The Democratic Presidential Debates

Lerxst1992

HughFreakingDillon said:

I'm digging Liz these days. 

Really? She has vim and vigor and a skilled debater, but her decisions on the dna test and to go hard left in healthcare during the Trumponian era are very weak decisions imo.

mickeyrat

I find it interesting that folks would vote against based on a policy stance. seemingly without considering if that policy would actually be implemented given the political climate.

shoot for the moon, accept something short of that, like public option........

Lerxst1992

mickeyrat said:

I find it interesting that folks would vote against based on a policy stance. seemingly without considering if that policy would actually be implemented given the political climate.

shoot for the moon, accept something short of that, like public option........

Public option would be the  biggest domestic program available to everyone since...FDR?

I am not sure I want to be forced onto govt controlled healthcare and certainly dont want to risk our one chance to take down trump on something Republicans will successfully argue as socialism during the campaign. 

HughFreakingDillon

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I'm digging Liz these days. 

Really? She has vim and vigor and a skilled debater, but her decisions on the dna test and to go hard left in healthcare during the Trumponian era are very weak decisions imo.

the DNA test was a flop, yes. Why is her healthcare plan weak? you mean too socialist for the electorate to accept?

mrussel1

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I'm digging Liz these days. 

Really? She has vim and vigor and a skilled debater, but her decisions on the dna test and to go hard left in healthcare during the Trumponian era are very weak decisions imo.

See I don't think that's true.  I feel like all of her answers start and end in the same place.  She ensures she includes:
1. I have a plan for that
2. Working class Americans
3. Some form of wealth or Wall Street Tax

But she refuses to admit to the tax that will be necessary for M4A because it has to hammer the middle class.  I find this a bit disingenuous. 

Hey Lerx - I got a PM from Kat saying I could open a new Dem candidate thread since the other one was closed.  But if you're willing to just rename this one and have it encompass the race, that might make more sense.  

pjl44

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat said:

I find it interesting that folks would vote against based on a policy stance. seemingly without considering if that policy would actually be implemented given the political climate.

shoot for the moon, accept something short of that, like public option........

Public option would be the  biggest domestic program available to everyone since...FDR?

I am not sure I want to be forced onto govt controlled healthcare and certainly dont want to risk our one chance to take down trump on something Republicans will successfully argue as socialism during the campaign. 

Even if you put costs aside, would people really want Trump (or someone like him) and his HHS impacting and overseeing their health care? That seems crazy to me. Look at how Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA already twist in the wind based on budgets and policy decisions. 

CM189191

pjl44 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat said:

I find it interesting that folks would vote against based on a policy stance. seemingly without considering if that policy would actually be implemented given the political climate.

shoot for the moon, accept something short of that, like public option........

Public option would be the  biggest domestic program available to everyone since...FDR?

I am not sure I want to be forced onto govt controlled healthcare and certainly dont want to risk our one chance to take down trump on something Republicans will successfully argue as socialism during the campaign. 

Even if you put costs aside, would people really want Trump (or someone like him) and his HHS impacting and overseeing their health care? That seems crazy to me. Look at how Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA already twist in the wind based on budgets and policy decisions. 

You know...not like our current health care system.  Totally stable and affordable for everyone.

mrussel1

CM189191 said:

pjl44 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat said:

I find it interesting that folks would vote against based on a policy stance. seemingly without considering if that policy would actually be implemented given the political climate.

shoot for the moon, accept something short of that, like public option........

Public option would be the  biggest domestic program available to everyone since...FDR?

I am not sure I want to be forced onto govt controlled healthcare and certainly dont want to risk our one chance to take down trump on something Republicans will successfully argue as socialism during the campaign. 

Even if you put costs aside, would people really want Trump (or someone like him) and his HHS impacting and overseeing their health care? That seems crazy to me. Look at how Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA already twist in the wind based on budgets and policy decisions. 

You know...not like our current health care system.  Totally stable and affordable for everyone.

The VA offers terrible services and care.  It's actually public care and the gov't is horrible at it.  Medicare and medicaid rely on private doctors and hospitals, by and large.  

pjl44

CM189191 said:

pjl44 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat said:

I find it interesting that folks would vote against based on a policy stance. seemingly without considering if that policy would actually be implemented given the political climate.

shoot for the moon, accept something short of that, like public option........

Public option would be the  biggest domestic program available to everyone since...FDR?

I am not sure I want to be forced onto govt controlled healthcare and certainly dont want to risk our one chance to take down trump on something Republicans will successfully argue as socialism during the campaign. 

Even if you put costs aside, would people really want Trump (or someone like him) and his HHS impacting and overseeing their health care? That seems crazy to me. Look at how Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA already twist in the wind based on budgets and policy decisions. 

You know...not like our current health care system.  Totally stable and affordable for everyone.

It's possible to make it worse. No concerns about a Republican president and Republican-controlled congress holding the purse strings on reproductive care?

CM189191

pjl44 said:

CM189191 said:

pjl44 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat said:

I find it interesting that folks would vote against based on a policy stance. seemingly without considering if that policy would actually be implemented given the political climate.

shoot for the moon, accept something short of that, like public option........

Public option would be the  biggest domestic program available to everyone since...FDR?

I am not sure I want to be forced onto govt controlled healthcare and certainly dont want to risk our one chance to take down trump on something Republicans will successfully argue as socialism during the campaign. 

Even if you put costs aside, would people really want Trump (or someone like him) and his HHS impacting and overseeing their health care? That seems crazy to me. Look at how Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA already twist in the wind based on budgets and policy decisions. 

You know...not like our current health care system.  Totally stable and affordable for everyone.

It's possible to make it worse. No concerns about a Republican president and Republican-controlled congress holding the purse strings on reproductive care?

No.  Right now red states are fighting that battle.  Let them bring the fight to a federal / nationalized platform, it won't win.  

dignin

I don't think she's wrong.

Hillary Clinton Appears to Claim Russians ‘Grooming’ Tulsi Gabbard to Run as Third-Party Candidate

https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clinton-appears-to-claim-russians-grooming-tulsi-gabbard-to-run-as-third-party-candidate?via=twitter_page

Ledbetterman10

dignin said:

I don't think she's wrong.

Hillary Clinton Appears to Claim Russians ‘Grooming’ Tulsi Gabbard to Run as Third-Party Candidate

https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clinton-appears-to-claim-russians-grooming-tulsi-gabbard-to-run-as-third-party-candidate?via=twitter_page

So if you don't think she's wrong, you must think she's right. And why is that? I ask because she doesn't give any sort of proof  in article you linked to. She just said "I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians." 

dignin

Ledbetterman10 said:

dignin said:

I don't think she's wrong.

Hillary Clinton Appears to Claim Russians ‘Grooming’ Tulsi Gabbard to Run as Third-Party Candidate

https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clinton-appears-to-claim-russians-grooming-tulsi-gabbard-to-run-as-third-party-candidate?via=twitter_page

So if you don't think she's wrong, you must think she's right. And why is that? I ask because she doesn't give any sort of proof  in article you linked to. She just said "I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians." 

There is plenty of evidence out there, as Hillary alludes to in the interview.

A lot of Russian internet bots and traffic pushing her along. In similar fashion to 2016.

mrussel1

Ledbetterman10 said:

dignin said:

I don't think she's wrong.

Hillary Clinton Appears to Claim Russians ‘Grooming’ Tulsi Gabbard to Run as Third-Party Candidate

https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clinton-appears-to-claim-russians-grooming-tulsi-gabbard-to-run-as-third-party-candidate?via=twitter_page

So if you don't think she's wrong, you must think she's right. And why is that? I ask because she doesn't give any sort of proof  in article you linked to. She just said "I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians." 

I think she could be right.  Hillary points out the hypothesis that she has an outsized social media following and that they are,  may be,  could be bots.  I don't think Tulsi is inviting this or necessarily a willing participant, rather she would a target. 

CM189191

Ledbetterman10 said:

dignin said:

I don't think she's wrong.

Hillary Clinton Appears to Claim Russians ‘Grooming’ Tulsi Gabbard to Run as Third-Party Candidate

https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clinton-appears-to-claim-russians-grooming-tulsi-gabbard-to-run-as-third-party-candidate?via=twitter_page

So if you don't think she's wrong, you must think she's right. And why is that? I ask because she doesn't give any sort of proof  in article you linked to. She just said "I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians." 

here you go, proof https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261

HughFreakingDillon

the problem, however, is the risk this poses to Tulsi. She is an active duty member, and many are taking this as she's a willing participant in Russian interference, not a patsy. that's dangerous shit. 

dignin

HughFreakingDillon said:

the problem, however, is the risk this poses to Tulsi. She is an active duty member, and many are taking this as she's a willing participant in Russian interference, not a patsy. that's dangerous shit. 

She should drop out then.

She polls around 0 to 1%

Time to throw in the towel.

Halifax2TheMax

From February 2019. Before everyone starts claiming another “Clinton Conspiracy.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/tulsi-gabbard-russia-david-duke-policies-2020-campaign-white-nationalist-hawaii-propaganda-a8768056.html

HughFreakingDillon

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

the problem, however, is the risk this poses to Tulsi. She is an active duty member, and many are taking this as she's a willing participant in Russian interference, not a patsy. that's dangerous shit. 

She should drop out then.

She polls around 0 to 1%

Time to throw in the towel.

she shouldn't drop out because someone else made a potentially dangerous accusation against her. But yes, polling at that amount at this point, she should definitely drop out because of that. 

lexicondevil

Gotta really make you wonder why a POS like David Duke would repeatedly try to endorse Gabbard. 
Also, it pains me that she is from Hawaii. I don't get any aloha spirit from her.