The Democratic Presidential Debates
Comments
-
It's hard to find an example of where a gov't ran something more efficiently than private business. So I don't think that will make a difference and could very well go the other way. Eliminating profit motive is likely folly too, as you need market incentive to invest in research, research that often bears no fruit.cincybearcat said:
Well I think part of it is removing a significant amount of administrative costs. They provide no value just wasted $. I certainly like that aspect. I also am fully on board with no pre-existing condition exclusions. And with people having access to heath care.pjl44 said:
Changing the payor doesn't change the spending. How does he intend to reduce spending/costs?Spiritual_Chaos said:
In the end, hopefully it should cost the average person something like the blue bars in this graph instead of that winning red one. If you are lucky maybe people will live longer, and less babies will die when born also:The Juggler said:Oh man. That 60 Minutes interview was bad.Saying “I don’t know” when asked about how many trillions his plans (that will never get enacted) will cost.Praising Fidel Castro.Folks, this was an interview with ANDERSON COOPER.This is nightmare scenario for those of us who just want to defeat Trump. Ugh.
Im not an expert but my opinion is the move towards it at pace is better. Have it as an option, if it’s the best option more people will move to it.It certainly should be more of an unifying issue than it is really. Now some of the other policies get pretty confrontational.0 -
You can always count on mrussel's capitalist cheerleading to rely on this sort of unsubstantiated premise. It's key to his circular reasoning.mrussel1 said:
It's hard to find an example of where a gov't ran something more efficiently than private business. So I don't think that will make a difference and could very well go the other way. Eliminating profit motive is likely folly too, as you need market incentive to invest in research, research that often bears no fruit.cincybearcat said:
Well I think part of it is removing a significant amount of administrative costs. They provide no value just wasted $. I certainly like that aspect. I also am fully on board with no pre-existing condition exclusions. And with people having access to heath care.pjl44 said:
Changing the payor doesn't change the spending. How does he intend to reduce spending/costs?Spiritual_Chaos said:
In the end, hopefully it should cost the average person something like the blue bars in this graph instead of that winning red one. If you are lucky maybe people will live longer, and less babies will die when born also:The Juggler said:Oh man. That 60 Minutes interview was bad.Saying “I don’t know” when asked about how many trillions his plans (that will never get enacted) will cost.Praising Fidel Castro.Folks, this was an interview with ANDERSON COOPER.This is nightmare scenario for those of us who just want to defeat Trump. Ugh.
Im not an expert but my opinion is the move towards it at pace is better. Have it as an option, if it’s the best option more people will move to it.It certainly should be more of an unifying issue than it is really. Now some of the other policies get pretty confrontational.0 -
Obviously if you use the VA as the working model of gov't funded, and gov't provided medical care, it's doesn't really give any of us hope. That has been terribly run, no matter who is the president. And the Chair of VA Affairs at the time of the most controversial issues, that had to be undone by the Obama admin... that's right Bernie Sanders.0
-
And we can always count on you to fail in providing actual counterarguments that are grounded. It must be your bona fides that keep serving you so well.ecdanc said:
You can always count on mrussel's capitalist cheerleading to rely on this sort of unsubstantiated premise. It's key to his circular reasoning.mrussel1 said:
It's hard to find an example of where a gov't ran something more efficiently than private business. So I don't think that will make a difference and could very well go the other way. Eliminating profit motive is likely folly too, as you need market incentive to invest in research, research that often bears no fruit.cincybearcat said:
Well I think part of it is removing a significant amount of administrative costs. They provide no value just wasted $. I certainly like that aspect. I also am fully on board with no pre-existing condition exclusions. And with people having access to heath care.pjl44 said:
Changing the payor doesn't change the spending. How does he intend to reduce spending/costs?Spiritual_Chaos said:
In the end, hopefully it should cost the average person something like the blue bars in this graph instead of that winning red one. If you are lucky maybe people will live longer, and less babies will die when born also:The Juggler said:Oh man. That 60 Minutes interview was bad.Saying “I don’t know” when asked about how many trillions his plans (that will never get enacted) will cost.Praising Fidel Castro.Folks, this was an interview with ANDERSON COOPER.This is nightmare scenario for those of us who just want to defeat Trump. Ugh.
Im not an expert but my opinion is the move towards it at pace is better. Have it as an option, if it’s the best option more people will move to it.It certainly should be more of an unifying issue than it is really. Now some of the other policies get pretty confrontational.0 -
Medical care providers are not doing research. These are two different concepts.mrussel1 said:
It's hard to find an example of where a gov't ran something more efficiently than private business. So I don't think that will make a difference and could very well go the other way. Eliminating profit motive is likely folly too, as you need market incentive to invest in research, research that often bears no fruit.cincybearcat said:
Well I think part of it is removing a significant amount of administrative costs. They provide no value just wasted $. I certainly like that aspect. I also am fully on board with no pre-existing condition exclusions. And with people having access to heath care.pjl44 said:
Changing the payor doesn't change the spending. How does he intend to reduce spending/costs?Spiritual_Chaos said:
In the end, hopefully it should cost the average person something like the blue bars in this graph instead of that winning red one. If you are lucky maybe people will live longer, and less babies will die when born also:The Juggler said:Oh man. That 60 Minutes interview was bad.Saying “I don’t know” when asked about how many trillions his plans (that will never get enacted) will cost.Praising Fidel Castro.Folks, this was an interview with ANDERSON COOPER.This is nightmare scenario for those of us who just want to defeat Trump. Ugh.
Im not an expert but my opinion is the move towards it at pace is better. Have it as an option, if it’s the best option more people will move to it.It certainly should be more of an unifying issue than it is really. Now some of the other policies get pretty confrontational.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
You’re the one who made an assertion. Please provide evidence that only markets produce research. Be sure you demonstrate causation, not simply correlation. .mrussel1 said:
And we can always count on you to fail in providing actual counterarguments that are grounded. It must be your bona fides that keep serving you so well.ecdanc said:
You can always count on mrussel's capitalist cheerleading to rely on this sort of unsubstantiated premise. It's key to his circular reasoning.mrussel1 said:
It's hard to find an example of where a gov't ran something more efficiently than private business. So I don't think that will make a difference and could very well go the other way. Eliminating profit motive is likely folly too, as you need market incentive to invest in research, research that often bears no fruit.cincybearcat said:
Well I think part of it is removing a significant amount of administrative costs. They provide no value just wasted $. I certainly like that aspect. I also am fully on board with no pre-existing condition exclusions. And with people having access to heath care.pjl44 said:
Changing the payor doesn't change the spending. How does he intend to reduce spending/costs?Spiritual_Chaos said:
In the end, hopefully it should cost the average person something like the blue bars in this graph instead of that winning red one. If you are lucky maybe people will live longer, and less babies will die when born also:The Juggler said:Oh man. That 60 Minutes interview was bad.Saying “I don’t know” when asked about how many trillions his plans (that will never get enacted) will cost.Praising Fidel Castro.Folks, this was an interview with ANDERSON COOPER.This is nightmare scenario for those of us who just want to defeat Trump. Ugh.
Im not an expert but my opinion is the move towards it at pace is better. Have it as an option, if it’s the best option more people will move to it.It certainly should be more of an unifying issue than it is really. Now some of the other policies get pretty confrontational.
0 -
What are "administrative costs" though, specifically? Where is money flowing today that it won't tomorrow? I agree with everything mrussel said, but also don't want to assume that you're interpreting it the same way as us.cincybearcat said:
Well I think part of it is removing a significant amount of administrative costs. They provide no value just wasted $. I certainly like that aspect. I also am fully on board with no pre-existing condition exclusions. And with people having access to heath care.pjl44 said:
Changing the payor doesn't change the spending. How does he intend to reduce spending/costs?Spiritual_Chaos said:
In the end, hopefully it should cost the average person something like the blue bars in this graph instead of that winning red one. If you are lucky maybe people will live longer, and less babies will die when born also:The Juggler said:Oh man. That 60 Minutes interview was bad.Saying “I don’t know” when asked about how many trillions his plans (that will never get enacted) will cost.Praising Fidel Castro.Folks, this was an interview with ANDERSON COOPER.This is nightmare scenario for those of us who just want to defeat Trump. Ugh.
Im not an expert but my opinion is the move towards it at pace is better. Have it as an option, if it’s the best option more people will move to it.It certainly should be more of an unifying issue than it is really. Now some of the other policies get pretty confrontational.0 -
They both have incentives for profit, thoughoftenreading said:
Medical care providers are not doing research. These are two different concepts.mrussel1 said:
It's hard to find an example of where a gov't ran something more efficiently than private business. So I don't think that will make a difference and could very well go the other way. Eliminating profit motive is likely folly too, as you need market incentive to invest in research, research that often bears no fruit.cincybearcat said:
Well I think part of it is removing a significant amount of administrative costs. They provide no value just wasted $. I certainly like that aspect. I also am fully on board with no pre-existing condition exclusions. And with people having access to heath care.pjl44 said:
Changing the payor doesn't change the spending. How does he intend to reduce spending/costs?Spiritual_Chaos said:
In the end, hopefully it should cost the average person something like the blue bars in this graph instead of that winning red one. If you are lucky maybe people will live longer, and less babies will die when born also:The Juggler said:Oh man. That 60 Minutes interview was bad.Saying “I don’t know” when asked about how many trillions his plans (that will never get enacted) will cost.Praising Fidel Castro.Folks, this was an interview with ANDERSON COOPER.This is nightmare scenario for those of us who just want to defeat Trump. Ugh.
Im not an expert but my opinion is the move towards it at pace is better. Have it as an option, if it’s the best option more people will move to it.It certainly should be more of an unifying issue than it is really. Now some of the other policies get pretty confrontational.0 -
universities are where most of the medical side research is done.....oftenreading said:
Medical care providers are not doing research. These are two different concepts.mrussel1 said:
It's hard to find an example of where a gov't ran something more efficiently than private business. So I don't think that will make a difference and could very well go the other way. Eliminating profit motive is likely folly too, as you need market incentive to invest in research, research that often bears no fruit.cincybearcat said:
Well I think part of it is removing a significant amount of administrative costs. They provide no value just wasted $. I certainly like that aspect. I also am fully on board with no pre-existing condition exclusions. And with people having access to heath care.pjl44 said:
Changing the payor doesn't change the spending. How does he intend to reduce spending/costs?Spiritual_Chaos said:
In the end, hopefully it should cost the average person something like the blue bars in this graph instead of that winning red one. If you are lucky maybe people will live longer, and less babies will die when born also:The Juggler said:Oh man. That 60 Minutes interview was bad.Saying “I don’t know” when asked about how many trillions his plans (that will never get enacted) will cost.Praising Fidel Castro.Folks, this was an interview with ANDERSON COOPER.This is nightmare scenario for those of us who just want to defeat Trump. Ugh.
Im not an expert but my opinion is the move towards it at pace is better. Have it as an option, if it’s the best option more people will move to it.It certainly should be more of an unifying issue than it is really. Now some of the other policies get pretty confrontational.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
Agreed, but if there is no profit, then there will likely be less capital investment into research. If we rely on gov't to provide the research dollars, then tax rates are even higher along with the bureaucracy that goes with it. And I'm thinking about prescription drugs specifically here. When you look at the chart that was posted, it had the prescription $'s baked in there, I'm fairly certain, not just care. If I'm not mistaken, many Canadians use supplemental insurance to help with those costs. Is that right? I know it's true in the US for medicare patients.oftenreading said:
Medical care providers are not doing research. These are two different concepts.mrussel1 said:
It's hard to find an example of where a gov't ran something more efficiently than private business. So I don't think that will make a difference and could very well go the other way. Eliminating profit motive is likely folly too, as you need market incentive to invest in research, research that often bears no fruit.cincybearcat said:
Well I think part of it is removing a significant amount of administrative costs. They provide no value just wasted $. I certainly like that aspect. I also am fully on board with no pre-existing condition exclusions. And with people having access to heath care.pjl44 said:
Changing the payor doesn't change the spending. How does he intend to reduce spending/costs?Spiritual_Chaos said:
In the end, hopefully it should cost the average person something like the blue bars in this graph instead of that winning red one. If you are lucky maybe people will live longer, and less babies will die when born also:The Juggler said:Oh man. That 60 Minutes interview was bad.Saying “I don’t know” when asked about how many trillions his plans (that will never get enacted) will cost.Praising Fidel Castro.Folks, this was an interview with ANDERSON COOPER.This is nightmare scenario for those of us who just want to defeat Trump. Ugh.
Im not an expert but my opinion is the move towards it at pace is better. Have it as an option, if it’s the best option more people will move to it.It certainly should be more of an unifying issue than it is really. Now some of the other policies get pretty confrontational.0 -
True, yes. I was thinking about prescription drugs.mickeyrat said:
universities are where most of the medical side research is done.....oftenreading said:
Medical care providers are not doing research. These are two different concepts.mrussel1 said:
It's hard to find an example of where a gov't ran something more efficiently than private business. So I don't think that will make a difference and could very well go the other way. Eliminating profit motive is likely folly too, as you need market incentive to invest in research, research that often bears no fruit.cincybearcat said:
Well I think part of it is removing a significant amount of administrative costs. They provide no value just wasted $. I certainly like that aspect. I also am fully on board with no pre-existing condition exclusions. And with people having access to heath care.pjl44 said:
Changing the payor doesn't change the spending. How does he intend to reduce spending/costs?Spiritual_Chaos said:
In the end, hopefully it should cost the average person something like the blue bars in this graph instead of that winning red one. If you are lucky maybe people will live longer, and less babies will die when born also:The Juggler said:Oh man. That 60 Minutes interview was bad.Saying “I don’t know” when asked about how many trillions his plans (that will never get enacted) will cost.Praising Fidel Castro.Folks, this was an interview with ANDERSON COOPER.This is nightmare scenario for those of us who just want to defeat Trump. Ugh.
Im not an expert but my opinion is the move towards it at pace is better. Have it as an option, if it’s the best option more people will move to it.It certainly should be more of an unifying issue than it is really. Now some of the other policies get pretty confrontational.0 -
The Juggler said:
For sure. I would vote for Spiritual Chaos over Trump. Haha.F Me In The Brain said:
That he doesn't know what his plan will cost is frightful. What a joke 😂The Juggler said:Oh man. That 60 Minutes interview was bad.Saying “I don’t know” when asked about how many trillions his plans (that will never get enacted) will cost.Praising Fidel Castro.Folks, this was an interview with ANDERSON COOPER.This is nightmare scenario for those of us who just want to defeat Trump. Ugh.
The scarier thing is that the extremist supporters don't care - it doesn't matter to them. (sound like another group?)
I don't think it mattered, overall, but Bernie is the worst option from this group to have a shot at beating Trump.
It also pains me to think I would ever vote for this guy, buy I prefer a change from Trump....even if it has to be the other extremist group in our country.But yeah, man. I never thought I’d vote for Hillary and now...this. Really sucks.I follow a lot of the Never Trumper people on Twitter. They’re coming out and saying they can’t vote for Bernie.It should be simple. Look how you flipped the house a year and a half ago. Just fucking do that again. You put up a democratic socialist against an authoritarian populist, it’s only going to divide the country further and leave even more people in the middle without a home.Yep. I don't go on Twitter, nor give too many shits about the opinions of others when it comes to how I feel about this despicable orange human filth we have sitting as POTUS...Last time around I could not bring myself to vote for Hillary, and I sure as shit wasn't voting for Trump.Like many, I thought Hillary would win and I would be able to settle in and find someone to support who was more in line with my likes to support in 2020. (I was a Rubio fan most before Donnie Darko took over.)Instead I voted for the pothead from NM, Johnson, and tossed my vote away. Felt very secure that Trump was not winning in NJ...which turned out to be the case.This time, based on how many fucking idiots I see around me blindly supporting the racist wreck, I cannot make that bet, and I will (big, big, big, gulp) vote for a person who I disagree with on a huge percentage of his stances, but who I feel is a very decent human being.As you point out from your Twitter research, my guess would also be that many Never Trumpers walk back that label and cannot support a socialist and vote for Donnie or at least do not vote, or vote 3rd party, which at this point is a vote for Donnie...knowing what we know.As you stated many times, the Democratic party is a horrendous train wreck and seemingly want to lose to Donnie.Sad.What will 2024 look like?The love he receives is the love that is saved0 -
Eliminate capital?mrussel1 said:
Agreed, but if there is no profit, then there will likely be less capital investment into research. If we rely on gov't to provide the research dollars, then tax rates are even higher along with the bureaucracy that goes with it. And I'm thinking about prescription drugs specifically here. When you look at the chart that was posted, it had the prescription $'s baked in there, I'm fairly certain, not just care. If I'm not mistaken, many Canadians use supplemental insurance to help with those costs. Is that right? I know it's true in the US for medicare patients.oftenreading said:
Medical care providers are not doing research. These are two different concepts.mrussel1 said:
It's hard to find an example of where a gov't ran something more efficiently than private business. So I don't think that will make a difference and could very well go the other way. Eliminating profit motive is likely folly too, as you need market incentive to invest in research, research that often bears no fruit.cincybearcat said:
Well I think part of it is removing a significant amount of administrative costs. They provide no value just wasted $. I certainly like that aspect. I also am fully on board with no pre-existing condition exclusions. And with people having access to heath care.pjl44 said:
Changing the payor doesn't change the spending. How does he intend to reduce spending/costs?Spiritual_Chaos said:
In the end, hopefully it should cost the average person something like the blue bars in this graph instead of that winning red one. If you are lucky maybe people will live longer, and less babies will die when born also:The Juggler said:Oh man. That 60 Minutes interview was bad.Saying “I don’t know” when asked about how many trillions his plans (that will never get enacted) will cost.Praising Fidel Castro.Folks, this was an interview with ANDERSON COOPER.This is nightmare scenario for those of us who just want to defeat Trump. Ugh.
Im not an expert but my opinion is the move towards it at pace is better. Have it as an option, if it’s the best option more people will move to it.It certainly should be more of an unifying issue than it is really. Now some of the other policies get pretty confrontational.0 -
I still say the majority of the part is center-left. The problem is that we're splitting votes between candidates that are fundamentally offering the same policies, whereas Sanders has consolidated almost all of the 30% progressive vote.F Me In The Brain said:The Juggler said:
For sure. I would vote for Spiritual Chaos over Trump. Haha.F Me In The Brain said:
That he doesn't know what his plan will cost is frightful. What a joke 😂The Juggler said:Oh man. That 60 Minutes interview was bad.Saying “I don’t know” when asked about how many trillions his plans (that will never get enacted) will cost.Praising Fidel Castro.Folks, this was an interview with ANDERSON COOPER.This is nightmare scenario for those of us who just want to defeat Trump. Ugh.
The scarier thing is that the extremist supporters don't care - it doesn't matter to them. (sound like another group?)
I don't think it mattered, overall, but Bernie is the worst option from this group to have a shot at beating Trump.
It also pains me to think I would ever vote for this guy, buy I prefer a change from Trump....even if it has to be the other extremist group in our country.But yeah, man. I never thought I’d vote for Hillary and now...this. Really sucks.I follow a lot of the Never Trumper people on Twitter. They’re coming out and saying they can’t vote for Bernie.It should be simple. Look how you flipped the house a year and a half ago. Just fucking do that again. You put up a democratic socialist against an authoritarian populist, it’s only going to divide the country further and leave even more people in the middle without a home.Yep. I don't go on Twitter, nor give too many shits about the opinions of others when it comes to how I feel about this despicable orange human filth we have sitting as POTUS...Last time around I could not bring myself to vote for Hillary, and I sure as shit wasn't voting for Trump.Like many, I thought Hillary would win and I would be able to settle in and find someone to support who was more in line with my likes to support in 2020. (I was a Rubio fan most before Donnie Darko took over.)Instead I voted for the pothead from NM, Johnson, and tossed my vote away. Felt very secure that Trump was not winning in NJ...which turned out to be the case.This time, based on how many fucking idiots I see around me blindly supporting the racist wreck, I cannot make that bet, and I will (big, big, big, gulp) vote for a person who I disagree with on a huge percentage of his stances, but who I feel is a very decent human being.As you point out from your Twitter research, my guess would also be that many Never Trumpers walk back that label and cannot support a socialist and vote for Donnie or at least do not vote, or vote 3rd party, which at this point is a vote for Donnie...knowing what we know.As you stated many times, the Democratic party is a horrendous train wreck and seemingly want to lose to Donnie.Sad.What will 2024 look like?0 -
Strangely enough, I don't disagree with you here. Many moderates and a fair number of "liberals" (not sure which group, mcgruff, for instance considers himself a part of) will decide they'd rather have an openly sexist, staunchly white supremacist, wanna-be dictator than to pay more taxes to make things better for others. Cf, Chris Matthews.F Me In The Brain said:The Juggler said:
For sure. I would vote for Spiritual Chaos over Trump. Haha.F Me In The Brain said:
That he doesn't know what his plan will cost is frightful. What a joke 😂The Juggler said:Oh man. That 60 Minutes interview was bad.Saying “I don’t know” when asked about how many trillions his plans (that will never get enacted) will cost.Praising Fidel Castro.Folks, this was an interview with ANDERSON COOPER.This is nightmare scenario for those of us who just want to defeat Trump. Ugh.
The scarier thing is that the extremist supporters don't care - it doesn't matter to them. (sound like another group?)
I don't think it mattered, overall, but Bernie is the worst option from this group to have a shot at beating Trump.
It also pains me to think I would ever vote for this guy, buy I prefer a change from Trump....even if it has to be the other extremist group in our country.But yeah, man. I never thought I’d vote for Hillary and now...this. Really sucks.I follow a lot of the Never Trumper people on Twitter. They’re coming out and saying they can’t vote for Bernie.It should be simple. Look how you flipped the house a year and a half ago. Just fucking do that again. You put up a democratic socialist against an authoritarian populist, it’s only going to divide the country further and leave even more people in the middle without a home.Yep. I don't go on Twitter, nor give too many shits about the opinions of others when it comes to how I feel about this despicable orange human filth we have sitting as POTUS...Last time around I could not bring myself to vote for Hillary, and I sure as shit wasn't voting for Trump.Like many, I thought Hillary would win and I would be able to settle in and find someone to support who was more in line with my likes to support in 2020. (I was a Rubio fan most before Donnie Darko took over.)Instead I voted for the pothead from NM, Johnson, and tossed my vote away. Felt very secure that Trump was not winning in NJ...which turned out to be the case.This time, based on how many fucking idiots I see around me blindly supporting the racist wreck, I cannot make that bet, and I will (big, big, big, gulp) vote for a person who I disagree with on a huge percentage of his stances, but who I feel is a very decent human being.As you point out from your Twitter research, my guess would also be that many Never Trumpers walk back that label and cannot support a socialist and vote for Donnie or at least do not vote, or vote 3rd party, which at this point is a vote for Donnie...knowing what we know.As you stated many times, the Democratic party is a horrendous train wreck and seemingly want to lose to Donnie.Sad.What will 2024 look like?0 -
mrussel1 said:
I still say the majority of the part is center-left. The problem is that we're splitting votes between candidates that are fundamentally offering the same policies, whereas Sanders has consolidated almost all of the 30% progressive vote.F Me In The Brain said:The Juggler said:
For sure. I would vote for Spiritual Chaos over Trump. Haha.F Me In The Brain said:
That he doesn't know what his plan will cost is frightful. What a joke 😂The Juggler said:Oh man. That 60 Minutes interview was bad.Saying “I don’t know” when asked about how many trillions his plans (that will never get enacted) will cost.Praising Fidel Castro.Folks, this was an interview with ANDERSON COOPER.This is nightmare scenario for those of us who just want to defeat Trump. Ugh.
The scarier thing is that the extremist supporters don't care - it doesn't matter to them. (sound like another group?)
I don't think it mattered, overall, but Bernie is the worst option from this group to have a shot at beating Trump.
It also pains me to think I would ever vote for this guy, buy I prefer a change from Trump....even if it has to be the other extremist group in our country.But yeah, man. I never thought I’d vote for Hillary and now...this. Really sucks.I follow a lot of the Never Trumper people on Twitter. They’re coming out and saying they can’t vote for Bernie.It should be simple. Look how you flipped the house a year and a half ago. Just fucking do that again. You put up a democratic socialist against an authoritarian populist, it’s only going to divide the country further and leave even more people in the middle without a home.Yep. I don't go on Twitter, nor give too many shits about the opinions of others when it comes to how I feel about this despicable orange human filth we have sitting as POTUS...Last time around I could not bring myself to vote for Hillary, and I sure as shit wasn't voting for Trump.Like many, I thought Hillary would win and I would be able to settle in and find someone to support who was more in line with my likes to support in 2020. (I was a Rubio fan most before Donnie Darko took over.)Instead I voted for the pothead from NM, Johnson, and tossed my vote away. Felt very secure that Trump was not winning in NJ...which turned out to be the case.This time, based on how many fucking idiots I see around me blindly supporting the racist wreck, I cannot make that bet, and I will (big, big, big, gulp) vote for a person who I disagree with on a huge percentage of his stances, but who I feel is a very decent human being.As you point out from your Twitter research, my guess would also be that many Never Trumpers walk back that label and cannot support a socialist and vote for Donnie or at least do not vote, or vote 3rd party, which at this point is a vote for Donnie...knowing what we know.As you stated many times, the Democratic party is a horrendous train wreck and seemingly want to lose to Donnie.Sad.What will 2024 look like?Could be, I don't know too much about it. My wife, who has always been blue, is more center-left.So would that mean that everyone but 1-2 of the others need to drop out and leave the 2 extremist elderly folks and 1-2 of the other candidates (please not more elderly folks!) who represent the 'majority' of the party?What does that look like?SandersWarrenWhich 1-2 do you pick?The love he receives is the love that is saved0 -
I'm center left. Since 1996 I have always voted democrat for President and I think I have voted for republicans maybe a handful of times in other elections.ecdanc said:
Strangely enough, I don't disagree with you here. Many moderates and a fair number of "liberals" (not sure which group, mcgruff, for instance considers himself a part of) will decide they'd rather have an openly sexist, staunchly white supremacist, wanna-be dictator than to pay more taxes to make things better for others. Cf, Chris Matthews.F Me In The Brain said:The Juggler said:
For sure. I would vote for Spiritual Chaos over Trump. Haha.F Me In The Brain said:
That he doesn't know what his plan will cost is frightful. What a joke 😂The Juggler said:Oh man. That 60 Minutes interview was bad.Saying “I don’t know” when asked about how many trillions his plans (that will never get enacted) will cost.Praising Fidel Castro.Folks, this was an interview with ANDERSON COOPER.This is nightmare scenario for those of us who just want to defeat Trump. Ugh.
The scarier thing is that the extremist supporters don't care - it doesn't matter to them. (sound like another group?)
I don't think it mattered, overall, but Bernie is the worst option from this group to have a shot at beating Trump.
It also pains me to think I would ever vote for this guy, buy I prefer a change from Trump....even if it has to be the other extremist group in our country.But yeah, man. I never thought I’d vote for Hillary and now...this. Really sucks.I follow a lot of the Never Trumper people on Twitter. They’re coming out and saying they can’t vote for Bernie.It should be simple. Look how you flipped the house a year and a half ago. Just fucking do that again. You put up a democratic socialist against an authoritarian populist, it’s only going to divide the country further and leave even more people in the middle without a home.Yep. I don't go on Twitter, nor give too many shits about the opinions of others when it comes to how I feel about this despicable orange human filth we have sitting as POTUS...Last time around I could not bring myself to vote for Hillary, and I sure as shit wasn't voting for Trump.Like many, I thought Hillary would win and I would be able to settle in and find someone to support who was more in line with my likes to support in 2020. (I was a Rubio fan most before Donnie Darko took over.)Instead I voted for the pothead from NM, Johnson, and tossed my vote away. Felt very secure that Trump was not winning in NJ...which turned out to be the case.This time, based on how many fucking idiots I see around me blindly supporting the racist wreck, I cannot make that bet, and I will (big, big, big, gulp) vote for a person who I disagree with on a huge percentage of his stances, but who I feel is a very decent human being.As you point out from your Twitter research, my guess would also be that many Never Trumpers walk back that label and cannot support a socialist and vote for Donnie or at least do not vote, or vote 3rd party, which at this point is a vote for Donnie...knowing what we know.As you stated many times, the Democratic party is a horrendous train wreck and seemingly want to lose to Donnie.Sad.What will 2024 look like?I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
PeteF Me In The Brain said:mrussel1 said:
I still say the majority of the part is center-left. The problem is that we're splitting votes between candidates that are fundamentally offering the same policies, whereas Sanders has consolidated almost all of the 30% progressive vote.F Me In The Brain said:The Juggler said:
For sure. I would vote for Spiritual Chaos over Trump. Haha.F Me In The Brain said:
That he doesn't know what his plan will cost is frightful. What a joke 😂The Juggler said:Oh man. That 60 Minutes interview was bad.Saying “I don’t know” when asked about how many trillions his plans (that will never get enacted) will cost.Praising Fidel Castro.Folks, this was an interview with ANDERSON COOPER.This is nightmare scenario for those of us who just want to defeat Trump. Ugh.
The scarier thing is that the extremist supporters don't care - it doesn't matter to them. (sound like another group?)
I don't think it mattered, overall, but Bernie is the worst option from this group to have a shot at beating Trump.
It also pains me to think I would ever vote for this guy, buy I prefer a change from Trump....even if it has to be the other extremist group in our country.But yeah, man. I never thought I’d vote for Hillary and now...this. Really sucks.I follow a lot of the Never Trumper people on Twitter. They’re coming out and saying they can’t vote for Bernie.It should be simple. Look how you flipped the house a year and a half ago. Just fucking do that again. You put up a democratic socialist against an authoritarian populist, it’s only going to divide the country further and leave even more people in the middle without a home.Yep. I don't go on Twitter, nor give too many shits about the opinions of others when it comes to how I feel about this despicable orange human filth we have sitting as POTUS...Last time around I could not bring myself to vote for Hillary, and I sure as shit wasn't voting for Trump.Like many, I thought Hillary would win and I would be able to settle in and find someone to support who was more in line with my likes to support in 2020. (I was a Rubio fan most before Donnie Darko took over.)Instead I voted for the pothead from NM, Johnson, and tossed my vote away. Felt very secure that Trump was not winning in NJ...which turned out to be the case.This time, based on how many fucking idiots I see around me blindly supporting the racist wreck, I cannot make that bet, and I will (big, big, big, gulp) vote for a person who I disagree with on a huge percentage of his stances, but who I feel is a very decent human being.As you point out from your Twitter research, my guess would also be that many Never Trumpers walk back that label and cannot support a socialist and vote for Donnie or at least do not vote, or vote 3rd party, which at this point is a vote for Donnie...knowing what we know.As you stated many times, the Democratic party is a horrendous train wreck and seemingly want to lose to Donnie.Sad.What will 2024 look like?Could be, I don't know too much about it. My wife, who has always been blue, is more center-left.So would that mean that everyone but 1-2 of the others need to drop out and leave the 2 extremist elderly folks and 1-2 of the other candidates (please not more elderly folks!) who represent the 'majority' of the party?What does that look like?SandersWarrenWhich 1-2 do you pick?
Amy/Biden
0 -
You mean center left by US standards, right? So, center right....mcgruff10 said:
I'm center left. Since 1996 I have always voted democrat for President and I think I have voted for republicans maybe a handful of times in other elections.ecdanc said:
Strangely enough, I don't disagree with you here. Many moderates and a fair number of "liberals" (not sure which group, mcgruff, for instance considers himself a part of) will decide they'd rather have an openly sexist, staunchly white supremacist, wanna-be dictator than to pay more taxes to make things better for others. Cf, Chris Matthews.F Me In The Brain said:The Juggler said:
For sure. I would vote for Spiritual Chaos over Trump. Haha.F Me In The Brain said:
That he doesn't know what his plan will cost is frightful. What a joke 😂The Juggler said:Oh man. That 60 Minutes interview was bad.Saying “I don’t know” when asked about how many trillions his plans (that will never get enacted) will cost.Praising Fidel Castro.Folks, this was an interview with ANDERSON COOPER.This is nightmare scenario for those of us who just want to defeat Trump. Ugh.
The scarier thing is that the extremist supporters don't care - it doesn't matter to them. (sound like another group?)
I don't think it mattered, overall, but Bernie is the worst option from this group to have a shot at beating Trump.
It also pains me to think I would ever vote for this guy, buy I prefer a change from Trump....even if it has to be the other extremist group in our country.But yeah, man. I never thought I’d vote for Hillary and now...this. Really sucks.I follow a lot of the Never Trumper people on Twitter. They’re coming out and saying they can’t vote for Bernie.It should be simple. Look how you flipped the house a year and a half ago. Just fucking do that again. You put up a democratic socialist against an authoritarian populist, it’s only going to divide the country further and leave even more people in the middle without a home.Yep. I don't go on Twitter, nor give too many shits about the opinions of others when it comes to how I feel about this despicable orange human filth we have sitting as POTUS...Last time around I could not bring myself to vote for Hillary, and I sure as shit wasn't voting for Trump.Like many, I thought Hillary would win and I would be able to settle in and find someone to support who was more in line with my likes to support in 2020. (I was a Rubio fan most before Donnie Darko took over.)Instead I voted for the pothead from NM, Johnson, and tossed my vote away. Felt very secure that Trump was not winning in NJ...which turned out to be the case.This time, based on how many fucking idiots I see around me blindly supporting the racist wreck, I cannot make that bet, and I will (big, big, big, gulp) vote for a person who I disagree with on a huge percentage of his stances, but who I feel is a very decent human being.As you point out from your Twitter research, my guess would also be that many Never Trumpers walk back that label and cannot support a socialist and vote for Donnie or at least do not vote, or vote 3rd party, which at this point is a vote for Donnie...knowing what we know.As you stated many times, the Democratic party is a horrendous train wreck and seemingly want to lose to Donnie.Sad.What will 2024 look like?
0 -
The Juggler said:Oh man. That 60 Minutes interview was bad.Saying “I don’t know” when asked about how many trillions his plans (that will never get enacted) will cost.Praising Fidel Castro.Folks, this was an interview with ANDERSON COOPER.This is nightmare scenario for those of us who just want to defeat Trump. Ugh.
AC has always leaned slightly to the right on fiscal issues. And to the left on social issues.0
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