|
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 |
Bruh you can't just give us "within 1%" you got to give reporting percent or hard votes he trails bernie by.
I mean even pledged delegates. Bernie's got 8 on my feed with buttigieg having 7 and klob with 6.
|
On February 12 2020 12:47 Sermokala wrote:
Bruh you can't just give us "within 1%" you got to give reporting percent or hard votes he trails bernie by.
I mean even pledged delegates. Bernie's got 8 on my feed with buttigieg having 7 and klob with 6.
Delegates will be 9/9/6 according to the experts no matter the rest of the results.
Pete is around 3800 votes behind
|
On February 12 2020 12:47 Sermokala wrote:
Bruh you can't just give us "within 1%" you got to give reporting percent or hard votes he trails bernie by.
Pretty steady 4k with 6k and 3k as the limits thus far.still 4k lead for Sanders with 82% according to MSNBC
|
On February 12 2020 12:49 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 12:47 Sermokala wrote:
Bruh you can't just give us "within 1%" you got to give reporting percent or hard votes he trails bernie by.
I mean even pledged delegates. Bernie's got 8 on my feed with buttigieg having 7 and klob with 6. Delegates will be 9/9/6 according to the experts no matter the rest of the results. Pete is around 3800 votes behind
Yeah but Pete got the "victory" in iowa despite not having the most delegates or votes by anyone mathematics so context is important.
Someones going to get declared the "winner" of NH no matter how dumb that is mathematical wise.
|
Mayor Cheat is on the stage so I think that means Sanders won.
EDIT: Bernie is the first projected winner in the 2020 Dem primary
|
Bernie declared the winner by some
|
On February 12 2020 13:01 Zaros wrote:
Bernie declared the winner by some
lmao, how many declared Pete the winner in Iowa again?
|
Has anybody officially called Iowa yet? Seemed like most everybody was pointedly refusing to do so.
|
Pete's app seems to have crashed. Good. Also a good day for Klob. She has a brighter national future than Buttigieg.
We're basically at the end of Buttigieg's train here.
|
On February 12 2020 12:13 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 11:42 Wegandi wrote:On February 12 2020 11:34 StasisField wrote:On February 12 2020 11:26 Wegandi wrote:On February 12 2020 11:21 Lmui wrote:On February 12 2020 10:08 Wegandi wrote:On February 12 2020 10:06 Wombat_NI wrote:On February 12 2020 10:03 Wegandi wrote:On February 12 2020 09:58 Nyxisto wrote:On February 12 2020 08:22 Nebuchad wrote:[quote] I don't think your take is controversial, I think your take is incorrect. Trump right now is very tough to beat, he's the incumbent, he has an economy with good liberal markers, he just defeated impeachment which makes him look strong (record approval rating for him, right?). "We don't like him" is hardly a successful message against this, especially not since you've been saying it for four years and the voters see mostly no difference. Now let's talk political strategy. We need to win back some states, what are our best options? Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, fairly clearly. What was up with these states not voting for Hillary? Those states went for Bernie in the primary (except for Pennsylvania which was a closed primary), it's fairly obvious that they weren't too fond of the neoliberal economic policy that Hillary offered, but they seemed okay with something more radical. Good to know. As usual, the most important bit of political strategy that is forgotten in this analysis is that the center of the US is not where you think it is. This study that I keep posting in the wind shows that. The centrist in America is not someone who thinks trans people are awesome and it's great that the 1% is hoarding all the wealth, it's someone who is concerned with income inequality but not quite woke on social issues. When taking that into account, it makes perfect sense that Trump is viewed as more "moderate" than Hillary Clinton, as you said: on the graph, she campaigned bottom right where very few people are, and he campaigned somewhere in the upper center left, way closer to the true center of american politics. The republican strategists salivating at the thought of running against socialist Sanders are the mirror image of the democratic strategists who were salivating at the thought of running against racist, sexist Trump. Is it impossible that they win? No, of course, Trump still has a decent shot. But from the data that we have and the objectives that we should aim for, one strategy makes way more logical sense than the other. On top of being the right thing to do for the long term wellbeing of the country. The only thing that Sanders has going for him in regards to the rustbelt voters is his anti-establishment brand. Bernie isn't socially moderate. In addition to his economic policies he's also running on abolishing the ICE, providing healthcare to illegal immigrants, etc.. he runs just as woke of a program as the progressive wing of the party in addition to his left-wing economic policies. Why would people who go from Obama to Trump or from Clinton to Trump go from Trump to Sanders? It just doesn't make that much sense. If you want to win the rustbelt run a socially conservative economically moderate candidate, not a progressive. The idea that people who think bernie can't win are akin to people who think Trump couldn't win isn't great because the democrats were always borderline delusional about the fact that half of the country is very right-wing. Trump never trailed Clinton by that much, and urban liberals thought racism is too off-putting for the average voter. Which is wrong. However half of polled people say they aren't going to vote for a socialist. The Republican strategists happen to be right with the claim that the US is much more right-wing than progressives think it is. This is an anecdote of one. I abhorr Trump, but if Bernie is the (D) nominee I will sprint to the polls to vote for Trump. Take that as you will. Why? His economic policies for the most part. He would ruin the country, even if I happen to agree with some of his other stances. Fucking Trump ballooned your deficit by a 500 billion dollars a year and you get less done now. You could've had universal healthcare for less money. I never said Trump was good, but compared to Bernie, I'll run to the polls. Plus, it's hilarious to see people who supported Obama talk about deficits. I don't want "Green" Chavez V2 in the WH. So can you specifically list which of his policies you think will ruin this country or...? There are a lot, I'll list 4 to start with: Student debt forgiveness Green New Deal Medicare for All Delusion that "rich" tax increases will pay for any of his socialist drivel 1. Studies show this would actually boost the economy 2. This would create countless jobs and put us on a track of sustainability 3. Even a study by the Koch brothers shows this M4A would save money 4. It's not a delusion and these aren't even socialist policies. Care to explain why basically every other developed country on earth can do these things but us?
Do you actually think your bullet points there are going to convince anyone? Also, yes, nationalizing healthcare, destroying the educational loan market (and post-secondary confidence...imagine you're the unlucky fool who has to pay loans because you're 16, or 37 and just happened to go to college after this forgiveness lol...), and rhetoric decrying making money aren't anything close to socialism. /Rollseyes
By the way, if you want to follow your argument, why do you fight against strict immigration controls? Almost every other developed country on earth has stricter controls than we do. That's a bad non-starter of an argument, in fact, it's not one because it's a combination of Argumentum ad populum and bandwagon fallacy.
|
|
|
Turnout is up in NH over 2016, might end up higher than 2008 with Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.
|
On February 12 2020 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
Turnout is up in NH over 2016, might end up higher than 2008 with Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.
More people vote Democrat without Clinton lol
|
He's talking about Iowa. I think most outlets have called it for Bernie in NH.
|
On February 12 2020 13:12 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 12:13 StasisField wrote:On February 12 2020 11:42 Wegandi wrote:On February 12 2020 11:34 StasisField wrote:On February 12 2020 11:26 Wegandi wrote:On February 12 2020 11:21 Lmui wrote:On February 12 2020 10:08 Wegandi wrote:On February 12 2020 10:06 Wombat_NI wrote:On February 12 2020 10:03 Wegandi wrote:On February 12 2020 09:58 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
The only thing that Sanders has going for him in regards to the rustbelt voters is his anti-establishment brand. Bernie isn't socially moderate. In addition to his economic policies he's also running on abolishing the ICE, providing healthcare to illegal immigrants, etc.. he runs just as woke of a program as the progressive wing of the party in addition to his left-wing economic policies.
Why would people who go from Obama to Trump or from Clinton to Trump go from Trump to Sanders? It just doesn't make that much sense. If you want to win the rustbelt run a socially conservative economically moderate candidate, not a progressive.
The idea that people who think bernie can't win are akin to people who think Trump couldn't win isn't great because the democrats were always borderline delusional about the fact that half of the country is very right-wing. Trump never trailed Clinton by that much, and urban liberals thought racism is too off-putting for the average voter. Which is wrong. However half of polled people say they aren't going to vote for a socialist. The Republican strategists happen to be right with the claim that the US is much more right-wing than progressives think it is. This is an anecdote of one. I abhorr Trump, but if Bernie is the (D) nominee I will sprint to the polls to vote for Trump. Take that as you will. Why? His economic policies for the most part. He would ruin the country, even if I happen to agree with some of his other stances. Fucking Trump ballooned your deficit by a 500 billion dollars a year and you get less done now. You could've had universal healthcare for less money. I never said Trump was good, but compared to Bernie, I'll run to the polls. Plus, it's hilarious to see people who supported Obama talk about deficits. I don't want "Green" Chavez V2 in the WH. So can you specifically list which of his policies you think will ruin this country or...? There are a lot, I'll list 4 to start with: Student debt forgiveness Green New Deal Medicare for All Delusion that "rich" tax increases will pay for any of his socialist drivel 1. Studies show this would actually boost the economy 2. This would create countless jobs and put us on a track of sustainability 3. Even a study by the Koch brothers shows this M4A would save money 4. It's not a delusion and these aren't even socialist policies. Care to explain why basically every other developed country on earth can do these things but us? Do you actually think your bullet points there are going to convince anyone? Also, yes, nationalizing healthcare, destroying the educational loan market (and post-secondary confidence...imagine you're the unlucky fool who has to pay loans because you're 16, or 37 and just happened to go to college after this forgiveness lol...), and rhetoric decrying making money aren't anything close to socialism. /Rollseyes By the way, if you want to follow your argument, why do you fight against strict immigration controls? Almost every other developed country on earth has stricter controls than we do. That's a bad non-starter of an argument, in fact, it's not one because it's a combination of Argumentum ad populum and bandwagon fallacy.
No, I don't. i just wanted to see how much you would lash out from someone challenging your claims with the same amount of effort you put in to making your claims. You didn't disappoint  Oh, you mean the "unlucky fool" who won't have to pay for college either because there will be a tax that also pays for future college students and trade school students? So unlucky! Yup, you got it. It's not socialism! It's called Social Democracy which is different from Democratic Socialism and Socialism. To make this short; SD = economic benefits gained from capitalism helps everyone, not just the wealthy and DS = a transition from Capitalism to Socialism.
You know what's funny? I directed my question at stances I know you have. You have no idea what I believe on immigration. What's worse: asking someone to answer for their beliefs or making up someone's beliefs and asking them to answer for their made up beliefs? I think we're both smart enough to figure that out
EDIT: Grammar
|
On February 12 2020 12:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
Mayor Cheat is on the stage so I think that means Sanders won.
did i miss something about pete cheating
|
On February 12 2020 13:42 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 13:12 Wegandi wrote:On February 12 2020 12:13 StasisField wrote:On February 12 2020 11:42 Wegandi wrote:On February 12 2020 11:34 StasisField wrote:On February 12 2020 11:26 Wegandi wrote:On February 12 2020 11:21 Lmui wrote:On February 12 2020 10:08 Wegandi wrote:On February 12 2020 10:06 Wombat_NI wrote:On February 12 2020 10:03 Wegandi wrote:
[quote]
This is an anecdote of one. I abhorr Trump, but if Bernie is the (D) nominee I will sprint to the polls to vote for Trump. Take that as you will. Why? His economic policies for the most part. He would ruin the country, even if I happen to agree with some of his other stances. Fucking Trump ballooned your deficit by a 500 billion dollars a year and you get less done now. You could've had universal healthcare for less money. I never said Trump was good, but compared to Bernie, I'll run to the polls. Plus, it's hilarious to see people who supported Obama talk about deficits. I don't want "Green" Chavez V2 in the WH. So can you specifically list which of his policies you think will ruin this country or...? There are a lot, I'll list 4 to start with: Student debt forgiveness Green New Deal Medicare for All Delusion that "rich" tax increases will pay for any of his socialist drivel 1. Studies show this would actually boost the economy 2. This would create countless jobs and put us on a track of sustainability 3. Even a study by the Koch brothers shows this M4A would save money 4. It's not a delusion and these aren't even socialist policies. Care to explain why basically every other developed country on earth can do these things but us? Do you actually think your bullet points there are going to convince anyone? Also, yes, nationalizing healthcare, destroying the educational loan market (and post-secondary confidence...imagine you're the unlucky fool who has to pay loans because you're 16, or 37 and just happened to go to college after this forgiveness lol...), and rhetoric decrying making money aren't anything close to socialism. /Rollseyes By the way, if you want to follow your argument, why do you fight against strict immigration controls? Almost every other developed country on earth has stricter controls than we do. That's a bad non-starter of an argument, in fact, it's not one because it's a combination of Argumentum ad populum and bandwagon fallacy. No, I don't. i just wanted to see how much you would lash out from someone challenging your claims with the same amount of effort you put in to making your claims. You didn't disappoint Oh, you mean the "unlucky fool" who won't have to pay for college either because there will be a tax that also pays for future college students and trade school students? So unlucky! Yup, you got it. It's not socialism! It's called Social Democracy which is different from Democratic Socialism and Socialism. To make this short; SD = economic benefits gained from capitalism helps everyone, not just the wealthy and DS = a transition from Capitalism to Socialism. You know what's funny? I directed my question at stances I know you have. You have no idea what I believe on immigration. What's worse: asking someone to answer for their beliefs or making up someone's beliefs and asking them to answer for their made up beliefs? I think we're both smart enough to figure that out EDIT: Grammar
So you want to nationalize healthcare, post-secondary schooling, and massively increase taxes (if you want to emulate countries like Denmark you're going to have to increase middle class taxes from the 20-25% they are now to 50-55% like they are in Denmark, Netherlands, etc.), and then on top of that centrally plan the energy sector? Yeah, that's not socialism, but hey, guess not if you just write democracy around it.
|
On February 12 2020 13:49 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 12:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
Mayor Cheat is on the stage so I think that means Sanders won.
did i miss something about pete cheating
The entire week of Iowa caucuses, I guess? Buttigieg + IDP + DNC screwed up incredibly badly, blatantly cheating and giving Buttigieg 3 of Sanders's delegates.
|
On February 12 2020 13:49 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 13:42 StasisField wrote:On February 12 2020 13:12 Wegandi wrote:On February 12 2020 12:13 StasisField wrote:On February 12 2020 11:42 Wegandi wrote:On February 12 2020 11:34 StasisField wrote:On February 12 2020 11:26 Wegandi wrote:On February 12 2020 11:21 Lmui wrote:On February 12 2020 10:08 Wegandi wrote:On February 12 2020 10:06 Wombat_NI wrote:
[quote]
Why? His economic policies for the most part. He would ruin the country, even if I happen to agree with some of his other stances. Fucking Trump ballooned your deficit by a 500 billion dollars a year and you get less done now. You could've had universal healthcare for less money. I never said Trump was good, but compared to Bernie, I'll run to the polls. Plus, it's hilarious to see people who supported Obama talk about deficits. I don't want "Green" Chavez V2 in the WH. So can you specifically list which of his policies you think will ruin this country or...? There are a lot, I'll list 4 to start with: Student debt forgiveness Green New Deal Medicare for All Delusion that "rich" tax increases will pay for any of his socialist drivel 1. Studies show this would actually boost the economy 2. This would create countless jobs and put us on a track of sustainability 3. Even a study by the Koch brothers shows this M4A would save money 4. It's not a delusion and these aren't even socialist policies. Care to explain why basically every other developed country on earth can do these things but us? Do you actually think your bullet points there are going to convince anyone? Also, yes, nationalizing healthcare, destroying the educational loan market (and post-secondary confidence...imagine you're the unlucky fool who has to pay loans because you're 16, or 37 and just happened to go to college after this forgiveness lol...), and rhetoric decrying making money aren't anything close to socialism. /Rollseyes By the way, if you want to follow your argument, why do you fight against strict immigration controls? Almost every other developed country on earth has stricter controls than we do. That's a bad non-starter of an argument, in fact, it's not one because it's a combination of Argumentum ad populum and bandwagon fallacy. No, I don't. i just wanted to see how much you would lash out from someone challenging your claims with the same amount of effort you put in to making your claims. You didn't disappoint Oh, you mean the "unlucky fool" who won't have to pay for college either because there will be a tax that also pays for future college students and trade school students? So unlucky! Yup, you got it. It's not socialism! It's called Social Democracy which is different from Democratic Socialism and Socialism. To make this short; SD = economic benefits gained from capitalism helps everyone, not just the wealthy and DS = a transition from Capitalism to Socialism. You know what's funny? I directed my question at stances I know you have. You have no idea what I believe on immigration. What's worse: asking someone to answer for their beliefs or making up someone's beliefs and asking them to answer for their made up beliefs? I think we're both smart enough to figure that out EDIT: Grammar So you want to nationalize healthcare, post-secondary schooling, and massively increase taxes (if you want to emulate countries like Denmark you're going to have to increase middle class taxes from the 20-25% they are now to 50-55% like they are in Denmark, Netherlands, etc.), and then on top of that centrally plan the energy sector? Yeah, that's not socialism, but hey, guess not if you just write democracy around it.
Just because health insurance is public does not mean that healthcare, E.G. doctors, dentists, hospitals, etc are "nationalized". They are still private businesses. Again, this is a Social Democratic policy. Also, colleges are still their own organizations. The government is not stepping in and running these colleges, trade schools, and universities themselves now. This is also a Social Democratic policy. This is simply making sure that everyone gets to reap the benefits that our capitalist society makes. And massively increase taxes? I don't think a .5% tax on stock speculation is a "massive" tax but I guess you do you? Maybe you should actually look at the proposed plans and the taxes associated with them before you make such claims? You're right, it's not socialism. Not because of the name but because of what it does and how it does it
|
On February 12 2020 13:49 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 13:42 StasisField wrote:On February 12 2020 13:12 Wegandi wrote:On February 12 2020 12:13 StasisField wrote:On February 12 2020 11:42 Wegandi wrote:On February 12 2020 11:34 StasisField wrote:On February 12 2020 11:26 Wegandi wrote:On February 12 2020 11:21 Lmui wrote:On February 12 2020 10:08 Wegandi wrote:On February 12 2020 10:06 Wombat_NI wrote:
[quote]
Why? His economic policies for the most part. He would ruin the country, even if I happen to agree with some of his other stances. Fucking Trump ballooned your deficit by a 500 billion dollars a year and you get less done now. You could've had universal healthcare for less money. I never said Trump was good, but compared to Bernie, I'll run to the polls. Plus, it's hilarious to see people who supported Obama talk about deficits. I don't want "Green" Chavez V2 in the WH. So can you specifically list which of his policies you think will ruin this country or...? There are a lot, I'll list 4 to start with: Student debt forgiveness Green New Deal Medicare for All Delusion that "rich" tax increases will pay for any of his socialist drivel 1. Studies show this would actually boost the economy 2. This would create countless jobs and put us on a track of sustainability 3. Even a study by the Koch brothers shows this M4A would save money 4. It's not a delusion and these aren't even socialist policies. Care to explain why basically every other developed country on earth can do these things but us? Do you actually think your bullet points there are going to convince anyone? Also, yes, nationalizing healthcare, destroying the educational loan market (and post-secondary confidence...imagine you're the unlucky fool who has to pay loans because you're 16, or 37 and just happened to go to college after this forgiveness lol...), and rhetoric decrying making money aren't anything close to socialism. /Rollseyes By the way, if you want to follow your argument, why do you fight against strict immigration controls? Almost every other developed country on earth has stricter controls than we do. That's a bad non-starter of an argument, in fact, it's not one because it's a combination of Argumentum ad populum and bandwagon fallacy. No, I don't. i just wanted to see how much you would lash out from someone challenging your claims with the same amount of effort you put in to making your claims. You didn't disappoint Oh, you mean the "unlucky fool" who won't have to pay for college either because there will be a tax that also pays for future college students and trade school students? So unlucky! Yup, you got it. It's not socialism! It's called Social Democracy which is different from Democratic Socialism and Socialism. To make this short; SD = economic benefits gained from capitalism helps everyone, not just the wealthy and DS = a transition from Capitalism to Socialism. You know what's funny? I directed my question at stances I know you have. You have no idea what I believe on immigration. What's worse: asking someone to answer for their beliefs or making up someone's beliefs and asking them to answer for their made up beliefs? I think we're both smart enough to figure that out EDIT: Grammar So you want to nationalize healthcare, post-secondary schooling, and massively increase taxes (if you want to emulate countries like Denmark you're going to have to increase middle class taxes from the 20-25% they are now to 50-55% like they are in Denmark, Netherlands, etc.), and then on top of that centrally plan the energy sector? Yeah, that's not socialism, but hey, guess not if you just write democracy around it.
So you believe that US capitalism is appropriate for healthcare? Based on what? Nobody in the US likes their healthcare unless they're rich, it's an abject failure that costs our economy with less production due to worse quality of life overall.
You know that the hospital would stay private, medical companies will stay private under bernie's healthcare plan he's expanding medicare to become a single payer system. All that means is that there is one underwriter in the US for healthcare and that's the federal government. Btw if you count local, state and federal medical spending it accounts for 73.2% of all healthcare expenditures, we already have multiple governments covering the cost of medical services we're just doing it like shit and paying w.e for it.
The real losers will be to administrators and middlemen like insurance. Most business would win under a dropped burden of paying for employee healthcare, stockholders in medical industries will likely lose out on large profits they had before. Plus people could actually go to any doctor they wanted because it would remove the "networks" system.
Frankly i can take it or leave it, single payer is not my preferred choice. A system closer to the French or Japanese is more my speed. The current US healthcare is just shit and i don't stand for it, Trump has done jack shit in terms of improving it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
