2020 Democratic Primaries/General Election Thread

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Arles

I'm assuming you are having a little fun with me. If so, well played.

Yeah, people go to Mexico for cheap drugs and inexpensive minor dental work. But it's not like people are going to Mexico for Cancer treatment. There are also a ton of botched procedures (esp in plastic surgery) and no malpractice insurance (one of the reasons it is so cheap). It's a bit like the wild west down there, but it's not a bad option for a crown or buying antibiotics in bulk (some will be duds, so it's better to go quantity over quality). Still, it's not like people are going there for heart surgery, ACL surgery or more complicated illnesses. Saying people are going there for "health care" is akin to saying people go to McDonalds for a "gourmet dinner".

The Great 8-Medical Procedures Where Mexico Leads the U.S.

Get a knee replacement in Mexico and save enough money to live on for a year – The Yucatan Times

We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph

Cancer patients fly to private Cancun clinic for alternative treatments and a dose of sun — Yucatán Expat Life

[ISiddiqui]

Sanders has also been very open that taxes will go up down through the middle class (but says the total costs will decrease).

I will say that Sanders has indicated that costs per capita would go down for M4A because the government would be setting the prices that it would pay for service - usually when he talks about how the US pays more per capita than any other country on Earth. How much, who knows? It may that lack of information makes any CFRB projection hard to really nail down (not to mention Sanders' plan is fairly vague in the details).

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

My real life Bernie supporters aren't saying anything close to the same things, FWIW.

Gotcha. Mine most definitely are. Probably a smaller number than you, but they are pretty much to a person "purists" who'd likely sit out or go third party if it ain't Bernie.

[molson]

India has become the go-to destination for cardiac surgery medical tourism. Other countries have different specialties. People have figured out it's cheaper to fly somewhere, stay in a 5-star resort, and get a procedure done, then it would to have the treatment done in he U.S.

The risk difference is basically negligible with a 1-person sample size, especially since you're getting the best doctors and facilities in another country v. whatever the hell your insurance company tells you to do in this country. Medical tourism is becoming big industry. (I've been to a couple of required continuing-legal-education classes on this, it's pretty interesting)

Edit: Cancer is harder to treat elsewhere because it tends to require ongoing treatment. But anything else - heart surgery, ACL repair, hip replacement, orthopedics, stem cell treatment, organ transplants - it's better to do elsewhere. Most people just aren't going to be able to get over that mental barrier of getting on a plane and having surgery done in India. But more and more are doing so by necessity all the time.

I'd think hospice care would be something that it would make sense to do elsewhere too in certain situations, if the person can travel and there's not a ton of family around. My girlfriend's co-worker just lost his wife, who was fighting organ failure for years, and hung on in hospice for a while. He owes the hospital $70k now. They had insurance. They moved to Boise just a couple of years ago, got good jobs, built a house, were setting up for retirement, and now he lost his wife and basically lost a year or more of progress to retirement. If it doesn't exist already, imagine if you could fly to India, live the rest of your days in luxury with round-the-clock medical care, and not leave a financial burden to your loved ones.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by molson

India has become the go-to destination for cardiac surgery medical tourism. Other countries have different specialties. People have figured out it's cheaper to fly somewhere, stay in a 5-star resort, and get a procedure done, then it would to have the treatment done in he U.S.

Even more to the point, cheaper to fly somewhere, stay in a 5-star resort and get a procedure done, paying completely out of pocket, than it is to have the same treatment done in the US, WITH INSURANCE.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by molson

The CRFB projected Sanders' plan would add 13.4 trillion to the deficit. Nobody knows for sure I guess, but that's a pretty big difference (and more than double even what they project for Warren).

One of the many things I don't quite understand about Sanders is how is vision depends on the perpetual existence of billionaires to tax. Nobody creates taxable wealth like the super-rich, and that can be a great asset for the country. That'd be great for teachers and other public servants to make more money, but, they don't create more capital like can be done in business and finance. But he also thinks billionaires make and retain too much money. So what happens after the rich are knocked down a few pegs and/or killed and ritually eaten by Bernie Bros?

It's almost like within living memory we had 90% tax rates on incomes over (adjusted for inflation) $1.7 million for single filers and $3.4 million for joint filers.

And when that was going on, we built a transcontinental highway system, went to the moon, and the nation wasn't plunged into abject poverty.

Now, in the last 40 years, with Reagan and his successors relentlessly lowering taxes for the ultra-wealthy as much as possible (while throwing the middle class an occasional bone), we've gone from being able to do things like that to essentially looting the treasury to benefit the top 0.5%.

The share of the wealth held by that demographic was around 20% in 1950. Even with the 90% top marginal rate, one dollar in every five still belonged to them. It's about a 35% wealth share now, 40 years after Republicans began gleefully slashing taxes.

I have my issues with Sanders, but he has not proposed returning to 90% to fund M4A etc. Higher taxes, yes, but not as high as that. Even if he had? Our own history shows pretty clearly that a marginal rate that high wouldn't magically turn into a socialist utopia of flattened incomes. The rich would still do very well for themselves, and earn more in a year even after those taxes than the bottom 99.5% would in their lifetimes.

"Oh noes what will we do when the ultra-wealthy are only super-wealthy" is...not a great argument. Suggesting that we can't try to do things to better the society as a whole because then Jeff Bezos will only make $10 billion a year instead of $20 billion and that's a Really Bad Thing (numbers pulled out of my ass; his net worth increases more than that year over year but it's not straight cash flow, I know) is kinda specious.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

The Great 8-Medical Procedures Where Mexico Leads the U.S.

Get a knee replacement in Mexico and save enough money to live on for a year – The Yucatan Times

We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph

Cancer patients fly to private Cancun clinic for alternative treatments and a dose of sun — Yucatán Expat Life

These are basically people who want an experimental treatment not yet approved for safety reasons, cheaper (and much riskier) elective surgery or people who want to die in the sun. Not exactly real medical treatment.

I can play the link game too:

Dangers of medical tourism: Patients at risk after Mexico surgeries

https://www.advisory.com/daily-brief...mexico-surgery

"Many people shop around for bariatric surgery," Woodman said. "They're always looking for the lowest price, but you get what you pay for. That's why you end up with botched surgeries, going to places with no license, having surgeries conducted in hotel rooms, in … clinics that are not as well-accredited and a little shady."

According to Hamilton Le, the medical director of Integris Weight Loss Center, medical tourism facilitators can also lure patients across the border with promises of a surgical vacation. "They arrange for these people to go have surgery in sunny, beautiful Mexico," he said. "They show them these beautiful luxury accommodations, and it's $4,000 for the entire trip—transportation, airport, hotel, surgery. It's this awesome vacation marketed in small towns."

But after the surgery, these facilitators are often not interested in the health of their patients, Nittle reports. And patients who seek bariatric care abroad typically don't receive the range of pre-surgical counseling that U.S. patients receive.

Further, Le said, if a patient suffers complications after surgery, many doctors in the United States won't see them out of concern they could be held liable for a medical issue caused somewhere else. Similarly, insurance companies may not cover these corrective procedures since they didn't approve the initial surgery.

If that's your goal for a medical system in the US - we will have to agree to disagree. I'm sure I could get pot cheaper in Nogales or Juarez than Phoenix, AZ. But I could also get shot, robbed or given drugs laced with all kinds of crazy things that could kill me. I'd rather pay a little extra and go to the dispensary. That's the same way I look at medical procedures in Mexico. If you are desperate for a procedure not approved in the US that may be your only chance to live - I get it. If you have decent US insurance, it's not even that much cheaper (outside of dental work). It's really only for the uninsured or partially insured or elective procedures (plastic surgery/weight loss) where going there even makes some sense. And the risk of a botched procedure (or even death) because of their lack of medical processes/laws would worry me:

Dallas Woman Dies After Botched Plastic Surgery In Mexico – CBS Dallas / Fort Worth

Is this a thing, now? People want us to be like Mexico? No regulations, all procedures approved, surgeries anywhere and no recourse if you got robbed/terrible treatment?

[molson]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

It's almost like within living memory we had 90% tax rates on incomes over (adjusted for inflation) $1.7 million for single filers and $3.4 million for joint filers.

And when that was going on, we built a transcontinental highway system, went to the moon, and the nation wasn't plunged into abject poverty.

Now, in the last 40 years, with Reagan and his successors relentlessly lowering taxes for the ultra-wealthy as much as possible (while throwing the middle class an occasional bone), we've gone from being able to do things like that to essentially looting the treasury to benefit the top 0.5%.

The share of the wealth held by that demographic was around 20% in 1950. Even with the 90% top marginal rate, one dollar in every five still belonged to them. It's about a 35% wealth share now, 40 years after Republicans began gleefully slashing taxes.

I have my issues with Sanders, but he has not proposed returning to 90% to fund M4A etc. Higher taxes, yes, but not as high as that. Even if he had? Our own history shows pretty clearly that a marginal rate that high wouldn't magically turn into a socialist utopia of flattened incomes. The rich would still do very well for themselves, and earn more in a year even after those taxes than the bottom 99.5% would in their lifetimes.

"Oh noes what will we do when the ultra-wealthy are only super-wealthy" is...not a great argument. Suggesting that we can't try to do things to better the society as a whole because then Jeff Bezos will only make $10 billion a year instead of $20 billion and that's a Really Bad Thing (numbers pulled out of my ass; his net worth increases more than that year over year but it's not straight cash flow, I know) is kinda specious.

It's not just higher taxes though. Sanders has pointed at this wealth as problem in itself. It is wrong to him that these people even exist.

All of the Dem candidates want to raise taxes. Sanders wants a revolution where these systems that created this wealth are torn down, at least to the extent that people can't generate so much individual wealth. Billionaires having less would be a success in itself because the real problem is that some people have so much more than everyone else. If those people had less, we'd all apparently be happier even if we had the same or less. There is much more emphasis on wealth and income inequality than anything else.

I think the rich are an asset. I want them to be taxed a lot more, but I want them to churn along and keep funding the government and enhanced social services. Wealth and industry creates wealth that can also be taxed. There is not a fixed amount of money in the world, hardy capitalism creates more of it. And this will be more important as we move into a more technologically-advanced society where not everyone needs to work. (I think UBI is an inevitability and wish Yang was around longer to talk about it more)

Edit: Though I'd still vote for Bernie over Trump, and would expect an ineffective Bernie presidency where there's not much legislation passed but where some Trump harms could be rolled back with executive power. But he does scare me, and I think we have a better chance of ANY tax increases with other candidates.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

If you have decent US insurance, it's not even that much cheaper (outside of dental work). It's really only for the uninsured or partially insured or elective procedures (plastic surgery/weight loss) where going there even makes some sense.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: you have this very strange blinkered view that your Cadillac health insurance plan is the norm for most people in the United States. It's not. It's not even close. Even decent average US insurance is going to result in you paying a good deal of money for high level procedures. There are quite a bit of employers were the 'Gold' plan only covers 85% of a procedure after you've met your deductible. That 15% can be quite a bit of money for some of these things. And that's the Gold plan.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Arles

These are basically people who want an experimental treatment not yet approved for safety reasons, cheaper (and much riskier) elective surgery or people who want to die in the sun. Not exactly real medical treatment.

I can play the link game too:

Dangers of medical tourism: Patients at risk after Mexico surgeries

https://www.advisory.com/daily-brief...mexico-surgery


If that's your goal for a medical system in the US - we will have to agree to disagree. I'm sure I could get pot cheaper in Nogales or Juarez than Phoenix, AZ. But I could also get shot, robbed or given drugs laced with all kinds of crazy things that could kill me. I'd rather pay a little extra and go to the dispensary. That's the same way I look at medical procedures in Mexico. If you are desperate for a procedure not approved in the US that may be your only chance to live - I get it. If you have decent US insurance, it's not even that much cheaper (outside of dental work). It's really only for the uninsured or partially insured or elective procedures (plastic surgery/weight loss) where going there even makes some sense. And the risk of a botched procedure (or even death) because of their lack of medical processes/laws would worry me:

Dallas Woman Dies After Botched Plastic Surgery In Mexico – CBS Dallas / Fort Worth

Is this a thing, now? People want us to be like Mexico? No regulations, all procedures approved, surgeries anywhere and no recourse if you got robbed/terrible treatment?

Shrug. "Sure, it's better for the uninsured, underinsured, or those looking for for alternative treatment for terminal diseases, or elective surgeries, or dental treatments, or pharmaceuticals, or plastic surgeries...but not health care"

I would certainly be willing to trade regulations for universal healthcare, YMMV.

[Arles]

You don't need to wait for universal healthcare for that. If you cut regulations right now, health care costs would go down. If you expanded the tort reform from the 33 states to the full 50 states (esp in places like New York and New Jersey) - that could help the massive liabilities heath insurance companies have to plan for. There's also nothing stopping us from capping prescription prices right now (either through subsidies or price caps like a national plan would have). We could also lower some of the regulations on drugs/hospitals to allow for cheaper options.

Pretty much every cost saving technique the government could employ with a universal plan, we could right now with private insurance. We do all kinds of "public good" price enforcement on things like water and power that are privately run - why should health care be any different? But, again, you don't need a government run health care system any more than you need a government owned power company to achieve it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

If you believe that companies will give the entire $12,000 benefit back to you in salary, I have some swamp land to sell you. That's just not how this works. I look at it like you have an autographed Mike Trout baseball card that shows $80 in value in the recent Beckett. Now, you can say that card is worth $80 - and be right in a sense. But, if you try to sell it on ebay, you may only get a top bid of $30. So, while the card is "worth" $80 - once you try to move it you will get much less in actual money. That's exactly like employer sponsored health care. When they cover it, you get the $12K - but the second they don't have to cover it, you are probably only getting 3-5K back in real money on your salary (which is also taxed).

Just think about it logically. If a factory worker makes 50K a year at my plant (they have access to the same health plan I do). Do you really think we would give him a 25% raise if health care was covered by the government? come on.

Answer this. Your boss comes to you today and says "we are no longer offering health insurance. Instead we are going to give you $3,000 more a year".

What is your response?

[GrantDawg]

My insurance pays crap, and costs me a fortune. I have tests that I desperately need that I can't afford. I am literally cutting years off my life for lack of good insurance. But F me, right?

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Answer this. Your boss comes to you today and says "we are no longer offering health insurance. Instead we are going to give you $3,000 more a year".

What is your response?

"So where is the other $6,000 a year I'm paying for insurance going?"

Unless a company is willing to pay EXACTLY what I'm paying right now (which is 9k+ per year for garbage, which is going up again next year), AND unless I can get private coverage of comparable quality and price (hint: I can't - not even close), AND it actually winds up being more than the exact amount, because I'm going to be taxed on that extra money, then that's not exactly a good deal.

[GrantDawg]

Latest polls have Sanders leading in Nevada, with Biden second. Biden also leads in South Carolina. This is all good news for Bernie. With the moderate lane constantly swapping out leaders, Bernie is just going to continue to collect delegates. He has the best odds to get a pluaralty at this point, and the only one that really has a chance to get a majority (though pretty slim).

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

My insurance pays crap, and costs me a fortune. I have tests that I desperately need that I can't afford. I am literally cutting years off my life for lack of good insurance. But F me, right?

People with amazing health insurance, where the employer seems to pay for everything+, seem to not understand that the average insurance policy is nothing close to their Cadillac plans. And people are putting off required medical care because even with insurance they can't afford it.

This call for better health insurance with better coverage doesn't come from no where. It's because most insurance plans suck.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

People with amazing health insurance, where the employer seems to pay for everything+, seem to not understand that the average insurance policy is nothing close to their Cadillac plans. And people are putting off required medical care because even with insurance they can't afford it.

This call for better health insurance with better coverage doesn't come from no where. It's because most insurance plans suck.

They also don't realize that they are paying for those Cadillac plans and their paychecks would be much larger without it.

[sabotai]

I'm down just under $5,000 in medical bills so far this year. That's one visit to a specialist and a colonoscopy. Good news, I don't have colon cancer or anything that would cause me pain. Bad news is, they didn't find the source of my pain.

So, more tests are coming. My plan does have a "Out-of-Pocket Maximum" (which I think all do?) that's at $6,900. But, I also saw that "Out-of-Pocket expenses do not include any amounts above the Allowed Amount for a specific Provider, or the amount for any services not covered under your benefits."

They already hit me that fun little technicality last year, when they said my "out-of-pocket" expenses were $500 when it was really $1000.

So okay, if I end up spending $15k out of pocket instead of $6,900, it'll hurt. It'll set me back, but I can weather it. But if what I have ends up being something I need surgery for, and the hospital, in the end, charges $100k and my insurance says "well actually, we only allow up to $50k for that", well then I guess I'm fucked.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by molson

It's not just higher taxes though. Sanders has pointed at this wealth as problem in itself. It is wrong to him that these people even exist.

That gets to root causes. Why do "these people" exist? What enables that?

The answer, broadly speaking, is a system that advantages some forms of income over others (the push to slash the capital gains rate and eradicate the "death tax" in particular come to mind), and half of the body politic wanting to preserve and expand those advantages.


[quore]Sanders wants a revolution where these systems that created this wealth are torn down, at least to the extent that people can't generate so much individual wealth.[/quote]

Or perhaps where the systems previously extant which were in place to prevent a mercantile nobility are re-erected.

Billionaires having less would be a success in itself because the real problem is that some people have so much more than everyone else.

Nah. The issue is that compensation at the top has exploded since Reagan, while real income growth for the bottom four quintiles has been stagnant or regressed in the last 40 years. The minimum wage has less purchasing power right now than at any time in its history, and the pushback against increasing it essentially boils down to "just because you work doesn't mean you deserve to have income stability!"

I think the rich are an asset. I want them to be taxed a lot more, but I want them to churn along and keep funding the government and enhanced social services. Wealth and industry creates wealth that can also be taxed. There is not a fixed amount of money in the world, hardy capitalism creates more of it. And this will be more important as we move into a more technologically-advanced society where not everyone needs to work. (I think UBI is an inevitability and wish Yang was around longer to talk about it more)

The thing is, none of the tax proposals on the table are going to wipe out the rich as a class. Oh, some on the right will decry a slippery slope; if taxes are allowed to go back up to Clinton-era levels, they'll go higher than THAT, and then, someday God forbid, we'll be at Eisenhower levels again...but.

Even if we re-instituted a top marginal rate of 90% (and I don't think the political capital exists to pull that off), it would be on income over a particular level, and the politics of getting re-elected would require that level to be probably at least eight figures. Maybe high eight figures. Millionaires wouldn't stop being millionaires, nor billionaires billionaires. The concomitant investment in infrastructure, health care, and education would probably be a long-term gain for the ability of the wealthy to continue to generate wealth.

[Edward64]

Don't know how reputable this poll is but not good news for Biden.

I think Steyer is next to go. Kudos to him at his staying power but it's obvious he's going no where fast, he should use his m/billions behind the scenes.

Mike Bloomberg surpasses Joe Biden in latest Florida poll

Mike Bloomberg has overtaken Joe Biden in a new poll of likely Florida voters in the state’s presidential primary with 27.3 percent support, up 10 points from a similar survey last month, while the former veep secured just under 25.9 percent.

The St. Pete Polls survey found that Biden’s support plummeted in the Sunshine State from more than 41 percent in January, according to The Hill.

Meanwhile, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) came in at 10.5 percent and 10.4 percent, respectively, while Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota was in fifth with 8.6 percent.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and billionaire activist Tom Steyer rounded out the top seven with 4.8 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Don't know how reputable this poll is but not good news for Biden.

I think Steyer is next to go. Kudos to him at his staying power but it's obvious he's going no where fast, he should use his m/billions behind the scenes.

Mike Bloomberg surpasses Joe Biden in latest Florida poll

That poll is really bad for Bernie also. At this point, all he needs to do is stay above viability level (15 percent) in all states to be the plurality winner. Not hitting viability in a state like Florida with large number of delegates would hurt. It also might show a weakness in some other southern states (he is polling second in South Carolina, but we don't know about the rest of the south or Texas).

The Democratic primaries isn't just about winning, like in the Republican "winner take all" primaries. It is about viability and collecting delegates. You can actually win states, and lose because you don't get delegates in a number of congressional districts. Is that going to be Bernie's weakness? He doesn't play outside of urban centers and college towns? That might still win him the nomination, but he will get trounced in the general if that's the case.

[Izulde]

That pollster underrates Bernie significantly. I think 538 had the adjusted with Bernie at 13-15%.

[Edward64]

Possible Bloomberg-Hillary ticket in the news.

I can live with this combo

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Possible Bloomberg-Hillary ticket in the news.

I can live with this combo

I'm assuming this is from an anonymous source?

And aren't they both New Yorkers meaning they can't run together?

[bronconick]

November 4th, 2020- "Mike Bloomberg mysteriously passed away overnight hours after being elected President, leading the way for his running mate to take the oath of office."

And I think all you have to do is buy a house and claim to live there. Politicians can usually manage that.

[molson]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

That poll is really bad for Bernie also. At this point, all he needs to do is stay above viability level (15 percent) in all states to be the plurality winner. Not hitting viability in a state like Florida with large number of delegates would hurt. It also might show a weakness in some other southern states (he is polling second in South Carolina, but we don't know about the rest of the south or Texas).

The Democratic primaries isn't just about winning, like in the Republican "winner take all" primaries. It is about viability and collecting delegates. You can actually win states, and lose because you don't get delegates in a number of congressional districts. Is that going to be Bernie's weakness? He doesn't play outside of urban centers and college towns? That might still win him the nomination, but he will get trounced in the general if that's the case.

There's been so much talk about Mayor Pete's struggles with black voters, but Bernie got 14% of the black vote v. Clinton in 2016. Obviously none of the candidates are as popular as Clinton was, but Bernie has to prove he can win enough of the black and southern vote, AND get enough of them to the polls to beat Trump. It was assumed Biden would make his gains in the south and with the black vote - do they bail from him just because he's in 5th instead of the 3rd or 4th we expected at this point?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'm assuming this is from an anonymous source?

And aren't they both New Yorkers meaning they can't run together?

FWIW see below. There are similar links out now but who knows really how serious. I can believe some feelers have been put out and can believe Hillary wouldn't mind the VP slot.

Bloomberg campaign downplays report he is considering Hillary Clinton as running mate

The Drudge Report, citing a source close to Bloomberg’s campaign, reported that Clinton was under consideration after internal polling found that a Bloomberg-Clinton ticket would be a “formidable force.”

The conservative news aggregator, which came to prominence in the 90s for first reporting the Monica Lewinsky scandal, reported that Bloomberg would consider changing his residence to a home he owns in Colorado or Florida, “since the electoral college makes it hard for a POTUS and VPOTUS from the same state.”

But the Bloomberg campaign quickly tamped down that report but fell short of denying it outright.

"We are focused on the primary and the debate, not VP speculation," Bloomberg communication director Jason Schechter said in a statement.

[RainMaker]

It would be hilarious if after 4 years of complaining that Trump is racist, the Democrats nominate Bloomberg.

[tarcone]

Holy smokes, a Bloomberg/Clinton ticket?

Can the dems do anything more to deliver a Trump re-election?

[RainMaker]

Democrats talk a lot about being progressive and so forth. But when it comes down to it, they want a Republican.

Not trying to call ISiddiqui out. We seem to agree on a lot of political issues when they are brought up in these threads. But when votes are on the line, he's defending a racist Republican like Bloomberg and is a Hillary supporter (who is a Republican in all but name). A lot of Democrats fall in this boat.

So why is that? Why don't progressive policies move beyond talk and into voting?

And I'm being genuine. I have friends who walked in anti-war protests over Iraq. Who supported Occupy Wall Street. Then they decided to be huge Hillary supporters in the last primary. What happened?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Holy smokes, a Bloomberg/Clinton ticket?

Can the dems do anything more to deliver a Trump re-election?

Looks as if Sanders is in the pole position right now and Biden is losing momentum.

If it came down between Sanders and Bloomberg/Clinton, I'll take the B/C team.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'm assuming this is from an anonymous source?

And aren't they both New Yorkers meaning they can't run together?

Trump camp must be afraid of Bloomberg if they're trying to get trollbots to put out rumors linking a Bloomberg candidacy with Clinton.

[ISiddiqui]

Not trying to call ISiddiqui out. We seem to agree on a lot of political issues when they are brought up in these threads. But when votes are on the line, he's defending a racist Republican like Bloomberg and is a Hillary supporter (who is a Republican in all but name). A lot of Democrats fall in this boat.

The fact you are still calling Clinton a Republican just indicates to me that you are simply not living in reality. Do you know any actual Republicans?

Do you also go around saying the Obama administration basically a Republican neoliberal administration (I have actually heard ultraleft people say this)?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[BillyMadison]

Any ticket with Clinton on it is a definite loser. People on the fence about voting for Trump would revel in voting against her again. Especially with the progressive crowd after what she said about Bernie and her general bitterness and blame game since 2016. It would also be a death sentence for the Dems for a long long while. Yikes.

Hopefully Bloomberg gets exposed in the debate. How anyone can be OK with a billionaire buying his way into the picture is beyond me. So undemocratic. If he gets the nomination, the progressive left stays home as that's EXACTLY what Warren and Bernie have been railing against the entire primary.

Lived in NYC under Bloomberg. Bloomberg is at the very least racially bias and ignorant, if not a racist. A Bloomberg presidency would help no one who needs help.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by BillyMadison

Any ticket with Clinton on it is a definite loser. People on the fence about voting for Trump would revel in voting against her again. Especially with the progressive crowd. It's also a death sentence for the Dems for a while. Yikes.

Hopefully Bloomberg gets exposed in the debate. How anyone can be OK with a billionaire buying his way into the picture is beyond me. So undemocratic. If he gets the nomination, the progressive left stays home as that's EXACTLY what Warren and Bernie have been railing against the entire primary.

Clinton won the popular vote. I don't like her but with better campaign and some less ratfucking by Comey she could be our president right now.

[BillyMadison]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Clinton won the popular vote. I don't like her but with better campaign and some less ratfucking by Comey she could be our president right now.

Oh come on. Can we not even start this? A broken record. Shoulda, coulda, woulda. I hate it too, but popular vote doesn't win Presidency. Bottom line is she lost. If people stayed home because they hate Hillary, as a lot of Dems do, they definitely are not coming out to vote for her on a ticket that they will feel is tainted with a billionaire buying an election, and their guy (probably Bernie) getting screwed yet again by the establishment. No one wants a retread. And a bitter, sour one at that. It's an instant loser.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by BillyMadison

Oh come on. Can we not even start this? A broken record. Shoulda, coulda, woulda. I hate it too, but popular vote doesn't win Presidency. Bottom line is she lost. If people stayed home because they hate Hillary, as a lot of Dems do, they definitely are not coming out to vote for her on a ticket that they will feel is tainted with a billionaire buying an election, and their guy (probably Bernie) getting screwed yet again by the establishment. No one wants a retread. And a bitter, sour one at that. It's an instant loser.

You're the one that started with Clinton. Don't be angry if someone disagrees with you.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The fact you are still calling Clinton a Republican just indicates to me that you are simply not living in reality. Do you know any actual Republicans?

Things Hillary has voted for:

- Iraq War
- Patriot Act (and reauthorizing it years later)
- a wall (or fence) between US and Mexico
- offshore drilling
- Wall Street bailout
- bill that would remove liability from gun manufacturers and dealers
- tax holiday for corporations

She supports the death penalty and was against gay marriage. She opposes reinstating Glass-Steagall (and has even praised it in the past) which her husband signed and is arguably the biggest factor in the Great Recession we went through.

She has supported just every foreign intervention in the past few decades from Iraq to Lybia to Syria. Has been a defender of mass surveillance of American people.

Supports fracking and drilling offshore. Supports another dumb tax holiday for corporations. Is opposed to M4A and free college.

Her campaign was funded through bankers and other large corporate interests who in private she reassured would be able to continue to enjoy their spoils.

So what exactly makes Hillary Clinton someone on the left? It seems to me that she has been on the right when it comes to most major issues this country has faced the past few decades. And most of those decisions have been disastrously wrong.

[RainMaker]

Yes, James Comey fault too. And Russia. And Bernie. Hillary does no wrong and is constantly being struck down by nefarious forces.

[BillyMadison]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Things Hillary has voted for:

- Iraq War
- Patriot Act (and reauthorizing it years later)
- a wall (or fence) between US and Mexico
- offshore drilling
- Wall Street bailout
- bill that would remove liability from gun manufacturers and dealers
- tax holiday for corporations

She supports the death penalty and was against gay marriage. She opposes reinstating Glass-Steagall (and has even praised it in the past) which her husband signed and is arguably the biggest factor in the Great Recession we went through.

She has supported just every foreign intervention in the past few decades from Iraq to Lybia to Syria. Has been a defender of mass surveillance of American people.

Supports fracking and drilling offshore. Supports another dumb tax holiday for corporations. Is opposed to M4A and free college.

Her campaign was funded through bankers and other large corporate interests who in private she reassured would be able to continue to enjoy their spoils.

So what exactly makes Hillary Clinton someone on the left? It seems to me that she has been on the right when it comes to most major issues this country has faced the past few decades. And most of those decisions have been disastrously wrong.

And let's not forget that Bloomberg is even more of a Republican. I mean, mad about the Republican Senate majority and McConnell's fuckery? You can point the finger at Bloomberg who has supported GOP Senator campaigns up until 2016. He ran fundraisers for multiple GOP Congressmen in 2018 for goodness sake (https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs...president-run)! Unreal how Dem voters are OK with him bankrolling Republicans. The people who support Bloomberg would rather a Trump presidency than a Bernie one.

[RainMaker]

Bloomberg is a Republican. Was the keynote speaker at the Republican Convention. Mostly supports Republican policy outside of guns.

I guess he gets to be a Democrat and void his racist past because he bought off a few liberal think tanks with no backbone.

[JPhillips]

Bloomberg isn't my choice, but if he wins the primary you're either foolish or evil if you vote for Trump out of spite.

Go win the primary. If you're candidate doesn't win, yes the Dems may be further right than you like. There's a solution to that, though, go out and persuade people and win elections. There's no conspiracy, the country is just more conservative than you'd like it to be.

[BillyMadison]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Bloomberg isn't my choice, but if he wins the primary you're either foolish or evil if you vote for Trump out of spite.
[php]
Go win the primary. If you're candidate doesn't win, yes the Dems may be further right than you like. There's a solution to that, though, go out and persuade people and win elections. There's no conspiracy, the country is just more conservative than you'd like it to be.

Wouldn't vote Trump, but definitely couldn't fault the many many progressives who would sit out 2020 if their only choice was between two Republicans. Offensive, racially insensitive, misogynistic ones, at that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Bloomberg isn't my choice, but if he wins the primary you're either foolish or evil if you vote for Trump out of spite.

Go win the primary. If you're candidate doesn't win, yes the Dems may be further right than you like. There's a solution to that, though, go out and persuade people and win elections. There's no conspiracy, the country is just more conservative than you'd like it to be.

I wouldn't vote Trump. I also wouldn't vote Bloomberg. Fuck that oligarch.

[RainMaker]

I do find Bloomberg more dangerous of the candidates. Mainly because his money has way more influence. For all the terrible shit Trump is, it is in the open for all to see.

Bloomberg on the other hand can hide it. Paying off the Center for American Progress to erase his racist history. Buying off Emily's List to target a staunch pro-choice supporter. Even his goofy ploy to pay influencers online. That's just what we know about.

He can afford to make all these groups subservient to him. To make media subservient through massive ad buys (watch how quickly Soleadad O'Brien has flipped positions on him). To make other politicians subservient through political donations. When you have the money he has, you have control over everything.

Take a look at what he's done the past couple months. With a fraction of his fortune, he has bought the party. They've already changed the rules for him. The same Republican who was the keynote at the Republican convention and helped flip both the House and Senate for them. People like Toomey and Susan Collins that Demorats complain about, Bloomberg supported financially.

[PilotMan]

This is the best ad and the one I most identify with regarding the current situation. Why couldn't this nail have hit by someone else, because this is the best ad so far.

Mike Bloomberg on Twitter: "He lies. He bullies. He gets away with it.

Our kids are watching Donald Trump.

Is this the lesson we want them to learn?… https://t.co/ZnergST4G4"

[JPhillips]

What if I told you that either Bloomberg or Bernie will get very little done without a filibuster proof majority in the Senate? All of this anger at the Dems is, in the end, just about who sits in the WH and gets blocked by Mitch.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

This is the best ad and the one I most identify with regarding the current situation. Why couldn't this nail have hit by someone else, because this is the best ad so far.

Mike Bloomberg on Twitter: "He lies. He bullies. He gets away with it.

Our kids are watching Donald Trump.

Is this the lesson we want them to learn?… https://t.co/ZnergST4G4"

He can afford the best ad agencies.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He can afford the best ad agencies.

It's not that hard to craft a message. Any of them had to money to pull this off.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Things Hillary has voted for:

- Iraq War
- Patriot Act (and reauthorizing it years later)
- a wall (or fence) between US and Mexico
- offshore drilling
- Wall Street bailout
- bill that would remove liability from gun manufacturers and dealers
- tax holiday for corporations

She supports the death penalty and was against gay marriage. She opposes reinstating Glass-Steagall (and has even praised it in the past) which her husband signed and is arguably the biggest factor in the Great Recession we went through.

She has supported just every foreign intervention in the past few decades from Iraq to Lybia to Syria. Has been a defender of mass surveillance of American people.

Supports fracking and drilling offshore. Supports another dumb tax holiday for corporations. Is opposed to M4A and free college.

Her campaign was funded through bankers and other large corporate interests who in private she reassured would be able to continue to enjoy their spoils.

So what exactly makes Hillary Clinton someone on the left? It seems to me that she has been on the right when it comes to most major issues this country has faced the past few decades. And most of those decisions have been disastrously wrong.

Hillary Clinton has been for an ACA like expanded health care system (with public option) since 1996. She has been for climate change legislation for her entire Senate career. She has been for gun control and, especially the right to choose for decades.

Oh, for what it's worth, Clinton voted against the bill that would remove liability from gun manufacturers and dealers, while Sanders (who was a Congressman at the time) voted for it:

S. 397 (109th): Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act -- GovTrack.us

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll534.xml

Also Clinton in the Senate voted with Sanders 93% of the time:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...in-the-senate/

Once again, if that's a Republican to you, then you need to actually talk to real Republicans.

Seriously, you sound like the people who are calling Mitt Romney a Democrat these days.