|
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 January 10 2020 07:15 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 07:06 Sermokala wrote:On January 10 2020 07:00 Gorgonoth wrote:On January 10 2020 06:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 10 2020 03:28 franzji wrote:On January 10 2020 02:30 Silvanel wrote:On January 09 2020 23:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Trump doesn't have a foreign policy for USA. What short term gain has he gained for the US foreign policy wise? He has made all American nationals less safe in the region. Iraq has issued a demand for American troops to leave the country. Even Isreal and Saudi Arabia is alarmed by the assassination. A)Iraq parliment passed a resolution asking government to throw Americans out. Iraq government is not bound by it as far as i understand and they are not likely to do such step. B)Trump: -abandoned Kurds to get on Edrogans good side -assasinated Soleimani which was thorn in their back for a long time -declared trade war on China (which many considers sound but long overdue) move -is constantly treatning other countries for small concessions It's funny how many considered the trade war with China to be a huge mistake at first because it was "Trump's policy-making to attempt to put America first!", which Democrats hate to hear. So many people talking about how we would see the huge rise in prices. Democrats really hate the phase "Putting America first", there is a lot of self-hate from Democrats. China is finally coming to the table and might agree to fix some of their horrible, unfair practices. The trade war with China has caused massive economic problems for farmers here in the Midwest. Farmers are going bankrupt at record numbers. Here we go. New Monmouth NH poll is out. Buttigieg at 20, Biden at 19, Bernie 18 and Warren 15.
At this point, it looks like Buttigieg is the giant monkey wrench in the system because we're a month away from voting in NH and he has a legitimate chance of winning this contest and Iowa but a farfetched (nonexistent?) chance of winning the nomination. Which is honestly pretty crazy.
My working thought is that Buttigieg is the younger, fresher, trendier replica of the Biden vote, that moderate democrats in these early states feel better about voting for.
If people are serious about Sanders winning this contest then they need to ditch Warren yesterday. She's close to him politically, but with less charisma. She's going nowhere, but this progressive vote being split up hurts them both so much. Maybe she could VP for him? A Biden/Buttigieg and Sanders/Warren might be the most even ideological split we could see.
The long term national polling still looks good for Biden, as well as in Nevada and South Carolina which are next before Super Tuesday. Buttigieg and Biden are definitely not the same politically and don't have the same voter base. Buttigieg is quite a bit to the left of Biden, although Warren and Sanders make him look like a conservative in comparison. Also B/B and Warren/Sanders tickets are terrible ideas politically. The only advantage that Biden might get is to woo younger white voters that are into Buttigieg, and there is pretty much no tangible difference among the electorate between Warren and Sanders. Biden's bigger problem is going to be motivating progressives to actually vote, while Warren/Sanders will struggle with winning over conservative Democrats, certain minorities, and independents. The aforementioned VP choices would do nothing to help with either of those problems. Hmm I think their voter base is very similar, represented by the related downward trend of Biden in early states and Buttigieg's corresponding surge. They both represent moderate or center-left democrat. Pete may be farther left of Biden on policy, but his forward-facing moments to the public in debates and interviews ( which are more important IMO than contrasting website policy statements) make him appear indistinguishable from a younger Joe Biden. Buttigieg is still closer to Biden than Warren even if there's a little more breathing room than Sanders and Warren on policy. You're underestimating the efficacy of Warren and Sanders syncing up. In a state like NH Warren is still polling at 15. If you give Sanders even half that vote he has the edge in a crucial state. Same story in Iowa and Nevada. Any contest Warren actually enters will do nothing except hurt Sanders. Pretty much the same for Pete, but the rub here is Biden's got home-court advantage heading into South Carolina and super tuesday. I really don't see how we get past the hump of the centrist base of the democfatic party outnumbering the progressive side. The Biden-pete side just has the numbers reguardless of how the charis are moved around. I guess if warren goes out than Sanders could beat the center duo assuming neither drops out.
My hope is that if either Sanders or Warren don't win any of the first 4 states, they immediately drop out and endorse the other one. Whoever wins the most early states should be crowned the liberal winner. It would be cool if Warren and Bernie made some kinda secret pact and then executed it immediately after results from the first states come in. Bernie or Warren making a firm endorsement of the other would be really big.
|
Northern Ireland23847 Posts
On January 10 2020 03:28 franzji wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 02:30 Silvanel wrote:On January 09 2020 23:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Trump doesn't have a foreign policy for USA. What short term gain has he gained for the US foreign policy wise? He has made all American nationals less safe in the region. Iraq has issued a demand for American troops to leave the country. Even Isreal and Saudi Arabia is alarmed by the assassination. A)Iraq parliment passed a resolution asking government to throw Americans out. Iraq government is not bound by it as far as i understand and they are not likely to do such step. B)Trump: -abandoned Kurds to get on Edrogans good side -assasinated Soleimani which was thorn in their back for a long time -declared trade war on China (which many considers sound but long overdue) move -is constantly treatning other countries for small concessions It's funny how many considered the trade war with China to be a huge mistake at first because it was "Trump's policy-making to attempt to put America first!", which Democrats hate to hear. So many people talking about how we would see the huge rise in prices. Democrats really hate the phase "Putting America first", there is a lot of self-hate from Democrats. China is finally coming to the table and might agree to fix some of their horrible, unfair practices.
Global capitalism does tend to look unfair when you’re not reaping all the benefits
|
On January 10 2020 03:28 franzji wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 02:30 Silvanel wrote:On January 09 2020 23:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Trump doesn't have a foreign policy for USA. What short term gain has he gained for the US foreign policy wise? He has made all American nationals less safe in the region. Iraq has issued a demand for American troops to leave the country. Even Isreal and Saudi Arabia is alarmed by the assassination. A)Iraq parliment passed a resolution asking government to throw Americans out. Iraq government is not bound by it as far as i understand and they are not likely to do such step. B)Trump: -abandoned Kurds to get on Edrogans good side -assasinated Soleimani which was thorn in their back for a long time -declared trade war on China (which many considers sound but long overdue) move -is constantly treatning other countries for small concessions It's funny how many considered the trade war with China to be a huge mistake at first because it was "Trump's policy-making to attempt to put America first!", which Democrats hate to hear. So many people talking about how we would see the huge rise in prices. Democrats really hate the phase "Putting America first", there is a lot of self-hate from Democrats. China is finally coming to the table and might agree to fix some of their horrible, unfair practices.
And to answer a question from a couple pages back; this is why adding 'right wing voices' to the thread isn't necessarily an improvement. So many of them just spout lines and have nothing to back them up.
The stalwarts of the past weren't really much different, they were just better with the English language and so could play more games with people trying to pin them down on their bullshit.
|
On January 10 2020 07:06 Sermokala wrote:
I really don't see how we get past the hump of the centrist base of the democfatic party outnumbering the progressive side. The Biden-pete side just has the numbers reguardless of how the charis are moved around.
On paper the electorate still leans centrist, but I think its still possible for a more progressive candidate to have a strong performance in enough states to take it. Hell Bernie Sanders got close with the full powers of heaven arrayed against him.
These early states get so cluttered. Klobuchar, Yang, Gabbard and Steyer still make up almost 20% in this monmouth poll and none have a remotely serious chance aside of vanity runs or posturing for a VP nomination.
It's entirely plausible that whoever wins Iowa does so with under 25% of the vote. It's all about who can be the most popular for enough consecutive seconds.
On January 10 2020 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:
My hope is that if either Sanders or Warren don't win any of the first 4 states, they immediately drop out and endorse the other one. Whoever wins the most early states should be crowned the liberal winner. It would be cool if Warren and Bernie made some kinda secret pact and then executed it immediately after results from the first states come in. Bernie or Warren making a firm endorsement of the other would be really big.
I'd put most of my chips down on a scenario like this one playing out. It might be too late though. Super Tuesday is so huge that if Warren and Sander's don't unify by South Carolina, or worse they actually go into Super Tuesday split up, the deficit will be insurmountable.
Anyways, I'm quite excited for the debate on the 14th as we're in crunch time.
|
wonder what bullshit Trump is going to spew at the rally tonight... 
|
Toledo is crazy right now
|
Regardless of how Warren performs in Iowa and New Hampshire she probably can't win the nomination nationally, even if Sanders dropped out tomorrow. There isn't time to build the kinda national campaign that it took for Obama to beat Hillary.
The "not-Bernie" candidates failed to manifest the kinda groundswell in grassroots support it would take to overwhelm the establishment pick on super Tuesday and beyond.
But really for progressives there's nothing to be gained by Warren staying in the race at this point imo.
|
|
|
On January 10 2020 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 07:15 JimmiC wrote:On January 10 2020 07:06 Sermokala wrote:On January 10 2020 07:00 Gorgonoth wrote:On January 10 2020 06:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 10 2020 03:28 franzji wrote:On January 10 2020 02:30 Silvanel wrote:On January 09 2020 23:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Trump doesn't have a foreign policy for USA. What short term gain has he gained for the US foreign policy wise? He has made all American nationals less safe in the region. Iraq has issued a demand for American troops to leave the country. Even Isreal and Saudi Arabia is alarmed by the assassination. A)Iraq parliment passed a resolution asking government to throw Americans out. Iraq government is not bound by it as far as i understand and they are not likely to do such step. B)Trump: -abandoned Kurds to get on Edrogans good side -assasinated Soleimani which was thorn in their back for a long time -declared trade war on China (which many considers sound but long overdue) move -is constantly treatning other countries for small concessions It's funny how many considered the trade war with China to be a huge mistake at first because it was "Trump's policy-making to attempt to put America first!", which Democrats hate to hear. So many people talking about how we would see the huge rise in prices. Democrats really hate the phase "Putting America first", there is a lot of self-hate from Democrats. China is finally coming to the table and might agree to fix some of their horrible, unfair practices. The trade war with China has caused massive economic problems for farmers here in the Midwest. Farmers are going bankrupt at record numbers. Here we go. New Monmouth NH poll is out. Buttigieg at 20, Biden at 19, Bernie 18 and Warren 15.
At this point, it looks like Buttigieg is the giant monkey wrench in the system because we're a month away from voting in NH and he has a legitimate chance of winning this contest and Iowa but a farfetched (nonexistent?) chance of winning the nomination. Which is honestly pretty crazy.
My working thought is that Buttigieg is the younger, fresher, trendier replica of the Biden vote, that moderate democrats in these early states feel better about voting for.
If people are serious about Sanders winning this contest then they need to ditch Warren yesterday. She's close to him politically, but with less charisma. She's going nowhere, but this progressive vote being split up hurts them both so much. Maybe she could VP for him? A Biden/Buttigieg and Sanders/Warren might be the most even ideological split we could see.
The long term national polling still looks good for Biden, as well as in Nevada and South Carolina which are next before Super Tuesday. Buttigieg and Biden are definitely not the same politically and don't have the same voter base. Buttigieg is quite a bit to the left of Biden, although Warren and Sanders make him look like a conservative in comparison. Also B/B and Warren/Sanders tickets are terrible ideas politically. The only advantage that Biden might get is to woo younger white voters that are into Buttigieg, and there is pretty much no tangible difference among the electorate between Warren and Sanders. Biden's bigger problem is going to be motivating progressives to actually vote, while Warren/Sanders will struggle with winning over conservative Democrats, certain minorities, and independents. The aforementioned VP choices would do nothing to help with either of those problems. Hmm I think their voter base is very similar, represented by the related downward trend of Biden in early states and Buttigieg's corresponding surge. They both represent moderate or center-left democrat. Pete may be farther left of Biden on policy, but his forward-facing moments to the public in debates and interviews ( which are more important IMO than contrasting website policy statements) make him appear indistinguishable from a younger Joe Biden. Buttigieg is still closer to Biden than Warren even if there's a little more breathing room than Sanders and Warren on policy. You're underestimating the efficacy of Warren and Sanders syncing up. In a state like NH Warren is still polling at 15. If you give Sanders even half that vote he has the edge in a crucial state. Same story in Iowa and Nevada. Any contest Warren actually enters will do nothing except hurt Sanders. Pretty much the same for Pete, but the rub here is Biden's got home-court advantage heading into South Carolina and super tuesday. I really don't see how we get past the hump of the centrist base of the democfatic party outnumbering the progressive side. The Biden-pete side just has the numbers reguardless of how the charis are moved around. I guess if warren goes out than Sanders could beat the center duo assuming neither drops out. My hope is that if either Sanders or Warren don't win any of the first 4 states, they immediately drop out and endorse the other one.
I mean New Hampshire is right next to Vermont and Sanders beat Clinton by a margin of 22% in the 16 primary so he should win it easily.
|
United States24579 Posts
I have always felt that the primary should be a winner-take-all one day event, not state by state BS. The order the votes occur State by State matters way too much.
|
On January 10 2020 09:52 JimmiC wrote:
@farvacola, or someone else with good understanding of the legal system in the US.
If (and I get this is super unrealistic, just wondering the process) Sanders got elected and the senate and congress became all Dem's, and progressive enough Dem's that they all agreed and voted for a universal healthcare that was the same as Canada/Europe owned and operated by the government funded through taxes because the government was paying just about as much as the other countries and not getting universal. How would they go about it, I'm guessing they couldn't just seize all the hospitals and staff. Would they have to buy out the shares? Would the supreme court just not allow it?
Basically how would the US actually go about making health care public instead of private? Or is the only option the government working with the private and insurance system? And then could they regulate certain cost control's and fairness requirements?
There is a fair bit of differentiation among leftist plans for universal healthcare in the US, but the one I think makes the most sense goes through public option, universal insurance that works somewhat like Medicare but with beefed up cost coverage and a wider range of general applicability/simplicity (think consolidate and streamline Medicare Parts A, B, C, D into one or two comprehensive schemes). Paying for it is not an issue for two reasons, the first is the savings that results from reduction in bloat on the part of both insurers and providers, the second is a more radical economic notion that derives from what I think is the correct view of how deficit spending works, namely that the battle over when and where "how are you gonna pay for that" gets invoked deals far more in the fluid rules of political conflict than hard economic facts a la inflation when dealing with a monetary sovereign.
|
On January 10 2020 11:21 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 09:52 JimmiC wrote:
@farvacola, or someone else with good understanding of the legal system in the US.
If (and I get this is super unrealistic, just wondering the process) Sanders got elected and the senate and congress became all Dem's, and progressive enough Dem's that they all agreed and voted for a universal healthcare that was the same as Canada/Europe owned and operated by the government funded through taxes because the government was paying just about as much as the other countries and not getting universal. How would they go about it, I'm guessing they couldn't just seize all the hospitals and staff. Would they have to buy out the shares? Would the supreme court just not allow it?
Basically how would the US actually go about making health care public instead of private? Or is the only option the government working with the private and insurance system? And then could they regulate certain cost control's and fairness requirements? There is a fair bit of differentiation among leftist plans for universal healthcare in the US, but the one I think makes the most sense goes through public option, universal insurance that works somewhat like Medicare but with beefed up cost coverage and a wider range of general applicability/simplicity (think consolidate and streamline Medicare Parts A, B, C, D into one or two comprehensive schemes). Paying for it is not an issue for two reasons, the first is the savings that results from reduction in bloat on the part of both insurers and providers, the second is a more radical economic notion that derives from what I think is the correct view of how deficit spending works, namely that the battle over when and where "how are you gonna pay for that" gets invoked deals far more in the fluid rules of political conflict than hard economic facts a la inflation when dealing with a monetary sovereign.
What would you think the supreme court decisions would be if something like that got implemented? I see lawsuits filling up the court systems already should that come to pass. Is there a way to structure it so that the lawsuits and subsequent SC hearing isn't going to make it ACA 2.0?
|
|
|
On January 10 2020 11:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 11:21 farvacola wrote:On January 10 2020 09:52 JimmiC wrote:
@farvacola, or someone else with good understanding of the legal system in the US.
If (and I get this is super unrealistic, just wondering the process) Sanders got elected and the senate and congress became all Dem's, and progressive enough Dem's that they all agreed and voted for a universal healthcare that was the same as Canada/Europe owned and operated by the government funded through taxes because the government was paying just about as much as the other countries and not getting universal. How would they go about it, I'm guessing they couldn't just seize all the hospitals and staff. Would they have to buy out the shares? Would the supreme court just not allow it?
Basically how would the US actually go about making health care public instead of private? Or is the only option the government working with the private and insurance system? And then could they regulate certain cost control's and fairness requirements? There is a fair bit of differentiation among leftist plans for universal healthcare in the US, but the one I think makes the most sense goes through public option, universal insurance that works somewhat like Medicare but with beefed up cost coverage and a wider range of general applicability/simplicity (think consolidate and streamline Medicare Parts A, B, C, D into one or two comprehensive schemes). Paying for it is not an issue for two reasons, the first is the savings that results from reduction in bloat on the part of both insurers and providers, the second is a more radical economic notion that derives from what I think is the correct view of how deficit spending works, namely that the battle over when and where "how are you gonna pay for that" gets invoked deals far more in the fluid rules of political conflict than hard economic facts a la inflation when dealing with a monetary sovereign. What would you think the supreme court decisions would be if something like that got implemented? I see lawsuits filling up the court systems already should that come to pass. Is there a way to structure it so that the lawsuits and subsequent SC hearing isn't going to make it ACA 2.0?
One of the fundamental flaws with the ACA was that it intermingled state and federal administration together in a way that tracks more closely with Medicaid, which creates a host of unnecessary constitutional problems that quickly became the fodder that has served as the numerous challenges to the law. Take-it-or-leave-it Medicaid conditions were struck down in NFIB v. Sebelius, for example, whereas there is no doubt whatsoever that the federal government can levy a uniform program of insurance like Medicare or Social Security. The half-baked cooperative state and federal managed markets scheme underlying the ACA doomed it from the start.
|
On January 10 2020 11:44 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 11:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 10 2020 11:21 farvacola wrote:On January 10 2020 09:52 JimmiC wrote:
@farvacola, or someone else with good understanding of the legal system in the US.
If (and I get this is super unrealistic, just wondering the process) Sanders got elected and the senate and congress became all Dem's, and progressive enough Dem's that they all agreed and voted for a universal healthcare that was the same as Canada/Europe owned and operated by the government funded through taxes because the government was paying just about as much as the other countries and not getting universal. How would they go about it, I'm guessing they couldn't just seize all the hospitals and staff. Would they have to buy out the shares? Would the supreme court just not allow it?
Basically how would the US actually go about making health care public instead of private? Or is the only option the government working with the private and insurance system? And then could they regulate certain cost control's and fairness requirements? There is a fair bit of differentiation among leftist plans for universal healthcare in the US, but the one I think makes the most sense goes through public option, universal insurance that works somewhat like Medicare but with beefed up cost coverage and a wider range of general applicability/simplicity (think consolidate and streamline Medicare Parts A, B, C, D into one or two comprehensive schemes). Paying for it is not an issue for two reasons, the first is the savings that results from reduction in bloat on the part of both insurers and providers, the second is a more radical economic notion that derives from what I think is the correct view of how deficit spending works, namely that the battle over when and where "how are you gonna pay for that" gets invoked deals far more in the fluid rules of political conflict than hard economic facts a la inflation when dealing with a monetary sovereign. What would you think the supreme court decisions would be if something like that got implemented? I see lawsuits filling up the court systems already should that come to pass. Is there a way to structure it so that the lawsuits and subsequent SC hearing isn't going to make it ACA 2.0? One of the fundamental flaws with the ACA was that it intermingled state and federal administration together in a way that tracks more closely with Medicaid, which creates a host of unnecessary constitutional problems that quickly became the fodder that has served as the numerous challenges to the law. Take-it-or-leave-it Medicaid conditions were struck down in NFIB v. Sebelius, for example, whereas there is no doubt whatsoever that the federal government can levy a uniform program of insurance like Medicare or Social Security. The half-baked cooperative state and federal managed markets scheme underlying the ACA doomed it from the start.
But isn't going to be the issue going forward? That the feds are encroaching on state's rights? That the states should be left to decide what to do with their population/voter blocs and not the feds? Medicaid is only accepted because it's been around forever. Same with SS. But even though politicians tell people that UHC is on par with those as social programs, they'll still fight it.
I guess I'm looking for a way to ensure it isn't knee-capped again.
|
Medicare and Medicaid are entirely different from one another, Medicare and its retirement insurance sibling Social Security stand on very firm legal ground by comparison with Medicaid and the ACA. It may be an “issue” in the sense that folks will blow hot air about it, but the legal battleground looks entirely different.
|
On January 10 2020 12:20 farvacola wrote:
Medicare and Medicaid are entirely different from one another, Medicare and its retirement insurance sibling Social Security stand on very firm legal ground by comparison with Medicaid and the ACA. It may be an “issue” in the sense that folks will blow hot air about it, but the legal battleground looks entirely different.
Just to make sure I follow what you're saying:
Is it a fair takeaway, that legally speaking, arguments about preserving/improving the ACA while keeping the general state/private insurer based framework are weaker than those advocating a medicare-for-all single-payer based program?
|
United States41991 Posts
On January 10 2020 03:28 franzji wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 02:30 Silvanel wrote:On January 09 2020 23:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Trump doesn't have a foreign policy for USA. What short term gain has he gained for the US foreign policy wise? He has made all American nationals less safe in the region. Iraq has issued a demand for American troops to leave the country. Even Isreal and Saudi Arabia is alarmed by the assassination. A)Iraq parliment passed a resolution asking government to throw Americans out. Iraq government is not bound by it as far as i understand and they are not likely to do such step. B)Trump: -abandoned Kurds to get on Edrogans good side -assasinated Soleimani which was thorn in their back for a long time -declared trade war on China (which many considers sound but long overdue) move -is constantly treatning other countries for small concessions It's funny how many considered the trade war with China to be a huge mistake at first because it was "Trump's policy-making to attempt to put America first!", which Democrats hate to hear. So many people talking about how we would see the huge rise in prices. Democrats really hate the phase "Putting America first", there is a lot of self-hate from Democrats. China is finally coming to the table and might agree to fix some of their horrible, unfair practices.
The trade war required an agricultural bailout to farmers that was larger than the Bush bailout of the automakers in 2008. It’s been economically devastating. Democrats don’t hate this stuff because they hate America, they hate it because it’s bad policy. And honestly it’s intellectually dishonest for you to even make that kind of stupid claim. It’s like if I were to straw man the pro-life position as “they hate Planned Parenthood because they hate planning”. They oppose the policy because they understand the policy and they disagree with it.
|
On January 10 2020 13:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 12:20 farvacola wrote:
Medicare and Medicaid are entirely different from one another, Medicare and its retirement insurance sibling Social Security stand on very firm legal ground by comparison with Medicaid and the ACA. It may be an “issue” in the sense that folks will blow hot air about it, but the legal battleground looks entirely different. Just to make sure I follow what you're saying: Is it a fair takeaway, that legally speaking, arguments about preserving/improving the ACA while keeping the general state/private insurer based framework are weaker than those advocating a medicare-for-all single-payer based program?
Yes, that is correct.
|
In a European style Healthcare system, hospitals don't need to be nationalized. The system only requires insurance companies to provide a service that is controlled by the government in price and regulations. And of course you would have to make a bill that would require health care providers to cooperate on those terms as well. Basically, the providers stay private, only the rules are changed and the money is taken out of a public pool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
