- Joined
- Sep 9, 2012
- Messages
- 4,688
- Reaction score
- 4,408
I agree but Democrat primary voters are so fucking weird that they’re going to bring in Joe Biden, a senile 
phile.
phile.
Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread v4
- Thread starter Lead
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 10,856
- Reaction score
- 4,787
Ok Boomer . . .You vote for Biden like your parents you little pissant, I got money on this.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 19,193
- Reaction score
- 14,846
Yeah, it's highly concentrated and there's a broad, general line that's followed. But there's no mass emails going around saying "Trash candidate _________ and stop him at all costs"
Like Chomsky explains, the bias is more built-in than dictated from the top down. Editors and senior writers won't even get hired if they have a resume of questioning the status quo.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2014
- Messages
- 43,682
- Reaction score
- 25,774
Bernie actually doesn't have a plan to pay for it. He has several bullet point ideas that may or may not be implemented
F
franklinstower
Guest
What makes you think UHC would go any different than school funding though. Every year people want to pay less and less for public schools.
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2010
- Messages
- 19,212
- Reaction score
- 10,644
Well, the public school thing was more as a way to describe how Tusli would implement it where when you started public schooling, you didn't ban private schools. I think UHC would fall more in line with police and fire. Keep in mind, every single tax paying American would be paying into UHC. I think it's scary to some people right now because government-ran anything is see as bad but most people love police and fire. If your home is on fire, imagine scrambling trying to find a private fire department to come put it for you while trying to find the cheapest service. Most people just want to dial 911 and have the fire company come out.
Once people get comfortable with health care being the same way, they wouldn't want it any differently. You'll need to raise taxes and perhaps put a tax on Wall Street to pay for everything but that also means no more health insurance getting deducted from your payroll and it certainly won't be $411 a month (current Obamacare for a single person).
F
franklinstower
Guest
My point is that there should be NO private option so that the wealthy don't lobby to whittle away at UHC and in the end turn it into a shit system. Not only should the donor class be in on it, it should be the only option they have too.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2020
- Messages
- 133
- Reaction score
- 0
Joseph Biden, Jr., circa 2003:
Some in my own party have said that it was a mistake to go to war with Iraq in the first place and believe that it's not worth the cost, whatever benefit may flow from our engagement in Iraq. But the cost of not acting against Saddam, I think, would have been much greater and so will be the cost of not finishing this job.
President George W. Bush is a bold leader and he is popular. The stakes are high and the need for leadership is great. I wish he'd use some of his stored-up popularity to make what I admit is not a very popular case. I and many others will support him when he makes the case.
President George W. Bush is a bold leader and he is popular. The stakes are high and the need for leadership is great. I wish he'd use some of his stored-up popularity to make what I admit is not a very popular case. I and many others will support him when he makes the case.
Whether you think Biden is really into kids or not, those videos and pictures are going to have an effect on his ability to win. They're way too graphic and fucked up not to acknowledge and be used against him. It's been in the background this whole time but hasn't been put in full gear and it will..
You have to wonder what the hell is going on with a guy who not only does that but intentionally in public as well.. That "kids touching his long hairy legs at the swimming pool" story was very odd as well.
That said, this year is going to be nasty and crazy. We ain't ready for this..
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 95,963
- Reaction score
- 35,164
What are the trends? What I see is that people get an idea in their head and then add some confirmation bias, and we have a full-blown hysteria.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 45,718
- Reaction score
- 22,205
Does Liz Warren still have a following? anyone still on that train?
- Joined
- May 20, 2016
- Messages
- 34,432
- Reaction score
- 15,875
Probably the most disheartening development in the primary thus far.
The controversy started on Saturday, when Politico published a leaked script allegedly given to Sander campaign volunteers, instructing them how to talk to voters about the other candidates, particularly their electability. The offending passage on Warren reads:
Though it’s not clear who authored it or what level of the campaign infrastructure knew about it, the reaction was swift.
Yesterday, Warren told reporters she was “disappointed” that Sanders was “sending his volunteers out to trash me,” and warned against repeating “the impact of the factionalism in 2016.” This was a reference to the disproven Clintonite talking point that Sanders’s 2016 challenge created such division within the Democratic Party that it led Clinton to lose to Trump. One prominent Warren backer in Iowa was blunter: “Doesn’t surprise me about Bernie. He went straight to the gutter with Hillary. More of the same.”
Warren’s surrogates on social media have broadcast a similar message about a nasty Sanders campaign violating the gentlemanly etiquette of election campaigning. The media have largely repeated the campaign’s claim that this is an attack that is beyond the pale. And the Warren campaign is already fundraising off the story, shooting off an email with the subject line “What Bernie’s campaign says about you.”
Let’s be clear about what is going on here. The Warren campaign, in concert with a media that has been either hostile to or dismissive of Sanders and is itching for controversy, is trying to turn a nonstory into a scandal and attack Sanders with a narrative recycled from Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
How can you know? There’s the banality of the offending statement itself, an innocuous argument about Warren’s electability that every single other campaign is almost certainly making some version of to voters about Sanders (and which he himself has weathered nonstop since 2015). If low-level volunteers making this mild criticism is now considered a step too far, then Democrats have become markedly more sensitive since 2008, which saw the scurrilous (and sometimes breathtakingly racist) fight to the death between Clinton and Barack Obama.
There’s also the fact that, far from going “straight to the gutter” with Clinton in 2016, Sanders immediately and magnanimously let Clinton off the hook on the email scandal that would plague her campaign until its last days. While certainly testy at times, the 2016 contest was substantive and comparatively mild, far from the juvenile food fight of 2008. In fact, it was Clinton who launched the opening salvo in that contest, hitting Sanders for his voting record on guns in the first debate, the same one in which he absolved her of the email scandal — and he still campaigned like a madman at the end of the day to try and get her elected.
Warren and her campaign are intelligent people and are no doubt aware of all this. Yet they are nonetheless choosing to parrot Clinton’s well-worn and dishonest attacks on Sanders.
But forget all that. Because to really grasp how much of a nothing this entire controversy is, all you need to do is look at what happened yesterday. On the same day the Warren campaign lit up Sanders because his low-level volunteers had the temerity to argue their candidate was more electable, Julián Castro — a major Warren endorser and surrogate — introduced her in Iowa by pointing out more Democratic voters say they’d be disappointed with Sanders and Biden as the nominee than her.
So yes, this is an entirely manufactured scandal that no one should treat as anything other than what it is: typical campaign politics.
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/01/2020...ne-Wdaj-cPMtm8DAljb88jBucEvr0aViwgncAhiRkijFc
The controversy started on Saturday, when Politico published a leaked script allegedly given to Sander campaign volunteers, instructing them how to talk to voters about the other candidates, particularly their electability. The offending passage on Warren reads:
I like Elizabeth Warren. [optional] In fact, she’s my second choice! But here’s my concern about her. The people who support her are highly educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what. She’s bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party. We need to turn out disaffected working-class voters if we’re going to defeat Trump.
Though it’s not clear who authored it or what level of the campaign infrastructure knew about it, the reaction was swift.
Yesterday, Warren told reporters she was “disappointed” that Sanders was “sending his volunteers out to trash me,” and warned against repeating “the impact of the factionalism in 2016.” This was a reference to the disproven Clintonite talking point that Sanders’s 2016 challenge created such division within the Democratic Party that it led Clinton to lose to Trump. One prominent Warren backer in Iowa was blunter: “Doesn’t surprise me about Bernie. He went straight to the gutter with Hillary. More of the same.”
Warren’s surrogates on social media have broadcast a similar message about a nasty Sanders campaign violating the gentlemanly etiquette of election campaigning. The media have largely repeated the campaign’s claim that this is an attack that is beyond the pale. And the Warren campaign is already fundraising off the story, shooting off an email with the subject line “What Bernie’s campaign says about you.”
Let’s be clear about what is going on here. The Warren campaign, in concert with a media that has been either hostile to or dismissive of Sanders and is itching for controversy, is trying to turn a nonstory into a scandal and attack Sanders with a narrative recycled from Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
How can you know? There’s the banality of the offending statement itself, an innocuous argument about Warren’s electability that every single other campaign is almost certainly making some version of to voters about Sanders (and which he himself has weathered nonstop since 2015). If low-level volunteers making this mild criticism is now considered a step too far, then Democrats have become markedly more sensitive since 2008, which saw the scurrilous (and sometimes breathtakingly racist) fight to the death between Clinton and Barack Obama.
There’s also the fact that, far from going “straight to the gutter” with Clinton in 2016, Sanders immediately and magnanimously let Clinton off the hook on the email scandal that would plague her campaign until its last days. While certainly testy at times, the 2016 contest was substantive and comparatively mild, far from the juvenile food fight of 2008. In fact, it was Clinton who launched the opening salvo in that contest, hitting Sanders for his voting record on guns in the first debate, the same one in which he absolved her of the email scandal — and he still campaigned like a madman at the end of the day to try and get her elected.
Warren and her campaign are intelligent people and are no doubt aware of all this. Yet they are nonetheless choosing to parrot Clinton’s well-worn and dishonest attacks on Sanders.
But forget all that. Because to really grasp how much of a nothing this entire controversy is, all you need to do is look at what happened yesterday. On the same day the Warren campaign lit up Sanders because his low-level volunteers had the temerity to argue their candidate was more electable, Julián Castro — a major Warren endorser and surrogate — introduced her in Iowa by pointing out more Democratic voters say they’d be disappointed with Sanders and Biden as the nominee than her.
So yes, this is an entirely manufactured scandal that no one should treat as anything other than what it is: typical campaign politics.
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/01/2020...ne-Wdaj-cPMtm8DAljb88jBucEvr0aViwgncAhiRkijFc
- Status
