|
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 | ||
|
SirPablo posted:So it's ok to dunk on Gillibrand still because she was way too opportunistic taking out Franken? Badger of Basra posted: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 Plus there are many, many better things to dunk on her for.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Plus there are many, many better things to dunk on her for. Her going after Franken was one of the good things she did. I've never understood the Franken defenders, and I fully supported the guy until the news broke. Zero tolerance for sex monsters is not a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Her going after Franken was one of the good things she did. I've never understood the Franken defenders, and I fully supported the guy until the news broke. Except isn't she the one who tolerated sexual harrassers on her staff? That seems like a level of tolerance above zero to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 20:56
|
|
|
I have to throw my hands up about Franken's guilt; he probably is guilty but I have loved him from his books and SNL reruns since I was like 11 years old, and it was miraculous to me he became a US Senator, so I can't be objective about it, nor would I pretend to. The whole thing makes me sad. I guess at this point I "hope" he's guilty because that makes his prompt ejection from the national stage justified, and just. It would mean the right thing happened. It did annoy the hell out of me that the media kept showing an obviously staged picture of him not grabbing a woman's breasts and describing it as a picture of him grabbing a woman's breasts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 20:59
|
|
|
"probably"? There's a photo of him assaulting a sleeping woman
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"probably"? You sure like reading all the parts of my posts except the parts that would make your replies pointless, don't you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
Oh lol I just got to the end of your post What do you mean by 'staged' photo, do you mean the entire scene was staged, Tweeden wasn't actually asleep and had consented to this joke beforehand cuz that ain't true. Or by staged do you mean he was only joking about committing a sexual assault on a sleeping co-worker so  akshually it's a photo of inexcusable and very real sexual harassment but not technically a crime
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 21:07
|
|
VitalSigns posted: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. You can't simultaneously say that it's a myth that the absence of cost sharing would increase healthcare utilization and that cost sharing currently discourages people from seeking care. You can say it's preferable to have over utilization with no cost sharing than under utilization without, but you can't have it both ways. The existence of a $10 or $100 copay offers some level of short-term disincentive to seek care and utilize finite healthcare resources. quote: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. Then criticize the proposed public option or Medicare opt-in once details are available? The same way one should criticize the leftist-ideal M4A plan? There's no information to inform how good or bad any given public option could be at this point. If it's sufficiently strong then it's largely indistinguishable from ideal M4A because private insurance would quickly be pushed out of the market. A full single payer M4A plan could be flawed as well depending on what services/therapies they choose to cover (eg novel oncologics vs. generics) and what they reimburse for each. Look up thalidomide usage in US vs. Europe for multiple myeloma given availability of newer, better therapies. It's hard to know right now because details don't exist. You may be 100% right that a future hypothetical medicare opt-in plan results in a public option that is sufficiently weak that it does nothing to drive downward pressure on private insurer market share nor the cost of healthcare more broadly. But I'm not as certain that's the underlying motivation of those that seek it, especially those like Warren or Mayor Pete. Without any details or deep analyses for either public option or Bernie style M4A, an opt-in simply appears less of a radical change -- which is how anyone is going to position themselves against Sanders in a primary.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:You can't simultaneously say that it's a myth that the absence of cost sharing would increase healthcare utilization and that cost sharing currently discourages people from seeking care. You can say it's preferable to have over utilization with no cost sharing than under utilization without, but you can't have it both ways. . I'm not having it both ways, I'm saying it discourages people from seeking care and that's bad, and the argument for purposely discouraging people from seeking care is based on myths about moochers getting healthcare they don't 'really' need just for fun .
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
I’m really glad right now that none of the candidates, even the ones I don’t like, didn’t fall into the Russiagate hysteria.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
SeANMcBAY posted:I’m really glad right now that none of the candidates, even the ones I don’t like, didn’t fall into the Russiagate hysteria. Harris kinda did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
MrFlibble posted:Except isn't she the one who tolerated sexual harrassers on her staff? That seems like a level of tolerance above zero to me. Yeah that’s why trying to defend her is disengenious or try to deflect holding her accountable too and what’s a blatant opprtunistic moment trying to score points for a Presidential run. She stinks period.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Harris kinda did. Harris is terrible tho
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Harris kinda did. well, and that was also one of the only "positives" to her record as a prosecutor. that she'd be good at getting trump in jail or something
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Her going after Franken was one of the good things she did. I've never understood the Franken defenders, and I fully supported the guy until the news broke. Yeah, I don't get it either. It's weird - I've managed to drag my parents steadily to the left over the last few years, but one thing they'll never budge from is that Gillibrand was wrong to make Franken step down, which is, of course, not a particularly accurate depiction of what actually happened. I expect there's a generational thing at play.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
Condiv posted:well, and that was also one of the only "positives" to her record as a prosecutor. that she'd be good at getting trump in jail or something I mean there’s definitely other non-Russia stuff he (and a lot of other white collar criminals) should be in jail for, we shall see if she tries to make that point
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, I don't get it either. It's weird - I've managed to drag my parents steadily to the left over the last few years, but one thing they'll never budge from is that Gillibrand was wrong to make Franken step down, which is, of course, not a particularly accurate depiction of what actually happened. I expect there's a generational thing at play. Yeah, same situation with my parents. It's weird.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I mean there’s definitely other non-Russia stuff he (and a lot of other white collar criminals) should be in jail for, we shall see if she tries to make that point But is the plan to run on arresting Trump once she is president or is the plan to run the general campaign like a trial? Both sound rather bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But is the plan to run on arresting Trump once she is president or is the plan to run the general campaign like a trial? Why not both? But really I don’t think it would be a bad idea to talk about how Trump has spent his whole life scamming people - Hillary ignored this in favor of talking about how he’s bad for norms or whatever
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Why not both? I think running in the general on “I will arrest the sitting president no matter what” is a terrible idea even if Trump really really deserves it. Also spending much if any time talking about Trump in the general is a waste for the Democratic nominee. No matter how many times you call Trump a fraud it won’t make a difference at this point. People’s minds are made up. Spending time on Trump just further gives him power over the narrative and is a great way to lose to him. Either strategy: actively arguing for Trump’s arrest if you are elected or spending the election trying to prove Trump is a fraud are either one more than enough to help re-elect Trump.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I mean there’s definitely other non-Russia stuff he (and a lot of other white collar criminals) should be in jail for, we shall see if she tries to make that point harris has already shown she won't touch white collar crime with a 10-foot pole (mnuchin)
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:I have to throw my hands up about Franken's guilt; he probably is guilty but I have loved him from his books and SNL reruns since I was like 11 years old, and it was miraculous to me he became a US Senator, so I can't be objective about it, nor would I pretend to. The whole thing makes me sad. I guess at this point I "hope" he's guilty because that makes his prompt ejection from the national stage justified, and just. It would mean the right thing happened. "Harvey Weinstein produced some really good movies! And besides, did you see that thank-you note he got from the woman who claimed he raped her?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I think running in the general on “I will arrest the sitting president no matter what” is a terrible idea even if Trump really really deserves it. On the other hand, running on a platform of locking up your opponent does have proven success.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
Gyges posted:On the other hand, running on a platform of locking up your opponent does have proven success. I don't think you'll find that's what compelled a lot of voters to vote for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 23:53
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I don't think you'll find that's what compelled a lot of voters to vote for Trump. It should've been disqualifying but it wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:"Harvey Weinstein produced some really good movies! And besides, did you see that thank-you note he got from the woman who claimed he raped her?" I said I can’t be objective. I have no intention of defending my feelings. I said I think he probably is guilty. I just liked Al Franken a lot. I guess I haven’t fully processed the reality of the situation. You should spend time thinking about this in direct proportion with the effect it has on your life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 00:17
|
|
|
Mayor Pete getting that "clean cut white boy" boost now that Beto sucks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 00:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I don't think you'll find that's what compelled a lot of voters to vote for Trump. not only is this wrong, I suspect there are a lot of people who would probably vote for a -democrat- primary candidate who promises to lock clinton up
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
Typo posted:not only is this wrong, I suspect there are a lot of people who would probably vote for a -democrat- primary candidate who promises to lock clinton up The fundamental flaw in this reductionist take is that it ignores the real and articulated ideology that Trump proposed. It was ugly and crude, but it was a worldview and his supporters liked it. It is much easier to pretend that people just hated Hillary sooo much that they'd vote for Trump rather than admit that Trump voters liked the big lie he was selling, that we can Return America to Before the Bad. Because he was the only candidate in the general election proposing a world with solutions to problems not just ways to stanch the pain. That's why his polling didn't drop when he did this: https://twitter.com/grynbaum/status/801126615388274688
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It should've been disqualifying but it wasn't. The biggest lesson of 2016 was that a ton of things that the political and media classes thought would be "disqualifying" actually didn't matter at all to voters. Instead of fretting back and forth for weeks about what was or wasn't politically possible and what voters might think of every last word, he just went out and said what he wanted to say, and he beat a crew that obsessively focus-grouped everything and watered down every proposal for the sake of the "possible".
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The fundamental flaw in this reductionist take is that it ignores the real and articulated ideology that Trump proposed. It was ugly and crude, but it was a worldview and his supporters liked it. The problem is that you are living in a world where voters have coherent ideological view of the world instead of viewing electoral politics as simple clashes of personality and the need to "take out the bad guy" because Sean Hannity said Clinton killed Vince Foster
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 00:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MikeGravel/status/1109973655570841600
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
You guys see that Mayor Pete is at 11% in Iowa? https://www.newsweek.com/pete-butti...sanders-1373473 It's funny, I played the 2020 primary in President Infinity as Bernie Sanders, and Pete just barely beat me in Iowa somehow. I'm starting to wonder if that was less of a fluke and more of an omen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 01:39
|
|
|
Pete would be as old as Macron was when he took office.... So he's not THAT young.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 02:24
|
|
|
Awful CompSloth posted:You guys see that Mayor Pete is at 11% in Iowa? Link not working for me, and I still can't pronounce his name.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 02:26
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:Link not working for me, and I still can't pronounce his name. It's as it's spelled
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:Link not working for me, and I still can't pronounce his name. Budda-judge
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 02:32
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:Link not working for me, and I still can't pronounce his name. Butt-gouge
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 02:36
|
|
|
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. You misspelled "rampant bribery and corruption".
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 02:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
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. No. Don't spew that both sides crap. This is asymmetric polarization.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 02:47
|
|