|
Who do you want to be the 2020 Democratic Nominee? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe "the liberal who fights busing" Biden |
|
27 | 1.40% |
| Bernie "please don't die" Sanders |
|
1017 | 52.69% |
| Cory "charter schools" Booker |
|
12 | 0.62% |
| Kirsten "wall street" Gillibrand |
|
24 | 1.24% |
| Kamala "truancy queen" Harris |
|
59 | 3.06% |
| Julian "who?" Castro |
|
7 | 0.36% |
| Tulsi "gay panic" Gabbard |
|
25 | 1.30% |
| Michael "crimes crimes crimes" Avenatti |
|
22 | 1.14% |
| Sherrod "discount bernie" Brown |
|
21 | 1.09% |
| Amy "horrible boss" Klobuchar |
|
12 | 0.62% |
| Tammy "stands for america" Duckworth |
|
48 | 2.49% |
| Beto "whataburger" O'Rourke |
|
32 | 1.66% |
| Elizabeth "instagram beer" Warren |
|
284 | 14.72% |
| Tom "impeach please" Steyer |
|
4 | 0.21% |
| Michael "soda is the devil" Bloomberg |
|
9 | 0.47% |
| Joseph Stalin |
|
287 | 14.87% |
| Howard "coffee republican" Schultz |
|
10 | 0.52% |
Jay "nobody cares about climate change  " Inslee |
|
13 | 0.67% |
| Pete "gently caress the homeless" Butt Man |
|
17 | 0.88% |
| Total: | 1930 votes | ||
|
Radish posted:It's kind of funny when you consider the insane expectations people had that Mueller was going to do something like perp walk Donald Trump Jr out of his house in hand cuffs. Considering the scale of the allegations, that was a perfectly reasonable expectation
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
Radish posted:People need to admit then that impeachment is no longer a power of congress. I mean.... yes? This is one of many deep design flaws in our government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Considering the scale of the allegations, that was a perfectly reasonable expectation But it didn't happen hence the fact that there were unreasonable expectations set up around the Mueller probe. It's not the people watching the new's fault but the drum beating that Meuller was going to save the nation was pretty strong when it turns out that wasn't really based on anything that concrete. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Mar 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:I mean.... yes? This is one of many deep design flaws in our government. If this is true then what's the point of worrying about appearances and how this will reflect on the Democrats since the President is effectively a dictator if they want to be? It sounds like a bunch of norms holding stuff together when those have been deteriorating rapidly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
the problem with the perception of mueller is the idea that 1) he was gonna find something to implicate trump 2) Republican senate goes "oh god this is really bad! We hate russia so much more than Democrats| 3)Trump gets removed from office 1) is already a stretch, 2+3 was gonna take a miracle stuff like kushner/don jr getting indicted wasn't too far off base because money laundering but the expectation that trump was gonna go down because of mueller was obviously not gonna happen
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
The problem isn't "the powers of congress", the problem is the congress is paralyzed by partisan divisions and is incapable of acting in the interests of the nation as a whole. It's incapable of acting on anything, despite its powers. That's not the same thing as the President being a dictator, though. In some ways it makes the President less powerful (he can't get legislation he wants through -- see the failure of the Medicaid destruction bill). In other ways it makes him more powerful since he functionally can't be removed from office.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The problem isn't "the powers of congress", the problem is the congress is paralyzed by partisan divisions and is incapable of acting in the interests of the nation as a whole. It's incapable of acting on anything, despite its powers. It really depends on where these emergency orders come down honestly. Also Trump has done plenty of damage and personal enrichment without the help of Congress outside their covering for everything he does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
Radish posted:If this is true then what's the point of worrying about appearances and how this will reflect on the Democrats since the President is effectively a dictator if they want to be? It sounds like a bunch of norms holding stuff together when those have been deteriorating rapidly What? The only check on the Presidency is elections, and the Dems have a very real chance of removing him in 2020. Why gift him with a “not guilty” verdict right before the actual very plausible check on him?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
Radish posted:It really depends on where these emergency orders come down honestly. it's gonna be something lame like the court ruling that you can spend this random $10 million (but nothing else) on the wall because congress worded the funding legislation badly enough so that the department of <> can use it to build the wall.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:The Democrats failing to impeach Trump would be on par with Hillary losing to him, so no Pelosi doesn't want to give them that (again). This doesn't make sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Idiotic. How many people 65 retirees are enrolled in private insurance given the non-competitive premiums / OOPs vs. services for Medicare? KingNastidon posted:Part D isn't the only aspect of medicare with premiums and deductibles? Look back at what you were responding to. You're trying to change the subject now from people enrolled in Medicare being on "private" Medicare plans (not really private, privately managed but with all the costs paid by the government and with Medicare Part D deliberately sabotaged to make them competitive, and which constantly profit by ripping off the government although you obviously hoped I didn't know any of that) to some weird circular argument that private insurance is competitive against Medicare for people under 65 because they're not allowed to have Medicare. Why do you have to lie and dissemble and mislead and try to trick people so much when you defend the private insurance industry, do you think? What does that say about your beliefs/character that you can't be honest, and wouldn't it be better just to be a better person with better beliefs and then you could just be honest all the time? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Mar 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:I mean.... yes? This is one of many deep design flaws in our government. tbf, the founders did recognize the danger that political parties posed to the systems they designed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
Radish posted:But it didn't happen hence the fact that there were unreasonable expectations set up around the Mueller probe. It's not the people watching the new's fault but the drum beating that Meuller was going to save the nation was pretty strong when it turns out that wasn't really based on anything that concrete. Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean the expectation was unreasonable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
there are like 4 good democrats and none of them are running or can’t run . I’d rather have Tlaib than any of these complete centrist idiots who offer nothing new and no benefit for me to vote for them . she should run just to push the Overton window to the left
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:tbf, the founders did recognize the danger that political parties posed to the systems they designed. They recognized them, but didn’t put anywhere near enough systemic safeguards to mitigate their impact (because they saw it as a much smaller problem than monarchy or mob rule). Like I think the founders would dismiss a Trump scenario as implausible because *obviously* Congress would remove a President this unfit to serve.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:They recognized them, but didn’t put anywhere near enough systemic safeguards to mitigate their impact (because they saw it as a much smaller problem than monarchy or mob rule). Like I think the founders would dismiss a Trump scenario as implausible because *obviously* Congress would remove a President this unfit to serve. That’s been true for a lot of American history. But in 2020 Trump could literally commit the watergate scandal exactly the same way as Nixon did and his party would stand behind him and he’d serve out his entire second term.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:They recognized them, but didn’t put anywhere near enough systemic safeguards to mitigate their impact (because they saw it as a much smaller problem than monarchy or mob rule). Like I think the founders would dismiss a Trump scenario as implausible because *obviously* Congress would remove a President this unfit to serve. TBF if it weren't for modern mass media, specifically Fox, they probably would have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
Gillenbrand making a speech, a good one, but I still don't want to vote for her. She strikes me as fake, opportunist, and not what's needed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Gillenbrand making a speech, a good one, but I still don't want to vote for her. She strikes me as fake, opportunist, and not what's needed. It's pretty hard to not come off as an opportunist when you completely change your political identity each time your constituency changes (from East Bumfuck to NY State to the country). And not to defend Franken, but also shoving one of your colleagues (and potential 2020 opponents) out the door while ignoring worse behavior on your own staff. Maaaaybe she would be a good president in the end, but it's hard to read her, and I don't see any reason for anyone to put their chips on her. e: She would get absolutely hammered with the whole "Hillary's replacement!" thing by Trump, which isn't fair but would not be helpful to her in a general election.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 18:44
|
|
|
Exactly. Franken should be held accountable but what's obvious from Gillenbrand was to use #metoo as part of her Presidential launch and then come to know she harbors the same bullshit and protects it. She should remain at 0% and end her career. Plus with the opiates policy she shows she doesn't get it. She's not what's needed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The problem isn't "the powers of congress", the problem is the congress is paralyzed by partisan divisions and is incapable of acting in the interests of the nation as a whole. It's incapable of acting on anything, despite its powers. Yeah we're very quickly moving to a realm where the only way things happen is by executive order. And considering those can just be reversed by the next president that's uh not an efficient way to do things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 18:57
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You're trying to change the subject now from people enrolled in Medicare being on "private" Medicare plans (not really private, privately managed but with all the costs paid by the government and with Medicare Part D deliberately sabotaged to make them competitive, and which constantly profit by ripping off the government although you obviously hoped I didn't know any of that) to some weird circular argument that private insurance is competitive against Medicare for people under 65 because they're not allowed to have Medicare. Again, have no idea what you're talking about. The discussion that led to this was about free vs. affordable/accessible. Someone said that even Medicare would be viewed as neoliberal today given it has premiums and cost sharing. You responded saying it was actually intended that way to make private insurance (not private insurers) more competitive. Private companies administer both Medicare Part D (prescription drugs) and Part C (Medicare advantage, which includes prescription drugs). Notice how your article doesn't say a drat thing about how lack of Part D drug negotiation makes private insurance vs. Medicare (or private insurers against nobody, for that matter) any more or less competitive? Are you just flailing after saying something provocative and edgy yet dumb and false? Private insurance companies administering Medicare plans (C or D) isn't ideal, given they are still for-profit. Medicare Part D not being able to negotiate rates is bad because it's a massive hand-out to pharma. But I don't understand what connection you're trying to make about competitiveness and about whom vs. what.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:private insurance (not private insurers) Could you clarify the difference between these, because they seem roughly synonymous to me. Sorry if you explained it earlier and I missed it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Again, have no idea what you're talking about. The discussion that led to this was about free vs. affordable/accessible. Someone said that even Medicare would be viewed as neoliberal today given it has premiums and cost sharing. You responded saying it was actually intended that way to make private insurance (not private insurers) more competitive. That's not what I said, re-read my first post E: here ya go VitalSigns posted:No it wouldn't be, because it wasn't deliberately designed to be inferior to private insurance to ensure "competition" like neolib shillery inevitably is Added bolding to emphasize where you misread VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Mar 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 19:16
|
|
|
Radish posted:If this is true then what's the point of worrying about appearances and how this will reflect on the Democrats since the President is effectively a dictator if they want to be? It sounds like a bunch of norms holding stuff together when those have been deteriorating rapidly. We're neck deep in like six different constitutional crises at this point, we may as well acknowledge that we've got one more to toss on the pile.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 19:23
|
|
|
Children are dying in cages, but it's the optics of impeachment that is the problem. Feckless, boneless, pink slime liberals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
So it's ok to dunk on Gillibrand still because she was way too opportunistic taking out Franken?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Children are dying in cages, but it's the optics of impeachment that is the problem. Feckless, boneless, pink slime liberals. Impeachment wouldn't fix that and you loving know it. But anything to let you OWN THE LIBS once more, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
This president is encouraging discord in the nation, disrupting our alliances, putting lives at risk, children have died, when right wing nutcases are threatening lives sending bombs and such, and the Democrats (half of whom are centrist or right) won't act. I guess they need to have something bite them or threaten them before someone does something. And the worst thing is, people voted and supported Trump in 2016. So he is elected. He was chosen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
SirPablo posted:So it's ok to dunk on Gillibrand still because she was way too opportunistic taking out Franken? No. She was right about that. https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1109887494311555073 Mayor Pete is having a moment!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 19:43
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:No. She was right about that. He's got buttmentum!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
SirPablo posted:So it's ok to dunk on Gillibrand still because she was way too opportunistic taking out Franken? it's not and everyone who does it is revealing themselves as someone who doesn't care about sexual harassment except as a weapon to use against people they don't like
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
Anecdotally a bunch of the Beto-likers in my local dem groups are increasingly disappointed in his pretty dismal record and are talking up Buttgieg as a substitute, which makes me pretty hopeful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
Mayor Pete is the better choice, especially between the two
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
bird cooch posted:Mayor Pete is the better choice, especially between the two Between Beto and Butt? Yeah Butt is an order of magnitude or two better. It also encourages them to support progressive policies even if he doesn't go anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 20:01
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's not what I said, re-read my first post Right, yet any M4A plan today that didn't cover 100% of services and included any deductibles or cost sharing would be seen as "liberal" and not sufficiently left by the standards that exist in this election cycle. Canada and UK don't have private insurers and insurance because they seek to keep them competitive service-for-service relative to the single player offering. It's that there was a choice to have their publicly funded healthcare provide a set of services while private insurers handled other services or supplemental insurance to contain costs. This is a no-no for the left, as it creates disparate levels of care and maintains a for-profit private insurance system. A medicare opt-in plan that allowed sufficient drug price negotiation + minimal patient OOP would result in private insurance plans demanding a similar discount to be cost competitive or risk losing enrollees to the medicare opt-in plan. I think Medicare opt-in is flawed because it still results in a discrete choice between two plans rather than base level coverage for all, but then it's just a discussion about what "base coverage" should be. It's either somewhat limited like UK/Canada, or all-in everything with no cost sharing as is the demand of the left. VitalSigns posted:Not part of Medicare as it was originally designed. Created in 1997 by a Republican Congress and a neoliberal Democratic administration, expanded by the Bush Administration in 2005 which also deliberately made Medicare Part D worse than it needed to be by banning it from negotiating drug prices in order to make private insurance more competitive. Again, how does lack of ability to negotiate drug prices in Part D make private insurance any more or less competitive? Even if the premiums and cost sharing aspects of Part D aren't your ideal, people that are eligible for Part D or Part C typically aren't opting out of those plans to purchase private, non-Medicare insurance. Those that do are still employed and their OOP is likely heavily subsidized by their employer. Medicare could be even more competitive in this small segment of 65+, employed, and better insurance with lower OOP than Part C/D with drug price negotiation. But that's already a very narrow slice of the population that private insurers wouldn't really care about losing given they're likely to use more healthcare services than younger, healthier folks in the employer group plan. KingNastidon fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Mar 24, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
SirPablo posted:So it's ok to dunk on Gillibrand still because she was way too opportunistic taking out Franken? franken was a piece of poo poo lol, even if she did it to be opportunistic it wouldn't matter
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
franken would have been a decent pres candidate but he just had to go and be a sexmonster
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 20:30
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Right, yet any M4A plan today that didn't cover 100% of services and included any deductibles or cost sharing would be seen as "liberal" and not sufficiently left by the standards that exist in this election cycle. Well yeah there's no good policy reason for deductibles or cost-sharing, the idea is based on myths about people mooching healthcare they don't really need, so it's meant to discourage people from seeking care and thus is directly harmful to public health. Of course any plan that includes them is not as good as a plan that doesn't. But it wouldn't be dismissed as "neoliberal shillery" the way the Democrats' public option proposals are because those proposals deliberately hobble the public option and ensure it is always worse than private insurance, which is loving monstrous and not comparable to Medicare's merely bad unnecessary cost-sharing. The rest of your post is based on your misreading of what I said so I'm going to ignore it, feel free to re-read what i said if you're making an honest mistake and not lying
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
Mayor Pete being on the rise is encouraging. I really want to see Bidens numbers start to fall.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 20:31
|
|
