Maybe wear some contact then, you vain piece of shit.
It's probably why can goes off script all the time. He can't read.
-
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
Maybe wear some contact then, you vain piece of shit.
It's probably why can goes off script all the time. He can't read.
In a way that is a great thing for us. Trump going off script usually always means him shoving a grenade into his throat and pulling the pin.
At this point everyone knows that Warren is one of those candidates that they need to bring down to have a better chance of winning and I'm glad that people are slowing bringing out their knives and that it happened after Warren consolidated significant support. Warren, if she becomes the nominee, is going to need the practice in going on the attack and fending off the attacks.
It came from the NFL threads where most of us his game day posts were lol emojis.
My issue with Sanders' have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too affiliation hopping doesn't have much to do with the fact that he was to the left of the the party. It's because it sort of undercuts the core concept of collective action. Political parties are collective action groups. I see Sanders decision to party shift when convenient as a remarkably cynical and selfish political move. It's the sort of thing I would expect from a career politician who is adept at manipulating the system for his own personal gain.
If we wanna find ways to compare the merits of dumb points, I'm game.
The Biden-aide point:
-Context: Warren only became a democrat in 1996 when she entered politics. She herself said that she only voted republican once, in 1976 for Gerald Ford. She says she never changed her party ID because for most of her life she was kind of tuned out of politics. Her career in politics showed her to be one of the left-most democrats in the Senate and her and Bernie are pretty much policy identical for her career.
-Warren attacked Biden for being in the wrong primary in the present day.
-Biden aide decides bringing up the fact that she was a republican when she wasn't in politics is a good attack line since Biden was helping to elect dems and working toward democratic causes during that period.
Best justification:
-Yeah, Warren was nonpolitical for most of her life while Biden was political for most of his. I'm struggling not to just say "... And?".
-Biden actually was working toward electing dems during this time.
The Sanders independent point:
-Sanders runs as an NPA for Senate, but cacuses with dems and votes with the "establishment" 98% of the time.
-Sanders switches his party to dem when it's presidential time. Because it's impossible to win as an independent and he's a dem in all but name in the Senate.
-This is something happening in the present day not decades ago.
-People attack him for this, saying he should either always be a registered dem or not run in the primary.
Justification:
-Another thing I'm struggling to not just say "... And?" to.
-It costs him nothing to switch to dem other than some branding. AOC and others are dems, so what's the cost?
-He's doing it right now.
Both cases are dumb. One, at least, has relevance in a present context. But, again, both cases are dumb.
It's been a hell of a slow burn story, but it looks like it's finally picking up steam:
I think this story is the Very Bad Thing™ that the Trump admin has been desperate to hide. I think that's why they released the call notes and want everyone focused on the call. They wanted the call itself to be the beginning and end of the scandal.
I think this story is the Very Bad Thing™ that the Trump admin has been desperate to hide. I think that's why they released the call notes and want everyone focused on the call. They wanted the call itself to be the beginning and end of the scandal.
I know people haven't generally been thrilled with Maher lately, but this episode is turning people's heads for the right reasons. If you thought that his show had gone off the rails previously, last night it just went straight down.
The thing is, having people like Milo on was actually working to accelerate their deplatforming. Except Maher just got tired of having so many callouts to "deal with" (he still "struggles" with topics like metoo and pronoun usage), and somewhat bought into the "comedians can't comedy anymore" thing, too.
The guest rosters are not what they used to be, and Maher has been casting a wider net in search of more "agreeable" and "tolerable" viewpoints. Which is why the number of guests leaving the show with cringe faces is increasing.
So all his aides need to do is never leave him alone and he'll never tweet again.
Warren coming out with a plan to pay for M4A threw a wrench into their talking points.
Can't really go with the "it'd be great if we could, but the numbers don't add up, so OH WELL" line anymore, now it has to be debated on the merits. Which is fine, even Warren's M4A is hardly bulletproof, but they're greatly at risk of falling into the "better things aren't possible" rhetoric.
Maddow was all over this last night. Basically Rudy coherced the last president to do the same thing and that hurt the Mueller investigation. Now it seems the new president is also doing it.
Gonna be honest, that's a pretty bullshit way to run an investigation. I don't know enough about Ukrainian politics to take sides on this one. The test could be bullshit gate keeping but refusing to take it could also be bullshit outrage.
Did she tho?
Because what I read doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Correct me if I'm wrong, because I've been really busy this week and haven't had time to read her plan in full myself...but doesn't a large part of paying for the plan involve passing immigration reform and getting an increased tax revenue bump from the population influx?
Because if that's the plan...it's a dumb plan.
Does anyone remember how long it took for the 2008 primary to get combative between Obama and Clinton? I didn't pay enough attention at the time to remember myself.
No kidding. We knew Manafort was involved at least a month ago? And then everything on that angle went radio silent.
Its almost as if the news are brought to us not by what matter but but what will bring in the views/clicks. Slow news day? lets revisit an old scandal nobody noticed.
He's 200 percent going to attack Bailey if Warren wins the nomination.
But this is just "better things aren't possible". I mean, you're right, better things aren't possible, but if plans have to be things that might actually become law then most of what every candidate is talking about is a dumb plan. There's a reasonable criticism to be made here about how this is a really extraordinary lift and is unachievable even relative to other unachievable things (this is just generally true of M4A), but there's no way to put that distinction to political use -- you can't get up and say that the problem with Warren's plan is that actually no we're not going to pass immigration reform, and you don't even want to try to talk about how it's going to be very hard to do all of these things and so we have to prioritize.
And, like, that's the point. I've been saying for a while that Warren is basically just defending M4A to cover her left flank and isn't going to push for it very hard in office, and so this plan does everything she wants it to do. It still counts as M4A but doesn't stick out to any particular group of voters as being terrible for them, other than rich people.
That's been the point I've seen more than a few pundits go in on on twitter (Bakari being one), yeah.
But even with that, the talking point "plan candidate doesn't have a health care plan" dies.
Even if Pete or Biden's plan is "more realistic", it still continues the same problems Warren and Sanders can easily hammer in. People get left out, private insurance gets paid handsomely. That "better things aren't possible" line is really sticking.
Frankly, the moderate candidates, and Harris would have been in the best position to do this, need to really push in the fact that their plans will put the private insurances on the back-foot.
Now this is the same Democratic Party where being called liberal was a bad thing 20 years ago, right?
My point is...even within the realm of "thinking big" this plan is still dumb.
And...we're talking about people's health care. This is the one place where candidates should be putting out ambitious but feasible ideas. Not fan fiction. You're not running for president of Tumblr. Warren's plan from what I've seen is DoA, and that's disappointing coming from her.
I remember Fahrenthold saying recently that Trump still has the weeks of the G7 blocked off as "full" so watch him claim they tried SO HARD to find a better place and couldn't. Then he'll use tax money to renovate his bedbug palace.
it's in the sense that the moderators and other candidates spent like five minutes of the last debate grilling her on whether or not middle class taxes will go up for medicare 4 all. now she can be like "here's specifically how we pay for it" and then when the moderators or whoever is like "omg this is soooo unrealistic" she can pivot to "i mean, are y'all saying we shouldn't pass immigration reform? because that's absolutely a thing we should do."
you're right though, the reality is that it's not feasible, but neither are literally anyone else's, but at least she's providing a roadmap instead of just shrugging her shoulders and saying "tax credits" or "we'll spend a lot of money on imperialism wars"
I think the real fan fiction are the people deluding themselves into thinking that the same republicans who voted to repeal Obamacare 30 something times this past decade, are now going to support a public option because we'll have the right centrist in office this time. I think that's a much bigger joke.
Who the hell has ever entertained the notion Republicans will vote for a public option? Does the mouse in your pocket have crazy ideas?
You're not talking to a centrist.
I think it's really important to be able to have these conversations without erecting strawmen to respond to. I'm not advocating "centrist" politics by expecting my politicians to be accountable for their ideas.
So not a blanket endorsement of Dems across the state? My Dem candidate for the House of Delegates isn't in this list. Maybe I just shouldn't vote then, since the Dem is apparently no better than the Rep.
? Is this not Biden's entire pitch? That he can reach out across the aisle and talk sense to reasonable republicans to support his healthcare plan, rather than crazy Bernie's alternative. Not everything I write is a personal attack on people on this forum, but surely there are enough people who believe this that Biden, Buttigieg, and perhaps Kamala see an opening.
The quid pro quo was prefectly fine because it was about corruption...
"No, not that Manafort guy. Take him off. It's spelled B-I-D-E-N. You got that?"
Politics is promising 10, and then settling for 5 when the opposition wants to bring you down to 0.
So I'm okay with "10" being something seemingly unrealistic, because that means the "5" might end up being good enough.
So I'm okay with "10" being something seemingly unrealistic, because that means the "5" might end up being good enough.
Yep, it ties back to obstruction of justice in the Mueller part of the investigation. These same actors where part of it, Mueller was getting cooperation from Ukraine until the new president got phone calls to squash it or no more weapons and aid and that could have been it since they destroyed evidence and used WhatsApp to cover their trails, it's in the report, but Trump and everyone else got greedy and wanted more out of them.
You're better than generalized passive aggressive jabs at no one in particular because they disagreed with you in another situation or topic. Bad enough we get a faux paraphrased quote summing up the opinions, thoughts and personalities of entire groups in one sentence in all the other topics, without infesting poli with it as well. I can't say I remember many shilling for bill maher of all people when these convos come up though. I haven't watched the guy since Milo was on there personally.
Gotta take the state this year. Really hoping VA keeps the momentum going. May finally see some movement on legalization as well out this way, though that's not my primary concern of course. I hope Rocky Holcomb gets blown the fuck out. Maybe with two losses, he'll kick rocks.
Last edited:
Most of these big plans are fan fictions until they aren't. No one is realistically expecting these plans to go through unchanged.
It's about the vision and ppolicies. And again, rarely before did candidates had to breakdown in extreme detail their plans and proposals. And we definitely do not hold every candidate to the same level of scrutiny.
It's about the vision and ppolicies. And again, rarely before did candidates had to breakdown in extreme detail their plans and proposals. And we definitely do not hold every candidate to the same level of scrutiny.
I think this is true. But does that mean you shouldn't advocate for it?
Honest question. What did the support for public option look like in 2009 among democrats? Should Obama not have campaigned for it?
That isn't Biden's pitch for the public option, no. Biden tries to appeal to people who think the problem is that no one is willing to work together where there's common ground (BS, but people don't pay attention, so... Shrug). He probably even believes it to an extent. But not to the extent where he literally forgot what happened with the original public option when he was vice president.
Public option was overwhelmingly popular. It still is.
M4A may have a snowballs chance in hell for actually passing, but electing a candidate who's going to fight for it is the best path forward for getting more people covered than we have right now. People don't have the time to wait for incremental change, so we have to try, and if it doesn't happen this go around we keep pushing. The ACA was a step in the right direction, and included a public option. What finally passed was still better than we had before.
Warren's plan forecasts spending for Medicare For All (over 10 years) at $20.5 trillion.
CBO forecast of revenues from immigration reform = $400 billion.
That's less 2% of the of the price tag for Warren's M4A. So, no, a large part of paying for the plan does not involve passing immigration reform.
Will passing comprehensive immigration reform be hard ? It has been in the past. But it'll be a snap compared to M4A. If the political stars align and somehow we move in the direction of single-payer, then immigration reform will be a piece of cake. This is not the bit to be tripping over.
It's actually not. It's a legit plan put together by a serious brain trust. It's aspirational. It's provocative to the status quo. And it's also a brilliant piece of political jiu jitsu.
Last debate, they all came for Warren - the press, the candidates - trying to get that soundbite of her conceding to a middle-class tax-increase. Despite all that pressure, she did not yield. What might a lesser candidate have done? Uncritically accept the untested conventional wisdom put out by a "think tank" or two that a middle-class tax raise is necessary and shrug: yeah we gotta do that. Or pretend that she wasn't all in on M4A at one point, and walk back her stance saying she just wants a public option.
Warren didn't fall back on the obvious. Instead she put in work. She crushed the homework, and now she's published the most detailed plan for healthcare reform - among any of the candidates - a plan that's all about her commitment to single-payer. And the next time some lamb bleats about "how much are you gonna raise middle-class taxes to pay for this?" She can say with full assurance and authority: "Not one penny." Plan aside, we need someone this resourceful, tough, principled in the White House.
It's a weak point and should be dismissed as such.
Article from 2009, polls from 2008:
Obama didn't create support for a public option. It already existed.
So I'm guessing the real reason for impeachment focusing on just the Ukraine stuff is that Pelosi has evidence that the QPQ started way before the perfect phone call. Trump extorts Zelensky to drop the Manafort cases, that are going to name some American co-conspirators, and stop cooperating with Mueller in exchange for the missiles. I wonder what Trump got in exchange for Zelensky removing troops from the Donbass?
It's actually interesting how politically savvy she's shown herself to be over the campaign. She's definitely got my attention and as you said she's smart to have a rebuttal on hand for those "how do we pay" questions.
The Public Option has always been popular, because it's really what people want. The truth is, the public by and large doesn't want to give up private health insurance. I get why folks in the primary are running on it, and I don't hold it against them. Because, at the end of the day, we're going to get a public option not single payer .
to be more clear, my point wasn't that Obama made the public option popular- though it probably didn't hurt that he advocated for it. But I was trying to say that even if the bill doesn't ultimately pass, that there may be some merit for campaigning in its favor anyway. But I was also under the impression that the public option was not significantly more popular than Medicare For all is right now.
- Status