What is the purpose of Tulsi Gabbard. And why is she still here.
Her purpose is getting a job on Fox News and being "the good one".
What is the purpose of Tulsi Gabbard. And why is she still here.
On foreign affairs/defense some Democrats can be even more hawkish than Republicans.
In many ways that will depend on whether the likes of Sanders and AOC are willing to speak up early to get folks to go out with the sole purpose to unseat Trump. Hillary was probably right about one of her criticisms of Bernie and that is that he took too long to get behind the party last time. Clearly given what happened with the shenanigans involving Wasserman-Shultz etc Bernie was right to feel angry about it - as were his voters. Crux is - how you unite the closet Republicans/conservative dems voting for a Biden or Hillary with the liberal left without disenfranchising either one - even if Bernie and Co do throw their support behind Biden early on. Ironically this would a great example of where in a more representative parliamentary democracy you d find ways to fit through the same door without alienating your platform - which of course our system is not set up to do. More importantly in this country - would the (dark?) money involved in our politics even allow for the left to be brought into the fold? So far clearly every sign seems to again be pointing in the opposite direction.
Nope. It had a long fight in the house and especially Senate (despite that the Dems had 60 senators). Bernie was actually an opponent of Obamacare (especially in public), and Harry Reid had to work hard to convince Bernie to vote it.
The Republicans tried to repeal it, but were not able to do so despite controlling the senate (Murkowski, Collins and ironically enough McCain voted against it).
Any plan that requires a lot of money (I am talking even for an Obamacare++, let alone Medicare for all which is gonna cost even more) will require both the house and the senate to vote for it, and it will require an increase of the taxes (which again, both the house and the senate had to vote for it). Of course, Bernie could shut down the argument if they don't give him the money, but that rarely works (Trump shut down the government for a month in order to get 6billion for the stupid wall, and Pelosi still didn't give it to him. Good luck on shutting down the government while asking for trillions of dollars with maybe 20% of senators supporting you).
Medicare for all, Green New Deal (which was a mess from the beginning), and removing the public debt had absolutely no chance of being implemented during a potential Bernie presidency. Neither of those could have been done by executive orders.
analysis from a libertarian think tank shows it saves 2tn over 10 years.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/07/medicare-for-all-mercatus-center-report
meta-analysis:
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003013
new study:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/medicare-save-450-billion-68-232211541.html
With a *flat tax*, only people in the top ~15% would have to pay more for it: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/10/30/how-to-approach-medicare-for-all-financing/
Thank for this. I will read later in detail.
I am surprised then why Bernie is not releasing the projected numbers. If the most generous healthcare plan in the world is actually going to cost less money (which I think it is a contradiction in itself but anyway), why the numbers are not released?
He has not been very calculating (ever in his political career), and refers to him like that because he feels that he is a Democratic Socialist. One of the very few honest politicians.I think one of Sanders problem going forward is he keeps refereing himself as a socialist. So even if you ask voters if they like M4A and raising the minimum wage and a host of other social safety nets and they say yes, the minute you ask them if you think USA should become a socialist country they run for the hills. I have no idea why Sanders feels politically its a good move for him to say he's a Democratic Socialist especially at this stage. Maybe he thinks it works for him , but to expand his base I think this label he has given himself is hindering him even if his actual policies are popular.
There is a long way to go and its not over by a long shot.
Thanks for this, well said. There's a lot of whataboutism. Bernie has to hold true to his word while the party basically throws everything at him to keep him out. That said, I think he will endorse Biden when eventually he has to concedeYou really don't believe what you are typing though? I mean it's good for online debates based on logical assumptions. Biden was dead and buried before SC that it prompted Bloomberg to run and some small town mayor from Indiana almost won two states.
If all centrists can unite to ensure a progressive can't win the nomination, why shouldn't a progressive turn around and say 'well I took this stance when I had a good chance, but given the circumstances, I believe that I have the best chance to win and I think we should run the convention this way'.. It will be hypocritical but it's just the same for every one.
Am I right in thinking Bernie voters will not vote for Biden because they feel it proves the system is corrupt and stacked against them ? So there's no difference for them having Trump win or Biden ?
Probably. (and I hope so)
I would vote for the green party candidate, someone with whom you can have plenty common goals.
Well, that's one pragmatic school of thought. Another one could very well be, "this world is fecked either way, so let me make as much money as possible and I'll vote for the guys who let me keep the most of it." Hello Donald.
This. In my view a successful progressive candidate in the US doesn't look like Sanders, as in not someone that affiliates every 4 years to run in the primary and is then facing an uphill battle every time. Sanders sacrifices his own results to keep his purity. I think a successful progressive candidate is a long-term member of the party, who doesn't attack the party establishment so openly in his rhetoric, who shows up to lend support to other party candidates and legislative efforts when that doesn't compromise a core set of policies that said candidate is always speaking of (M4A, tax reform towards more progressiveness, higher education reform/funding, etc).
That is my belief too (add that Biden has a higher chance of actually winning against Trump).What I mean is Sanders keeps going on about the Democrat establishment.....but what is someone like Obama if not the Democrat establishment? And the voters love him. They adore him. Promising to be different to that and painting yourself as the opposition to them, it isn't what people want.
Biden's policies are fine. Expanding healthcare, zero carbon by 2050, $15 minimum wage, free community college, increased taxes on the wealthy....
He's not that exciting a candidate but its funny people paint him as a conservative when his policies are anything but. Realistically Bernie Sanders would not pass anything stronger than Biden will. I'd actually argue that he'd pass much less given Biden probably gives better chance of winning Senate seats in swing states which might return a majority.
You really don't believe what you are typing though? I mean it's good for online debates based on logical assumptions. Biden was dead and buried before SC that it prompted Bloomberg to run and some small town mayor from Indiana almost won two states.
If all centrists can unite to ensure a progressive can't win the nomination, why shouldn't a progressive turn around and say 'well I took this stance when I had a good chance, but given the circumstances, I believe that I have the best chance to win and I think we should run the convention this way'.. It will be hypocritical but it's just the same for every one.
They did in 2018, though it was not under Hillary.This isn't happening. More moderate democrats are losing their seats. Doug Jones can sit on the fence all he wants, he's going home in November. The same way McCaskill and Donnolly and Hietkamp went home under Hillary. It's a pipe dream.
Or maybe, he just says the first thing it comes to his mind in twitter (like he does all the time), and genuinely thinks that Biden is a more difficult opponent. Let's be fair, Biden seems to have a wider support, and strangely, he won big in the states with the highest turnout.
“I think Bernie as vice president would have been tougher,” Trump said, referring to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 selection of Sen. Tim Kaine to be her running mate. “He was the only one I didn’t want her to pick.”
“You know, I got 20 percent of [the] Bernie vote, people don’t realize that, because of trade, because he’s a big trade guy. He basically says we’re getting screwed on trade, and he’s right. I’m worse than he is, but we can do something about it. I don’t know if he could have,” he said, presumably meaning that he is worse for free trade supporters than Sanders would be. “But had she picked Bernie Sanders, it would have been tougher,”
This isn't happening. More moderate democrats are losing their seats. Doug Jones can sit on the fence all he wants, he's going home in November. The same way McCaskill and Donnolly and Hietkamp went home under Hillary. It's a pipe dream.
This was the first hit:You should read up on Forbes and Trump's history. A great insight in to that dickhead's ego.
I agree with this view. Think if you message correctly, M4A, increased progressive taxation, increased education funding will all find a majority of supporters. Have been saying that the Sanders campaign has only themselves to blame for not getting the messaging correct over the past 5 years.
Orders came from the DNC to threadban him until he agrees to endorse Biden.Where is Red Dreams today?
I've read it, it is an analysis. No one right now knows what is gonna cost, not even Bernie. Why else he hasn't made public the costs of the plan?I take it you didn't read these in detail later?
I don't quite understand this. We have millennials approaching 40. Is that too young?That's a little too narrow.
Its the "millennials" that Bernie appeals to the most that were among the lower turnouts and that's wider than 18-24 and they will be relevant for a long time. Sadly its GenX that's getting passed over and that's the age group that, atm, is best suited to leadership. Passing from senile boomers to too young millennials is not the best plan.
Vice president though. That would have united the party and more or less guarantee a Democratic victory.He's already acknowledge that he received ~20% of Bernie's voters so it's really not difficult to imagine that with the fine margins he won by last time he views Sanders as the only candidate that can actually cut into his support rather than just rely on his opposition.
Obama was a terrible president. Some of you aren't ready for that conversation. He failed voters on multiple issues that he had the power to change. Be it prison reform, police brutality, immigration, reining in wall street banks, health care. I could go on.
Or maybe, he just says the first thing it comes to his mind in twitter (like he does all the time), and genuinely thinks that Biden is a more difficult opponent. Let's be fair, Biden seems to have a wider support, and strangely, he won big in the states with the highest turnout.
He's not broke for sure but he also over and understates his wealth which in some cases is criminal. There is a reason why trump org is not a publicly traded company.This was the first hit:
https://www.forbes.com/donald-trump/#5d22dac32899
Honestly, I don't give a shit if he's a millionaire or a billionaire. I also think despite his businesses suffering, he must have his grubby hands on so many dirty things at the moment, so he'll be fine money-wise no matter what happens in Nov.
That's disingenuous. Something can save money for the country in the aggregate, while still requiring an increase of the government budget, which in turn can't be carried through by executive order. Sanders could be 100% right but he still needs to convince congress to pass legislation.I take it you didn't read these in detail later?
He must be having a rotten day.Orders came from the DNC to threadban him until he agrees to endorse Biden.
So the media and the DNC doesn't have any blame? How you compete with 24hours of mass media news talking about how you gonna convert the country into Venezuela or Cuba? How you fight the noise?
They did in 2018, though it was not under Hillary.
In the house, the majority of new congressmen were moderates, not left wings. Just that the squad are more vocal (and in case of AOC, extremely popular).
Ok, that is probably true. I think that Jones is doomed too (though he might get a cabinet position). He stood a chance only until Sessions entered the game. The other Democrat incumbents should be fine.My point is that the argument about Biden helping the likes of red-state senators to hold on to their seats is extremely flawed. Not in this increasingly polarized climate.
I take it you didn't read these in detail later?
You know what the Houses are right?
He's not broke for sure but he also over and understates his wealth which in some cases is criminal. There is a reason why trump org is not a publicly traded company.
I've read it, it is an analysis. No one right now knows what is gonna cost, not even Bernie. Why else he hasn't made public the costs of the plan?
In any case, it will require the bill passing both chambers, which was my main point of the post. Even if only Democrats would have voted, it wouldn't pass either chamber. With GOP controlling the senate (or in the best case a marginal majority for Dems either 51-50, or 51-49,) it won't pass. There are Democrat senators (who don't come for elections until 2024) who have said that they are going to vote against it, and others who have strongly hinted that.
How long are you going to keep playing that card? It didn't stop him from droning innocent civilians aboard. Or using republican talking points when addressing black communities.
Ok, that is probably true. I think that Jones is doomed too (though he might get a cabinet position). He stood a chance only until Sessions entered the game. The other Democrat incumbents should be fine.
This. In my view a successful progressive candidate in the US doesn't look like Sanders, as in not someone that affiliates every 4 years to run in the primary and is then facing an uphill battle every time. Sanders sacrifices his own results to keep his purity. I think a successful progressive candidate is a long-term member of the party, who doesn't attack the party establishment so openly in his rhetoric, who shows up to lend support to other party candidates and legislative efforts when that doesn't compromise a core set of policies that said candidate is always speaking of (M4A, tax reform towards more progressiveness, higher education reform/funding, etc).
And it didn't stop them from lying to the oversight bodies in Congress about mass surveillance and other activities. The Obama administration did all sorts of shit we like to think only the Republicans do.
That's quite the switch. A few minutes ago you said it was going to cost mega money, now when confronted with contradictory evidence you're saying nobody knows. Isn't it curious how you always fall back to saying it's going to cost mega money, without ever explaining how the contradictory evidence is incorrect?
Here's the latest study about it:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/fulltext#
Not really. But I think that he can make every Democrat senator vote with him for the big issues, and in some cases, some from Collins, Murkowski and Romney might join Dems (Romney probably less so). So, it all depends if Dems can get the senate back, which has a good chance of happening in 2022, and is a longshot in these elections. Also, GOP will probably go towards the center if Trump loses and they lose the control of the senate (in which case McTurtle is gonna retire cause the map in 2022 favors the Democrats).You and many other centrist voters put yourselves forward as the more reasoned voters, the ones who won't buy into fairytales put out by demagogues like Sanders. Any evidence put forward that contradicts your argument is flawed.
The reality is you just buy into different fairytales. The idea that Joe Biden can reach across the aisle and achieve meaningful legislation through bipartisan co-operation, when he repeatedly failed to do that alongside a more popular president in a less partisan time is a fairytale. It's an emotional argument masquerading as a rational one. The reality is most people vote for the status quo because of fear.
And it didn't stop them from lying to the oversight bodies in Congress about mass surveillance and other activities. The Obama administration did all sorts of shit we like to think only the Republicans do.
A study means not much dude. If it was so clear, Bernie would have released the numbers a long time ago. Warren's plan (which was less generous) cost a shitload of money. If M4A would actually be better, and cost less, then why Bernie has been hiding the numbers? It just makes no sense.
Not really. But I think that he can make every Democrat senator vote with him for the big issues, and in some cases, some from Collins, Murkowski and Romney might join Dems (Romney probably less so). So, it all depends if Dems can get the senate back, which has a good chance of happening in 2022, and is a longshot in these elections.
I also don't consider myself a centrist. Have voted left all my life, and while in the US I cannot vote (no citizenship), Warren (left) was my first choice followed by Young (not defined in political spectrum) and Bernie * (very left). Just that I am under no illusions that any of his big plans have a tiny chance of being implemented.
* You can check my posts here before, but also on Hillary vs Bernie 4 years ago.
And it didn't stop them from lying to the oversight bodies in Congress about mass surveillance and other activities. The Obama administration did all sorts of shit we like to think only the Republicans do.
That's disingenuous. Something can save money for the country in the aggregate, while still requiring an increase of the government budget, which in turn can't be carried through by executive order. Sanders could be 100% right but he still needs to convince congress to pass legislation.
A study means not much dude. If it was so clear, Bernie would have released the numbers a long time ago. Warren's plan (which was less generous) cost a shitload of money. If M4A would actually be better, and cost less, then why Bernie has been hiding the numbers? It just makes no sense.
Not really. But I think that he can make every Democrat senator vote with him for the big issues, and in some cases, some from Collins, Murkowski and Romney might join Dems (Romney probably less so). So, it all depends if Dems can get the senate back, which has a good chance of happening in 2022, and is a longshot in these elections. Also, GOP will probably go towards the center if Trump loses and they lose the control of the senate (in which case McTurtle is gonna retire cause the map in 2022 favors the Democrats).
I also don't consider myself a centrist. Have voted left all my life, and while in the US I cannot vote (no citizenship), Warren (left) was my first choice followed by Young (not defined in political spectrum) and Bernie * (very left). Just that I am under no illusions that any of his big plans have a tiny chance of being implemented.
* You can check my posts here before, but also on Hillary vs Bernie 4 years ago.