DNC Hopefuls

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

You think that might be because they represent the people in their district and if they go against them - they're out?

Yup. And as been shown, many of those people are not basing their opinions and feelings on facts or truths. I don't think governing should be based on feels.

[turtlespeed 226]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

Nope.  They wanted to get it done - and they had a narrow window to be able to get it done in.  So they did it and got everyone healthcare.  If they had waited until they had less support it would not have happened, and people would not have had healthcare.

You are backwards on this - 

The support was slowly working their way.

You are correct, they had the mind set of "Git 'er done!"  To hell with everyone else.

It was admitted later that they knew the system wouldn't work.  They knew that the doctor/plan thing was a ruse.  They knew it would be more expensive and saving 2500/yr was a lie.

They just needed to prove a point.

It had nothing to do with getting anyone healthcare.  They knew it wouldn't make much difference.

Go ahead, and sell yourself the bag of lies that makes you feel better. 

It was done by politicians.  That alone should open your eyes.

 

[JoeWeber 2,820]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

Absolutely.

You cant make an abrupt change to socialistic medicine from Capitalist without destroying some.

All it would have taken was time.

Time that the Democrats refused to take, and use. 

They had a point to make - fuck everyone else.

Turtle, I simply don't know what to say. Things are getting harder and harder to figure out and I'm just lost as to why.

[BIGUN 1,402]

 

17 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

19 hours ago, BIGUN said:

You think that might be because they represent the people in their district and if they go against them - they're out?

Yup. And as been shown, many of those people are not basing their opinions and feelings on facts or truths. I don't think governing should be based on feels.

What are you proposing? People have the right to vote for whom they think/feel will most represent their interests.   

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

22 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

 

What are you proposing? People have the right to vote for whom they think/feel will most represent their interests.   

They absolutely do.

But, unfortunately, some people are too stupid to recognize when someone will represent their interests.

Or even what is best for them.

Others are so gullible that they believe the blatant lies.

Others allow their hatred to blind them.

[BIGUN 1,402]

3 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

But, unfortunately, some people are too stupid to recognize when someone will represent their interests.

Or even what is best for them.

And, there you have it. 

[gowlerk 2,249]

19 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

They absolutely do.

But, unfortunately, some people are too stupid to recognize when someone will represent their interests.

Or even what is best for them.

Others are so gullible that they believe the blatant lies.

Others allow their hatred to blind them.

So far the only person who seems to understand is Ron. It is not about what is best for you. It is about manipulating your emotions. This is why Trump is your President. Almost nobody believes his lies, but his lies resonate.

Edited February 27, 2020 by gowlerk

[SkyDekker 1,465]

3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

What are you proposing? People have the right to vote for whom they think/feel will most represent their interests

Of course they do and I wouldn't propose any change to that. The difference is politicians not doing what is best for their constituents and explaining that, but using wedge pieces to get themselves (re-)elected. Specially when it turns out to be worse for their constituents.

Things like promising Appalachians their jobs are going to come back. Gets you (re-)elected, but then leads to poverty stricken workers refusing re-training because their politician told them their jobs are coming back.

Health care is very similar. Purposely undermining the proposal and then using the outcome to argue that providing healthcare is bad is not good for your constituents. It is good for getting yourself (re-)elected. 

[turtlespeed 226]

4 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

They absolutely do.

But, unfortunately, some people are too stupid to recognize when someone will represent their interests.

Or even what is best for them.

Others are so gullible that they believe the blatant lies.

Others allow their hatred to blind them.

That is equally visible how it effects those on each side, if you can view it from the middle.

[kallend 2,106]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

That is equally visible how it effects those on each side, if you can view it from the middle.

How would YOU know?

[billvon 3,067]

23 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

You are backwards on this - 

The support was slowly working their way.

You are correct, they had the mind set of "Git 'er done!"  To hell with everyone else.

Again, getting health care for everyone is the opposite of "the hell with everyone else."  If you passed a law that cancelled everyone's health care, but kept theirs, you could make an argument that it was "to hell with everyone else."  But the opposite happened.

And support was not slowly working their way.  They knew they had a narrow window to get it done - and they did it, as they promised they would.  Had it gone longer than about a year, the republicans were vowing to filibuster it and never allow it to come to a vote.

Quote

It had nothing to do with getting anyone healthcare.  They knew it wouldn't make much difference.

You can of course claim that.  But since it did in fact get millions of people healthcare - and made a huge difference for them - that sort of weakens the rest of your claims.

Quote

Time that the Democrats refused to take, and use. 

They did take the time.  They started working on it in Feb 2009 and didn't pass it until March 2010 - over a year later.  And you keep saying "democrats democrats democrats" but Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley and Olympia Snowe wrote the original proposal along with three democrats.

I understand you hate the democrats with a passion, but if your arguments against them are basically all lies, how are you going to convince anyone that your arguments are valid?

[turtlespeed 226]

These people need a "Jump to Conclusions" mat

Idiots

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/garth-brooks-wears-sanders-shirt-at-michigan-show-gets-attacked-for-being-bernie-sanders-supporter

[ryoder 1,590]

Tom Steyer has left the building: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/us/politics/tom-steyer-drops-out.html

[JerryBaumchen 1,432]

12 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Tom Steyer has left the building:

Hi Robert,

And, I expect that ax to fall on more of them after the Super Tuesday results are tallied.

IMO it might just be down to two by then.

Jerry Baumchen

[yoink 321]

16 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Robert,

And, I expect that ax to fall on more of them after the Super Tuesday results are tallied.

IMO it might just be down to two by then.

Jerry Baumchen

With Biden having a good weekend in South Carolina, and Bloomberg finally putting his chips on the table, I suspect Super Tuesday will be a bit of a mess. 

Turtle will tell you that any result short of Bernie getting 100% of the votes is because of DNC meddling, but in some ways I'm wondering if we're not best carrying a larger field as far as possible.

We KNOW Trump's MO will be to go full-out attack mode once a single likely candidate comes up, so forcing him to spread that vitriol out for as long as possible might actually work well for the Dems if the voting strategy really is 'anyone but Trump' for a lot of Americans.

 

[ryoder 1,590]

Pete Buttigieg has left the building:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-drops-out.html

[brenthutch 444]

I think he has some "help" with that decision.  He was a threat to Biden by splitting the non-crazy vote.  The conversation went something like, "you are young smart and talented, but if you want a future in the Democratic party you are going to have to stand down and take one for the team" It will be interesting to see how he does with the early voting on Super Tuesday 

Edited March 2, 2020 by brenthutch

[JoeWeber 2,820]

On 2/26/2020 at 2:41 PM, BIGUN said:

You think that might be because they represent the people in their district and if they go against them - they're out?

Yes, which makes him right. We're a representative democracy not a direct democracy. The people we send are supposed to make hard, informed decisions that we poor, ignorant fools cannot. That is supposed to include having your ass handed back to you at the next election if you can not explain yourself. 

[turtlespeed 226]

13 hours ago, ryoder said:

Pete Buttigieg has left the building:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-drops-out.html

I have a very strong suspicion that he was told to tow the part line, and back out.

I'll add to that, as he was probably offered a pretty high position in the cabinet.

 

[DJL 235]

11 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I think he has some "help" with that decision.  He was a threat to Biden by splitting the non-crazy vote.  The conversation went something like, "you are young smart and talented, but if you want a future in the Democratic party you are going to have to stand down and take one for the team" It will be interesting to see how he does with the early voting on Super Tuesday 

I'll bet Pete came that conclusion himself unless Biden offered VP but I doubt it came with a "stand down" order.  He knows that nobody wins the race with a third place average and leaving the race on a high note lines him up for a Governor or Senate position.  He can come back 8 years from now as a serious candidate with time in the saddle at a senior position.

[brenthutch 444]

4 minutes ago, DJL said:

I'll bet Pete came that conclusion himself unless Biden offered VP but I doubt it came with a "stand down" order.  He knows that nobody wins the race with a third place average

Somebody should tell Joe

[turtlespeed 226]

30 minutes ago, DJL said:

I'll bet Pete came that conclusion himself unless Biden offered VP but I doubt it came with a "stand down" order.  He knows that nobody wins the race with a third place average and leaving the race on a high note lines him up for a Governor or Senate position.  He can come back 8 years from now as a serious candidate with time in the saddle at a senior position.

Hmmm - I'd like to know where you got "8 years from"

Either the next president has 8 years , or the next president only has 4 years.

I'd like to see where Mayor Pete has progressed to in 4 years.

 

Sanders won't last 8 years, neither would Biden, and I think everyone would find out that Bloomberg is just Trump v2.0 in short order, and wouldn't like their choices being taken away from them in large sweeping decrees.

[DJL 235]

29 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Somebody should tell Joe

Google hosts a delegate count on their page.

https://www.google.com/search?q=democratic+delegate+count&oq=democratic+delega&aqs=chrome.0.0l2j69i57j0l5.5725j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[DJL 235]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

Hmmm - I'd like to know where you got "8 years from"

Either the next president has 8 years , or the next president only has 4 years.

I'd like to see where Mayor Pete has progressed to in 4 years.

 

Sanders won't last 8 years, neither would Biden, and I think everyone would find out that Bloomberg is just Trump v2.0 in short order, and wouldn't like their choices being taken away from them in large sweeping decrees.

Just that most incumbents win reelections.  That's why I haven't held much faith in anyone beating Trump but if they do we'll likely be back to 8 year cycles.  I could see Biden fizzling out but I think Bloomberg who stay all 8.  The only real lefty issue he champions is gun control.  I don't know what to say about Sanders but I tend to agree.  He could only win initially on the "anyone but Trump" vote but he appears to be incapable of working with others to get things passed and I think that he will be toxic to Democrats running for Senate and Congress.  

[yoink 321]

3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Hmmm - I'd like to know where you got "8 years from"

Either the next president has 8 years , or the next president only has 4 years.

I'd like to see where Mayor Pete has progressed to in 4 years.

 

Sanders won't last 8 years, neither would Biden, and I think everyone would find out that Bloomberg is just Trump v2.0 in short order, and wouldn't like their choices being taken away from them in large sweeping decrees.

I still don't think America will be ready to elect an openly gay president in 4 years. Or even 8. A woman will be elected first, I think.

 

But he should keep running, as should other gay candidates until the sexuality of the candidates isn't even an issue any more because it's just normal that any field would have several women or gays in it. 

Once that normalization happens only then will we see one of those two groups elected, I think.