Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Elegiac]

People who believe wi-fi is a government conspiracy to give you cancer.

Denied Medicaid for being a Libra.

[Sunseeker]

Denied Medicaid for being a Libra.

Sounds like they oughta switch to the Libra-tarian party.

[Elegiac]

Sounds like they oughta switch to the Libra-tarian party.

Wow I'm gonna need you to preemptively deport yourself for that one.

[Orbitus]

He only wants liberal people to be able to post, it's called censorship

No, he doesn't want liars like you to post here. Since we know that what you are posting is complete horsehit.

[cubby]

Hey I mean as long as he appoints an AG that instigates a reign of terror against all the lawbreakers in the current administration, that's a win.

I believe that Bernie would do some real good as President. Most of his policies won't pass, but their intent is good and honest - he is a good person. My entire problem with him is getting into the office in the first place. I think he's going to have trouble beating Trump more than other current Democratic contenders. But he'll have my vote nonetheless if he's the nominee.

Things I think he could do, assuming the House stays blue:
-Truth and Reconciliation Committee
-Rebuild the Executive Branch
-Apology tour (VP probably) to start rebuilding the United States' international reputation

Things I think he could do, assuming the House stays blue and the Senate turns blue:
-Puerto Rico and D.C. as states (question - how would D.C. support itself as a state? tourism revenue?)
-Wyoming option for House (which would bolster the chance at a third party)

Otherwise it will be about healing the country, and rooting out Trump's crimes and corruption - a task that won't be finished any time soon.

- - - Updated - - -

He only wants liberal people to be able to post, it's called censorship

No, we just don't want liars to post. That's not censorship, regardless of what your Faux News tells you to think.

[Theodarzna]

Liberal means nothing in America. It is a word for "disagree with righter wing"

Bunch of conservatives calling slightly less conservatives (but still conservatives) people "liberals"

I blame Rush Limbaugh exclusively for this. It is hard to imagine now, but I think that fat degenerate drug addled oafs impact on vernacular American political discourse has been utterly devastating.

Heck I remember on Dailykos and Democratic Undergrounds precursor sites when they were coming for the idea of "Progressive" to get away from the word Liberal because Limbaughs oxycotin sonorous voice made it utterly poisonous.

[Orbitus]

No, we just don't want liars to post. That's not censorship, regardless of what your Faux News tells you to think.

Fox News loves liars though. They have Hannity, Ingraham, Carlson, Solomon, Toensing, diGenova, Guiliani, Mark Levin, and every other "journalist" or contributor that they have. Unsurprisingly, most of those are also racist dipshits.

[Theodarzna]

The link explaining what semi-closed means is right there.

I am unsure if you mean a forum thread or all primaries. If its all primaries then yes, I agree. If its a forum thread? How would you do that unless people have to declare their political affiliation?

- - - Updated - - -

I am an independent Conservative. There's actually a lot of things I agree with progressives on. There's a lot I do not. I believe that states deserve more rights then the federal government, hence you can live in a state that has legal opioids. I can live in a state that won't. I believe the federal government has too much power, and liberals want to expand that power. The most prominent topic on that is guns. Why isn't that being brought up in the debates...because it is a loser for democrats, look at Beto. That will not be brought up at all in any debate unless Trump brings it up.

Self I.D. doesn't In my book matter too too much. I'd say I'm a Paleo-Con on some cultural or social values and ideas. But if you ask me who got socioeconomic's right, Karl Marx or Milton Friedman, I'm going with Marx. The problem with taking labels serious is that one will start trying to contort themselves to fit in with others of that label. Basically don't take labels too seriously or you will almost adopt it as a kind of personal brand.

[Milchshake]

For anyone that has had to deal with the online harassment from the Bernie camp... Only to be gaslit "it's not real", or "it's just russian bots".

No, it has been real, and some of it did come from inside his camp.
The private Twitter account of a newly promoted campaign staffer indicates that at least some of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ most toxic support is coming from inside the house.


t’s difficult to hold a candidate responsible for the vitriol of his online followers. But here, a paid Sanders staffer said incredibly nasty things about fellow candidates. Probably not unique to his campaign. But shows it aint bots either.
Some targets of Mora’s cruelest comments aren’t even rival candidates, but family members, campaign surrogates, and reporters.
Elizabeth Warren, a frequent subject of Mora’s private account, is called a “dumb Okie,” “an adult diaper fetishist” who “looks like shit” and who lied about having Native American ancestry “to get into Harvard.”

Update: Mike Casca, Sanders’ communications director, told me that “we are running a multiracial, multigenerational campaign for justice where disgusting behavior and ugly personal attacks by our staff will not be tolerated.”

Mora has been fired.

Nice to see some small steps towards

[Theodarzna]

For anyone that has had to deal with the online harassment from the Bernie camp... Only to be gaslit "it's not real", or "it's just russian bots".

Kvetching about harsh comments from Twitter feels a lot like "Someone named 420OppaiLover69 with Junko Enoshima as their avi called me dumb, and that is why I don't want Universal Healthcare."

[downnola]

Personally, I'm disappointed with you though Slacker76. I used to like your posts and commentary. I used to enjoy spotting your avatar knowing your comment would fill my heart with some joy.

AWWWWW.

I think it's great that he's moved on from trashing centrists to turning his guns on Bernie Bros, tho. Variety is the spice of life.

[Themius]

Agreed, but it was still an improvement over what we had before ACA.

I was being sarcastic. The rest of the post is about me pointing out the failures of not expanding.

[Milchshake]

AWWWWW.

I think it's great that he's moved on from trashing centrists to turning his guns on Bernie Bros, tho. Variety is the spice of life.

As a professor I still punch nazis on the weekends




I just dont like bullies, equally on the "left" and the right.

[Jehct]

Well...yes...no duh. When you're projecting out the future, you have to rely on a ton of assumptions based off of current data, so of course it will qualify things with "if" a lot. These people are analysts, not fortune tellers.



I always enjoy people treating this possibility as if it's new. Y'all, this shit has been happening under the current system in droves - http://www.shepscenter.unc.edu/progr...ital-closures/

Because, unsurprisingly, the current system isn't great.

And guess who benefits when more people in poverty have access to health care via not needing to worry about cost?

Rural hospitals.

Why? Because part of the issue with them is that they often have to treat uninsured patients and...well, they're eating a lot of those costs. Which leads to more expenses to try to chase down delinquent payees who may not have had a choice to go to the hospital. Or they just garnish their wages. None of which are good for hospitals, or people.



Again, that's already happening - https://www.foxnews.com/us/rural-ame...emergency-care

And, if by expanding the pool of people paying to go to hospitals and ensuring that payments are made by the government, that stands to improve the financials even more. Less money lost due to inability to pay, less money lost paying people to argue with insurance companies/patients about payments, less time for lawyers to spend pointlessly suing poor people for bills they can't pay etc.

Pretty much all the "OH NOES, THIS WILL BE A DISASTER!" scenarios you and others bring up are already happening all over the country. Especially for people in rural communities and on the lower end of the economic spectrum.



But, when you have nearly two dozens studies on different implementations of medicare for all and they all come to the same conclusion...then I think that they're signaling that the foundation for the policy is itself, sound and a cost-saving measure.



If the US could negotiate on drug prices, they would go down substantially. Like every other country with nationalized payment systems/health care do. The collective bargaining power of the entire US population is a powerful thing, my friend.



Hey man, I don't know if they'll have your "exact" plan. I don't even know what that is. And it's also not a claim that's ever been made by the Sanders or Warren camp. So yeah, you very well may lose your fancy plan. But you know what? You'd still be covered for everything. You'd have to spend even less time haggling with insurance and dealing with the assistants at the front desk hassling with insurance. You'll spend less overall and won't have to worry about/consider copays, deductibles, or out of pocket maximums. You may have to wait a bit longer for non-urgent issues, but again as I've said, the "NO PRIVATE INSURANCE AT ALL" thing ain't gonna fly. Ever.

Hell, M4A itself is a pie in the sky objective and there ain't a chance in hell it gets done in 4 or even 8 years. That's a massive undertaking that will take multiple administrations to see through, and the country clearly isn't ready for it. They weren't ready for the ACA, which was a baby step towards M4A, but 8 years later people are realizing that they like a whole lot of what it included (longer coverage for your kids, no rejections for pre-existing conditions, expanded medicaid etc.) and don't want to give it up.

A question a lot of doctors in healthcare are wondering with a nationalized healthcare system. Would doctors get to choose where they work and live just like now? Or would the need of physicians in certain areas outweigh where doctors would like to live?

[Edge-]

A question a lot of doctors in healthcare are wondering with a nationalized healthcare system. Would doctors get to choose where they work and live just like now? Or would the need of physicians in certain areas outweigh where doctors would like to live?

It's not nationalized health care, and if I wrote that I did so in error. The government is not in the business of operating health care outside of the VA, and M4A would not change that. All it would do is shift all payments away from insurers and to a central pot distributed by the government, functionally eliminating the middle-man in the process. The government would just pay the bills, not pick where doctors practice medicine.

[Skroe]

As a professor I still punch nazis on the weekends




I just dont like bullies, equally on the "left" and the right.

Well said.

[Locklen]

@Skroe How do you feel about Bloomberg? Sure, he is a billionaire, but in Florida he has an appeal. I think that Bloomberg has the best shot of the democrats to beat Trump simply because I think that Bloomberg would be willing to spend the money needed to take Florida without the FDP, and I dont see him spending that money in this way if Sanders takes the nomination (which the DNC should resist with all its might. If there is a way for the DNC so award the ballot position to not Sanders, they should take it even if Bernie wins a majority in the primaries, he simply sucks in the states that matter).

[nonameelf]

(which the DNC should resist with all its might. If there is a way for the DNC so award the ballot position to not Sanders, they should take it even if Bernie wins a majority in the primaries, he simply sucks in the states that matter).

Seems like a very good way to ensure Trump wins again.

[PACOX]

The thing about all this anti-Sanders rhetoric is that I haven't seen many alternatives proposed.

Klob - no
Pete - can't get a black person who isn't on his staff to vote for him
Biden - "I know Obama", ok boomer
Bloomberg - Blue Trump. Just play one of his old clips and he has Pete's problem
Warren - The RC Cola to Sanders' Coke Classic.

And if the issue is that Sanders can't win, then the primary argument should be getting all of ops to coalesce around one super candidate who can beat him in the primary, not whining about Sanders outperforming his closest competitor by 20 points. Its the same thing when people we're coming up with every excuse for Sanders in 2016. The math just isn't there, so stop dragging ass and figure out how we can win in November.

[Flarelaine]

Bernie Sanders just blew up his campaign in Florida. His campaign might as well pack their bags and never return to the state because they will never win after the royal screw-up on Castro.

I quoted you, but it goes to many others, like @Skroe :

Al Gore was also supposed to have alienated the entire Cuban community with the Elian Gonzalez drama and he barely lost Florida. In fact, we don't even (and will never) know if he actually received fewer votes. So... maybe don't bury Sanders just yet.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a terrible excuse for not trying to win a damn important swing state.

Even if we accept the likely outcome that Florida as a whole stays red, the DNC had better still expend money and effort to prop up Democratic candidates there. Everyone just talks about the presidency, but downballot is so bloody important.