Who's Going to Win South Carolina?

  • Joe Biden

    Votes: 585 39.2%
  • Bernie Sanders

    Votes: 853 57.2%
  • Elizabeth Warren

    Votes: 24 1.6%
  • Pete Buttigieg

    Votes: 7 0.5%
  • THE KLOBBERER

    Votes: 16 1.1%
  • Tom Steyer

    Votes: 6 0.4%

  • Total voters
    1,491
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oct 28, 2017
4,970
Every Bush-Era, neo-con, Never Trump Republican is parading around the editorial pages of the major newspapers today calling on Obama to save their party.

They're all fucking griters. They're not looking for Obama to save their party, they want the Republican Party to go back to compassionate conservatism so they can get their jobs back after Trump pants them.

The same thing is happening right now with Bernie. Where Clinton staffers can get grift money developing bad apps and work in Warren's campaign (the single thing that turned her off me, told me she was going to ditch everything that made her great and try and meet everyone in the "middle") , they're not going to get the same opportunities if Bernie is successful beyond writing shitty op-eds in the New York Times or be a never-Bernie Democrat.
 

Fat4all

Woke up, got a money tag, swears a lot
Member
Oct 25, 2017
95,445
here
hes the giant rat that makes all of the rules
i thought it was because of all the pics of him eating

mayor-pete-46.jpg


00_LEAD.0.jpg


13.jpg
 
Oct 28, 2017
4,970
Do people honestly believe that's going to actually work in any meaningful way?

The point is to compromise when we get there, not compromise from the start and then compromise again when we get there.

Pete has made the Hillary deplorables error and looks set to double down on it at the next debate

It kills me when people whine about Bernie not appealing to the moderates by targeting the establishment yet still bat for Clinton and her deplorables comment because she was telling the truth.
 

Ziltoidia 9

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,155
Guys, just let Pete fade into oblivion as he takes a job consulting or being a lobbyist. Or hell, being on MSNBC. They like to hire centrists that lost elections.
 

Deleted member 31817

Nov 7, 2017
30,876
While I actually do see a resemblance with Pete eating like a rat it's still a little disconcerting that people compare him to vermin idk
 

GYODX

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,306
The point is to compromise when we get there, not compromise from the start and then compromise again when we get there.



It kills me when people whine about Bernie not appealing to the moderates by targeting the establishment yet still bat for Clinton and her deplorables comment because she was telling the truth.
Same reason they defended Clinton when she said nobody likes Bernie ("she's just telling the truth!," "she's in 'no fucks given' mode!," but clutched their pearls when Tlaib booed Clinton. These people aren't operating in good faith.
 
Oct 28, 2017
4,970
I mean she was telling the truth tho.

She was just like Bernie is telling the truth that the current power structures do not want him to get any power whatsoever.

The point is that the same people aren't being intellectually consistent. Evidently, Bernie's divisiveness isn't tanking his primary campaign yet they always point to it as a sign that Bernie's campaign strat sucks. The same people will go on record supporting a candidate's comment that was far more damaging to one's campaign because they're not the target of the statement.
 

cartographer

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,035
If around 90k voted in early voting, seems like very few actually turned out to caucus
And they are still slow on reporting votes, despite so many of them being basic cards.

Just another reminder that caucuses are trash. Good on Nevada for offering what looks to be a pretty successful alternative to their outdated, exclusionary system. Let's just go full primary next time.
 

Deleted member 19844

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
3,500
United States
That is a very privileged response. He's not okay with his son maybe, possibly receiving slightly less care (which he can compensate for, considering his high income) but is perfectly fine with the poors or the unemployed dying?
We make nowhere near the amount in the example being discussed, but we have just about the same quality of health care, and I have the same concern about losing what we have for the uncertain promise of M4A. You are understating the risk in your comment above.

And this is the same concern shared by many lower income / working class union members who have health insurance through the efforts of their union.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,785
One thing that I just thought of. If Medicare for all is passed, do people expect the money from employer based insurance to go to the employees or the employer will just keep it for greater profits? I can definitely see people's salaries staying the same, but with larger taxes, thus a greater financial burden. I feel like part of the law must mandate that employers can't keep the extra profits from not paying for insurance.
 

KidAAlbum

Member
Nov 18, 2017
3,182
Third, Bernie does need to do a better job at talking about what M4A means totally, what coverage it has, etc. The last 4 years or so, he has mostly just been making the moral side of the case, and listing off numbers.
He has, but it's dependent on what the goal of the town hall is for. For example, here is one for this exact problem. Just watch at 44 min in of people's pain.

 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
18,220
You're never going to get someone from WV who isn't pro-second amendment. We kinda have a history of actually having to kill coal barons.
That's... kinda the point. Not to mention your idea of doubling is still a 56-43 finish.

The pro life thing isn't accurate either, as he's rallied for WV Free, and:

theintercept.com

Richard Ojeda Comes Out Swinging on Abortion Rights

2020 presidential candidate Richard Ojeda: “Rich women have always had access to the care that they want or need and they always will.”
I mean, he describes himself as pro-life and didn't give a pro-choice spiel like that until he ran for president. And he voted for someone for President who wasn't pro-choice.

He's also since renounced Trump after admitting that he was wrong about the outsider rhetoric.

Ojeda has stated "I don't think I've ever voted for a Democrat for president" and supported Donald Trump in 2016.[19][20] He told Politico that he voted for Trump because he initially believed Trump would do something for West Virginians. By 2018, he expressed regret for voting for Trump, saying that "he hasn't done shit" and he is "taking care of the daggone people he's supposed to be getting rid of".[2] Ojeda said he supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primary.[21]

Ojeda said he supported Bernie Sanders, another populist, in the 2016 presidential race but supported President Donald Trump in the general because Trump was talking about coal.

Economists, including researchers at WVU's School of Business and Economic Research, continue to predict long-term declines in that industry, and they say slight recent gains in metallurgical coal, used to make steel, weren't due to rolling back climate change policy.
www.register-herald.com

Richard Ojeda talks coal, environment, and health care. For Carol Miller, the closest we got was her son.

Aides said Lara Trump and Carol Miller were blocked by inclement weather in Washington, D.C.
Yeah, so, I'm gonna go way out there and say that someone who voted for Trump because coal isn't exactly a good non-dino Manchin replacement.
 
Oct 28, 2017
4,970
One thing that I just thought of. If Medicare for all is passed, do people expect the money from employer based insurance to go to the employees or the employer will just keep it for greater profits? I can definitely see people's salaries staying the same, but with larger taxes, thus a greater financial burden. I feel like part of the law must mandate that employers can't keep the extra profits from not paying for insurance.

It hopefully encourages more mobility in the workforce rather than hold workers ransom because of work providing insurance plans.

Its why the Nevada union broke for Bernie, their work plans suck or just aren't that great and tether them down.
 

Deleted member 4614

Oct 25, 2017
6,345
One thing that I just thought of. If Medicare for all is passed, do people expect the money from employer based insurance to go to the employees or the employer will just keep it for greater profits? I can definitely see people's salaries staying the same, but with larger taxes, thus a greater financial burden. I feel like part of the law must mandate that employers can't keep the extra profits from not paying for insurance.

I don't think so. Folks will have the ability to walk away from bad work more easily.

However, private health insurance is about 5% of GDP. Anticipate a lot of people to lose dumb bureaucratic jobs and complain about it. This would be a massive economic shift.

Also anticipate a political backlash that makes 2010 look polite.

(Assuming Medicare For All passes, which is a low likelihood).
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,785
It hopefully encourages more mobility in the workforce rather than hold workers ransom because of work providing insurance plans.

Its why the Nevada union broke for Bernie, their work plans suck or just aren't that great and tether them down.

well, yes. But if people's salaries remain the same but with higher taxes, they won't really see the technically lower costs of health care.
 

Terra Firma

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,235
We make nowhere near the amount in the example being discussed, but we have just about the same quality of health care, and I have the same concern about losing what we have for the uncertain promise of M4A. You are understating the risk in your comment above.

And this is the same concern shared by many lower income / working class union members who have health insurance through the efforts of their union.
Just look at what medicare currently covers and what your insurance plan provides on top of what is covered by medicare. Include vision and dental (a la part C). And find out what isn't being covered. The whole point of government coverage is to cast the widest net. If there are some services that your insurance covers which aren't covered by M4A, you're almost guaranteed to be able to buy supplemental insurance plans, which even exist in countries that also have socialized medicine so obviously insurance companies aren't going bankrupt anytime soon.

So, what exactly is it that wouldn't be covered under M4A which a large number of people have but which is also covered by their insurance plans?
 
Jun 20, 2019
2,638
In case it hasn't been posted yet:

I'm very happy to hear his stance on Palestinian Justice hasn't wavered.
Bernie Sanders: The Israeli people have the right to live in peace and security. So do the Palestinian people. I remain concerned about the platform AIPAC provides for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights. For that reason I will not attend their conference. 1/2
 

thewienke

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,228
I don't think so. Folks will have the ability to walk away from bad work more easily.

However, private health insurance is about 5% of GDP. Anticipate a lot of people to lose dumb bureaucratic jobs and complain about it. This would be a massive economic shift.

Also anticipate a political backlash that makes 2010 look polite.

(Assuming Medicare For All passes, which is a low likelihood).

Aren't there a shitload of supplemental Medicare insurance plans being purchased? Wouldn't that continue to some extent going forward? Honestly don't know how that would work.
 
Oct 28, 2017
1,549
One thing that I just thought of. If Medicare for all is passed, do people expect the money from employer based insurance to go to the employees or the employer will just keep it for greater profits? I can definitely see people's salaries staying the same, but with larger taxes, thus a greater financial burden. I feel like part of the law must mandate that employers can't keep the extra profits from not paying for insurance.
Employers being shady is something to watch out for, but for most people the ammt they're paying into insurance is opt in, and already part of their salary (a chunk of each paycheck going to the insurance). So yes their "salary" would stay the same, but they're not paying that insurance money every paycheck. For employers to "keep" that money, they would literally have to pay cut everyone that was on the group insurance.
 

Deleted member 82

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,626
While I actually do see a resemblance with Pete eating like a rat it's still a little disconcerting that people compare him to vermin idk

It's fair game from the Iowa fuckery. And also because, you know, he's a corporate elite and a candidate for the single most powerful position in the world. The boy will get over it, trust me. He can cry into the $100 bills generously donated by his Super PACs if it's a bit hard for him.

These people are not to be protected. They're to be held accountable, and to be mocked and brought down to our level when deserved. As long as they're not being literally harassed and the mockery isn't based on lies and has nothing to do with their identity - for instance, being gay, in Pete's case -, we shouldn't feel bad for them.
 

Afrikan

Member
Oct 28, 2017
17,314
He tweeted an update:



Omg yall are missing out!!!! 😂😂😂

Hit play dammit!

If yall don't know this is the guy who plays Bernie Sanders on the President's Show.

But he does one hell of a Chris Matthews impression.

This old video is hilarious, even has James Carville in it, which relates to what's still happing today.

 

Br3wnor

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,982
Employers being shady is something to watch out for, but for most people the ammt they're paying into insurance is opt in, and already part of their salary (a chunk of each paycheck going to the insurance). So yes their "salary" would stay the same, but they're not paying that insurance money every paycheck. For employers to "keep" that money, they would literally have to pay cut everyone that was on the group insurance.

Employers themselves have to spend thousands of dollars on employee health insurance, what the employee pays out of pocket is just a portion of the total insurance payment. If employers don't have to Pay their share anymore, they're just going to keep the money or hire some more employees, they're not going to give people raises lol

Whatever money employees are currently spending on health insurance will basically just turn into their tax payment, so you're probably not taking home any more money

The benefit will obviously be that you're not paying deductibles and all the other out of pocket costs that come for a lot of people with employer insurance. I'm in a rare scenario where I have phenomenal health insurance through my union, government job ($500 a month family plan, $20 co pays, no deductibles, accepted by everyone) so Medicare for all will pretty much be a wash for me, and likely cost me more out of pocket due to household income, but I'm fine with it since I know most people's insurance is dog shit. I just think it's a pipe dream to think that congress will make it law
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.