'm assuming you are down with that.
    The ideological distance between Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia is smaller than the distance between me and Bernie Sanders. The narrowness of your political horizons lead you to ask questions that miss the point. 

    Do you live in the states?

    Scalia believed the 2nd amendment was ironclad that there was zero room for regulation despite that word being in the actual text 

    Scalia believed homosexuality should be illegal

    Scalia believed the wealthy corporations are people and have a right to spend unlimited amounts of money o politics while hiding in secrecy 

    Scalia believed the govt had zero right to set up a health care exchange.

    Scalia believed the constitution does not limit gender discrimination

    Scalia believed the constitution can not limit any restriction placed on a women's right to choose 


    So yeah, he and Ginsberg are real tight.

    The topic is about Democrats winning in 2020. IRL. Not some hope of a philosophical society that could exist in 2112.

    That only buys us (America) more Republicans this year. 
    Lived in the US my whole life--why do you ask?

    I'm quite familiar with everything you just said about Ginsberg and Scalia--now go back and read what I said again, because I meant it. 

    Lastly, are you the topic police? 

    I asked because I would think the hope is to move the country to the left, in small enough steps the the dems get enough conservative support to win the election 

    I thought we started this by criticizing Bloombergs plan as not liberal enough. The only other interpretation of the Scalia comment is you are very conservative. 
    The goal is to move the country left, but you aren’t. 


    A Bloomberg or moderate D vs Trump choice would be between having an affordable public option plus other protections vs a return to preexisting conditions and zero insurance if you get sick.

    How specifically is that no movement to the left?
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 2,082
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    IMO Bernie loses the general election....but I fear anyone will to GW Trump
    Grand Wizard?
    I was thinking "George W" who was also immensely popular (albeit in different was and for different reasons) and was unlikely to lose to anyone in 2004.

    I just don't see anyone from this motley crew winning. Bernie is going to lose the moderate votes because "socialism."  And everyone else fails the purity tests (in some cases more than just that).
    The 2020 election is already over.
    So you're saying Bernie has no liabilities, whereas the remainder of the candidates do?
    No...he's got the biggest one..."SOCIALIST!"  I point out that he's going to lose the moderate votes...the rest are going to lose a lot of his supporters.  If all I care about is who can beat Trump (and it is) then Bernie's not my candidate.  Then again, who is?  Biden, I guess. Ugh.
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 2,566
    OnWis97 said:
    IMO Bernie loses the general election....but I fear anyone will to GW Trump
    Grand Wizard?
    I was thinking "George W" who was also immensely popular (albeit in different was and for different reasons) and was unlikely to lose to anyone in 2004.

    I just don't see anyone from this motley crew winning. Bernie is going to lose the moderate votes because "socialism."  And everyone else fails the purity tests (in some cases more than just that).
    The 2020 election is already over.

    Bingo. That is why dems lose.

    If our candidates uses the incorrect email server we lose and if they nominate someone who believes two versions of rape are funny, they win.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,670
    ecdanc said:
    ecdanc said:
    ecdanc said:
    ecdanc said:
    dignin said:
    pjl44 said:
    pjl44 said:
    Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?
    Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination. 

    Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.

    democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.

    The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.

    You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.

    Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.


    This does not look so republican to me-

    • Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
    • Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
    • Allow people to keep their private insurance
    • Cap health care prices
    • Lower drug costs
    • Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
    • Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums
    A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.

    The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.

    "Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"

    Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States 


    Yes, but is that really the measuring stick?

    I'm baffled by the people here who think M4A is some pie-eyed betrayal of DNC principles. Harry Truman of all people supported a universal system (that went farther than FDR and the New Deal). Christ, if Harry fucking Truman showed up in 2020, he'd be labeled a Socialist! 

    Probably Eisenhower would be labeled a liberal as well. That's the point and it's why moderation is the proper vote in 2020.

    The point is to WIN. The electoral college gives a disproportionate voting power to the swing states and trumps base.

    We risk everything if we start giving the oppositions socialist argument validity with a too progressive plan right now.

    The 2 oldest Justices are liberal and over 80 and might need to be replaced between now and Jan 2025. 

    We could be risking a 7-2 supreme court. That could be staunchly conservative for at least 30 years and ANY liberal healthcare mandate would be out the window until 2055.
    You and I have very different definitions of what it means to win, so maybe don't use "we" when responding to me. 

    "We" was referring to the Democrats as in the topic of this thread.

    Instead of thinking my comment is personal, how about addressing the risks of locking in a conservative court for 30 years? I'm assuming you are down with that.
    The ideological distance between Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia is smaller than the distance between me and Bernie Sanders. The narrowness of your political horizons lead you to ask questions that miss the point. 

    Do you live in the states?

    Scalia believed the 2nd amendment was ironclad that there was zero room for regulation despite that word being in the actual text 

    Scalia believed homosexuality should be illegal

    Scalia believed the wealthy corporations are people and have a right to spend unlimited amounts of money o politics while hiding in secrecy 

    Scalia believed the govt had zero right to set up a health care exchange.

    Scalia believed the constitution does not limit gender discrimination

    Scalia believed the constitution can not limit any restriction placed on a women's right to choose 


    So yeah, he and Ginsberg are real tight.

    The topic is about Democrats winning in 2020. IRL. Not some hope of a philosophical society that could exist in 2112.

    That only buys us (America) more Republicans this year. 
    Lived in the US my whole life--why do you ask?

    I'm quite familiar with everything you just said about Ginsberg and Scalia--now go back and read what I said again, because I meant it. 

    Lastly, are you the topic police? 

    I asked because I would think the hope is to move the country to the left, in small enough steps the the dems get enough conservative support to win the election 

    I thought we started this by criticizing Bloombergs plan as not liberal enough. The only other interpretation of the Scalia comment is you are very conservative. 

    No, the other interpretation is that he is much further to the left, which I think posting history would support. 

    Yes that was tongue in cheek, which is not smart internet commenting by me.


    Ah. You missed the /s, I think it is. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 29,630
    OnWis97 said:
    IMO Bernie loses the general election....but I fear anyone will to GW Trump
    Grand Wizard?
    I was thinking "George W" who was also immensely popular (albeit in different was and for different reasons) and was unlikely to lose to anyone in 2004.

    I just don't see anyone from this motley crew winning. Bernie is going to lose the moderate votes because "socialism."  And everyone else fails the purity tests (in some cases more than just that).
    The 2020 election is already over.

    Here's the thing though for me- take all of these liabilities and add them up and pretend they are all negative attributes of one single candidate.  I would still vote for that person over Trump.  Why are we so concerned about these attributes when compared to Trump?  I think we need to stop focusing on the negative and look at the positive.  Any one of these candidates are better than Trump.  Let's get the focus on that!
    “After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.”
    -Aldous Huxley
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.









  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 18,337
    edited February 14
    I'm all into defeatism.

    But...

    I think the dems will win. And I think Bernie would rock the house. I think Amy would do the best in debates against Trump though. 

    Don't see Biden doing anything special in a debate. Bernie would keep dragging out his worn out phrases, that are to the point but need to be refreshed or contextualised, Warren would do good because she is quick on her feet, Pete would be crushed with his trying-to-speak-like-Obama-platitudes. 

    Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 8,110
    OnWis97 said:
    IMO Bernie loses the general election....but I fear anyone will to GW Trump
    Grand Wizard?
    I was thinking "George W" who was also immensely popular (albeit in different was and for different reasons) and was unlikely to lose to anyone in 2004.

    I just don't see anyone from this motley crew winning. Bernie is going to lose the moderate votes because "socialism."  And everyone else fails the purity tests (in some cases more than just that).
    The 2020 election is already over.

    Bingo. That is why dems lose.

    If our candidates uses the incorrect email server we lose and if they nominate someone who believes two versions of rape are funny, they win.
    Four years later, it feels like we're about to once more succumb to Trump's bed of nails approach. If your abhorrence is just a general way of being, it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb when compared to a finite number of specific high-profile events demonstrating poor behaviour exhibited by your competitors. 
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 8,110
    I'm all into defeatism.

    But...

    I think the dems will win. And I think Bernie would rock the house. I think Amy would do the best in debates against Trump though. 

    Don't see Biden doing anything special in a debate. Bernie would keep dragging out his worn out phrases, that are to the point but need to be refreshed or contextualised, Warren would do good because she is quick on her feet, Pete would be crushed with his trying-to-speak-like-Obama-platitudes. 

    I think I agree with you on all but Pete (though, I'll readily admit, I'm biased because he demonstrates the pragmatism and vision I think a leader should), and I'd have agreed with you if not for one debate (I'll try to remember which one) where he presented his organic self on the stage, and did a killer job. 

    On the topic of a debate with Trump, though, I think I agree with the Pod Save America take. That is to say if I were Trump (including that void where your heart typically lives), I'd just not volunteer to debate. Why would I put myself on the same stage as my opponents to highlight my differences and risk alienation, when I can continue to tweet? 
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 29,630
    benjs said:
    I'm all into defeatism.

    But...

    I think the dems will win. And I think Bernie would rock the house. I think Amy would do the best in debates against Trump though. 

    Don't see Biden doing anything special in a debate. Bernie would keep dragging out his worn out phrases, that are to the point but need to be refreshed or contextualised, Warren would do good because she is quick on her feet, Pete would be crushed with his trying-to-speak-like-Obama-platitudes. 

    I think I agree with you on all but Pete (though, I'll readily admit, I'm biased because he demonstrates the pragmatism and vision I think a leader should), and I'd have agreed with you if not for one debate (I'll try to remember which one) where he presented his organic self on the stage, and did a killer job. 

    On the topic of a debate with Trump, though, I think I agree with the Pod Save America take. That is to say if I were Trump (including that void where your heart typically lives), I'd just not volunteer to debate. Why would I put myself on the same stage as my opponents to highlight my differences and risk alienation, when I can continue to tweet? 

    Sad, but I think true, Ben.  Trump will have a 101 excuses for not debating someone well spoke and intelligent like Pete. 
    “After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.”
    -Aldous Huxley
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.









  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 2,082
    brianlux said:
    OnWis97 said:
    IMO Bernie loses the general election....but I fear anyone will to GW Trump
    Grand Wizard?
    I was thinking "George W" who was also immensely popular (albeit in different was and for different reasons) and was unlikely to lose to anyone in 2004.

    I just don't see anyone from this motley crew winning. Bernie is going to lose the moderate votes because "socialism."  And everyone else fails the purity tests (in some cases more than just that).
    The 2020 election is already over.

    Here's the thing though for me- take all of these liabilities and add them up and pretend they are all negative attributes of one single candidate.  I would still vote for that person over Trump.  Why are we so concerned about these attributes when compared to Trump?  I think we need to stop focusing on the negative and look at the positive.  Any one of these candidates are better than Trump.  Let's get the focus on that!
    Oh, me too for sure.  All of these people have my vote.  Do you have a dog?  Your dog would have my vote.  (Though I am not sure about Tulski).  But right now left-wing social media is just carving each other's candidates apart. I hope everyone comes to the reality that there are only two choices, one of which is trying, witch a chance of success, at becoming a dictator.

    Side note: for a long time, I read  your name as brainlux.  Recognizing it as "brian" makes it seem so different. :)
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 18,337
    edited February 14
    benjs said:
    I'm all into defeatism.

    But...

    I think the dems will win. And I think Bernie would rock the house. I think Amy would do the best in debates against Trump though. 

    Don't see Biden doing anything special in a debate. Bernie would keep dragging out his worn out phrases, that are to the point but need to be refreshed or contextualised, Warren would do good because she is quick on her feet, Pete would be crushed with his trying-to-speak-like-Obama-platitudes. 

    I think I agree with you on all but Pete (though, I'll readily admit, I'm biased because he demonstrates the pragmatism and vision I think a leader should), and I'd have agreed with you if not for one debate (I'll try to remember which one) where he presented his organic self on the stage, and did a killer job. 

    On the topic of a debate with Trump, though, I think I agree with the Pod Save America take. That is to say if I were Trump (including that void where your heart typically lives), I'd just not volunteer to debate. Why would I put myself on the same stage as my opponents to highlight my differences and risk alienation, when I can continue to tweet? 
    Regarding your first paragraph. I would like to see it that debate, if you figure out which one it was. I have an exceptional gift for getting the feel of people. And I have stated before how I have learned to view Pete. And yes, mrussel claims that is because he is eating in on Bernies lead, but one who has been keeping up with this thread will now my turn came before that. I think the big thing was the article about Pete updating his wiki page himself and not admitting it. Says a lot about a person. Haha. 

    But disregarding what I feel about the guy, I think Pete trying to "president" himself through debates with Trump who will go after him being gay and racist and young and small and whatever will be nasty but effective for Trump with voters. And Pete won't be able to comeback with much.

    Regarding your second paragraph. I don't remember Trump really debating much (in good faith) against Hillary, or in th republican Primary. I think he will show up - he loves the spotlight - but he will spew lies and car-saleman himself to the audience on voters -- and not talk/Debate with the dem candidate or the moderators. 

    He will go on about the great economy and witch hunts. And the lesser dem candidate will try to debate him on the lies like it was an ordinary debate. Instead of using the space to destroy him (and like Trump, speak to the audience/voters).

    There is no way to "gotcha" Trump. So just disregard him. And tell truth about him (like Bernie is pretty damn good at ("trump is a corporate socialist") and I think Warren and Amy would excel at)), instead of arguing against him.
    Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • dignindignin Posts: 7,827
    Regarding the "improve the plank" comment... Have medicare as an option on the exchanges and also an option to be provided by employers. Expand the rebates to make it affordable for everyone. 

    But as I said above if we go too far left we risk a conservative court til 2055 and we have a better chance to live in Neil Peart's opus than seeing any govt assisted plan for all for the majority of this century.
    But you're forgetting the argument that if the democrats don't go farther left they won't win. Maybe putting up Biden will guarantee another 4 more years of Trump, 2016 all over again. The street runs both ways.

    The fact is most voters vote based on feelings more so than issues. If they have the right feeling about a candidate they will vote for them. Just look at voters second choices, they are all over the map. The same way Bernie Bros can turn around and vote for Trump.

    The point is, you may be right and Biden is the right guy for this time or you could be wrong and someone like Bernie is the right guy to beat Trump. Who the fuck knows at this point. Biden personally worries me because he isn't a good candidate. He is old, acts old, and really doesn't motivate anyone. Hasn't looked good on the campaign trail and in the debates. 

  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 22,577
    ecdanc said:
    ecdanc said:
    ecdanc said:
    ecdanc said:
    ecdanc said:
    dignin said:
    pjl44 said:
    pjl44 said:
    Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?
    Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination. 

    Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.

    democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.

    The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.

    You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.

    Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.


    This does not look so republican to me-

    • Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
    • Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
    • Allow people to keep their private insurance
    • Cap health care prices
    • Lower drug costs
    • Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
    • Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums
    A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.

    The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.

    "Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"

    Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States 


    Yes, but is that really the measuring stick?

    I'm baffled by the people here who think M4A is some pie-eyed betrayal of DNC principles. Harry Truman of all people supported a universal system (that went farther than FDR and the New Deal). Christ, if Harry fucking Truman showed up in 2020, he'd be labeled a Socialist! 

    Probably Eisenhower would be labeled a liberal as well. That's the point and it's why moderation is the proper vote in 2020.

    The point is to WIN. The electoral college gives a disproportionate voting power to the swing states and trumps base.

    We risk everything if we start giving the oppositions socialist argument validity with a too progressive plan right now.

    The 2 oldest Justices are liberal and over 80 and might need to be replaced between now and Jan 2025. 

    We could be risking a 7-2 supreme court. That could be staunchly conservative for at least 30 years and ANY liberal healthcare mandate would be out the window until 2055.
    You and I have very different definitions of what it means to win, so maybe don't use "we" when responding to me. 

    "We" was referring to the Democrats as in the topic of this thread.

    Instead of thinking my comment is personal, how about addressing the risks of locking in a conservative court for 30 years? I'm assuming you are down with that.
    The ideological distance between Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia is smaller than the distance between me and Bernie Sanders. The narrowness of your political horizons lead you to ask questions that miss the point. 
    And yet another deflection. Are you okay with a conservative Supreme Court with a 7-2 majority for the next 50 years? It’s a yes or no question. And, how does that help your friend POC who’s doing all that organizing, outreach and advocacy? Unless he wears a MAGA hat?
    You always say I'm deflecting when I reject the premises of your questions. You're creating a false dichotomy and insisting I choose one side of it. I'm refusing. 
    How is that a false dichotomy? Are you naive enough to believe that Team Trump Treason will appoint liberal or middle of the road SCJs? Or that once appointed, they’ll find their soul and do the right thing? So which side or parts of a side do you choose?
    Because there are alternatives. No. No. Still refusing.                                              

    Which, thus far you haven’t posited. Maybe because they’re offensive and dangerous?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 22,577
    dignin said:
    Regarding the "improve the plank" comment... Have medicare as an option on the exchanges and also an option to be provided by employers. Expand the rebates to make it affordable for everyone. 

    But as I said above if we go too far left we risk a conservative court til 2055 and we have a better chance to live in Neil Peart's opus than seeing any govt assisted plan for all for the majority of this century.
    But you're forgetting the argument that if the democrats don't go farther left they won't win. Maybe putting up Biden will guarantee another 4 more years of Trump, 2016 all over again. The street runs both ways.

    The fact is most voters vote based on feelings more so than issues. If they have the right feeling about a candidate they will vote for them. Just look at voters second choices, they are all over the map. The same way Bernie Bros can turn around and vote for Trump.

    The point is, you may be right and Biden is the right guy for this time or you could be wrong and someone like Bernie is the right guy to beat Trump. Who the fuck knows at this point. Biden personally worries me because he isn't a good candidate. He is old, acts old, and really doesn't motivate anyone. Hasn't looked good on the campaign trail and in the debates. 

    Everything relies on the assumption that it will be a “free and fair” election. It won’t be. Those Florida felons granted the right to vote? Denied. Shenanigans in repub controlled states? Absolutely. Foreign interference? You betcha. Any steps taken to prevent any of it? Not a chance. Hello banana hammock.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Ledbetterman10Ledbetterman10 Posts: 12,217


    Slight resemblance. I doubt Pete would charge as much for tickets though. 
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 2,566
    dignin said:
    Regarding the "improve the plank" comment... Have medicare as an option on the exchanges and also an option to be provided by employers. Expand the rebates to make it affordable for everyone. 

    But as I said above if we go too far left we risk a conservative court til 2055 and we have a better chance to live in Neil Peart's opus than seeing any govt assisted plan for all for the majority of this century.
    But you're forgetting the argument that if the democrats don't go farther left they won't win. Maybe putting up Biden will guarantee another 4 more years of Trump, 2016 all over again. The street runs both ways.

    The fact is most voters vote based on feelings more so than issues. If they have the right feeling about a candidate they will vote for them. Just look at voters second choices, they are all over the map. The same way Bernie Bros can turn around and vote for Trump.

    The point is, you may be right and Biden is the right guy for this time or you could be wrong and someone like Bernie is the right guy to beat Trump. Who the fuck knows at this point. Biden personally worries me because he isn't a good candidate. He is old, acts old, and really doesn't motivate anyone. Hasn't looked good on the campaign trail and in the debates. 

    Everything relies on the assumption that it will be a “free and fair” election. It won’t be. Those Florida felons granted the right to vote? Denied. Shenanigans in repub controlled states? Absolutely. Foreign interference? You betcha. Any steps taken to prevent any of it? Not a chance. Hello banana hammock.
    Definitely a concern. Which brings me back to the Court. Southern state shenanigans were fortified by Shelby County v. Holder.

    Forget which version of M4A is better. Focus group those 70000 voters and campaign accordingly. And make the argument "aren't you tired of a clownish president who constantly needs attention and always thinks of himself first."
  • dankinddankind I am not your foot. Posts: 14,951
    dignin said:
    Regarding the "improve the plank" comment... Have medicare as an option on the exchanges and also an option to be provided by employers. Expand the rebates to make it affordable for everyone. 

    But as I said above if we go too far left we risk a conservative court til 2055 and we have a better chance to live in Neil Peart's opus than seeing any govt assisted plan for all for the majority of this century.
    But you're forgetting the argument that if the democrats don't go farther left they won't win. Maybe putting up Biden will guarantee another 4 more years of Trump, 2016 all over again. The street runs both ways.

    The fact is most voters vote based on feelings more so than issues. If they have the right feeling about a candidate they will vote for them. Just look at voters second choices, they are all over the map. The same way Bernie Bros can turn around and vote for Trump.

    The point is, you may be right and Biden is the right guy for this time or you could be wrong and someone like Bernie is the right guy to beat Trump. Who the fuck knows at this point. Biden personally worries me because he isn't a good candidate. He is old, acts old, and really doesn't motivate anyone. Hasn't looked good on the campaign trail and in the debates. 

    Everything relies on the assumption that it will be a “free and fair” election. It won’t be. Those Florida felons granted the right to vote? Denied. Shenanigans in repub controlled states? Absolutely. Foreign interference? You betcha. Any steps taken to prevent any of it? Not a chance. Hello banana hammock.

    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 2,566
    dignin said:
    Regarding the "improve the plank" comment... Have medicare as an option on the exchanges and also an option to be provided by employers. Expand the rebates to make it affordable for everyone. 

    But as I said above if we go too far left we risk a conservative court til 2055 and we have a better chance to live in Neil Peart's opus than seeing any govt assisted plan for all for the majority of this century.
    But you're forgetting the argument that if the democrats don't go farther left they won't win. Maybe putting up Biden will guarantee another 4 more years of Trump, 2016 all over again. The street runs both ways.

    The fact is most voters vote based on feelings more so than issues. If they have the right feeling about a candidate they will vote for them. Just look at voters second choices, they are all over the map. The same way Bernie Bros can turn around and vote for Trump.

    The point is, you may be right and Biden is the right guy for this time or you could be wrong and someone like Bernie is the right guy to beat Trump. Who the fuck knows at this point. Biden personally worries me because he isn't a good candidate. He is old, acts old, and really doesn't motivate anyone. Hasn't looked good on the campaign trail and in the debates. 


    Democratic voters definitely need those feeling. GOP voters? All they need to hear is you'll protect their guns and give them their abortion judges and every single one of them are showing up. Even to vote for a rapist. Or who thinks rape is a joke 

    Bottom line about hillary, she was a Dukakis level candidate. She had no business being the nominee and rose thru the ranks largely on the merits of what her husband accomplished and being a carpet bagger 


  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 8,110
    benjs said:
    I'm all into defeatism.

    But...

    I think the dems will win. And I think Bernie would rock the house. I think Amy would do the best in debates against Trump though. 

    Don't see Biden doing anything special in a debate. Bernie would keep dragging out his worn out phrases, that are to the point but need to be refreshed or contextualised, Warren would do good because she is quick on her feet, Pete would be crushed with his trying-to-speak-like-Obama-platitudes. 

    I think I agree with you on all but Pete (though, I'll readily admit, I'm biased because he demonstrates the pragmatism and vision I think a leader should), and I'd have agreed with you if not for one debate (I'll try to remember which one) where he presented his organic self on the stage, and did a killer job. 

    On the topic of a debate with Trump, though, I think I agree with the Pod Save America take. That is to say if I were Trump (including that void where your heart typically lives), I'd just not volunteer to debate. Why would I put myself on the same stage as my opponents to highlight my differences and risk alienation, when I can continue to tweet? 
    Regarding your first paragraph. I would like to see it that debate, if you figure out which one it was. I have an exceptional gift for getting the feel of people. And I have stated before how I have learned to view Pete. And yes, mrussel claims that is because he is eating in on Bernies lead, but one who has been keeping up with this thread will now my turn came before that. I think the big thing was the article about Pete updating his wiki page himself and not admitting it. Says a lot about a person. Haha. 

    But disregarding what I feel about the guy, I think Pete trying to "president" himself through debates with Trump who will go after him being gay and racist and young and small and whatever will be nasty but effective for Trump with voters. And Pete won't be able to comeback with much.

    Regarding your second paragraph. I don't remember Trump really debating much (in good faith) against Hillary, or in th republican Primary. I think he will show up - he loves the spotlight - but he will spew lies and car-saleman himself to the audience on voters -- and not talk/Debate with the dem candidate or the moderators. 

    He will go on about the great economy and witch hunts. And the lesser dem candidate will try to debate him on the lies like it was an ordinary debate. Instead of using the space to destroy him (and like Trump, speak to the audience/voters).

    There is no way to "gotcha" Trump. So just disregard him. And tell truth about him (like Bernie is pretty damn good at ("trump is a corporate socialist") and I think Warren and Amy would excel at)), instead of arguing against him.
    I don't agree with you on much of this. 

    Each and every one of the candidates remaining could position themselves in unique stark contrast with Trump based on any of principles, values, experience, empathy, vision, strategy, execution, results, honesty. In terms of the Wikipedia thing - whether he did it or someone else did it, if they're honest representations, I really don't care if he tooted his own horn and decided strategically it looked better if he wasn't the one doing that. It's not like people who self-edit Wikipedia pages are known to be sociopaths or anything, and to claim that Buttigieg is unique in trying to keep the spotlight remained on him, would not be correct. Conversely, each and every one of the candidates remaining can and will be attacked for their respective Achilles' heel. 

    On the debate strategy, do you really feel people are that far from coachable? Primary strategies and general election strategies are not the same, nor would be the debate strategies between the two. You seem to believe that because Sanders has already been debating with this style, that he's the only one with the capacity to do so. I don't think that's proven yet, I think he's just the only one who's taken this approach. To a lesser degree I feel Warren has, but in a much less effective fashion.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Sign In or Register to comment.