The Democratic Presidential Debates
Comments
-
So you're saying Bernie has no liabilities, whereas the remainder of the candidates do?OnWis97 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Grand Wizard?F Me In The Brain said:IMO Bernie loses the general election....but I fear anyone will to GW Trump
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).- Warren: Fauxcahontas
- Bloomberg: 64 sexual harassment claims and "stop and frisk"
- Mayor Pete: Police department
- Amy: Verbal abuse of her staff. She's pretty mean...and she's also being blamed for a life sentence a 16-year-old innocent kid got (but I haven't really looked into it)
- Biden: Apparently a history of lying about participating in the civil rights movement?
- All non-Bernie Candidates: The DNC clearly fixed it for them.
0 -
ecdanc said:
The goal is to move the country left, but you aren’t.Lerxst1992 said:
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 electionecdanc said:
Lived in the US my whole life--why do you ask?Lerxst1992 said:ecdanc said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:ecdanc said:
You and I have very different definitions of what it means to win, so maybe don't use "we" when responding to me.Lerxst1992 said:ecdanc said:
Yes, but is that really the measuring stick?Lerxst1992 said:dignin said:
A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.Lerxst1992 said:pjl44 said:Lerxst1992 said:pjl44 said:
Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination.wndowpayne said:Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?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
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
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.
"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.
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.
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 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.
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?0 -
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.mrussel1 said:
So you're saying Bernie has no liabilities, whereas the remainder of the candidates do?OnWis97 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Grand Wizard?F Me In The Brain said:IMO Bernie loses the general election....but I fear anyone will to GW Trump
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).- Warren: Fauxcahontas
- Bloomberg: 64 sexual harassment claims and "stop and frisk"
- Mayor Pete: Police department
- Amy: Verbal abuse of her staff. She's pretty mean...and she's also being blamed for a life sentence a 16-year-old innocent kid got (but I haven't really looked into it)
- Biden: Apparently a history of lying about participating in the civil rights movement?
- All non-Bernie Candidates: The DNC clearly fixed it for them.
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 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley0 -
OnWis97 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Grand Wizard?F Me In The Brain said:IMO Bernie loses the general election....but I fear anyone will to GW Trump
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).- Warren: Fauxcahontas
- Bloomberg: 64 sexual harassment claims and "stop and frisk"
- Mayor Pete: Police department
- Amy: Verbal abuse of her staff. She's pretty mean...and she's also being blamed for a life sentence a 16-year-old innocent kid got (but I haven't really looked into it)
- Biden: Apparently a history of lying about participating in the civil rights movement?
- All non-Bernie Candidates: The DNC clearly fixed it for them.
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.0 -
Ah. You missed the /s, I think it is.Lerxst1992 said:oftenreading said:Lerxst1992 said:
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 electionecdanc said:
Lived in the US my whole life--why do you ask?Lerxst1992 said:ecdanc said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:ecdanc said:
You and I have very different definitions of what it means to win, so maybe don't use "we" when responding to me.Lerxst1992 said:ecdanc said:
Yes, but is that really the measuring stick?Lerxst1992 said:dignin said:
A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.Lerxst1992 said:pjl44 said:Lerxst1992 said:pjl44 said:
Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination.wndowpayne said:Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?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
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
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.
"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.
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.
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 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.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
OnWis97 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Grand Wizard?F Me In The Brain said:IMO Bernie loses the general election....but I fear anyone will to GW Trump
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).- Warren: Fauxcahontas
- Bloomberg: 64 sexual harassment claims and "stop and frisk"
- Mayor Pete: Police department
- Amy: Verbal abuse of her staff. She's pretty mean...and she's also being blamed for a life sentence a 16-year-old innocent kid got (but I haven't really looked into it)
- Biden: Apparently a history of lying about participating in the civil rights movement?
- All non-Bernie Candidates: The DNC clearly fixed it for them.
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!
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
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"0 -
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.Lerxst1992 said:OnWis97 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Grand Wizard?F Me In The Brain said:IMO Bernie loses the general election....but I fear anyone will to GW Trump
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).- Warren: Fauxcahontas
- Bloomberg: 64 sexual harassment claims and "stop and frisk"
- Mayor Pete: Police department
- Amy: Verbal abuse of her staff. She's pretty mean...and she's also being blamed for a life sentence a 16-year-old innocent kid got (but I haven't really looked into it)
- Biden: Apparently a history of lying about participating in the civil rights movement?
- All non-Bernie Candidates: The DNC clearly fixed it for them.
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.'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 10 -
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.Spiritual_Chaos 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.
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 10 -
benjs said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos 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.
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.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
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.brianlux said:OnWis97 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Grand Wizard?F Me In The Brain said:IMO Bernie loses the general election....but I fear anyone will to GW Trump
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).- Warren: Fauxcahontas
- Bloomberg: 64 sexual harassment claims and "stop and frisk"
- Mayor Pete: Police department
- Amy: Verbal abuse of her staff. She's pretty mean...and she's also being blamed for a life sentence a 16-year-old innocent kid got (but I haven't really looked into it)
- Biden: Apparently a history of lying about participating in the civil rights movement?
- All non-Bernie Candidates: The DNC clearly fixed it for them.
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!
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 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley0 -
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.benjs said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos 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.
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?
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"0 -
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.Lerxst1992 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.
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.
0 -
Which, thus far you haven’t posited. Maybe because they’re offensive and dangerous?ecdanc said:
Because there are alternatives. No. No. Still refusing.Halifax2TheMax said:
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?ecdanc said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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?ecdanc said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:ecdanc said:
You and I have very different definitions of what it means to win, so maybe don't use "we" when responding to me.Lerxst1992 said:ecdanc said:
Yes, but is that really the measuring stick?Lerxst1992 said:dignin said:
A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.Lerxst1992 said:pjl44 said:Lerxst1992 said:pjl44 said:
Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination.wndowpayne said:Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?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
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
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.
"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.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, 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; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, 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; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
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.dignin said:
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.Lerxst1992 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.
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.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, 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; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, 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; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
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, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0 -
Definitely a concern. Which brings me back to the Court. Southern state shenanigans were fortified by Shelby County v. Holder.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.dignin said:
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.Lerxst1992 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.
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.
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."0 -
Halifax2TheMax said:
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.dignin said:
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.Lerxst1992 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.
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.
I SAW PEARL JAM0 -
dignin said:
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.Lerxst1992 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.
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
0 -
I don't agree with you on much of this.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.benjs said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos 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.
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?
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.
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 10
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help