niceCertainly didn't expect to see ads for Tulsi Gabbard on this site.
niceCertainly didn't expect to see ads for Tulsi Gabbard on this site.
What sort of "members of the fossil fuel industry" are you talking about?He took money from members of the fossil fuel industry without once saying that they'd NOT influence his vote even after being called out on it
Apparently it's going to be random from debate to debateThe 2020 Democratic field is getting as packed as the 2016 Republican one. I wonder who is going to be put on the kid's table.
The 2020 Democratic field is getting as packed as the 2016 Republican one. I wonder who is going to be put on the kid's table.
If necessary, depending on the number of candidates who meet the threshold, the DNC is prepared to split the first two debates in June and July into consecutive nights, said DNC Chairman Tom Perez. If that happens, the lineup will be determined by random selection, which will take place publicly.
Ya sure that what i said ... Lets go through the argument. Being an indie senator from Vermont not taking corporate PAC money meant he couldnt keep up with the explosion of interest the way some one with institutional backing could-> he chose those things and it resulted in x bad outcome->those choices were admirable and if the campaign finance system wasnt broken any one could end up in that situation, whats the point of disqualifying him from contention"Yes, Bernie was responsible for sexual harassment, but if you actually held him responsible for it it would just strengthen the party system" is certainly a take.
How the fuck does "Bernie thinks the Democrats aren't great" translate to "most Democrats hate the Democratic Party?"
Yes, obviously. But that doesn't make it any more of a useful or interesting argument to make. If enough people personally dislike Bernie, they'll prove it at the ballot box without you posting about it.
This is offensive, to be clear. I very specifically said "if you are angry at Bernie because he's not a Democrat, I don't care." Your slide here to "I dislike Bernie because of sexual harassment, don't you?" is deliberately disingenuous, especially given the content of the last few pages of the thread. Do better. You're giving Bernie haters a bad name.
There's nothing to engage on because you don't actually know anything about it except your personal feelings. You think Dem insiders secretly hate him and would like to shiv him? I've provided plenty of evidence that they actually like him. Where's yours? This isn't a fan-fic contest.
They haven't! The Dems have been going out of their way to make it easy for Bernie to run as an independent for over a decade! Are you ignorant, or just deceptive?
Yup :( I liked Brown at first but the more I dug, the less I could support him
Its his responsibility but lets be realistic. Sanders chose to work outside the broken campaign finance system and there were a lot of institutional barriers. Its easy to say he should have done better, but these standards would discourage those without institutional backing from running. Why not just weigh the mistakes against his reforms instead of going harrasement happened its his fault hes unviable, when his competition could easily be in the same position.
Ya sure that what i said ... Lets go through the argument. Being an indie senator from Vermont not taking corporate PAC money meant he couldnt keep up with the explosion of interest the way some one with institutional backing could-> he chose those things and it resulted in x bad outcome->those choices were admirable and if the campaign finance system wasnt broken any one could end up in that situation, whats the point of disqualifying him from contention
I mean I'm not a huge Beto guy anymore but that's flat out inaccurate. Sure he's not as left on those issues as say Bernie, but I wouldn't say taking individual donations from fossil fuel industry employees and supporting Medicare for All makes him what you described him as.Thank God we're getting rid of Beto now. Get pro-gas guzzlers and anti-UHC gone now.
Thank God we're getting rid of Beto now. Get pro-gas guzzlers and anti-UHC gone now.
For me it's rough. I could conceivably vote with good conscience for Harris, Bernie, or Warren. Thing is all three have issues I could see being major stumbling blocks. Harris with her record as a lawyer, Bernie with his apparent age (even though he's infinitely less senile than Trump) and his lack of education on modern social issues, and Warren being unfairly but objectively made a laughingstock by the right to nonvoters who otherwise potentially could be voters.
I don't really think any of the other potential nominees would be any better than a more moderate Republican in practice. Especially Biden. People seem to forget some of his questionable policy decisions just because he was on Obama's ticket. Brown can fuck off with his anti-Palestine shite too.
Like I'd still vote for them vs Trump but God I'd feel like a shitty person.
Edit: Ah yeah, fuck Aaron Sorkin and the West Wing.
Your positions w/ donations and health care are based on absolute nonsense.He took money from members of the fossil fuel industry without once saying that they'd NOT influence his vote even after being called out on it, and as displayed posts earlier said a Canadian thought American healthcare was better, which is of course a veiled attack on the idea we should have UHC instead of "Accessible Health Care" or whatever bullshit moderate dems want to peddle as being anywhere equivalent to all Americans having free at-time-of-service, paid-by-taxes, healthcare. Or, single payer, in short. Dual system is unacceptable, period, unless privatized insurance is solely for purely cosmetic stuff for cis people without body dysmorphia. And even THAT is a big compromise.
I'm sorry, but we cannot afford to be anything but EXTREMELY hardline on global climate change. That he addressed no concerns says everything to me. Until he re-commits himself to the cause, I refuse to consider him a viable candidate in the primaries.
As I said, I'll vote for him if he somehow becomes the nominee, but I will feel like a horrible person as I do so.
My opinion isnt it should be overlooked, my opinion given the context its not disqualifying. Also this is a terrible argument I'm sorry but your looking only at the negative outcomes of one decision. What of all the people for example in poverty who are sentenced death because politicians who accept corporate money and vote in their favor to be relected. Furthermore your proving my point with your reason for why he shouldnt have run. This means only those with institutional backing can run in your preferred system and even then I can make the same argument for any politician. Kamala, Clinton, Beto doesnt matter.Because it's standards we shouldn't have to. His staffers well being shouldn't be sacrificed for his political career, if Bernie was unable to properly campaign under those conditions he shouldn't have run at all. I weight everything he does as a leader, because one day this might happen in his administration. He should have made sure he was able to get the proper resources in place for this,
I didn't say it was meant to be easy, it's his responsibility to make sure this happens since he's the leader of the campaign. I didn't say he wasn't viable as a candidate, this is a huge black mark on his leadership skills juts like Hillary's were with her sexual harassment complaints within her campaign. As a society we don't overlook the incidents any longer in our politicians and we're better for it.
Then he either should have got corporate backing or not ran. His staffers shouldn't be thrown under the bus for his agenda. It's vital for leaders to know their limitations and account for them in the field or people will get hurt, Bernie failed this test.
I'm sorry, but we cannot afford to be anything but EXTREMELY hardline on global climate change. That he addressed no concerns says everything to me. Until he re-commits himself to the cause, I refuse to consider him a viable candidate in the primaries.
The strongest arguments against Beto are actually coming from his behavior when it's come to being a team player. The Ukraine vote (and its even worse explanation) and giving an assist to Will Hurd's re-election (who won by less than a % point) are really bad, but they aren't really lefty or "Independent" criticisms, they're mainstream Dem ones.My Beto hype has died down quite a bit. I'm looking for a candidate that not only is progressive on the issues but will fight for them. Honestly I don't know where he stands on most issues but even more worryingly I feel like he'll try a bunch of "can't we all get along and be bi-partisan?" nonsense and nothing will get done. It's still early but if you take away the charisma, there isn't much substance to him yet.
I just listened to the interview that Ta-Nehisi Coates had with AOC and she is so smart and has such an articulate world view, then I think of the declared candidates so far and realized that Beto seems completely out of his league for what we need.
Which is exactly my problem. It doesn't inspire faith. Obviously some average joe working for big oil who is on the ground level can obviously donate, that's fine, I'm talking about those execs he nor his campaign have spoken about. Like, this is probably my NUMBER ONE issue. Everything else doesn't matter when if we don't solve climate change as soon as possible. If we wait too long, we're going to see mass migration on an unprecedented scale and unless there's been revolutionary change in public consciousness towards the idea of chipping in to help all fellow humans regardless of WHERE they were born or WHAT their skin color is or WHO they believe is God or whatever, we WILL see fascism come back as it has recently, but even more so, to the detriment of hundreds of millions if not billions of innocent people who lost their homes to flooding. Assuming of course, we even manage to fight it back now.(and weirdly they've been told to be radio silent on literally everything as a strategy so they haven't issued a response on it.)
Fair enough, I need to do more research into such stuff. All I know is Canada and UK are single payer and they work a lot better than the US does. If multi-payer systems mean that you won't get put into massive debt just for being injured or sick, that's fine. But I know our current system certainly doesn't do that for many, many Americans.UHC needing to be single payer is also a position that doesn't reflect reality. Germany and Switzerland both have multi-payer systems. Multi-payer UIHC systems exist in many countries in Europe and work just fine, you just don't hear about them as much because the countries don't speak English as their primary language. And in most countries you are still going to be paying co-pays of some sort because they're a necessity in order to prevent systemic abuse.
My opinion isnt it should be overlooked, my opinion given the context its not disqualifying. Also this is a terrible argument I'm sorry but your looking only at the negative outcomes of one decision. What of all the people for example in poverty who are sentenced death because politicians who accept corporate money and vote in their favor to be relected. Furthermore your proving my point with your reason for why he shouldnt have run. This means only those with institutional backing can run in your preferred system and even then I can make the same argument for any politician. Kamala, Clinton, Beto doesnt matter.
In the UK nurses are not paid well, and the tories are trying to systematically dismantle aspects of the NHS system because they've had full control for so long. The big benefit of single payer is cost control due to taxes being a source of revenue with an inherent upper limit, but there are downsides as well.Fair enough, I need to do more research into such stuff. All I know is Canada and UK are single payer and they work a lot better than the US does. If multi-payer systems mean that you won't get put into massive debt just for being injured or sick, that's fine. But I know our current system certainly doesn't do that for many, many Americans.
First of all lets not bring Clinton into this she has a long history of throwing victims of harrasment under the bus personally that is far worse. Of course im under no illusions that Bernies going to break down the gates and destroy institutions like the prison complex, however my argument is that in general not being beholden to corps will result in policy outcomes that will save a lot of lives. The push for 15 is an example of this. Also the current system is not all we got as Bernie forged a new path, it wasnt perfect but the future is better because of itOf course I'm looking at the negatives, it's a horrible situation which occurred to multiple people it wasn't a one off incident unlike with Hillary's. Bernie wouldn't be able to save people in poverty be able to save had he been elected, regardless. He certainly wouldn't have broken the private prison system or solved the student debt crisis. You've overestimating not only Bernie's capability to work with others in congress but how outgunned he is in the system which he didn't make sure he wasn't ready for the big time when it counts. The issue is far more complex than simply corruption, which Bernie is no Warren in understanding the depth or wonkery the policy side, either. Bernie is proving that for me, it's his job to make sure he can protect his employees - there are no excuses for not accomplishing that. This isn't my "preferred system" it's the system we got, so we have to make do with what we have. This is not about regular black marks, every politicians had them, its what they do as a leader in their campaigns. From what I can tell none of them have the media linking them to sexual harassment in their campaigns like Bernie went through.
May I ask who this applies to?- will throw people under bus with the change of wind direction
Your positions w/ donations and health care are based on absolute nonsense.
Beto taking money from people who worked for fuel industry companies is not an issue. If you work as a mail room employee for BP, there's absolutely nothing wrong with you donating to a candidate. The issue is that his campaign appears to have unknowlingly gotten a small amount of donations from Execs when he pledged not to (and weirdly they've been told to be radio silent on literally everything as a strategy so they haven't issued a response on it.)
UHC needing to be single payer is also a position that doesn't reflect reality. Germany and Switzerland both have multi-payer systems. Multi-payer UIHC systems exist in many countries in Europe and work just fine, you just don't hear about them as much because the countries don't speak English as their primary language. And in most countries you are still going to be paying co-pays of some sort because they're a necessity in order to prevent systemic abuse.
First of all lets not bring Clinton into this she has a long history of throwing victims of harrasment under the bus personally that is far worse. Of course im under no illusions that Bernies going to break down the gates and destroy institutions like the prison complex, however my argument is that in general not being beholden to corps will result in policy outcomes that will save a lot of lives. The push for 15 is an example of this. Also the current system is not all we got as Bernie forged a new path, it wasnt perfect but the future is better because of it
Destruction of capital is only a good goal if you're profoundly ignorant to economic realities.What if I support single-payer not specifically because it's the only route to universal coverage but because I genuinely want to see the profit motive driven out of healthcare, and insurance companies are useless and the logical place to start?
Like, single-payer has more than one function, destruction of a pillar of capital being one of them.
I have no interest in Bernie, or Biden, I'd love for them to just not run.
I would be happy with Gillibrand or Harris and maybe Warren. I liked Warren more before the whole 23 and me stunt.
I would be pretty let down if Booker or Beto got it.
I'll be fucking furious if Tulsi or any of the random CEO's saying they have considered running did well.
Tulsi isn't going anywhere. She might stay in the race way longer than she should (we can thank Russia for that), but she doesn't have a prayer of winning the nomination.
...Fair enough, I need to do more research into such stuff. All I know is Canada and UK are single payer and they work a lot better than the US does. If multi-payer systems mean that you won't get put into massive debt just for being injured or sick, that's fine. But I know our current system certainly doesn't do that for many, many Americans.
If you guys haven't done so already, would definitely recommend looking at the recent PERI economic analysis (by academic economists) of S.1804 (the Senate single-payer bill), which I've mentioned elsewhere: one / two / threeWhat if I support single-payer not specifically because it's the only route to universal coverage but because I genuinely want to see the profit motive driven out of healthcare, and insurance companies are useless and the logical place to start? Like, single-payer has more than one function, destruction of a pillar of capital being one of them.
WOW. Saves us 5.1 trillion. Thank you for sharing.
Yeah, no problem. I'll also mention that the study (direct link here) covers a lot of additional ground, beyond the strictly economic analysis:WOW. Saves us 5.1 trillion. Thank you for sharing.
I mean the savings shouldn't matter in the first place when we got super-rich people running around, but that should solve the "we don't have the money for it" problem.
And I just learned Harris is on the fucking anti-Palestine train. :\
God dammit. God fucking dammit. Why is the party filled with genocidal maniacs?
I guess Bernie or Warren then... WOW. Saves us 5.1 trillion. Thank you for sharing.
I mean the savings shouldn't matter in the first place when we got super-rich people running around, but that should solve the "we don't have the money for it" problem.
Yeah I should have known earlier. I didn't put two and two together until now. Just. Ugh. D:
I'll take a full look later. Summaries make it sound like good stuff.Yeah, no problem. I'll also mention that the study (direct link here) covers a lot of additional ground, beyond the strictly economic analysis:
1. Universal Health Care and Health Outcomes .................................................................................................................182. Demand Increases and Costs of Universal Health Care.................................................................................................223. Cost Saving Potential under Medicare for All...................................................................................................................434. Financing Medicare for All.....................................................................................................................................................685. Budgetary Impacts on Businesses and Families............................................................................................................776. The Transition into Medicare for All ..................................................................................................................................927. Macroeconomic Impacts of Medicare for All ................................................................................................................122
After watching the entirety of the MLK interview today, if AOC stays on this path and wants to run in 2024, she gets my vote.
2020 candidates are very meh so far, hopefully there ends up being a big standout
Hahahaha. Well at least we're confident she's not getting the nom...
Gabbard is the one person that, I can say with certainty, has no chance at winning the primary.Hahahaha. Well at least we're confident she's not getting the nom...
Right?
... Right?
This is enormously dumb. His campaign took individual donations, that are capped at.... What, 2k a pop? From people that work in the fossil fuel industry. All of those donations combined make up less than 1% of the money he received. There's no way in hell that would make a difference in policy making. This is the literal dumbest point people can make against Beto.He took money from members of the fossil fuel industry without once saying that they'd NOT influence his vote even after being called out on it
Thank goodness for that....Gabbard is the one person that, I can say with certainty, has no chance at winning the primary.
If you asked me to handicap the current field and the remaining potentials, my money would be on on Warren or Harris or Gillibrand.
She's the closest thing to a truly decent politician we have on a national level along with a few of the others voted in this year, I can't blame people for thinking she'd be a good president before she's done much. I myself think that if she proves herself as I suspect she will, that I am all aboard her being the youngest president ever.Jesus she will have just turned 35 by that election. Stop acting like this woman is the next coming of Christ. Leaders take time this shit doesn't happen overnight. She hasn't even proven shit as a congress woman.
I don't think it's enormously dumb to be suspicious of people who may bend to big fossil fuels. As noted, this isn't about the little guys donating, it's about the executives he took money from regardless of how much. He needs to come out and say he's accepting their money not for their opinions on big FFs, but on other issues. Otherwise, as someone who takes climate change seriously and a major threat on all sorts of axes- environmentally, socially, economically- I can't trust him. Why should I?This is enormously dumb. His campaign took individual donations, that are capped at.... What, 2k a pop? From people that work in the fossil fuel industry. All of those donations combined make up less than 1% of the money he received. There's no way in hell that would make a difference in policy making. This is the literal dumbest point people can make against Beto.
And I just learned Harris is on the fucking anti-Palestine train. :\
God dammit. God fucking dammit. Why is the party filled with genocidal maniacs?
She's the closest thing to a truly decent politician we have on a national level along with a few of the others voted in this year, I can't blame people for thinking she'd be a good president before she's done much. I myself think that if she proves herself as I suspect she will, that I am all aboard her being the youngest president ever.
I don't think it's enormously dumb to be suspicious of people who may bend to big fossil fuels. As noted, this isn't about the little guys donating, it's about the executives he took money from regardless of how much. He needs to come out and say he's accepting their money not for their opinions on big FFs, but on other issues. Otherwise, as someone who takes climate change seriously and a major threat on all sorts of axes- environmentally, socially, economically- I can't trust him. Why should I?
Because if a bunch of small donations adding up to 400k or so in a campaign that raised 10s of millions influenced a politician's decision making then someone could literally kickstart that much money for any other policy under the sun to influence them the other way (Not that you could donate 400k in one load, but you get my point). It beggar's belief that that has any significant influence on their policy making. The money is insignificant compared to the whole.I don't think it's enormously dumb to be suspicious of people who may bend to big fossil fuels. As noted, this isn't about the little guys donating, it's about the executives he took money from regardless of how much. He needs to come out and say he's accepting their money not for their opinions on big FFs, but on other issues. Otherwise, as someone who takes climate change seriously and a major threat on all sorts of axes- environmentally, socially, economically- I can't trust him. Why should I?
Calm the fuck down. No one is treating her like christ, we're just excited that she feels like an actual human which is more to say than anybody else currently running, and she has a lot of useful knowledge about ways that we can help people who are suffering. Anything can happen between now and if she were to run. It's almost like I said "if she stays on this path" in my post.Jesus she will have just turned 35 by that election. Stop acting like this woman is the next coming of Christ. Leaders take time this shit doesn't happen overnight. She hasn't even proven shit as a congress woman.