The Democratic Presidential Debates
Comments
-
Both? Both.pjl44 said:Also from the department of Bloomberg: Disingenuous Or Stupid?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/nyregion/vaping-bloomberg-e-cigarette.html0 -
No argument hereecdanc said:
Both? Both.pjl44 said:Also from the department of Bloomberg: Disingenuous Or Stupid?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/nyregion/vaping-bloomberg-e-cigarette.html0 -
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.0 -
mickeyrat said:Spiritual_Chaos said:
You didn't give an answer. You just rephrased you assertion that I have asked you to clarify:mickeyrat said:oh I see now. because you cant vote your opinion is irrelevant.
What has me not being able to vote to do with anything, why would my opinion be irrelevant here, please explain.you have been all over the map. who ever was flavor of the day , you seemed to back. like someone manic. Bernie was last a member of an SD party 43 fucking years ago. Has only won elected office as an Independent. Hes a carpetbagging fuck hijacking a party he was never a member of but only registered to run for Pres , spouting policy agenda he has NO HOPE OF PASSING.You are entitled to your opinion. It means nothing in this. period. You might be taken more seriously if you presented yourself in this forum seriously. The mems gifs and pop culture references are childish and beneath you here, or are they?my question was asked weeks ago, you have chosen to ignore it. Until you do, refer back to page 85..........
All those words and no answer to be found. Then, maybe you should stop bringing up your void-of-anything nonsense regarding this every 10 or so pages? Because you clearly can't find a reason for it other than you wanting to disparage another user. If you want a thread for just Americans to discuss whatever Americans discuss when just Americans are round, than ask a moderator to start one for you.
And me being childish for using GIFs? Then what is not using capital letters when forming sentences? Is that good if you want to be - and I quote - "taken more seriously" and believe it is important to "presented yourself in this forum seriously"? Pasting in a GIF actually takes some work, thought and time. What does skipping out on grammar take?
Lev som du lär. Here is Freddy Krueger writing in a GIF:
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
mrussel1 said:
In fairness to Scalia, his majority opinion in Heller allows for reasonable regulation of guns. He states it clear that the 2A is not unlimited. This is why VA could pass the assault weapons ban that it recently did.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.
True but I didnt realize "reasonable" was the adjective before regulated.
Individual states regulating guns are about as useful to me as a concert costing $1500. At least until states start enforcing their border security
/s0 -
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.Ledbetterman10 said: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...
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
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.0 -
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.Ledbetterman10 said: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...
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 -
Well this is true, and we had the federal ban for ten years which never had a SCOTUS challenge. I believe the law was challenged a few times through commerce clause sorts of things, but nothing ever made it to even a SCOTUS review. We certainly need to control the legislature and exec to get another federal ban. Until then, state is better than nothing. And Scalia certainly set the precedent with his opinion. Remember that the DC law in Heller prohibited even hand gun ownership in your personal home. Even I think that went too far.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
In fairness to Scalia, his majority opinion in Heller allows for reasonable regulation of guns. He states it clear that the 2A is not unlimited. This is why VA could pass the assault weapons ban that it recently did.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.
True but I didnt realize "reasonable" was the adjective before regulated.
Individual states regulating guns are about as useful to me as a concert costing $1500. At least until states start enforcing their border security
/s0 -
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.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
Agreed and administrative costs is certainly one of the more compelling arguments against nationwide health care.pjl44 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.pjl44 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.pjl44 said:
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).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 States0 -
I don't think Trump thinks Bernie will be elected. Just like 2016.Ledbetterman10 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.Ledbetterman10 said: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...
Prove the bastard wrong."Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
IMO Bernie loses the general election....but I fear anyone will to GW TrumpThe love he receives is the love that is saved0
-
Grand Wizard?F Me In The Brain said:IMO Bernie loses the general election....but I fear anyone will to GW Trump"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
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; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
If the hat fits....Spiritual_Chaos said:
Grand Wizard?F Me In The Brain said:IMO Bernie loses the general election....but I fear anyone will to GW TrumpThe love he receives is the love that is saved0 -
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.
0 -
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.0 -
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 -
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.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K 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
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help