|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 27 2019 12:02 Introvert wrote:
Clearly the moderators heard the complaints about giving Warren too much, they did let her finish though.
She was ok, Booker prob was the best considering expectations and plausibility of getting the nomination. Although Delaney telling Maddow to stuff it was great lol.
Beto and de Blasio were just...
I disagree with you on De Blasio. He had a good night. He owned who he is and got his message out with command. Warren had the best night. Booker did okay as well. Of the irrelevant tier of candidates, Julian Castro was probably the most impressive, but I doubt it will matter. Beto and Ryan had disastrous performances.
|
The most positive thing about Beto I mentioned before continues to be. He did not do well. His answered certainly lacked substance. He's getting wrecked on Twitter right now. Most of the Democrat supporters I follow on there have been dunking on him a lot.
On June 27 2019 09:06 Ben... wrote:
I do wonder which person will drop out of the primaries first after these debates. I could see Beto and a couple others doing so if polling doesn't turn around for them. The most positive thing I've seen said about Beto recently is that it would be much better for him to drop out of the presidential race and instead go for Senate again.
|
On June 27 2019 12:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 12:02 Introvert wrote:
Clearly the moderators heard the complaints about giving Warren too much, they did let her finish though.
She was ok, Booker prob was the best considering expectations and plausibility of getting the nomination. Although Delaney telling Maddow to stuff it was great lol.
Beto and de Blasio were just... I disagree with you on De Blasio. He had a good night. He owned who he is and got his message out with command. Warren had the best night. Booker did okay as well. Of the irrelevant tier of candidates, Julian Castro was probably the most impressive, but I doubt it will matter. Beto and Ryan had disastrous performances.
Warren might have won in the sense that she was strong out of the gate and didn't get into the clown car. And she closed ok.
To be clear, I don't think Beto and de Blasio were bad in the same way, you are right that the mayor of NYC is just letting it fly. But he was annoying, idk that it was a good performance. Castro annoyed me in the same way as de Blasio, but yes, Beto was garbage I think from an objective-based performance point of view.
Also, we NEED Bernie v. Warren. None of this random assignment crap.
|
Yeah, we need to get the main contenders on one stage. Bernie, Biden, Harris, Warren, and Booker should not be broken up anymore.
|
On June 27 2019 12:10 Introvert wrote:but yes, Beto was garbage I think from an objective-based performance point of view. All the left-leaning folks I know in other communities I'm in and on Twitter were shitting on him just as much as you guys were. He was very clearly out of his league.
Also, we NEED Bernie v. Warren. None of this random assignment crap. Agreed. I'd favour Warren in that debate because she seems much more put together than Bernie normally is, but I'd still like to see it non-the-less.
edit: If you want some good entertainment, search "beto" on Twitter right now. It's savage.
|
On June 27 2019 08:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Is anyone even planning on watching the debate tonight or just waiting for the main card tomorrow?
Is Inslee your man based on his prioritization of the climate change issue?
|
On June 27 2019 10:28 xDaunt wrote:
That argument about Medicare having lower overhead than insurance companies is such bullshit. The reason why it seems lower is that Medicare pays out far more in benefits as a consequence of its risk pool (expensive old and dying people).
If it did have a lower overhead, would you be for it?
|
On June 27 2019 12:35 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 10:28 xDaunt wrote:
That argument about Medicare having lower overhead than insurance companies is such bullshit. The reason why it seems lower is that Medicare pays out far more in benefits as a consequence of its risk pool (expensive old and dying people). If it did have a lower overhead, would you be for it?
I would allow a very basic level of government-provided healthcare and then let people buy their own insurance private policies or other care beyond that.
|
I guess this one is more directed at xDaunt and Introvert,
but on the health care questions, you had to wonder if the prior Democratic President actually made any signature health insurance policy changes. You wouldn't hear it at the debate. They're all running against it. They're not going to say they're the ones that will fix Obamacare, because Republicans refuse to do it. They're not even going to frame their policy changes from what their party's predecessor did on that very issue in the executive chair.
They're running against something that they might well pretend didn't even happen, and now the only questions are between another change that's too ambitious or not ambitious enough. + Show Spoiler +We need medicare for all, with or without banning private insurance, because Obamacare failed to deliver on its promise
|
On June 27 2019 12:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 12:35 ShambhalaWar wrote:On June 27 2019 10:28 xDaunt wrote:
That argument about Medicare having lower overhead than insurance companies is such bullshit. The reason why it seems lower is that Medicare pays out far more in benefits as a consequence of its risk pool (expensive old and dying people). If it did have a lower overhead, would you be for it? I would allow a very basic level of government-provided healthcare and then let people buy their own insurance private policies or other care beyond that.
Why that (if there was a lower overhead, why only allow for a "basic" level of care, if it really was cheaper)?
|
On June 27 2019 12:44 Danglars wrote:I guess this one is more directed at xDaunt and Introvert, but on the health care questions, you had to wonder if the prior Democratic President actually made any signature health insurance policy changes. You wouldn't hear it at the debate. They're all running against it. They're not going to say they're the ones that will fix Obamacare, because Republicans refuse to do it. They're not even going to frame their policy changes from what their party's predecessor did on that very issue in the executive chair. They're running against something that they might well pretend didn't even happen, and now the only questions are between another change that's too ambitious or not ambitious enough. + Show Spoiler +We need medicare for all, with or without banning private insurance, because Obamacare failed to deliver on its promise
The ACA was killed in it's crib by republicans. There was never any intention of seeing how well it worked.
|
On June 27 2019 12:44 Danglars wrote:I guess this one is more directed at xDaunt and Introvert, but on the health care questions, you had to wonder if the prior Democratic President actually made any signature health insurance policy changes. You wouldn't hear it at the debate. They're all running against it. They're not going to say they're the ones that will fix Obamacare, because Republicans refuse to do it. They're not even going to frame their policy changes from what their party's predecessor did on that very issue in the executive chair. They're running against something that they might well pretend didn't even happen, and now the only questions are between another change that's too ambitious or not ambitious enough. + Show Spoiler +We need medicare for all, with or without banning private insurance, because Obamacare failed to deliver on its promise
Yes, that was pretty funny. I thought the Democrats had fixed healthcare! Maybe I didn't catch them, but I heard barely any mentions of Obama at all tonight. Not on healthcare, the border, Iran, you name it. I suspect that will change tomorrow.
|
On June 27 2019 12:47 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 12:44 Danglars wrote:I guess this one is more directed at xDaunt and Introvert, but on the health care questions, you had to wonder if the prior Democratic President actually made any signature health insurance policy changes. You wouldn't hear it at the debate. They're all running against it. They're not going to say they're the ones that will fix Obamacare, because Republicans refuse to do it. They're not even going to frame their policy changes from what their party's predecessor did on that very issue in the executive chair. They're running against something that they might well pretend didn't even happen, and now the only questions are between another change that's too ambitious or not ambitious enough. + Show Spoiler +We need medicare for all, with or without banning private insurance, because Obamacare failed to deliver on its promise Yes, that was pretty funny. I thought the Democrats had fixed healthcare! Maybe I didn't catch them, but I heard barely any mentions of Obama at all tonight. Not on healthcare, the border, Iran, you name it. I suspect that will change tomorrow.
It cost them the midterms and they're all implicitly running against it. It's right there in the middle of the Democratic party.
"We saved you money, kept your doctor, expanded coverage, provided for the uninsurable, and did it all with Republican carrot-and-stick ideas" or if you like "The perfidous McConnell and Greatest Threat Facing America Donald Trump + Show Spoiler +from answers from the last question
I swear, if they dropped you in on that debate, you'd think the economy sucks and Republicans have held the White House for the last 12 years. If Democrats controlled the executive in recent memory, it certainly was not some guy that got anything done with health insurance or Iran.
|
As someone who was really interested in seeing how the debate panned out, I really happy with the candidates. I forgot what it was like to listen to actual leaders speak. If any of these people were elected president I would be infinitely happier and I can imagine even gaining some sense of pride (rather than shame) to admit I'm American.
I want to see tomorrow as I've always been for Bernie, but Warren has the fighting spirit. I would take her as president any day and be equally happy. I loved how she said no matter what happens in the congressional election, the fight is on no matter what... That's the kind of candidate I want!
As for everyone else, I have higher opinions of almost all of them after hearing them speak. My opinions of no candidate went down after tonight, only up. Warren I think stood out, but she always has imo.
On a different note, in the last republican debate I remember my opinions shifting even more between people after they spoke. I wanted to link this clip so we could have some contrast for those that don't remember.
+ Show Spoiler +
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 27 2019 12:47 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 12:44 Danglars wrote:I guess this one is more directed at xDaunt and Introvert, but on the health care questions, you had to wonder if the prior Democratic President actually made any signature health insurance policy changes. You wouldn't hear it at the debate. They're all running against it. They're not going to say they're the ones that will fix Obamacare, because Republicans refuse to do it. They're not even going to frame their policy changes from what their party's predecessor did on that very issue in the executive chair. They're running against something that they might well pretend didn't even happen, and now the only questions are between another change that's too ambitious or not ambitious enough. + Show Spoiler +We need medicare for all, with or without banning private insurance, because Obamacare failed to deliver on its promise Yes, that was pretty funny. I thought the Democrats had fixed healthcare! Maybe I didn't catch them, but I heard barely any mentions of Obama at all tonight. Not on healthcare, the border, Iran, you name it. I suspect that will change tomorrow.
It's almost as if the Republicans did everything in their power to undermine the PPACA. Oh wait, that's exactly what they did.
Even this gutted system the Dems put forward is better than the Republicans plan of literally doing nothing, or worse, doing things that dont make sense like forcing the coverage of pre existing conditions without the individual mandate.
|
United States43354 Posts
I'm still curious to get an answer from xDaunt about how freeing Iran from both the restrictions of the deal and the international sanctions coalition after having returned their frozen assets is a masterstroke that has their nuts in a vice. Do Persians hate getting money for nothing? Maybe it's a cultural thing.
|
On June 27 2019 12:18 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 12:10 Introvert wrote:but yes, Beto was garbage I think from an objective-based performance point of view. All the left-leaning folks I know in other communities I'm in and on Twitter were shitting on him just as much as you guys were. He was very clearly out of his league.
I think Buttigieg will be shown up in the next debate for the same thing.
First debate was full of nobodies and no hopers.Gabbard has no hope but I hope she sticks around a while to deliver her message, like Paul in 08,12. I watched 10-15 mins then turned it off.
|
Super stoked for this debate. This is like 10x as progressive as 2016. It feels like our only actual bad choices are Beto, Delaney, Ryan, Biden and Klobuchar.
|
What do you guys think of Kushner's Palestine proposal in Bahrain? Looking for investors to pour in 60 billion or something into Palestinian economy. No talk of the political situation - that will supposedly be unveiled in "part two". Palestinians seem to view it as an insulting bribe at best. I'm inclined to agree, it smells like a turd.
|
On June 27 2019 09:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 09:46 IgnE wrote:On June 27 2019 08:45 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On June 27 2019 02:37 IgnE wrote:On June 27 2019 02:09 Doodsmack wrote:
Here's Trump saying that hes glad McCain is dead, and he hopes McCain went to hell. I'm confused why this isn't garnering headlines.
probably because that’s not what he said. he did not say he “hoped” mccain was in hell. we just had someone in this thread explicitly wish that Duncan Hunter fall into a volcano and now you are criticizing Trump for being “glad that [McCain is] gone.” it is possible to be glad someone is gone without being glad they are dead per se I agree, the tweet did not have Trump saying that he hoped mccain, or anyone, was in hell (even though he did choose to explicitly mention the possibility). Trump is an elected representative with a huge amount of power and influence, not a semi-anonymous person ranting on a web forum. It's a LITTLE different when he says something expressing happiness at someone's death. I agree, it is possible to be glad someone is gone without being glad they are dead, in general. And it can even be possible to communicate this. What is emphatically not possible is that a tweet that basically reads They're gone. Dead. Possibly to hell. I'm so glad they're gone is not communicating happiness at the death thing. The whole death bit, and deliberate choice to mention the hell possibility, removes the possibility entirely. A kid who has just processed why their goldfish mysteriously changed shape and colour one morning could figure out that the death and happiness bits of the tweet were connected. Unless you are just mentioning that last sentence of possibility for lulz. Like I'm sure Trump mentioned the less green pastures for lulz. The whole pretending context doesn't matter shtick gets old really fast, and is not a good look. ah well i hope you guys remember this conversation if Trump suddenly dies in office “i’m glad he is gone good riddance . . . what? of course death is a tragedy” May I refer you to my comments following the death of Scalia? I said I was glad he was gone. If you'd like clarification over whether I'd rather he were dead than stayed on the Supreme Court the answer is yes. If Trump left office I'd be glad. If it's due to his syphilis finally finishing him off, still glad.
Hm. Trump dying of syphilis might make me even gladder than if he just retired.
(1) it's such a stupid thing to die to, and it's an incredibly fitting end.
(2) his base will quiet down for a bit while they search for a new deplorable to adore. At least in NL there was quite some time between Pim Fortuyn getting shot and Wilders recapturing all that voter base.
PS. I think Fortuyn dying was a tragedy for Dutch politics, and abhor the shooter and his ideals. But Fortuyn was a far less despicable person than Trump is (or in fact, than Wilders is).
PS2. I am not the president of anything, nor does my opinion represent anything other than my own, personal opinion. Trump fans might think I am deplorable for having this opinion, but I am not their representative on the national stage.
I don't think it's a bad thing that Trump, personally, is happy McCain is dead. I do think it's a bad thing that the president gives this opinion a voice. Unsolicited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
