|
There's a difference between randos conspiring against their god and the GOP establishment itself directly stabbing Trump in the back. When Trump loses, his fans will whine and cry about it for years, guaranteed, but it's still not the same as the party overriding the votes in the primary itself
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
So assuming the convention is close enough for them to gently caress him over even being viable what do y'all think is the split going to look like, two republican parties calling the other fake or GOP vs The Trump Party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Something Else posted:
Clinton will be a better president than Sanders, all the hopes and dreams of killing your parents through Bernie's socialism is a fairy tale. The "MOST LIBERAL PRESIDENT EVER" Nixon schtick is only the true-true because the Senate had swung so far left over time. If Sanders was president, all he would do is the same poo poo that Obama has been able to push. It's better to elect someone that the GOP hates because the only thing left till more states swing minority majority and the House gets unfucked is those delicious tears
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Do you have a sense of who the excited Hillary voters are demographically? Reddit's general slant towards the young white male demo might make that hard, but I'd be interested. In that sub it tends to be older people of both genders with younger people being rarer and mostly only showing up for a post or two about how they get wicked peer pressure to support Bernie and wanting to get some positive reinforcement. Occasionally asking for talking points to address their peers with. In real life I'm in a Bernie state but in a Clinton bubble because I'm a programmer entering middle age. When you work with large, heavily utilized, systems that must have fast response times and no outages you acquire something of an aversion to people who propose changes without learning the systems first to understand the risks involved. We had one huge Bernie supporter on the team ( late 20's white male ) from Switzerland who basically twigged off the word "socialist" and thought it meant "great stuff like home" but he flipped when I asked him to read through a printout of the Medicare for all 2013 bill Bernie wrote where I'd highlighted the problematic bits. Two pages in his comment was "well that's a bit poo poo" and he gave up about halfway through proclaiming it "rubbish". He now has a Clinton sticker on his car and attended the caucuses as an observer to argue for Clinton. He also tweets stuff like this : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SrEmQk3u88U Another of my coworkers is a Clinton delegate from my local caucus as well - mid thirties white male. Basically I hang out with middle aged guys of various colors mostly. They report that their wives love her too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
hallebarrysoetoro posted:Clinton will be a better president than Sanders, all the hopes and dreams of killing your parents through Bernie's socialism is a fairy tale. The "MOST LIBERAL PRESIDENT EVER" Nixon schtick is only the true-true because the Senate had swung so far left over time. If Sanders was president, all he would do is the same poo poo that Obama has been able to push. It's better to elect someone that the GOP hates because the only thing left till more states swing minority majority and the House gets unfucked is those delicious tears I am very looking forward to 8 years of Hillary telling Republicans to go gently caress themselves
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
I really think the likelihood is Trump will go into the convention with a majority--Rubio's going to die in Florida, and I doubt Kasich will last long past Ohio. And Cruz alone probably can't gum up the works enough. At that point, denying Trump the nom is probably suicidal. Edit: And who would they even give it to?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
porfiria posted:I really think the likelihood is Trump will go into the convention with a majority--Rubio's going to die in Florida, and I doubt Kasich will last long past Ohio. And Cruz alone probably can't gum up the works enough. At that point, denying Trump the nom is probably suicidal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Edit: And who would they even give it to? Comedy option: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
porfiria posted:I really think the likelihood is Trump will go into the convention with a majority--Rubio's going to die in Florida, and I doubt Kasich will last long past Ohio. And Cruz alone probably can't gum up the works enough. At that point, denying Trump the nom is probably suicidal.  If they're dumb enough to suicide the party, they're dumb enough to give it to him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Well hold on to your cheeks because that's what's going down. This is just lazy. Jekyll Island is just to the south you fucks 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I am very looking forward to 8 years of Hillary telling Republicans to go gently caress themselves I just hope she doesn't give them all bear hugs like she said she would.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I am very looking forward to 8 years of Hillary telling Republicans to go gently caress themselves I can't imagine Hillary makes it an 8 year thing, but who knows.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Either Kasich or Rubio are going all the way to the convention. Yeah, I guess it's possible if the shadow cabal decide someone has to. At this point Kasich almost seems like the better bet. Edit: Romney/Trump/Clinton would be like a beautiful dream.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I am very looking forward to 8 years of Hillary telling Republicans to go gently caress themselves This is never going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Yeah, I guess it's possible if the shadow cabal decide someone has to. At this point Kasich almost seems like the better bet. I'm guessing Rubio/Cruz/Kasich are now engaging in a strategy of micro-focusing on strategic states--Rubio in Florida, Kasich in Ohio, Cruz in Tea Party bastions, under the theory that, so long as it gets to the second ballot, you don't actually need to win contests to become the nominee. At the same time, it looks like Cruz sees an opportunity to win it all by smashing Rubio/Kasich and taking on Trump head on. And if Cruz sees an opportunity to gently caress over everyone else for his own gain, he will take it, no matter how short-sighted it may be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Want to have a view of CPAC and the people who go there from a more liberal/progressive perspective? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWzGO_omVIE&t=1884s Alot of both surprising and not so surprising stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:This is never going to happen. Which Republicans are going to be willing to compromise with Clinton in any way? They'd get primaried before they knew what was happening
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
McAlister posted:We had one huge Bernie supporter on the team ( late 20's white male ) from Switzerland who basically twigged off the word "socialist" and thought it meant "great stuff like home" but he flipped when I asked him to read through a printout of the Medicare for all 2013 bill Bernie wrote where I'd highlighted the problematic bits. I'm actually interested in which parts these were.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Do you have a sense of who the excited Hillary voters are demographically? Reddit's general slant towards the young white male demo might make that hard, but I'd be interested. Oh! Hillary events and debate watching parties with grassroots for Hillary gets a pretty good cross section although I'm so shy I observe more than interact. Again trending 30s and up with decent minority representation for the state. Around 60% female. The much younger folks are usually half volunteers for her campaign setting up the event and half participants. The 60+ women in particular have this kind of "it's all a dream and if I let myself be happy it'll go poof" attitude where they cluster around someone talking about how excited they are and their body language and expressions show how much they want to believe but if you talk to them directly they deflect - sometimes with a "don't take anything for granted, fight for every step, we gotta work for this" response and other times with some variant talking about how sad they were in 2008 and how they can't let themselves set their hopes to high because then it won't hurt as much to see it not happen. The men are much more demonstrative and prone to vocalizing during the debate "YEAH!", "YOU TELL EM!" etc. also more bullish on winning early on though that's evening out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:This is never going to happen. It'll only be four because they'll lose their grip on Congress in 2020. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
What are the chances the Dems (ground game dependent) really get 51% or a supermajority of both chambers during 2020-2024?Kokoro Wish posted:Want to have a view of CPAC and the people who go there from a more liberal/progressive perspective? This is a 5 star pro-click.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 03:16
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Lotka Volterra posted:This is never going to happen. I mean hasn't Obama been telling Republicans to go gently caress themselves for over a year now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Antti posted:I was actually talking to someone from USCIS today, they mentioned the uptick in naturalization applications and we just exchanged meaningful glances (I assumed it was people being scared of getting deported by Trump but the same cause anyway). I'm here on a greencard... and this is giving us pause. We're not eligible to file for another 3 years. ... and my daughter was born 6 weeks ago. We're immediately filing for her Canadian paperwork... you know. Just in case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Which Republicans are going to be willing to compromise with Clinton in any way? They'd get primaried before they knew what was happening Sure, but even if this is the case you're not going to see Clinton dunking on Rs 24/7. You'll get the same fig leafs extended that you've seen with Obama, and the same calls for compromise and moderation of viewpoints. The idea that Hillary, a quintessential politician, is going to just troll Republicans endlessly and not make the (poor) compromises that even Obama has pursued is as deluded as the idea that Bernie Sanders would usher in an era of communism and a great purge of the rich upon election. gradenko_2000 posted:I mean hasn't Obama been telling Republicans to go gently caress themselves for over a year now? Not really, it's more that Congress has become so extreme that even basic compromises have become impossible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:Not really, it's more that Congress has become so extreme that even basic compromises have become impossible. No, ever since 2012 there has been a real and concentrated strategy to avoid dealing with Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:As a young, white, male Bernie supporter it is my area of expertise. Are you goonsaying yourself? Because I'm a black woman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, ever since 2012 there has been a real and concentrated strategy to avoid dealing with Republicans. Not like Republicans look fondly on working with Democratic leaders anyway. Poor Boehner. poo poo, Christie even got hammered for accepting federal aid and showing Obama around after a loving hurricane.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Has HAMP been discussed at all at the Democratic debates?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Are you goonsaying yourself? Because I'm a black woman. Heh. To answer your earlier question, I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Oh! Hillary events and debate watching parties with grassroots for Hillary gets a pretty good cross section although I'm so shy I observe more than interact. Again trending 30s and up with decent minority representation for the state. Around 60% female. The much younger folks are usually half volunteers for her campaign setting up the event and half participants. The 60+ women in particular have this kind of "it's all a dream and if I let myself be happy it'll go poof" attitude where they cluster around someone talking about how excited they are and their body language and expressions show how much they want to believe but if you talk to them directly they deflect - sometimes with a "don't take anything for granted, fight for every step, we gotta work for this" response and other times with some variant talking about how sad they were in 2008 and how they can't let themselves set their hopes to high because then it won't hurt as much to see it not happen. The men are much more demonstrative and prone to vocalizing during the debate "YEAH!", "YOU TELL EM!" etc. also more bullish on winning early on though that's evening out. That's really interesting, thank you. Sometimes it's nice to remember that, whatever the outcome, we're living through history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:poo poo, Christie even got hammered for accepting federal aid and showing Obama around after a loving hurricane. I still could not loving believe that in the debates. A governor put aside personal feelings and partisanship to get aid for his disaster-struck constituents and got slammed for that by his party, the GOP would rather their own voters go homeless after a storm than accept free money on their behalf if it comes from a black man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Not like Republicans look fondly on working with Democratic leaders anyway. Poor Boehner. It's funny how fast he burned what little political capital he gained from that act of "not loving your state". Pretty soon after the money came in and reconstruction began, they started airing ads about how the shore was coming back! Ads prominently featuring Christie. It was a pretty blatant attempt to use relief funds to help boost his image and he got hammered hard for that. Soon after, new set of ads rolls out without Christie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I still could not loving believe that in the debates. Don't you know you're supposed to pull up your bootstraps and make it on your own after any personal tragedy? What are ya'? Some kinda Communist?  *spits chewing tobacco into a spittoon*
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:As if there was any doubt, GOP elites are officially planning to screw Trump at a contested convention
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:Don't you know you're supposed to pull up your bootstraps and make it on your own after any personal tragedy? I'm pretty sure disaster relief is second to "killing foreigners" on the list of things the federal government does. At least according to original intent blah blah sucking Washington's dick blah blah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
loving berniebros will not stop texting me even though I told them to remove me from their text list. Might vote for shillary out of spite.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
foobardog posted:I'm actually interested in which parts these were. I usually phone post on my commute but I'll fire up the web browser for this one. So his bill is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1782/text I spent a night reading through it before the town hall focused on healthcare. There are a lot of individual problems but the executive summary of the biggest problems would be that it destroys every current socialized medicine program we have by co-opting their funds for itself and prohibiting them from providing medical care, completely restructures medicare such that the resulting program is a block grant to the states program rather than proper medicare ( Medicare In Name Only if you will ), and is riddled with legislative loopholes that would let malicious legislators and jurists easily dismantle it or misuse it. So it tears down working programs serving tens of millions of people and replaces it with fragile bullshit. And even beyond its weakness to malice, berniecare has some serious problems just in its own workability. Bernie wrote this with no co-sponsors and personally read it aloud before the senate twice from beginning to end so even if his staff did a lot of the writing he has reviewed it without spotting any of these problems. Here is one of the suicide switches/bad policies Bernie installed: berniecare posted:NATIONAL HEALTH SECURITY SPENDING GROWTH LIMIT.—For purposes of this subtitle, the national health security spending growth limit described in this paragraph for a year is (A) zero, or, if greater, (B) the average annual percentage increase in the gross domestic product (in current dollars) during the 3-year period beginning with the first quarter of the fourth previous year to the first quarter of the previous year minus the percentage increase (if any) in the number of eligible individuals residing in any State the United States from the first quarter of the second previous year to the first quarter of the previous year. So this is a limit to how much funding can be increased each year, but no limit to how much it can be decreased. The way he set up the people who decide funding levels is a council of 6 with one new presidential appointee per year such that on the fourth year of President Cruz a majority of the council would be appointed by Cruz. Zero out the budget and you've just killed the program as a completely constitutional executive action. The following Dem president can't fix it because *increasing* the budget is restricted. Bernie has a clause in the section outlining the council of 6 that forbids the appointment of a majority from the same political party which ... I guess would prevent this if it was in any way enforceable? "Mr Scalia are you currently a republican?" "No sir!" "Carry On" And what the actual gently caress does GDP have to do with the population's medical needs? What if there was a plague and the GDP shrank even though medical costs spiked? Here is another berniecare posted:
These provisions in combination are devastating. While D.C. remains in control of what services must be covered, the individual states get to set the reimbursement rate for each service within the state. And participating providers must except that rate as their only payment. So if you were to, I dunno, set all the rates below the cost to provide then no provider in your state would be able to afford to participate in Berniecare so your Berniecare card ( the one you gave up your SCHIP, tricare, etc cards to get ) would be useless everywhere. This also opens up all sorts of room for state level fuckery with medical care that is predominantly used by people they don't like. Say for example that you are ok with fertility assistance, but have a deep objection to birth control. If you set the schedule for birth control to $0.01 then participating providers would be forced to either provide it at a loss or stop providing it at all. If my local Walgreens stops even carrying birth control then I can't buy it even with my own money. It also appears to be missing the provisions in real medicare that let you go to a doctor that doesn't accept medicare, get their bill, then file the claim to medicare for reimbursement at the medicare rate. This makes sense as one of his main goals is zero patient-out-of-pocket expenditures for medical care and if it were permitted then providers could simply all refuse it making self-filing the way you have to use it while wriggling out of his cost controls. So a provider is either in or out, period. This takes the problem Medicare already has with regards to finding a doctor who will accept it and makes it significantly worse. Furthermore, the provision fails to do even what it is ostensibly trying to do - reflect regional cost of living in reimbursement rates. The differences in COLA between urban and rural areas of the same state are generally greater than the difference in average COLA between a state and its neighbors. Am I absolutely sure it dismantles existing programs? berniecare posted:
Here is the clause repealing the ACA exchanges: berniecare posted:SEC. 107. REPEAL OF PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE STATE EXCHANGES. Here is the clause taking their money: berniecare posted:
The swiss system, by comparison, is a lot more like the ACA than like this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland). And he likes the swiss system a lot. The point at which he declared Berniecare to be "rubbish" being when he hit my annotation noting that you could not go to any doctor you wanted. From wikipedia on the swiss system, "The insured person has full freedom of choice among the recognised healthcare providers competent to treat their condition (in his region) on the understanding that the costs are covered by the insurance up to the level of the official tariff." You want to go to Dr. Hausenpheper instead of the public hospital even though you have to pay a little out of pocket too since the public coverage isn't quite enough for that private doctor? You can! In Switzerland. Now these were just the three problems that I think would resonate with the widest possible audience. There are many more provisions I could pick a bone with particularly with regards to its handling of prescription drug coverage such as allowing state officials to decline to support a specific variant provided they could tell Washington they were covering something they deemed functionally equivalent. It is impossible to decide, from the statehouse, what is functionally equivalent to what. An actual example I saw while working at a PBM ( a company that negotiates/frontloads rebates on drug prices that they take into account when Walgreens swipes your card so that you don't have to pay now and get rebated later ) was an Rx for a liquid version of a drug that was 50 times more expensive than the pill version. The patient had had throat cancer and was incapable of swallowing pills. She kept getting flagged with a Drug Utilization Review where the system went, "Um .. hey pharmacist, this ND11 is 50 times cheaper than that one ... are you sure you want this?" and the pharmacist had an override code to affirm that yep, totally sure. Took one phone call to get the override code and done. You can't do that with something cut from coverage by law. It also imposes a 2.2% payroll tax on the very poor who currently receive care through the programs it removes - SCHIP, WIC, etc. Existing socialized medical programs are mostly funded through the general income tax which the very poor don't pay. And it drops an unfunded mandate on each state to cough up the money for any care that the block grant didn't cover - it estimates the grants would leave around 9% to the states to pay. In states with no income taxes it would have to raise that money through regressive sales taxes. This hits the impoverished in already empty pockets. 2.2% may not be much to you, [but 1/4th of Texas children faced periodic food insecurity last year](http://www.houstonfoodbank.org/hunger/hungerfood-insecurity/). And Texas is one of those "no income tax states". This is an easy fix - just make the first bracket start at 40K or so instead of $0. But what does it say about Bernie that it didn't occur to him to do that? Hillary has a much better grasp of desperate finances from all her volunteer and charity work with the impoverished and her tax plans are all very careful not to add to the burden on the poorest. Bernie is rather to free with new payroll taxes - he also has one to fund a parental leave program for example (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-proposed-payroll-tax-hit/story?id=34546554). Its not that I don't completely support parental leave - I do! I just don't like his funding mechanism for it. Dear god thats a wall of text. Enough for tonight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:loving berniebros will not stop texting me even though I told them to remove me from their text list. Might vote for shillary out of spite. Are you in Michigan? My grandma said she got a letter from Bill Clinton today asking her to vote for Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
McAlister posted:I usually phone post on my commute but I'll fire up the web browser for this one. So his bill is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1782/text That's a very good and informative wall of text, good job.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
All Bernie supporters are racist and sexist, Bernie Sanders is himself a racist and sexist edit: looking forward to Clinton's "reasonable" Grand Bargain proposal, and her obviously superior healthcare plan (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 05:46
|
|
