Can Sanders Win?

[Pragidealist]

1 minute ago, Mythos27 said:

Pete's plan answered every question that you have?

In a broad sense.  My high level understanding (I've not poured through his plans in detail) - is it would create a public option that can be chosen.   The current system would exist in tandem for an unspecified amount of time.  It would not require people to give up their private benefits. At future date, we could make a transition a requirement based on its success.   That would match most large system changes that I have been involved in previously. 

 

That was why one reason why they pushed for a public option back in the original ACA.   Its a logical bridge to universal from where we are.   

 

That also builds on the ACA without dismantling it. 

 

 

[Pragidealist]

5 minutes ago, Pragidealist said:

In a broad sense.  My high level understanding (I've not poured through his plans in detail) - is it would create a public option that can be chosen.   The current system would exist in tandem for an unspecified amount of time.  It would not require people to give up their private benefits. At future date, we could make a transition a requirement based on its success.   That would match most large system changes that I have been involved in previously. 

 

That was why one reason why they pushed for a public option back in the original ACA.   Its a logical bridge to universal from where we are.   

 

That also builds on the ACA without dismantling it. 

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

Pete's plan answered every question that you have?

 

 

The problem with it is 1) It may be more expensive without any expense offsets. Meaning  you couldn't turn around an raise taxes on the middle class to pay for it with the expectation being you just saved them money on the private side.  (But I think that assumption is faulty anyway). 2) The biggest problem I think for Bernie is that approach is not ideologically pure. It still keeps a potentially superior healthcare system for those who pay and a different one for those who go public. 3) He doesn't like it because it doesn't get to the fantasy for another 5 to 10 years at which point he 'll likely not be here.   Its slower than he wants.

 

But doing it his way is likely very harmful for lots of people.  This way is slower but would get us there.   This way has the added benefit of being more popular as the plan doesn't take away insurance from those who are satisfied with their plans. 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Pragidealist

[T-RAC]

2 minutes ago, Pragidealist said:

 

 

That was why one reason why they pushed for a public option back in the original ACA.   Its a logical bridge to universal from where we are.   

 

 

Check out the ACA in its original form vs what actually passed.

 

Then ask yourself what our starting position should be in the next fight.

[Pragidealist]

6 minutes ago, T-RAC said:

 

Check out the ACA in its original form vs what actually passed.

 

Then ask yourself what our starting position should be in the next fight.

 

I know what it was. I read it and the one that passed.    Believing Bernie is doing this for a better negotiating position but really wants a public option requires blind faith.  He's never alluded or said that. In fact he says the opposite.  I tend to believe what he says.. not what I think he means when he says it.  That's a slippery slope to believing he believes exactly like you when he doesn't at all. 

 

   

 

 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Pragidealist

[WG53]

3 hours ago, Starkiller said:

Sure, but how many millions of votes is that? Ask Hillary, she could probably tell you...

Fucking pathetic. Stop blaming others for Hillary being a shitty candidate that ran a shitty campaign.

[T-RAC]

2 minutes ago, Pragidealist said:

 

I know what it was. I read it and the one that passed.    Believing Bernie is doing this for a better negotiating position but really wants a public option requires blind faith.  He's never alluded or said that. In fact he says the opposite.  I tend to believe what he says.. not what I think he means when he says it.  That's a slippery slope to believing he believes exactly like you when he doesn't at all. 

 

 

That's not what I'm saying. I don't think Bernie is angling for a negotiating position or wants to settle for a public option and no plan to go further.

 

I just think Bernie's plan actually is a better negotiating position. The reality is there will be a transition and some amount of compromise along the way. The transition has already begun with the ACA. I think Bernie will compromise less than a guy like Buttigieg but that's a good thing.

 

This is where Buttigieg's age, experience and smaller ambitions hurt him. The GOP would eat him alive. 

 

[Pragidealist]

6 minutes ago, T-RAC said:

 

That's not what I'm saying. I don't think Bernie is angling for a negotiating position or wants to settle for a public option and no plan to go further.

 

I just think Bernie's plan actually is a better negotiating position. The reality is there will be a transition and some amount of compromise along the way. The transition has already begun with the ACA. I think Bernie will compromise less than a guy like Buttigieg but that's a good thing.

 

This is where Buttigieg's age, experience and smaller ambitions hurt him. The GOP would eat him alive. 

 

 

I agree that Buttigieg's experience will hurt him in things like that.  IT hurt Obama and was why I was for Hillary back then.   You can convince me that Biden is a better option than Pete because of that but not that a guy who is pushing it out of ignorance will be better.  It  means he doesn't understand how to actually implement things or he doesn't care.   Either way- bad for a president.  

 

Its flat out dangerous because if he is that way on his signature issue he'll be a lot worse on others.     

 

That's why I could get behind Warren if we wanted to left learning candidate but I really can't for Bernie.   

 

 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Pragidealist

[IsntLifeFunny]

1 hour ago, Pragidealist said:

 

I know what it was. I read it and the one that passed.    Believing Bernie is doing this for a better negotiating position but really wants a public option requires blind faith.  He's never alluded or said that. In fact he says the opposite.  I tend to believe what he says.. not what I think he means when he says it.  That's a slippery slope to believing he believes exactly like you when he doesn't at all. 

 

   

 

 

I agree to an extent, but I can relate to the lady who slightly chastised Cortez. In a perfect world you would be right, or better said in a logical world, but look at the opposition. These people are unreasonable to the Nth degree. If they’re not forced to compromise they won’t, so in a world where we keep the filibuster negotiations must take place from a point of strength. 
 

However, if we choose to go a different route and repeal the filibuster then your stance makes all the sense in the world. At that point though we have likely unleashed Pandora’s Box. 

[IsntLifeFunny]

1 hour ago, WG53 said:

Fucking pathetic. Stop blaming others for Hillary being a shitty candidate that ran a shitty campaign.

He isn’t exactly wrong, but then again is was shown that 25% of Hillary voters in 08 voted for McCain. 
 

I have wondered what the true number is when it comes to those who switched from Hillary to McCain versus those who switched from Sanders to Trump + those who stayed home/voted third party. I imagine they’re similar numbers. 
 

But yes, as to your point, Clinton will go down as easily one of the worst candidates in history. Her entire strategy was terrible and filled with outright arrogance; all the way from her slogan, which belittles the human psyche (politicians should be with us, not for them) to her ignorantly thinking the Midwest was in the bag. Just an overall terrible showing. 

[tgo]

 

[tgo]

53 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

He isn’t exactly wrong, but then again is was shown that 25% of Hillary voters in 08 voted for McCain. 
 

I have wondered what the true number is when it comes to those who switched from Hillary to McCain versus those who switched from Sanders to Trump + those who stayed home/voted third party. I imagine they’re similar numbers. 
 

But yes, as to your point, Clinton will go down as easily one of the worst candidates in history. Her entire strategy was terrible and filled with outright arrogance; all the way from her slogan, which belittles the human psyche (politicians should be with us, not for them) to her ignorantly thinking the Midwest was in the bag. Just an overall terrible showing. 

 

It's interesting because lately I've heard "Romney-Clinton" voters referred to a lot as well in commentary and podcasts and such, which I guess is the bucket I technically belong to - even though I was a big Obama supporter in high school and now in retrospect/throughout Obama's second term; as he did more for the economy than Romney even said he could achieve as a best case scenario. 

Edited February 19, 2020 by tgo

[IsntLifeFunny]

2 minutes ago, tgo said:

 

It's interesting because lately I've heard "Romney-Clinton" voters referred to a lot as well in commentary and podcasts and such, which I guess is the bucket I technically belong to - even though I was a big Obama supporter in high school and now in retrospect/throughout Obama's second term; as he did more for the economy than Romney even said he could achieve as a best case scenario. 

Why didn’t you vote for Obama in 12?
 

I didn’t vote for Obama in 12 either, even though I still really liked the guy as a person and as an overseer of the economy. My vote didn’t count anyways. I voted for Ron Paul on the principal of stopping the meddling in the ME, and I felt like Obama making Clinton Secretary of State was a massive mistake that led to the destruction of Libya. In a roundabout way it also led to much of the destruction in Syria as a ton of the weapons used in Libya were transported there after the destruction of the Gaddafi regime. 
 

Since that time I’ve stepped back a bit. Reo and I had some long arguments about Libya and Syria. We never came to an agreement, but at the end of it I saw he was in between a rock and a hard place. He shouldn’t have intervened to take out Gaddafi in such a manner. I’ll always believe that. Africa is poor enough and Libya was the wealthiest nation in all of North Africa.

 

I’ve always found this an interesting quote from an article I remembered from a long time ago and found. 
 

“Few Americans realize it, but our leaders who lack military experience tend to be more hawkish than leaders who have served in the military,” said Matt Pottinger.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/libya-airstrikes-hillary-clinton-and-the-women-who-called-for-war

 

The three people who pushed Obama into war were Clinton, Susan Rice, and Samantha Powers. All three were heavily invested in the genocide that happened in Rwanda. Tactically speaking the two situations could not have been more different. Gaddafi was putting down an insurgency while in Rwanda it was one tribe trying to extinguish the other. It was a horrible mistake that 9 years later has left five provincial governments in Libya, all at war with one another. 
 

And like I said above, after the destruction, the forces in Libya turned to Syria. It became a train wreck. It was essentially the fulfillment of our decades long strategy of propping up dictators, which we decided to in very short order rescind that invitation and ruin their nations or oversee the ruin of them. 
 

Ha so after writing a paper, why did you vote for Romney? 

[tgo]

@IsntLifeFunny

 

Honestly I was just starting to really get into taking a lot of business classes and had some conservative political science professors at the time as well, so kind of got too caught up in all the pro-business culture which influenced me as a young college student. Also let my family/friends influence me too much at the time as well. 

 

Additionally, Romney's foreign policy appealed to me a lot more than Obama's, and he actually turned out to be right about Russia when everyone was making fun of him, along with a few other things. I've always been more hawkish on foreign policy, but have learned to be much more selective about it and have realized that American soft power is much more effective that military force. 

 

I also had and still have a ton of respect for Mitt Romney the person and executive. I think he's shown great judgement and character at times where others have had failures in judgement and character. 

 

I'm still pro business of course, but the truth is that moderate Democrats are far better for the economy than Republicans. 

 

Regarding the Libya stuff, fun fact: (gonna plug my boy here), but Biden argued very very heavily against Clinton/Rice/Power/Obama on the Libya invasion and disposing of Gaddafi. He ultimately lost, but argued vehemently with them that removing Gaddafi would result in regional chaos and further deterioration of the territory. 

Edited February 19, 2020 by tgo

[IsntLifeFunny]

I didn’t know that about Biden. Good stuff. 

[IsntLifeFunny]

I think conservatives who actually stick to their principles are important for our government, but the fact is the only conservatives we have are moderate democrats.
 

Those in the Republican ranks who consider themselves conservatives are nothing more than religious zealots who hope to make sure women cannot have abortions and hope to elect judges who feel the same. They care nothing about spending, deficits, the debt, or the amount of interest we are paying on that debt. They think tax cuts into the trillions is fine when the massive majority of it goes to the rich while saying we should cut pylons out from our social safety net. It’s a total sham. 
 

Just wait till a Dem gets back in office and all of the sudden the deficit matters again. Fucking hypocrites.