2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Look out 2020 .Cory Booker as announced he is running.
Spartacus!
SPARTACUS!!!!!
Someone has managed to ban multiple twitter accounts that used to call Kamla Harris a cop. Apparently this was the tweet that got him banned
Didn't even call her a pig, FFS.
Harris..now Booker.
next....
next....
comments section here is Gold
Biden opposed de-segregation in the 70s, supported all the tough on crime that hurt minorities in the 80s, ties to the banking industry and supported Clinton's financial deregulation and supporting gutting welfare in the 90s, supported Bush's Iraq War in the 2000s, and then gave Wall Street and pharmaceuticals exactly what they wanted in the 2010s.
Guy has a lifetime of being on the wrong side of history and yet somehow people think he is a good Democrat candidate? And they wonder why progressives with a conscious can't support these clowns. Even Howard Schultz of all people has a better record than Biden.
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/01/the-case-against-joe-biden.html
Guy has a lifetime of being on the wrong side of history and yet somehow people think he is a good Democrat candidate? And they wonder why progressives with a conscious can't support these clowns. Even Howard Schultz of all people has a better record than Biden.
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/01/the-case-against-joe-biden.html
In Jamaica we have a saying that goes "pick an pick till yuh pick shit" I can see this happening with the progressives in the dem party. Trump will love it
Switching from winner-takes-it-all to proportional representation would be the real game changer imo but @Carolina Red has a point, can't see it happening either. Is it even discussed?
Sanders or Warren is the best you'll get from this lot. Can't say if either would win an election though.
It'll be Harris or Beto I think. Which is sad.
It'll be Harris or Beto I think. Which is sad.
I'm already priming myself for the 'Trump isn't as bad as Beto/Harris because we didn't get the pure heart we wanted' bullshit from the liberal white population whlie the black population won't bother to go to vote because Beto isn't black. Unfortunate.
Senator Elizabeth Warren has apologized to the Cherokee nation for her decision to take a DNA test to prove her Native American heritage.
Warren called Bill John Baker, principal chief of the Cherokee nation, on Thursday to apologize, a spokeswoman for the tribe told the New York Times.
“She apologized for causing confusion on tribal sovereignty and tribal citizenship and the harm that has resulted,” said spokeswoman Julie Hubbard said. “The chief and secretary of state appreciate that she has reaffirmed that she is not a Cherokee nation citizen or a citizen of any tribal nation.”
The Massachusetts senator, who is running for president, sparked controversy when she released the test which found she had a Native American ancestor six to 10 generations ago.
Warren called Bill John Baker, principal chief of the Cherokee nation, on Thursday to apologize, a spokeswoman for the tribe told the New York Times.
“She apologized for causing confusion on tribal sovereignty and tribal citizenship and the harm that has resulted,” said spokeswoman Julie Hubbard said. “The chief and secretary of state appreciate that she has reaffirmed that she is not a Cherokee nation citizen or a citizen of any tribal nation.”
The Massachusetts senator, who is running for president, sparked controversy when she released the test which found she had a Native American ancestor six to 10 generations ago.
This native american heritage thing is a total mess for Warren. Really wonder how she got the idea that somebody cares about this.
Liberals have spent decades obsessed with fact checking, wonkery, by-your-logic stuff.
At least he's honest
Though he potentially can back this up with polling.
Though he potentially can back this up with polling.
You can have perfectly fine universal health care with private insurers if the setting is right. All you need is the individual mandate and the government a.) making all necessary health treatments mandatory in every plan and b.) paying for those that cannot afford it (optionally they could tune profit motives too).
Having a franchise isnt necessary but a deductible (5% or something, regressive as costs increase) is probably reasonable (as long as b.) above also applies here).
I do agree that the public option would be the best though.
She is my senator.
I voted for her. But no fecking way am I voting for her for President.
Corporate shill.
Sanders will run. he has earned my vote.
He will win in Minnesota in the caucus for certain.
In the GE, it has to be Sanders, Warren or perhaps Beto unless he proves to be another Harris.
He will win in Minnesota in the caucus for certain.
In the GE, it has to be Sanders, Warren or perhaps Beto unless he proves to be another Harris.
Corey has to play ball if he wants his corporate masters to continue funding his campaign.
The problem is you can never eliminate the inherent conflicts of interests when you have for-profit health care entities seeking to maximize their profits. That just goes against the goal of having the best, most efficient healthcare for the full population.
You could probably do it with non-profit entities but then it wouldn't really be private insurers as we know it.
It is in places like California. What makes it more possible is that its a state issue. So the slow strategy that they used to de-criminalize marijuana could be used. Start with the most liberal states like California, Oregon and Hawaii then move to smaller states like Vermont, Maine to gain momentum. It might not be possible to make all states proportional but there are definitely some states that could be switched which would help at least.
The problem with that strategy is in the short term the only effect is going to be more electors for the Republicans. In the long term it might lead to proportional being normalized and it spreading to more conservative states, but if that doesn't happen quickly you've surrendered a generation to the right.
Yup, would be actual madness.
And normalisation isn't going to happen to an electoral system, as it's something most people care not a shit about.
Ah I was just thinking about the primaries. The Electoral College as a whole just needs to be eliminated completely for the final election.
All Dem primaries are proportional...
That's the momentum that has to be kept up. Eliminating the super-delegates was a great start. Then states push for complete proportional. This builds the momentum and chips away at the disenfranchising systems. Not every move needs to be or even should be big. Sometimes smaller moves are necessary to chip away and create momentum and reinforce public opinion. Its all building towards eliminating the electoral college. Its about building the right battlefield for that fight to have the advantage.
I'm still confused as to what you're arguing for. Delegates are allocated proportionally already in all Democratic primaries. Unless you're talking about caucuses, which are just very strange.
Only 3 or 4 on the list are actually running at the moment
There are options to adress this issue with regulation. It requires lots of fine-tuning but just from the top of my head you could fix prices all over the place (treatments, meds, plans), pool and re-distribute profits or make the insured shareholders. That of course would mean that they are not private insurers as we know it, totally agree, but they'd still be private. While this would be huge task with lots of admin work any health care system implemented in a capitalistic setting has to, at some point, adress the intersection between public and private entities.
If your point is that not wanting to kill private insurers inherently means keeping profit-seeking as unhindered as possible, which I assume to be the case in the US right now, then you are right with the above. I just can't see how that conclusion is legit.
Having said that my favourable concept would be one public insurer mandatory insuring everybody funded by a progressive tax. Define insured services extensively, cap maximum payouts generously, use deductibles cautiously. Unless you'd want to nationalize all entities in the health care sector you'd have to fix prices too.
Not sure we are talking about the same thing. What I mean is the following:
1. Count each vote as one vote for a person and one vote for a party;
2. Award seats relative to each parties voting percentage (12% votes get 12% of the seats);
3. Assign those party seats to whoever got the most votes from the respective party.
That would hopefully result in (list surely not complete):
1. higher incentive to vote outside the big two;
2. coalition or minority governments (which ideally should result in more compromise);
3. less X is bad but Y is worse.
That’s a swing in the opposite direction and exactly what the electoral college system is designed to prevent - California, Texas, Florida and New York having all the power while the low population states have no representation.
Could you please elaborate how you reached that conclusion?
By enacting the concept above you wouldnt get rid of the ECS nor the senate.
On a side note: I do believe in protecting minorities but it shouldn‘t skew the one man one vote principle as much as it does in the US.
Robby Mook should have deleted his twitter account years ago. He should be afraid to show his face in public.
I understand what your objection is. That if it was state by state it could benefit the Republicans. There are multiple ways to attack the Electoral College, all of which I support. One way is not to even eliminate it technically but simply make it dependent on the national popular vote. And this only goes into affect when enough states sign on to it to make it decisive. In other words, your objection would never come into play:
"The National Popular Vote interstate compact would not take effect until enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). Under the compact, the national popular vote winner would be the candidate who received the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) on Election Day. When the Electoral College meets in mid-December, the national popular vote winner would receive all of the electoral votes of the enacting states."
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation
We would then still have to pass state by state for the (Rep) Primaries though to eliminate all forms of winner take all that still exist.
- Status