Make that “private and public” and you’ve like literally defined politics xD
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread
- Thread starter MikeDawg
- Start date
No opinions on the debate?
It was pretty hard to get through. More of what we already know—
Biden was incoherent and racist, Bernie nobly continued the fight for the revolution, Warren busting out her policy chops on domestic policy, and Yang continuing his slow rise in the narrow left libertarian lane.
Castro though, man that guy was on fire. Love it!
It was pretty hard to get through. More of what we already know—
Biden was incoherent and racist, Bernie nobly continued the fight for the revolution, Warren busting out her policy chops on domestic policy, and Yang continuing his slow rise in the narrow left libertarian lane.
Castro though, man that guy was on fire. Love it!
Last edited:
I'm a big fan of Castro calling out Biden's hypocrisy. People saying he was uncouth or he went to far in the media are so ridiculous. The nominee is going to go up against Trump. If they can't handle Castro how do you expect them to defeat Trump lol? And what he was saying was so true too. Biden will try to take credit for everything great OBma did but suddenly when there's critique it's "That wasn't me it was Obama!"
Overall the debate was a big snoozefest aside from that really. Even the Healthcare part where people were pretty riled up was just a pain to watch because of all the Healthcare Industry talking points being regurgitated. I'm glad Warren finally said "no one likes their health insurance, they like their doctors." although I don't think that got a spotlight as much as it should have. Also the notion of "X amount of people will lose their healthcare plan!" is so dumb lmao it's like yeah, but they'll still have healthcare just not under private insurance. It literally doesn't matter that people will lose their insurance when they're going to still have insurance and their doctors/providers etc.
I think Bernie overall did well although he didn't do as great as Debate 1/2. Warren was the same. Biden was just more incoherent and wtf was with that answer of "black parents don't know how to parent, so we need to show them how with social workers. Get their kids to listen to record players." Wild. Harris was boring as expected and spoke with almost no substance or policy and instead was like "Trump bad." Beto actually did ok but I don't really care for him. Buttigieg was forgettable, as was Booker and Klobuchar. Yang did ok and was well received but again didnt really speak much.
Honestly after watching the climate town halls I'd like to see that kind of structure more because there was a lot more that I got out of them than the debate which was just a boring mess.
All in all after this I'm just hoping Biden's numbers go down. I still can't believe he's doing as well as he is when he is literally incomprehensible and out of touch and said "fundamentally nothing will change."
Overall the debate was a big snoozefest aside from that really. Even the Healthcare part where people were pretty riled up was just a pain to watch because of all the Healthcare Industry talking points being regurgitated. I'm glad Warren finally said "no one likes their health insurance, they like their doctors." although I don't think that got a spotlight as much as it should have. Also the notion of "X amount of people will lose their healthcare plan!" is so dumb lmao it's like yeah, but they'll still have healthcare just not under private insurance. It literally doesn't matter that people will lose their insurance when they're going to still have insurance and their doctors/providers etc.
I think Bernie overall did well although he didn't do as great as Debate 1/2. Warren was the same. Biden was just more incoherent and wtf was with that answer of "black parents don't know how to parent, so we need to show them how with social workers. Get their kids to listen to record players." Wild. Harris was boring as expected and spoke with almost no substance or policy and instead was like "Trump bad." Beto actually did ok but I don't really care for him. Buttigieg was forgettable, as was Booker and Klobuchar. Yang did ok and was well received but again didnt really speak much.
Honestly after watching the climate town halls I'd like to see that kind of structure more because there was a lot more that I got out of them than the debate which was just a boring mess.
All in all after this I'm just hoping Biden's numbers go down. I still can't believe he's doing as well as he is when he is literally incomprehensible and out of touch and said "fundamentally nothing will change."
Why do people find him appealing? Because most middle Americans prefer an safe old guy that causes no harm as opposed to radicals and someone who can stir the pot pretty rough. It's a return to normacy, and many Americans find that approach and the fact that he's procieved* as moderate appealing (I star that because he's not, frankly all of the Dems on that stage are radical morons imo, but that's just me). That's what could give him better chances in the general election. Many independents do not like the far left shift of the democratic party, sorry to burst your bubbles.
Sidenote: Biden is not a bloody racist either for saying there's been a dramatic statistically-tracked problem with fatherless Black communities. Sadly, many of the issues there have deriven from that fact. Upward past 70% of black families are fatherless. I would presume based off that alone that there would be significant financial struggles. Is Biden wrong? Not completely. Is it gonna rally up the primary base? I think your post best represents what many progressives think.
Edit: ok I lied a little about all of the candidates being morons. I can at the very least respect Tulsi.
Last edited:
Stratos
Banned deucer.
I like my health insurance. There are good payers out there. I've had 'free' doctor's visits, free surgery, free therapy, and I pay five bucks a month for a med that costs >150 uninsured. I've never had to visit the ED (god willing I never will) but that would be free too. My premium is $373/month.
The issue the good payers face is mostly scalability... most high quality payers have a small patient population and a tight working relationship with a single delivery network (or are a separate business entity of that network). This helps and incentivizes them to reduce costs before and at point-of-care, lowering premiums and copays. Major payers like United lack the means to do this level of population health management, and major hospitals in a fee-for-service contract with major payers lack the will because they get paid even if outcomes are horrendous and costs balloon.
Seeing that private industry haven't, largely, solved this problem yet, it's reasonable to think it never will. So I get that people want the government to fix it. But the flipside of the coin is that ~45% of the US is covered by a single payer currently, and that payer is CMS. Granted, about half of that group—most of Medicaid and Marketplace—is administered through private entities, but they're meeting CMS's requirements, so still. If they have such a large market share why have they not been able to cut costs at all with their massive influence? After all, private payers tend to follow CMS's lead on things like quality standards and even fee schedules. It's because the bureaucratic indifference of a massive organization is not limited to the private sphere, and staggering incompetence is even worse in the public sector.
So basically, I get that the private health care system is failing most Americans and I am lucky to be an exception, but I think solutions are budding in the industry and I'm skeptical that handing the reins to our moronic government is a fix to the problem. I understand that other governments tend to get on quite well with these kinds of things but other governments tend to get on quite well with a lot of shit that America's government can't grasp on a basic level. Private industry has always been our strong suit.
(Disclaimer: I work in the health insurance industry (developing software for clinically integrated payers)).
Oops, that was a long tangent.
fanyfan
i once put 42 mcdonalds chicken nuggets in my anus
Oh yeah, this thread exists. The debate was terrible. Outside of Castro calling out Biden, which was funny, it was just so hard to watch. Anyways, let’s take a look at this post here.
- helped a republican win in Michigan in 2018
- wrote and supported the crime bill
- wants to maintain the status quo (“nothing would fundamentally change” according to him)
- voted for the Iraq War
- is against Medicare for All, Green New Deal, Free College, etc
- plus more that I’m too lazy to list
1. You believe most of the dem candidates are far-left radicals, you said as much above
2. Bernie Sanders is the furthest left candidate in the race. I hope no one disputes this one
3. You believe that independents are not a fan of the “radical, far left” Democratic Party. You say as much in the quoted portion
4. Therefore, according to you, Bernie must be the worst polling with independents. At the very least, he should be quite unpopular with independents.
Well, what does the data say on this? Well here’s the most recent poll I could find that has the political leaning of respondents. It has Sanders tied with Biden among independents. Interesting. Well, if you go poll by poll Sanders is almost always leading or tied with Biden when it comes to independent support. That’s nothing new either. Bernie led with independents in the 2016 as well, by a considerable margin. The fact that Bernie’s popular with independents is easily verified so if you’re not convinced by my quick explanation, look it up yourself.
Going back to our premeses, you can see that 4. is wrong. Well, what went wrong? 2. does not appear to be wrong. The problem appears to be with either 1. or 3. So either the democrats aren’t far left radicals, or independents like far leftists or both. But can you see that holding both positions goes against the avalible data? I 100% encourage anyone reading this to fact-check me, show me the polls/primary results that show Bernie is unpopular with independents. In the end, I don’t think that quoted portion is justified based on the polling data we have as well as the 2016 dem primary election results
Ok, let’s respond to a few points here.
Maybe people think Biden’s a moderate because he
- helped a republican win in Michigan in 2018
- wrote and supported the crime bill
- wants to maintain the status quo (“nothing would fundamentally change” according to him)
- voted for the Iraq War
- is against Medicare for All, Green New Deal, Free College, etc
- plus more that I’m too lazy to list
So I’m going to make a couple of assumptions here that I believe are justified.
1. You believe most of the dem candidates are far-left radicals, you said as much above
2. Bernie Sanders is the furthest left candidate in the race. I hope no one disputes this one
3. You believe that independents are not a fan of the “radical, far left” Democratic Party. You say as much in the quoted portion
4. Therefore, according to you, Bernie must be the worst polling with independents. At the very least, he should be quite unpopular with independents.
Well, what does the data say on this? Well here’s the most recent poll I could find that has the political leaning of respondents. It has Sanders tied with Biden among independents. Interesting. Well, if you go poll by poll Sanders is almost always leading or tied with Biden when it comes to independent support. That’s nothing new either. Bernie led with independents in the 2016 as well, by a considerable margin. The fact that Bernie’s popular with independents is easily verified so if you’re not convinced by my quick explanation, look it up yourself.
Going back to our premeses, you can see that 4. is wrong. Well, what went wrong? 2. does not appear to be wrong. The problem appears to be with either 1. or 3. So either the democrats aren’t far left radicals, or independents like far leftists or both. But can you see that holding both positions goes against the avalible data? I 100% encourage anyone reading this to fact-check me, show me the polls/primary results that show Bernie is unpopular with independents. In the end, I don’t think that quoted portion is justified based on the polling data we have as well as the 2016 dem primary election results
Wait, so you're open to Single Payer socialized medicine, transition Off Fossil Fuels green program, Launching a Study for Reparations to the Descendents of Slavery, and ending the regime change wars/scaling back military in order to pay for these things-- just so long as we say political correctness is a problem and re-brand progressivism as patriotism?
I for one am willing to do my patriotic duty of dissing an SJW on Twitter and re-naming Medicare for All the Medical Financial Responsibility Act for American Fitness & Liberty if conservatives are going to get onboard with electing a government to pass it.
Alternative: Not the ACA, the AFFFFAA: American Financial responsibility, Freedom, and Families Fitness Act of America
Last edited:
Idk how else to put this but the healthcare insurance industry is literally an unnecessary middleman that we don't need. We should be able to just go to the doctor or dentist or whatever without having a outside company negotiating the interaction in a way that complciates things and costs more money. And I know that sounds radical but healthcare insurance hasn't always existed and so it's not essential for healthcare. Our system is messed up and our concept of normal is so out of whack because of this.
And I get with price gouging and just the fact that money exists and healthcare costs money, insurance can save people from ridiculous costs. It's a multilayered problem but with this outside middleman that has a profit motive. we might as well shift insurance over to the government which would massively increase intuitiveness of healthcare (no more crazy billing processes or in/out networks and things like that) and also efficiency.
Oh boy this is gonna be a fun one. lmao.
First of all "causes no harm." What? Like fanyfan listed above he has caused a lot of harm in his political career. Additionally, in a time like now where people who are dying due to lack of healthcare his plan would be complicit in more death, bankruptcy, and lack of access that ruins lives. And that's just one thing. So please tell me again how he does no harm.
Yeah it is just you. But I'll bite. What makes the others so radical?
And many independents do. Which is why Medicare 4 All and Green New Deal to name a few are so popular among the American public and have framed the conversation of new policies in the democratic party. If people didn't like these, we wouldn't see it propped up in conversation among the candidates so much. I won't deny that there are centrists out there but please don't deny that there is a growing left-wing populist sentiment that shouldn't be ignored. Both populations exist.
Bruh where did I call Biden racist in my post? Show me please. Otherwise don't imply that I said that lmao. I was mocking his ridiculous answer and didn't even say anything about families not having fathers, and don't recall him mentioning a lack of fathers anyways. Also record players... really? But anyways yeah I dont think calling people racist is productive most of the time so don't make it seem like I did lmao.
Tulsi is literally one of the only candidates I support so uh... ok then
Tulsi seems to be one of the few candidates who appeals to people on both sides of the isle. I really wish she had more support and, for lack of a better word, clout, but I think it's very unlikely she'll win the primaries.
The thread knows that I have posted lots of posts supporting Tulsi. But recently I've become more and more... bothered by the things she says. (Though I'm not totally disavowing support for her) :(
Her recent appearance on the Rubin Report was pretty disgusting honestly-- broke my heart.
Tulsi promoted the same policies, but basically allowed or enforced every disgusting framing Rubin had to smear the left as unreasonable, unpatriotic, bigoted, etc. Really Tulsi, you're not going to push back on the idea that political correctness or identity politics is the biggest problem in our politics? More than campaign finance, or monopolization, or the military industrial complex? Really?
I don't care how much of a gateway you may offer to right wingers to gain interest in lefty policy... you don't build coalition, unity, allies, if you pander to the right and only encourage the vitriol towards your progressive supporters. Super disappointing. On JRE, Bernie went to sell the left, not smear the left.
At her best, Tulsi is a Mission candidate, but definitely not a Movement candidate. #NotMeUs
Her recent appearance on the Rubin Report was pretty disgusting honestly-- broke my heart.
Tulsi promoted the same policies, but basically allowed or enforced every disgusting framing Rubin had to smear the left as unreasonable, unpatriotic, bigoted, etc. Really Tulsi, you're not going to push back on the idea that political correctness or identity politics is the biggest problem in our politics? More than campaign finance, or monopolization, or the military industrial complex? Really?
I don't care how much of a gateway you may offer to right wingers to gain interest in lefty policy... you don't build coalition, unity, allies, if you pander to the right and only encourage the vitriol towards your progressive supporters. Super disappointing. On JRE, Bernie went to sell the left, not smear the left.
At her best, Tulsi is a Mission candidate, but definitely not a Movement candidate. #NotMeUs
Ok, on the whole, ya'll took a lot of my points well out of context. That, or your answers were completely far off.
Also, would you like to know why Bernie is polling so high? It's because he's the candidate that's arguably the most popular with younger Americans, and he does have a decent share of the Black vote currently. That helps him quite a bit since both are a pretty big demographic
This all does not clear the fact that yes, many of the policies being debated on the debate stage are pretty radical. I can list quite a few. Almost all of them want a completely government ran, single payer healthcare system that'll obliterate taxes. Warren's for example costs over 30 trillion, Biden smartly mentioned in the last debate that her plan to take from the 2% only brings in about a couple billion or so. Not only that, but to add on to the fact, they can move their money somewhere else. That's what happened during many high tax periods to evade such extrodinarily high brackets.
Also, taking everyone's AR-15s in a force buyback program, yes I think that is a very radical position too. So is abortion for all and abortions well past the third trimester funded by the government, and a complete economic switch to the green new deal within the next 10 years (good luck with that when currently around 70% of our energy dependence is on fossil fuels).
But lemme get serious for a minute with that. Obviously no, I am harshly against a single-payer that takes away other people's private insurance. I think the government is terrible at a lot of things, and health insurance happens to be an area where I believe the private industry is much more efficient. Forget the cost for a moment, you can look at both Canada and England and see how they're doing. Usually ridiculously long wait times, and not as good of a standard of care. I'm for doing a study into the affects of slavery and Jim Crowe in the modern day (I stress modern day, given that there may still be families directly affected by both, and I stress directly too), but as of currently, I'm also against reparations because at least as it stands, it's pretty hard to believe that we are directly responsible for something that our ancestors are responsible for. I think it's something we need to move past as a nation, and I find it to be pandering at best. I'm for transitioning off of fossil fuels, but for the love of God we need to be smart about it and not downturn our economy in 10 years. It needs to be much better paced, and it has to be open to other more efficient solutions. Natural Gas, believe it or not, barely gives any emissions because it burns clean (although you can argue in the wrong hands, it has affected people's water supplies), and Nuclear can produce a ton more energy than really any of the other sources combined (on a personal note, that's what I'm a proponent of). Regime change wars, it really depends. I think the United States is a positive force in the world, and when evil threatens anyone's sovereignty (Iran currently is a great example), I am completely for stepping in if it means stopping oppression and tyranny. I don't think it is morally just to stand idly by as innocent people are tortured and killed in their own nations.
Now, re-read what I said before you replied to me. I said I respect Tulsi, that doesn't mean I agree with all of her positions. I agree with the backing on many of her positions, and I actually do appreciate that she's trying to be a unifying figure. I can also greatly appreciate her position on borders, abortions, and guns. While I may not agree 100%, it's level headed, and she backs very well why she feels the way she does. She knows somewhat the pros and cons of each side of her positions.
Yes, Biden is perceived to not cause much harm to a plurality of Americans, and you can excuse your political bias for a second because I'm also withholding mine lol (because I think it's obvious that I do not like any of the candidates, let alone Sleepy Joe). The Obama presidency, while seen as not perfect by many Americans, was perceived as a more peaceful time with not nearly as much turmoil. That's what's in recent memory to most voters, but if you could elaborate on where Biden caused a lot of hurt, that would be great, because currently it sounds like your just making a vague statement.
What makes the other candidates so radical? Read back up because I did respond to that when replying to fanyfan, but also, compare Dems policy now to back in lets say 20 or so years ago. If you pay attention to, in particular, our borders and abortions, I think you'll have a better understanding why. But yes, there has been a drastic shift to the left that's been happening for quite a bit now. I'm not saying it's completely a bad thing, while I would certainly believe that yes it is, some people have been wanting something like this to happen (again, withholding my personal bias for a moment, because I do personally* stress that it is an extremely bad thing for our political discourse lmao). My point is you really should at least acknowledge it.
Where did you call Biden racist?
One last thing, yea, I do think not much will get done if Biden is elected. I also said felt the same way about Hillary Clinton, even when I would've considered myself still moderately liberal. They're both dud candidates, and I find both of them to be a repeat of Obama, who also did not accomplish much I felt outside of Obamacare to some extent.
Only one major problem with much of these answers, especially with the polling on Bernie. I specified that they're having a difficult time appealing to Middle Americans and Independents. Similar deal with Trump as well, just like he is having a difficult time appealing to suburban women.
Also, would you like to know why Bernie is polling so high? It's because he's the candidate that's arguably the most popular with younger Americans, and he does have a decent share of the Black vote currently. That helps him quite a bit since both are a pretty big demographic
This all does not clear the fact that yes, many of the policies being debated on the debate stage are pretty radical. I can list quite a few. Almost all of them want a completely government ran, single payer healthcare system that'll obliterate taxes. Warren's for example costs over 30 trillion, Biden smartly mentioned in the last debate that her plan to take from the 2% only brings in about a couple billion or so. Not only that, but to add on to the fact, they can move their money somewhere else. That's what happened during many high tax periods to evade such extrodinarily high brackets.
Also, taking everyone's AR-15s in a force buyback program, yes I think that is a very radical position too. So is abortion for all and abortions well past the third trimester funded by the government, and a complete economic switch to the green new deal within the next 10 years (good luck with that when currently around 70% of our energy dependence is on fossil fuels).
This one honestly had me chuckling my friend, so props to that. No joke, I appreciated that lol.
But lemme get serious for a minute with that. Obviously no, I am harshly against a single-payer that takes away other people's private insurance. I think the government is terrible at a lot of things, and health insurance happens to be an area where I believe the private industry is much more efficient. Forget the cost for a moment, you can look at both Canada and England and see how they're doing. Usually ridiculously long wait times, and not as good of a standard of care. I'm for doing a study into the affects of slavery and Jim Crowe in the modern day (I stress modern day, given that there may still be families directly affected by both, and I stress directly too), but as of currently, I'm also against reparations because at least as it stands, it's pretty hard to believe that we are directly responsible for something that our ancestors are responsible for. I think it's something we need to move past as a nation, and I find it to be pandering at best. I'm for transitioning off of fossil fuels, but for the love of God we need to be smart about it and not downturn our economy in 10 years. It needs to be much better paced, and it has to be open to other more efficient solutions. Natural Gas, believe it or not, barely gives any emissions because it burns clean (although you can argue in the wrong hands, it has affected people's water supplies), and Nuclear can produce a ton more energy than really any of the other sources combined (on a personal note, that's what I'm a proponent of). Regime change wars, it really depends. I think the United States is a positive force in the world, and when evil threatens anyone's sovereignty (Iran currently is a great example), I am completely for stepping in if it means stopping oppression and tyranny. I don't think it is morally just to stand idly by as innocent people are tortured and killed in their own nations.
Now, re-read what I said before you replied to me. I said I respect Tulsi, that doesn't mean I agree with all of her positions. I agree with the backing on many of her positions, and I actually do appreciate that she's trying to be a unifying figure. I can also greatly appreciate her position on borders, abortions, and guns. While I may not agree 100%, it's level headed, and she backs very well why she feels the way she does. She knows somewhat the pros and cons of each side of her positions.
Oh boy, this is a fun one. I'll do my best to reply to things fanyfan did not cover already that I responded to.
Yes, Biden is perceived to not cause much harm to a plurality of Americans, and you can excuse your political bias for a second because I'm also withholding mine lol (because I think it's obvious that I do not like any of the candidates, let alone Sleepy Joe). The Obama presidency, while seen as not perfect by many Americans, was perceived as a more peaceful time with not nearly as much turmoil. That's what's in recent memory to most voters, but if you could elaborate on where Biden caused a lot of hurt, that would be great, because currently it sounds like your just making a vague statement.
What makes the other candidates so radical? Read back up because I did respond to that when replying to fanyfan, but also, compare Dems policy now to back in lets say 20 or so years ago. If you pay attention to, in particular, our borders and abortions, I think you'll have a better understanding why. But yes, there has been a drastic shift to the left that's been happening for quite a bit now. I'm not saying it's completely a bad thing, while I would certainly believe that yes it is, some people have been wanting something like this to happen (again, withholding my personal bias for a moment, because I do personally* stress that it is an extremely bad thing for our political discourse lmao). My point is you really should at least acknowledge it.
Where did you call Biden racist?
Maybe I did take that the wrong way, gladly correct me on that if I did, but I was primarily trying to put out a disclaimer.
One last thing, yea, I do think not much will get done if Biden is elected. I also said felt the same way about Hillary Clinton, even when I would've considered myself still moderately liberal. They're both dud candidates, and I find both of them to be a repeat of Obama, who also did not accomplish much I felt outside of Obamacare to some extent.
“abortions well past the third trimester”
This is your brain on conservative propaganda kids.
This is your brain on conservative propaganda kids.
Tell that to your damn candidates, they've said it on live television. That has nothing to do with conservative propaganda.
Edit: and if you want some clarification, yea I think abortion at any given point, in the case here allowable even straight before birth, is pretty disgusting. That does not mean 4th trimester, which is not a thing clearly. I would think we're all informed on that. How about I reword that: Abortions well into the 3rd trimester. Better?
Last edited:
No I get that-- but it's funny to see Conservatives who respect Tulsi or even flip to support Tulsi just because of her delivery/style rather than the substance. Conservatives who see her as a "moderate" candidate despite her policies being left of most of the field in economics and foreign policy. And you're not alone in this, it's very common. To me it's just more evidence that the ideological dedication to conservative policies is paper thin amongst the broader conservative voter base... it goes hand in hand with the polls that show Conservatives majority supporting Medicare for All or a Green New Deal. By definition, the broader majority of conservative voters also stand to benefit from populist policy, even from the left (or especially from the left). It's an indication that the commitment to conservatism is more based on social framing and style, rather than policy substance. And this goes hand in hand that when you watch Conservative media, from the dumbest Dave Rubin to the faux philosopher Ben Shapiro... they are somewhere between zero and almost zero policy substance. Being angry at SJWs is not policy.
And on the level headed, well thought positions-- the same is true for Bernie. And I think that's part of why he's more popular with Fox viewers than MSNBC viewers, did so well in the Fox Town Hall, and on the Joe Rogan podcast. He's one of the few intelligent candidates who is a real person with real commitments to the American people.
Last edited:
....Dude, you literally just saw me nit-pick every single position you mentioned that Tulsi supports, and afterwards I brought up even more. Clearly I do care quite a bit about substance as well and not just delivery. I think it's a bit ironic because you've seen that, at the bare minimum, I tolerate Trump and his delivery is more often than not hot garbage. Additionally, many Conservatives are against Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. I think you're way off-base.
ok!
not very radical
this is the opposite of radical and shows how little you know about radical leftists takes
not ur body but this response was obvious
i agree lets keep killing this god forsaken planet
But the point is that you would tolerate her positions because of her style besides the critiques you say you care about.
I would never, never, never tolerate the agenda of Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, even if on some level I think them more principled than Biden or Clinton or [insert cut-out Democrat] because at least their ideology isn't 100% donor-written and is in in some degree genuine. Regardless their agendas are absolutely abhorant.
Will only be tolerated on the points we agree on (like freeing the market to import drugs from Canada in Cruz's case or pulling back on American imperialism in Paul's).
Do you know what “past the third trimester” means? Pretty sure it would be a bigger news story if the candidates were advocating infanticide. If you mean during the third trimester, when the vast majority of abortions are performed because the fetus is medically unviable or due to risks to the mothers health and/or life, then yeah abortions should obviously be available. What’s up with all the red states passing laws without exceptions in the cases where the women’s life is at risk or the fetus is unviable? Seems fucked up to me. How can you, in the same post as stating the government is going to fuck up healthcare, advocate for the government making rules (specifically for women) which hinder their ability to get appropriate medical attention? Not to mention you’re acting like first trimester abortions for whatever reason is a radical position when it’s supported by the majority of Americans.
I guess this is the kind of intellectual rigor we can expect from someone who believes that systemic racism existing due to slavery and Jim Crow laws is minimal. But also thinks that there is an issue with the lack of fathers in the black community. Conveniently ignoring that the war on drugs, justice system, and private prison system are modern day continuation of the Jim Crow laws meant to disenfranchise black and brown Americans. Or the intellectual rigor of someone who talks about how radical the policies are of the non-Biden democratic candidates, while supporting someone running concentration camps on the southern border.
Are. You. Shitting. Me? You're doing a phenominal job strawmanning my argunents from what they actually are. For instance, yes, it's different when a fetus is unviable or dead, those are exceptions, but I think it's blatantly dishonest to call all abortions fine just because those are. It's not a buy all situation. Additionally, yea, there kinda is infanticide going on, even though you haven't heard about it in the news. It's in New York. Why haven't you heard it? Because the mainstream media is only trying to push a narrative. Take the latest Kavanaugh debacle over the weekend. Why would the NY Times report on that knowing one, it's not even corroborated by the victim, and two, the Ramirez story being false just about a year ago from today? Because they do not care, they want to push a narrative about Kavanuagh. It was a shoot first, ask questions later approach, which is, again, dishonest and disgusting.
Additionally, it should be said that I NEVER said 1st trimester abortions are radical, even if I may personally be against them. Another example of strawmanning.
Finally, your last paragraph. I've countered this shit before, why you choose to do this again is beyond me, but what it is is dishonest and pretty appalling. But there's one thing I find funny, it's your final sentence. If you seriously believe border centers are concentration camps, you can tell that to Obama. Same as to why you think it's cruel to take kids temporarily away from their parents, even though Trump REVERSED this months ago. If you are arrested, whether it'd be for domestic violence, drug charges, anything, you're gonna be separated from your kids temporarily. It's procedure. The former director of ICE, whose come up to congress multiple times now in the past few months, has explained this thoroughly.
Buddy. You're only proving my point, hate to break it to you.
Like it or not but a candidate pushing for a forced buyback program in the country that owns the most guns in the world after years, if not decades, of talk over "We just need to ban high capacity magazines", "it's not about taking your guns away", etc, is pretty radical.
“They’re killing babies in New York legally!”, he says with no proof, entirely unaffected by conservative propaganda.
“Trump ends family separation!” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1025376
“Obama started family separation policy!” Damn 2017 Obama policies. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_separation_policy
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...s/fact-check-trump-family-separation.amp.html
“We have to separate families like they do for regular jail when the kids aren’t also going to jail.” I hope I don’t have to expand on why this is stupid. Either way it doesn’t explain why we have to separate kids from hygiene products like toothbrushes. Can’t believe the Obama administration went to court to argue that migrant kids aren’t entitled to toothbrushes. Oh wait, that was Trump.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...dren-no-toothbrush-soap-sleep/?outputType=amp
“Temporarily separating children is fine.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...tics/flores-migrant-family-detention.amp.html
Obama’s handling of the border was pretty bad, but saying, “but Obama!” And blaming him for actual Trump policies you are too ashamed to endorse (but secretly love bc conservatives fetishize authoritarianism and penalization) is pathetic Dece1t
“Trump ends family separation!” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1025376
“Obama started family separation policy!” Damn 2017 Obama policies. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_separation_policy
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...s/fact-check-trump-family-separation.amp.html
“We have to separate families like they do for regular jail when the kids aren’t also going to jail.” I hope I don’t have to expand on why this is stupid. Either way it doesn’t explain why we have to separate kids from hygiene products like toothbrushes. Can’t believe the Obama administration went to court to argue that migrant kids aren’t entitled to toothbrushes. Oh wait, that was Trump.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...dren-no-toothbrush-soap-sleep/?outputType=amp
“Temporarily separating children is fine.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...tics/flores-migrant-family-detention.amp.html
Obama’s handling of the border was pretty bad, but saying, “but Obama!” And blaming him for actual Trump policies you are too ashamed to endorse (but secretly love bc conservatives fetishize authoritarianism and penalization) is pathetic Dece1t
fanyfan
i once put 42 mcdonalds chicken nuggets in my anus
So I already talked about how he’s popular with independents. Let’s talk about middle Americans then. I’m assuming by that you mean people generally not on coasts and probably also not in states like Illinois which always go dem. Let’s run through some states I believe fit your description.
Iowa: the two 2020 Bernie vs Trump polls there had Trump winning one and Bernie winning one, both winning/losing by 1 or 2 percent. So very close. That sounds like he’s pretty decently popular there considering how much Hillary lost that state by (around 10 percent).
Ohio: out of the two 2020 Bernie vs Trump polls there, Bernie wins one and Trump wins one, both by 1 percent. Again, Hillary lost that state by about 8 points so it sounds like at least Bernie has significantly more support than Hillary in these states
So there’s not that many 2020 polls of the relevant states so I’m gonna have to use 2016 polls to continue making my case with the knowledge that these numbers don’t necessarily reflect current opinion. However, the fact that Sanders hit these numbers is proof that these states aren’t completely turned off by him.
Utah: There was three relevant polls in 2016 done and Sanders wins two of them. He won by 11 percent in one poll, 14 percent in another, and Trump won by 6 percent in the third. Now there were other factors in Utah specifically in 2016 you may say. Yes, there was a third party candidate from Utah running who would have taken a good portion of the vote from Trump in these polls, except those polls were from before that candidate came into the race. Like, months before. So he wouldn’t have affected the results.
I’m getting bored of this but I could go on. The point is that there’s plenty of states in the middle of the country that Bernie is popular in. This isn’t even including results in 2016 where multiple dems with platforms very similar to Bernie’s almost won in hard red middle America states. Richard Ojeda in West Virginia, Kara Eastman in Nebraska, etc. As long as I didn’t misunderstand what you were saying, I think this shows that he’s not hated by the middle of the country, though of course that saying is quite vague.
Yeah, that’s not really relevant to what I posted unless young people and black people make up a disproportionate amount of independents as I was showing his polling with independents. I mean, they might. I just haven’t seen data on it.
I’m not talking about whether the policies are radical b/c that’s irrelevant in my view. I don’t care if a policy is radical if it’s good and helps people and I don’t care if it’s radical and it’s terrible. I care about the policies themselves. Speak of the devil,
Let’s go point by point
1. Ridiculously long wait times in Canada and UK
The US has wait times too. The difference is why you have to wait. In the US, how long you wait is based on how much you can pay. In the UK and Canada it’s based on need. So for cosmetic surgery, wait times all day. Necessary procedures? You don’t really have to wait for those.
2. Not a good standard of care
Canada and the UK both have better health outcomes than the US so idk what you’re talking about there
3. Reparations
Ok, you support a study, good. I don’t have much to say on this one except you should look into the concept of generational wealth. Really puts things into perspective on how slavery and Jim Crow effect the modern day
4. Transition off Fossil Fuels
I’m not sure how the GND would hurt our economy so much, but putting that aside, I agree with part of that. I am definitely pro-nuclear energy to transition off fossil fuels, but we do need the transition, globally, by 2030 to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, at least according to the IPCC study. If we do it by having all the innovation and green technology here, won’t that help more than hurt our economy?
5. Regime Change Wars
I do have to ask, when has the US overthrown a dictator and made the situation better in the modern day? An easy example of the opposite is Libya. Libya is in a way worse spot nowadays then when we invaded. Same with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran the first time, etc. I don’t really see any examples of the US being a good force for peace and justice on the world stage. I see us just overthrowing dictators and replacing them with other dictators or there’s a power vacuum and someone worst takes over, etc. Doesn’t sound that moral to me
All I can say is I love how you're posting all this backed by the most liberal new sources. That, and yes, I have posted about the New York law before, I did not think I would need to post a source given I thought we all know that it allows abortions virtually for any reason having to do with the women's health (which includes emotional health, loosely defined) and at really any time up until birth. I also find it extremely hypocritical that you're calling me authoritarian when you and others are the ones calling for single payer healthcare and the elimination of private insurance, as well as the forceful confiscation of AR-15s. That appears way more authoritative to me than protecting life of babies. But to answer your final question, yes, I largely do not like that kids aren't in the protection of say relatives in the United States or a foster care system temporarily as opposed to being stuck in a detention center with their parents who broke the law (a lot of these kids if those are even their parents, because there's been serious sex-trafficking and child trafficking going on as a facade).
One, you're a hypocrite. You've been acting the same way over the shit you disagree with that I brought up. You can drop the baby tantrum now, I'm just saying, don't take what you can't dish. Two, yea I do think The NY Times is fake news. The Kavanaugh shit over the weekend that has been continuing, mind you, is pretty biased and damning. I would like to say I have reason to believe the paper is not reliable. They legit made a false story about not only a new sexual assault allegation (although even I can't call it that because there's no witnesses, and the victim even doesn't remember such an event), but also an old one dismissed long ago front page news. Not the fact that the last person that was able to "corroborate" Blassy-Ford's story just stated that she was pressured by her and her allies to lie. Yes, I am naturally extremely skeptical of them because it's been evident that they're simply pushing a narrative at this point.