2020 Democratic Primaries/General Election Thread

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Damn, California's got better benefits than the Federal Government (not that our benefits are as amazing as people like to think they are).

I was totally blown away. I literally asked for the website because I thought, ok cheap but, the services you get are probably scaled way back...nope. Way better than what I had at the time. I think what helps is, she's in a union and I think that has a lot to do with it. The other side of the coin though, she gets paid just a couple of dollars an hour above minimum wage.

[RainMaker]

You guys realize the employer portion is just part of your overall compensation? Like if they didn't have to pay that, you'd just bring home more cash.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You guys realize the employer portion is just part of your overall compensation? Like if they didn't have to pay that, you'd just bring home more cash.

As JediKooter indicated upthread, I'm not certain employees would bring home more cash as opposed to the employer just holding on to more of that money.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

As JediKooter indicated upthread, I'm not certain employees would bring home more cash as opposed to the employer just holding on to more of that money.

This discussion kind of makes me wonder why more business owners don't favor/promote M4A. It would remove massive payroll liabilities from accounts immediately, right?.

[PilotMan]

Last year the cost of the Employer part of my health care was $23,603. My portion was about $2500 toward that (which only includes about 7 months because of being broken, normally would be about double that).



There's no way that I would get a 23K boost in my salary, and even if I did, the tax bracket that I'm in would eat into it so much, that I'm not sure I could cover the value of that difference with the quality of care that I have right now.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

As JediKooter indicated upthread, I'm not certain employees would bring home more cash as opposed to the employer just holding on to more of that money.

So why would they pay a bigger portion than they have to right now? Why offer a 401k? If it doesn't lead to more cash in your check, it seems silly to offer any benefits at all.

[CU Tiger]

I just know I'm realllly jeaolus of your guys health plans.

I currently pay just over $1,200 per month for my family of 4..and that's not counting what my employer pays. And its crappy insurance, but I work for a small family owned company.

I think whats missing from the prior examples is that when taxes are raised on employees they will have to be raised on corporations/employers as well to cover the cost gap. So the theoretical Comcast isnt saving $10k, they are liekly paying an extra 10k to the GOV (hopefully) to cover the cost ...otherwise there is zero chance of this program working

Its a confusing issue to me. On the surface, if healthcare is a universal right - and I and I think most think it is - then we streamline the process and eliminate a lot of costs simply by eliminating the insurance industry. An that seems to be for the greater good.

I'm less certain about the idea of a government just removing/replacing an entire industry because they feel their services are "necessary"...my mind tries to alagize it as...most Americans drive, most cars need fuel, maybe GOV should just take over all gas stations and eliminate gas station owner profits. Not a perfect comp to be sure but some what relative, at least in my mind.

I just hope smarter people than I can find a way to re-work and improve our healthcare system.

[thesloppy]

Personally, I wouldn't cry a single tear for the folks at the top who profit from the health insurance industry. All of the displaced workers is probably a real issue, but I think in terms of society available and affordable healthcare takes precedence over maintaining job numbers.

I'd like to believe the amount of advertising all flavors of the insurance industry are involved in speaks to how much money could be saved by cutting them out of the process.

Similarly, I worked in a healthcare billing office for a little while (which was a soul-sucking job) and there are probably tens of thousands of people in every state, working inside the providers, billing individuals & their insurance....I'd like to believe most of that is fat/cost that can be cut from the provider side, if there were a public system. Those are savings only achieved by significantly cutting workers & jobs, though.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

How would the money settle out? It's hard to put aside the "frustrated would-be economics teacher" in me, completely.

Let's look at Nancy who makes $60K plus $10 in health insurance now. Her employer pegs her value at $70K, and pays it across two forms.

Another way to look at the current situation is Nancy is paying for her own employer health insurance subsidy in the form of a lower salary.

So, we change the laws. Now employers no longer need to provide that benefit. All compensation is just salary now.

Let's say that this market functions at least semi-normally, at least over time. If Nancy is worth $70K to her employer... if today's employer decides to be rotten and tell her "tough luck, the salary is still $60K, no health insurance needed anymore, tough luck" then surely somebody out there should be willing to pay her $65K, right? Or $68K? The the extend markets work properly, this should resolve itself, more or less. If she's worth $70K, she'll get it somewhere.

Naive to think employers would do this out of charity. No, they'd do it because that's what markets do. If they don't bump up salaries, they'll be stuck with shit employees.

What people are forgetting here is that companies get a tax break to provide insurance. Employer-paid premiums for health insurance are exempt from federal income and payroll taxes. So, if a company pays $14K and the person pays $5K (like most big companies) - part of the reason they pay for that $14K is because it lowers their taxable income. Just moving that $14K over to the employee in salary would cause the company to lose money. The "best" case would be the employee gets the post-tax amount as a raise. I just don't see that happening with many companies though. For most employees, their focus is on take-home pay. If you removed employer sponsored health care tomorrow, most people's take home check would go up the $100-$200 they were paying for their piece of the employer sponsored health care. So people actually think they will then go and given another $400+ raise because they no longer pay for health coverage? Come on, people can't be that naive.

Let's take the most optimistic view using Quik's example from the prior page of the $60K worker who's employer coverage cost $10K. She gets the best raise possible (79% of the 10K) and now makes $67.9K. Her taxes go from 20-27% so that costs her $18.3K ($6K more than the $12K from before). So, her net pay goes from $48K to $49.6K, but her health insurance probably isn't nearly as good as the coverage she had with her employer. That's the "best" case. Now let's look at the middle case. Let's say she would get a 7% raise and now would make $64.2K. Her tax bracket would increase to the 27% and her tax bill would go from $12K to $17.3K. Her net take home would drop from $48K to $46.9K, she would have worse health insurance. The worst case (which I think would happen for most people) would be she gets no raise, but has to still pay 27% in taxes. Her take home would drop from $48K to $43.8K and she would have worse insurance.

Can you see why people who have employer-subsidized care are scared of this process? If your take home pay drops 7-9%, your coinsurance drops and your deductible goes up - that's a massive pay hit to many working families.

Originally Posted by thesloppy

This discussion kind of makes me wonder why more business owners don't favor/promote M4A. It would remove massive payroll liabilities from accounts immediately, right?.

For two main reasons:
1. They get a pretty hefty tax break for covering employees as I outlined above. So, it doesn't really "cost" them the benefit cost.
2. They have some insurance (pun intended) on if health issues hit their employees. If an employee has no coverage and gets in a massive accident/issue, they will probably miss more work and probably not be able to pay the bill. Plus, most employer plans cover wellness exams, most prescriptions at a high rate and make preventive care a lot easier (for instance, we provide flu shots, Blood pressure/stress checks and other health services for free at work). Healthier employees = greater productivity

Going to a M4A plan means the employer now doesn't have the incentives to offer to help keep employees healthy and has to rely on the government. Again, if it ended up being a good system and kept similar coverage to what they were providing, no biggie. But, it's doubtful that would be the case (esp at the start).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Its a confusing issue to me. On the surface, if healthcare is a universal right - and I and I think most think it is - then we streamline the process and eliminate a lot of costs simply by eliminating the insurance industry. An that seems to be for the greater good.

Its got to be more than just the insurance companies. Its payers, providers and pharma/medical products.

I do think innovation and quality will be less (and also the stock market) in the near term as we reform those industries but well worth it in my opinion to get basic "universal" healthcare.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

This discussion kind of makes me wonder why more business owners don't favor/promote M4A. It would remove massive payroll liabilities from accounts immediately, right?.

I think most plans for M4A involves increased corporate tax rates.

[Edward64]

I don't know why she said this? Any theories?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/polit...ard/index.html

Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said Thursday the Russians are currently "grooming" a Democrat running in the presidential primary to run as a third-party candidate and champion their interests.

The comment appears to be directed at Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who has been accused of being cozy with Russia in the past.

"I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate," Clinton said, speaking on a podcast with former Obama adviser David Plouffe. "She's the favorite of the Russians."

Clinton never names Gabbard, but there are only five women running for President -- Gabbard, California Sen. Kamala Harris, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and author Marianne Williamson -- and none of the other woman have been accused of being boosted by Russia.

"They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far," Clinton said.

Gabbard and her spokespeople did not respond to questions from CNN.

"If the nesting doll fits," Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said when asked if the former secretary of state was referring to Gabbard.

"This is not some outlandish claim. This is reality," Merrill said. "If the Russian propaganda machine, both their state media and their bot and troll operations, is backing a candidate aligned with their interests, that is just a reality, it is not speculation."

Gabbard, in a late August interview with CNN, ruled out a third-party bid.
"I will not," the Hawaii Democrat told CNN. "No, I have ruled that out."
Gabbard has tried to fight off the charge that she is being pushed by Russian interests.

"Just two days ago, the New York Times put out an article saying that I'm a Russian asset and an Assad apologist and all these different smears," Gabbard said, referring to a recent story that said she is being backed by Russians on Twitter. "This morning, a CNN commentator said on national television that I'm an asset of Russia. Completely despicable."

Clinton also accused Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate in both the 2012 and 2016 elections, of being a "Russian asset."

"That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she's also a Russian asset," Clinton said. "Yes, she's a Russian asset, I mean, totally. They know they can't win without a third-party candidate."

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

What people are forgetting here is that companies get a tax break to provide insurance.

Indeed. So companies can offer these big heathcare benefits, while using those funds to help reduce their tax burden. If there was no tax benefit, a lot less companies would be offering generous health plans.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Arles

Let's take the most optimistic view using Quik's example from the prior page of the $60K worker who's employer coverage cost $10K. She gets the best raise possible (79% of the 10K) and now makes $67.9K. Her taxes go from 20-27% so that costs her $18.3K ($6K more than the $12K from before). So, her net pay goes from $48K to $49.6K, but her health insurance probably isn't nearly as good as the coverage she had with her employer. That's the "best" case. Now let's look at the middle case. Let's say she would get a 7% raise and now would make $64.2K. Her tax bracket would increase to the 27% and her tax bill would go from $12K to $17.3K. Her net take home would drop from $48K to $46.9K, she would have worse health insurance. The worst case (which I think would happen for most people) would be she gets no raise, but has to still pay 27% in taxes. Her take home would drop from $48K to $43.8K and she would have worse insurance.

Can you see why people who have employer-subsidized care are scared of this process? If your take home pay drops 7-9%, your coinsurance drops and your deductible goes up - that's a massive pay hit to many working families.

Neither your or quik's example are accounting for the employee's share of premiums, or their deductible.

According to Kaiser research the average worker pays health insurance premiums of $1186 for an individual and $5,547 for a family plan, per year, and the average deductible for an individual is $1573.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't know why she said this? Any theories?

Two reasons:

A) It may be true. Gabbard is more pro-Russian interests than Trump. And there are a lot of internet sites and likely bots in favor of Gabbard. Far more than you'd think regarding a minor candidate.

B) If you noticed in the last debate, Gabbard decided to randomly go after Hillary Clinton for some silly reason.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't know why she said this? Any theories?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/polit...ard/index.html

I have NO clue. Seems absolutely Trumpian to my eyes. Not going on a podcast to make up Russian conspiracies about other Democrats at the exact moment those Democrats are in the middle of impeaching someone for appealing to foreign influence AND also in the middle of primaries seems pretty easy?

[thesloppy]

Like maybe not point the Russian finger at the fucking Democrat's process at this exact moment?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Indeed. So companies can offer these big heathcare benefits, while using those funds to help reduce their tax burden. If there was no tax benefit, a lot less companies would be offering generous health plans.

Completely agree here.

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Neither your or quik's example are accounting for the employee's share of premiums, or their deductible.

According to Kaiser research the average worker pays health insurance premiums of $1186 for an individual and $5,547 for a family plan, per year, and the average deductible for an individual is $1573.

Premiums are pre-tax. I included them in my first post above. But, if you pay $3600 in premiums - that's $300 a month. After the pre-tax benefit, that's about an extra $225 a month. So, that would be needed to be added to Quik's example (and my second post). I think the point still remains, though.

For deductibles, it's probably a wash at best with the M4A plan. And when you combine the co-pay, co-insurance and other plan specifics to an employer plan - the M4A plan will certainly be much worse than most.

[thesloppy]

There are zero out of pocket costs with m4a, that's the point.

[thesloppy]

FWIW, if I thought M4A would continue to include deductibles, co-pay and co-insurance I'd be entirely wary of it too. It's hard to take your concerns too seriously when you don't appear to have put very much effort into them.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't know why she said this? Any theories?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/polit...ard/index.html

She (Hillary) has her faults, but, I've never thought of her as a blowhard like the well documented habitual liar that trump is. So, something tells me there's more than likely some truth to what she is saying. Nobody really listened to her when she raised the russian concerns about trump in 2016, so the why is maybe her trying to raise awareness before the ball gets rolling on it.

Plus she's not running for office, so that to me lends a bit more credibility to it. However, and this is a big however, the conservative pundits are going to have a field day with this and it's going to trickle down to trump and he will probably get blisters on his fingers from all the twitting he will be doing soon and is just going to spin it as another 'dem conspiracy to remove him from office' or some thing and his base will lap it all up.

[thesloppy]

Medicare for All Would Cut Poverty by Over 20 Percent

"The Census released its annual income, poverty, and health insurance statistics earlier this week. The summary report shows that 8 million of the nation’s 42.5 million poor people would not be poor if they did not have to pay medical out-of-pocket (MOOP) expenses like deductibles, co-pays, coinsurance, and self-payments. Medicare for All (M4A) virtually eliminates these kinds of payments, meaning that these 8 million people (18.8 percent of all poor people) would find themselves lifted over the poverty threshold if M4A were enacted."

[Arles]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

If I thought M4A would continue to include deductibles, co-pay and co-insurance I'd be entirely wary of it too. It's hard to take your concerns too seriously when you don't appear to have put any effort into them.

So, you guys really think a healthcare plan with zero costs to anyone will *only* include a tax increase of 6-7% on people? That's insane. I was going with the "melded" plan of ACA plus a universal portion as a pseudo M4A (IMO, the best that could get passed). The pure no co-pay, no-deductible plan would have to raise taxes to double what we are paying now (at a minimum). I don't even know why people are legitimately discussing it - it is impossible to ever pass or pay for:

The High Cost of Warren and Sanders's Single-Payer Plan - The Atlantic

Senator Elizabeth Warren’s refusal to answer repeated questions at last night’s debate about how she would fund Medicare for All underscores the challenge she faces finding a politically acceptable means to meet the idea’s huge price tag—a challenge that only intensified today with the release of an eye-popping new study.

The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation. That’s more than the federal government’s total cost over the coming decade for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined, according to the most recent Congressional Budget Office projections.

The Urban Institute estimates that a single-payer plan would require $32 trillion in new tax revenue over the coming decade.

How big a lift is it to raise $32 trillion? It’s almost 50 percent more than the total revenue the CBO projects Washington will collect from the personal income tax over the next decade (about $23.3 trillion). It’s more than double the amount the CBO projects Washington will collect over the next decade from the payroll tax that funds Social Security and part of Medicare (about $15.4 trillion). A $32 trillion tax increase would represent just over two-thirds of the revenue the CBO projects the federal government will collect from all sources over the next decade (just over $46 trillion.)

It may actually be tripling our tax liability the more I look at the numbers. Here are some of the common ways people like to mention to increase taxes:

- Repealing the Trump tax cuts (would barely make a dent)
- increasing the payroll tax cap from $133K to $250K

Those two would raise $3 Trillion over 10 years - you would need to come up with an additional $29 Trillion to pay for it. We would literally need Belgium/Netherlands marginal rate levels to get close to paying for this. I can't believe people think this is a possibility - no one in congress (not even most Dems) would vote for what would be required to pay for it.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Medicare for All Would Cut Poverty by Over 20 Percent

"The Census released its annual income, poverty, and health insurance statistics earlier this week. The summary report shows that 8 million of the nation’s 42.5 million poor people would not be poor if they did not have to pay medical out-of-pocket (MOOP) expenses like deductibles, co-pays, coinsurance, and self-payments. Medicare for All (M4A) virtually eliminates these kinds of payments, meaning that these 8 million people (18.8 percent of all poor people) would find themselves lifted over the poverty threshold if M4A were enacted."

So would giving every American over 20 a 3 bedroom house and free car. That would actually be cheaper than the pure M4A and more likely to get passed.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Arles

So, you guys really think a healthcare plan with zero costs to anyone will *only* include a tax increase of 6-7% on people? That's insane.

I think it's insane that innumerable supposed business people continue to absolutely REFUSE to account for the removal of an entire industry that makes a very good profit operating as only the middle man between the consumer and provider of a service. Shrug.

[Arles]

I'm open to looking for reforms and way to be increase who gets covered and improve the coverage for the poorly insured/under-insured. But going from what we have now to a system where everyone is covered with no out of pocket costs would bankrupt this country and not even be close to feasible.

So many changes would need to be done before you could even think about a system like that and people would have to pay OK paying 50+% tax rates. It's just not realistic.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Arles

I can't believe people think this is a possibility - no one in congress (not even most Dems) would vote for what would be required to pay for it.

I'm willing to cede that if you're talking about this very moment in time, but I also don't know how you could look at where we are culturally and politically, versus where we were 4, 8, or 12 years ago and not allow that the needle is moving fast.

[thesloppy]

I guess the opposite of that outlook is that while some progressive ideas have become more mainstream the needle for most of America's tax liability has been going in the other direction, which doesn't seem like a very sustainable relationship, one way or the other.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Arles

Let's take the most optimistic view using Quik's example from the prior page of the $60K worker who's employer coverage cost $10K. She gets the best raise possible (79% of the 10K) and now makes $67.9K. Her taxes go from 20-27% so that costs her $18.3K ($6K more than the $12K from before). So, her net pay goes from $48K to $49.6K, but her health insurance probably isn't nearly as good as the coverage she had with her employer. That's the "best" case. Now let's look at the middle case. Let's say she would get a 7% raise and now would make $64.2K. Her tax bracket would increase to the 27% and her tax bill would go from $12K to $17.3K. Her net take home would drop from $48K to $46.9K, she would have worse health insurance. The worst case (which I think would happen for most people) would be she gets no raise, but has to still pay 27% in taxes. Her take home would drop from $48K to $43.8K and she would have worse insurance.

Small business owner here. This is not at all how progressive tax brackets work and is a commonly accepted fallacy and talking point.

I know you are just using rough examples here (and we are ignoring marriage status and there are some exemptions that can be lost at certain thresholds), but in this scenario and most others (and assuming the jump in bracket occurs with the first dollar of the raise), the 27% part would only apply to the $7.9K.

How do federal income tax rates work? | Tax Policy Center

BASICS OF PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX RATES

Each tax rate applies only to income in a specific tax bracket. Thus, if a taxpayer earns enough to reach a new bracket with a higher tax rate, his or her total income is not taxed at that rate, just the income in that bracket. Even a taxpayer in the top bracket has some portion of income taxed at the lower rates in the tax schedule. For example, a single filer with $50,000 in taxable income falls into the 22 percent bracket but does not pay tax of $11,000 (22 percent of $50,000). Instead, he or she pays 10 percent of $9,525 plus 12 percent of $29,175 plus 22 percent of $11,300 for a total of $6,939.50.

All tax brackets for married taxpayers are twice the size of those for singles, except for the penultimate bracket. This can cause a “marriage penalty” for some taxpayers in the highest tax bracket, as some couples pay more tax filing a joint return than they would if each spouse could file as a single person. Conversely, because most tax brackets for married couples are twice the size of those for singles, many married couples enjoy a “marriage bonus,” paying less in tax by filing jointly than they would if each partner filed as a single person.

Also, if you look at the range of taxable income brackets rates on the site, you can see that the income ranges are fairly large, so odds are pretty good that most middle class folks or married couples are not going to be jumping up to new levels with a 10% raise (and if they do, it is going to be a 2% jump).



And if there are any companies out there that are deducting healthcare expenses that are not planning to deduct employee wages, they are need new accountants (and yes, they will have to factor in payroll taxes on the raise).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

What people are forgetting here is that companies get a tax break to provide insurance. Employer-paid premiums for health insurance are exempt from federal income and payroll taxes. So, if a company pays $14K and the person pays $5K (like most big companies) - part of the reason they pay for that $14K is because it lowers their taxable income. Just moving that $14K over to the employee in salary would cause the company to lose money. The "best" case would be the employee gets the post-tax amount as a raise. I just don't see that happening with many companies though. For most employees, their focus is on take-home pay. If you removed employer sponsored health care tomorrow, most people's take home check would go up the $100-$200 they were paying for their piece of the employer sponsored health care. So people actually think they will then go and given another $400+ raise because they no longer pay for health coverage? Come on, people can't be that naive.

Payroll tax is a pass-through cost to the employee. Employers aren't paying it out of the goodness of their heart. It's factored into the compensation.

Also paying more in SS means you get more when you retire. Sure it's not an exact ratio, but it's a nice bump in your benefits when you retire.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

This discussion kind of makes me wonder why more business owners don't favor/promote M4A. It would remove massive payroll liabilities from accounts immediately, right?.

It dramatically reduces turnover and limits competition in the workforce. Your employer doesn't want you quitting to take a job for a few grand more with a competitor. It's much harder to do that if you're worried about your health insurance and the grace period at the new employer.

[RainMaker]

As for how to pay it, reduce costs. Most of the industrialized world pays far less than we do for health care and sees better results. There is no reason we can't cut health care costs like they do.

Capital gains should not be exempt from Medicare taxes. We shouldn't create this nook for wealthy people and decide their income deserves special treatment over everyone else.

Medicare tax should be progressive.

Should move back to a progressive income tax system.

We can also talk about cutting back on unnecessary military programs and such.

This isn't some novel concept. All these other countries have managed to do it. Let's stop pretending like it's never been done before.

[Ben E Lou]

Who knew health care was this complicated?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

She (Hillary) has her faults, but, I've never thought of her as a blowhard like the well documented habitual liar that trump is. So, something tells me there's more than likely some truth to what she is saying. Nobody really listened to her when she raised the russian concerns about trump in 2016, so the why is maybe her trying to raise awareness before the ball gets rolling on it.

Plus she's not running for office, so that to me lends a bit more credibility to it. However, and this is a big however, the conservative pundits are going to have a field day with this and it's going to trickle down to trump and he will probably get blisters on his fingers from all the twitting he will be doing soon and is just going to spin it as another 'dem conspiracy to remove him from office' or some thing and his base will lap it all up.

If you really look at Gabbard's history (and Jill Stein who she also said was a Russian plant in 2016), it absolutely does make a whole lot of sense. And here is why it is important to call it out now. If Tulsi does announce a third-party candidacy now, this charge is going to played everywhere and hurt her chances of being taken as anything but a Russian bot.

[cuervo72]

Profile: Tulsi Gabbard and Her 2020 Presidential Campaign

This one was from February:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...abbard-n964261

[Warhammer]

Why would the Russian bots back a Democrat fringe candidate for a third party bid if they already control the President? Why not back him again if they control him?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Why would the Russian bots back a Democrat fringe candidate for a third party bid if they already control the President? Why not back him again if they control him?

My guess is backing her could cause enough Dem voters to back her instead of the democratic nominee, thus increasing the likelihood of a Trump win.

At this point they really have no need to back Trump. The battle lines have been drawn. You either support him or you don't, I find it hard to believe very many people will shift sides at this point.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Why would the Russian bots back a Democrat fringe candidate for a third party bid if they already control the President? Why not back him again if they control him?

Because Jill Stein was helpful last time.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Because Jill Stein was helpful last time.

It is exactly what Clinton said. She wouldn't even be on all ballots. Just on ballots in states that a 1-2% change would make all the difference.

[cuervo72]

Never Trumpers (or those who voted for him last time but have soured) who might otherwise vote D. I’ve already seen cheers for Gabbard on my aunt’s FB feed calling her the only non-crazy Dem, and “you go girl!” because she speaks out against Dem ideas and Clinton. People who decry what Clinton said but will be the first to buy into any propaganda.

[tarcone]

The Ross Perot effect

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

If you really look at Gabbard's history (and Jill Stein who she also said was a Russian plant in 2016), it absolutely does make a whole lot of sense. And here is why it is important to call it out now. If Tulsi does announce a third-party candidacy now, this charge is going to played everywhere and hurt her chances of being taken as anything but a Russian bot.

Yup, totally agree! Jill was enough of a 'fly in the ointment' to make a difference in some states back in 2016. Was reading more about her (Tulsi) this weekend and if what I read was true, I'm not really sure how any democrat or liberal could vote for her. She was lobbying to get a position in trump's admin and seems to poll pretty decently with some conservative voters. So, something tells me that there's more than likely some truth to what she (Hillary) is saying.

Having said that, I wasn't going to vote for her anyway, so none of this changes anything for me, whether or not is it is true or false.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

If you really look at Gabbard's history (and Jill Stein who she also said was a Russian plant in 2016), it absolutely does make a whole lot of sense. And here is why it is important to call it out now. If Tulsi does announce a third-party candidacy now, this charge is going to played everywhere and hurt her chances of being taken as anything but a Russian bot.

I think it's important to be careful about the phrasing. Might the Russians be hoping for and trying to use their bot sources to promote fringe candidates who take support away from the Dems in 2016 & 2020? Probably. Do I think either Stein or Gabbard (or Trump) are a plant? No. Useful idiots is probably the better term.

[JPhillips]

Plant? Who knows.

Stein, though, went to Russia and dined with Putin and Flynn. I have no doubt she's tied into the 2016 fuckery.

Gabbard has met with Assad. She refuses to disavow Russian support. Or David Duke support. Or Bannon, Breitbart support. She's a dangerous character, hiding something.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Plant? Who knows.

Stein, though, went to Russia and dined with Putin and Flynn. I have no doubt she's tied into the 2016 fuckery.

Gabbard has met with Assad. She refuses to disavow Russian support. Or David Duke support. Or Bannon, Breitbart support. She's a dangerous character, hiding something.

The one small correction I would make is, she has disavowed David Duke's support. Tulsi Gabbard denounces David Duke, rejects his endorsement

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Plant? Who knows.

Stein, though, went to Russia and dined with Putin and Flynn. I have no doubt she's tied into the 2016 fuckery.

Gabbard has met with Assad. She refuses to disavow Russian support. Or David Duke support. Or Bannon, Breitbart support. She's a dangerous character, hiding something.

She also has never denied being a lizard person or David Spade. She's extremely dangerous.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Plant? Who knows.

Stein, though, went to Russia and dined with Putin and Flynn. I have no doubt she's tied into the 2016 fuckery.

Gabbard has met with Assad. She refuses to disavow Russian support. Or David Duke support. Or Bannon, Breitbart support. She's a dangerous character, hiding something.

Gabbard also dined with Putin, along with General Flynn.

[Edward64]

Somewhere Putin is smiling in having successfully planted so much doubt in our democratic process.

The word "plant" implies a manchurian candidate and think there needs to be much greater evidence than meetings & dinners. Is Tulsi and Jill Putin's preferred Democratic nominees or are they the means Putin thinks he can sow discord and confusion, quite possibly ... but that is a far ways from "plant".

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

The one small correction I would make is, she has disavowed David Duke's support. Tulsi Gabbard denounces David Duke, rejects his endorsement

Thanks for the correction.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Thanks for the correction.

You're welcome. The sliver lining is, she has plenty of other faults that you mentioned.