-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
US PoliEra 2019 |OT9| I'm really glad I'm not on Twitter nearly enough to understand all the references
- Thread starter TheHunter
- Start date
- Status
I don't understand why some of y'all are so convinced M4A is a death knell in the general. Also, can we wait for Warren to put out her transition plan before shit talking it?
Our party can absolutely make the case for M4A. Everyone can relate to being overwhelmed by premiums, deductibles, co-pays, and other out of pocket costs. Everyone can relate to the pain in the ass it is to find the specialist care you need in network. Everyone can relate to insurance companies outright refusing to pay for the prescription drugs your doctor tells you you need, and instead forcing you to try 14 other "solutions" before they finally give in.
The current healthcare system fucking sucks! For profit insurance companies are inherently at odds with the idea of providing you the best care you need. M4A promises to completely eliminate out of pocket costs, allow you to see any doctor you want, and not have to worry about arguing with insurance companies to cover the things you need. And Warren's plan does it without raising a single penny in taxes on the middle class!
Not to mention the opposition party wants to completely strip away your coverage to give their rich buddies tax cuts. So we are inherently in a better position on healthcare than they are.
Some of y'all are way too eager to accept the GOP's framing and start from there. No plan is perfect, M4A certainly isn't. But I believe M4A is the most cost effective way to assure everyone has quality access to healthcare. And Warren specifically calls out some concerns people may have at the end of her proposal and says it will be addressed in the transition plan. So let's wait and see.
Also, the public option has serious pitfalls in of itself, but we automatically claim it's the "best" plan because it's more moderate.
Our party can absolutely make the case for M4A. Everyone can relate to being overwhelmed by premiums, deductibles, co-pays, and other out of pocket costs. Everyone can relate to the pain in the ass it is to find the specialist care you need in network. Everyone can relate to insurance companies outright refusing to pay for the prescription drugs your doctor tells you you need, and instead forcing you to try 14 other "solutions" before they finally give in.
The current healthcare system fucking sucks! For profit insurance companies are inherently at odds with the idea of providing you the best care you need. M4A promises to completely eliminate out of pocket costs, allow you to see any doctor you want, and not have to worry about arguing with insurance companies to cover the things you need. And Warren's plan does it without raising a single penny in taxes on the middle class!
Not to mention the opposition party wants to completely strip away your coverage to give their rich buddies tax cuts. So we are inherently in a better position on healthcare than they are.
Some of y'all are way too eager to accept the GOP's framing and start from there. No plan is perfect, M4A certainly isn't. But I believe M4A is the most cost effective way to assure everyone has quality access to healthcare. And Warren specifically calls out some concerns people may have at the end of her proposal and says it will be addressed in the transition plan. So let's wait and see.
Also, the public option has serious pitfalls in of itself, but we automatically claim it's the "best" plan because it's more moderate.
Bloomberg: State Department Freed Ukraine Money Before Trump Says He Did
President Donald Trump says he lifted his freeze on aid to Ukraine on Sept. 11, but the State Department had quietly authorized releasing $141 million of the money several days earlier, according to five people familiar with the matter.
The State Department decision, which hasn't been reported previously, stemmed from a legal finding made earlier in the year, and conveyed in a classified memorandum to Secretary of State Michael Pompeo. State Department lawyers found the White House Office of Management and Budget, and thus the president, had no legal standing to block spending of the Ukraine aid.
The White House freeze on assistance to Ukraine -- including a separate $250 million package of military aid from the Defense Department -- has become a central issue in House impeachment hearings, where witnesses say Trump ordered the assistance halted to force Ukraine to announce investigations into Joe Biden and other Democrats.
The words "investigation, Biden and Clinton" were to be required elements in a public announcement by Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the new Ukrainian president, to get the aid, State Department official George Kent testified in the Democratic-led impeachment probe. Ukraine ultimately didn't make the announcement, and Trump says there was never a quid pro quo.
The freeze on funds Ukraine sought for its continuing war against Russia-backed separatists was opposed by many in the administration. Alexander Vindman, director of European affairs on the National Security Council, has testified that he understood Pompeo, then-National Security Advisor John Bolton and Defense Secretary Mark Esper all recommended releasing the funds in an Aug. 15 meeting with Trump.
-------------------
Notice to Congress that the $141 million was being released was sent early on Sept. 11, hours before Trump said he personally made the decision to lift the freeze. All of those events undermine Trump's account.
-------------------
Speaking to reporters last month, Trump said he was persuaded to release the money in a phone call that day with Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio.
"He called up, 'Please let the money go,'" Trump said. "I said 'Rob, I hate being the country that's always giving money. He said, 'You know what? But it's important …' I gave the money because Rob Portman and others called me and asked. But I don't like to be the sucker, and European countries are helped far more than we are."
like what? honestly her response to the question was fine. how would you have answered it?
And that my friends is why she lacks strong black support. Wasn't just a terrible answer but her whole demeanor was dismissive.
No one is asking her to solve the problem but she could have shown some level of empathy or even just awareness of the problem. But her answer literally was "hate the game, not the player". I thought the whole point of her campaign was that the game is fundamentally broken? But I guess that doesn't matter when it involves black people and you're trying to win votes from white people...
That's two big steps backward for me on Warren.
The thing about the public option is that if is either good, and will very quickly become so large as to effectively be Shitty Single Payer, or it sucks and is pointless. The landing zone for coverage, cost, and benefits such that private insurance could effectively compete without it being too good or two bad is nearly impossible to pull off in legislation. All the while , leaving private insurers around also means you leave the door open for massive amounts of regulatory capture at the state level in the chaos that punishes consumers.
I like the idea of a robust public option but it is impossible to think that the entrenched players would not find a way to ruin Americans even more to compensate for the lower revenue that a public option would bring.
I like the idea of a robust public option but it is impossible to think that the entrenched players would not find a way to ruin Americans even more to compensate for the lower revenue that a public option would bring.
I think the first in the nation status should switch, although it should be a small state. We have the most appropriate for that status already: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, but which of those four goes first should rotate, and then there should be four Super Tuesdays based on the region for each of those states (Midwest, Northeast, Southeast, and West), with each of those Super Tuesdays also rotating each election.
THANK YOU!
It wasn't a "gotcha" question. But, spoiler, running for president is full of "gotcha" questions. She was incredibly rude and dismissive of a legitimate question--that is we have two overwhelmingly white states that have a disproportionate affect on who the nominee is. This whole "She's been attacked from all sides lately." Boo fucking hoo. She's running for President. If she can't handle being attacked from all sides, then she can move over for someone who can. Sorry, not sorry, she was rude as hell. And, yes, there was a good answer to this question. Firstly, let the questioner actually finish before jumping out your ass to answer. And secondly you can make a dumb joke about the schedule being above your paygrade as a candidate, but then tie it to the fact that you want the primary calendar to reflect ALL parts of the democratic electorate, and that you think it's VERY important to make sure that our party's diversity is well represented in the primary schedule.
Warren is not some china doll, infallible candidate. Come on. Let's not do this for ANOTHER progressive candidate. It's dumb when people do it for Bernie, it's dumb when people do it for Warren.
There is literal polling that taking away people's private health insurance and forcing them onto a government plan is not popular. it also doesn't have anywhere near close enough to 50 votes in the Senate, and I doubt you have enough in the House either. It's just not that popular with the electorate as a whole! Also, under Medicare as it exists now, you can still be denied medicines, treatments, etc that aren't deemed cost effective. That would also, by necessity no matter what Bernie's magical bill says, still be part of M4A. Why? Because it's literally the case with every nation in the world. Also, even with Medicare...you still have to argue with them now. I do it for my mom frequently. I've had to deal with prior auths from medicare and from my private insurance. Gimme the private insurance every day of the week. Also, you cannot guarantee you can see any doctor, because no doctor is required to take medicare/medicaid.
A public option isn't the best because it's more moderate. It's the best because it's actually workable, can easily get to 50 votes in the Senate, and can 100% pass the House. It's also really popular with voters!
LOL
I get the politics behind Warren's answer, but this is like the third time now she's used that "I'm just a player in the game" duck and that's just hilarious to me because it goes against her branding as the fighter candidate.
So, hypothetically, we're to believe that Warren's going to bravely take on Republicans, the health insurance industry, the military industrial complex, and big banks...but she cowers before an honest question about Iowa and NH (that anybody aware of the diversity of the US understands: it's complete bullshit that the presidential race is defined by two of the whitest states in the country)?
That she took it as a call for her to attack those two states, instead of an opportunity to display her wonkish chops and discuss a complex problem with nuance is...a shocking lack of creativity on her part.
I get the politics behind Warren's answer, but this is like the third time now she's used that "I'm just a player in the game" duck and that's just hilarious to me because it goes against her branding as the fighter candidate.
So, hypothetically, we're to believe that Warren's going to bravely take on Republicans, the health insurance industry, the military industrial complex, and big banks...but she cowers before an honest question about Iowa and NH (that anybody aware of the diversity of the US understands: it's complete bullshit that the presidential race is defined by two of the whitest states in the country)?
That she took it as a call for her to attack those two states, instead of an opportunity to display her wonkish chops and discuss a complex problem with nuance is...a shocking lack of creativity on her part.
It would exist in a situation where poor people get a shit plan that is gradually defunded and de-clawed as wealthy power-players treat it as an entitlement that can be used to balance the budget.
It's why a Universal Healthcare system in America needs to have everyone on it to maintain its power.
It's a terrible answer but I get it. She isn't going to beat Biden in SC and while she's scraping away to get whatever votes she can in IA NH because those states make or break her campaign. She has to win there to have any sort of chance
but even then there's like 1000 different ways she could have done that better
but really the entire system is stupid
having two states basically be the the ones that eliminate 90% of the pack regardless of the demos is dumb as fuck. I dont really get why there cant be a day 1 Super Tuesday scenario where tons of states vote and we go from there.
I hate how just because of where I live I basically can't even vote in the primary. It's basically already 100 percent decided for pretty much the other 46 states outside the first four. At best it's a 2 horse race
but even then there's like 1000 different ways she could have done that better
but really the entire system is stupid
having two states basically be the the ones that eliminate 90% of the pack regardless of the demos is dumb as fuck. I dont really get why there cant be a day 1 Super Tuesday scenario where tons of states vote and we go from there.
I hate how just because of where I live I basically can't even vote in the primary. It's basically already 100 percent decided for pretty much the other 46 states outside the first four. At best it's a 2 horse race
We have tried all sorts of options for dealing with the white Iowa/NH problem, both states will gleefully just move their dates around to get what they want. The fix is largely already working its way through the system as other states move up their primaries so you can win with a broader message provided you don't shit yourself completely in the first few states.
Ah. Interesting choice to draw conclusions from her answer, then.
The argument is, supposedly, that spreading it out makes it so you can have lower name rec candidates make a push for it. So like, you can take momentum in Iowa and translate it nationally/regionally. I also think there is some benefit to it being a bit spread out. That way if you do have a situation where the frontrunner does something where he or she is not able to continue running, has a scandal, whatever, we delay having a nominee for as long as possible.
I would prefer to see a rotating calendar, where different states are selected based on demographics to better represent the party. Iowa and NH are always going to go first, though.
Yep. It's not like this is a new criticism of the Primary System. I think the thing which was most absurd was how flustered and pissed off she got at Amy Goodman walking off the stage after the question.
I think there has to be a way to answer that question in a less brazen way even if she dodged it by not speaking directly to Iowa and New Hampshire.
She answered it like she was being attacked.
"Please criticize the early primary states you want to win or be mocked on the internet" is basically an attack. An attack nobody else had to deal with!
I am a strong advocate for changing the primary system so that we don't have to put corn in our gas tanks, ideally because we don't have gas tanks. But it's pretty dumb to think a candidate is going to take a stand on that BEFORE THE FIRST PRIMARIES.
Warren had the best answer on this question out of the primary field.
Like, she was incredibly snippy and dismissive of the question. Her answer was kinda crap as well. There was definitely a decent enough way to answer it, but her take surely wasn't it. She was trying to be cute at first, but it didn't work. She also didn't even get close to answering the question asked, and just went "Well I'm very, very happy to be here tonight."
That's bad!
i guess she also had the worst answer out of the primary field of to this question
Besides, the only person who framed it as attacking Iowa and NH...was Warren herself.
Although, to be fair to her, her tone to me sounded like she might have initially meant that as a joke, then got somewhat defensive when the joke didn't really land and Goodman continued to press her question.
Are we literally now at the point where a candidate we like being asked a question constitutes an attack!?
Ya, that's why I said she was trying to be cute with it, it didn't work, and then she realized "oh shit, I have to actually give an answer." There was a pretty simple, non controversial answer to this. Do your little joke, and then immediately transition into how important it is that the primary calendar reflect the great diversity in our party. That's literally it.
I don't even like Warren. I don't like Bernie either and I've said things like that are dumb in some cases for him. Not every case. Warrens been better at dodging questions like that in the past, sure, but that wasn't a question that deserved a straight answer until after the primary.
I think it was a sorta "Really, now?" joke.
Just frame the question as it was presented. She was asked about state primary order and how it reflects the diversity of the Democratic primary.
That's not an attack on Iowa and NH. That's just facts.
To me, this question only reads as an attack if you view primary order as some sort of declaration of the value of a state and its voters.
I think we need to also understand just how answering that question in a way that could be possibly spun at all as anything other than a resounding NO would be spun by the local papers in said states
shes within the margin of error of winning both and needs every vote she can get. It isn't worth risking. But at the same time she could have said a non risk better. Her energy gave me weird vibes
You mean like the people who live in Iowa and New Hampshire do?
It's just facts that Iowa and NH have power because of the primary order. They would mean fuck-all if they weren't the first states up to bat. Which means, the voters in those states are very sensitive about their positions. And Warren needs to win at least one of those states.
But, yeah, fact, the way the primary does states in waves is dumb as fuck. Significantly less dumb than the way the EC works in the general, to be fair, but still dumb.
Good thing like 4 people on Twitter saw this and it won't be on any news network. This clip doesn't matter.
Yang got an Iowa crowd super hyped up by doing the math on just how many Californians each Iowa voter is worth
dont go after the ego, just stroke it
dont go after the ego, just stroke it
Sure, but I genuinely think there was a decent answer you could give that wouldn't piss anyone off. Because, like, here, she didn't even give a no! I'd have respected a no more than.....that whole thing.
"Oh goodness you really want to get me in trouble with the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire! Well, I think scheduling the primaries is currently a little bit above my paygrade. But, what I will say, is that one of the best parts of being a Democrat is how diverse our party is. We're racially diverse. Ethnically diverse. We come from all walks of life. All genders, all sexualities. So, I definitely understand how vitally important it is that our primary system give all our voters, from Iowa to Washington DC, the chance to have their voices heard by the candidates running. That's why I'm in the race, and that's why I'm excited to be here in South Carolina."
Boom. Done.
Edit: I agree it's the cranky energy she was giving off that didn't do it for me. Klob would have just thrown something at the moderator.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/08/senate-outside-money-republicans-2020-067623
LOL. Gardner's already been semi-triaged.
The GOP have begun panicking even before the DSCC and our PAC have started spending. Plus, our candidates themselves have beaucoup bucks.
She wants to do this the hard way. LOL at her having to unload $500,000 of her own money a year before the election.
What a martyr. "Look at me I'm so moderate and enlightened because they all hate me."
The thing is, that is pretty much just a long winded way of saying "You really want me to criticize Iowa and New Hampshire? Really?" Like, it might've come across a bit better but it's not like it's worlds apart and you would know exactly what she's thinking with that question in either case.
But like six people on reset era saw it and arguing nonsense hypotheticals of how something that doesn't matter will potentially not effect something is Saturday night primetime material
Maybe.
But then I remember a certain politician bursting onto the scene, going viral, and outperforming Democrats for generations in his home state of Texas...because he was asked a tough question in a hostile environment and answered it, with grace and honesty.
Everything about Warren's response to this question, from the answer itself to the tone, was dismissive and, worse, didn't seem to respect the validity of the question at all (when, as someone else said, primary order is not a new topic). There was no honesty in Warren here, and there damn sure wasn't any grace.
And it's not lost on me, and my black ass, that Warren's otherwise pristine campaign seems to always have its missteps when it comes to race.
I just think that if her big thing is going to be she's going to be a fighter and take on the banks and the health care industry and the whatever...she shouldn't be scared of ticking off a handful of voters in Iowa and NH, when she really could have at the very least been SLIGHTLY less rude. You don't get to be both the "I will fight everyone" and "Except the people who scare me in Iowa" candidate at the same time.
It honestly came off to me like " ok I'm not doing coke but I did a hit of whatever Trump takes that makes him snort during debates" vibe
like Warren chill lol
i think Warren off campaign performance enhancers probably does give an answer basically the same as what you said
Its all fun and games until Yang is polling at 4th place
I think part of the primary process is seeing how people react to pressure.
Sometimes you are going to get questions where there aren't good political answers, but you still have to say something which respects the questioner.
I could understand if the premise of the question was hostile or a right-wing talking point, but it wasn't even that.
Like there are other candidates commenting on the primary process and offering criticisms of how the system works. You will get hit for it and criticized, but you can come out the other side as an authentic human voters will respect.
It also seemed like Warren was still goading the interviewer as she was leaving the stage saying "yeah" to the thank you from Amy Goodman.
Sometimes you are going to get questions where there aren't good political answers, but you still have to say something which respects the questioner.
I could understand if the premise of the question was hostile or a right-wing talking point, but it wasn't even that.
Like there are other candidates commenting on the primary process and offering criticisms of how the system works. You will get hit for it and criticized, but you can come out the other side as an authentic human voters will respect.
It also seemed like Warren was still goading the interviewer as she was leaving the stage saying "yeah" to the thank you from Amy Goodman.
He'd be in first if anyone in his campaign was smart enough to make this his campaign song
like Yang Gang, come on. Everyone would be singing this
It's the same with both answers. And it's all political bullshit theater anyway. Same reason she dodged the tax question. Same reason she's doing a head tax to pay for her M4A that won't actually be in a final plan, we all know the game. She has a record that shows exactly where she's lying, and her answer there was honest in the sense of saying "yeah, I'm gonna be honest about not being able to answer that, because I'm running in the fucking primary." With a subtext of, probably: "Yeah, I know Iowa and New Hampshire going first is fucked, but I can't say that without making my opponent's attack ads for them. Thanks for putting me on the spot."
The answer you gave would've ruffled less feathers and been more politically expedient but it would've been the same thing with the same subtext, just less grouchy. What would've been dishonest would be her going outright "No, it's perfectly fine for New Hampshire and Iowa to go first and set the tone for the rest of the primary."
Anywho, this is something that I seriously doubt picks up any steam.
Democrats need to stop downplaying the importance of political theater. Political theater is exactly how Republicans have maintained power despite their atrocious political aims. Politics IS theater, and GOD I wish more Democrats knew that.
Besides, the thing that's so crazy about Warren in this moment is how otherwise amazing she and her campaign have been with the "bullshit" political theater! I know that's what got my attention.
Ted Cruz saying New York Values literally doomed his entire north eastern hopes and dreams and killed his entire campaign
But now that Trump is potus he can openly mock NH specifically as being a drug infested den
But now that Trump is potus he can openly mock NH specifically as being a drug infested den
That was kinda my point, actually. That, yeah, she was grouchy about it, and could've been slightly better, but she gave the same answer effectively, and this is such a fringe question that the only possible way for the media to pick up on it is if she actually gave an answer one way or the other.
What I mean to say is: only audience for this is people that pay close attention AKA the people who understand the political bullshit.
I wish they would stop giving Rush permission to use "My City Was Gone" as his intro song. Such a killer bassline.
- Status