Election 2020

[nots]

Hillary does seem to like those Russian interference conspiracies. Did I read where Stein was a Russian plant too?

[Teenwolf]

Hillary does seem to like those Russian interference conspiracies. Did I read where Stein was a Russian plant too?

You are correct.

Clinton also accused Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate in both the 2012 and 2016 elections, of being a "Russian asset."

"That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she's also a Russian asset," Clinton said. "Yes, she's a Russian asset, I mean, totally. They know they can't win without a third-party candidate."

Clinton bankrolled the 2016 DNC funding, and that's why she was elevated to be the nominee. The DNC are currently broke. I bet they would love some of that Clinton machine cash right about now.

[Sour Masher]

This is so bizarre... HRC is directly and blatantly spreading a disgusting smear that Tulsi is a Russian asset. SHE has endangered the primary. Democrats DO NOT want to see HRC involved at all, let alone pulling the strings. But this is what we see, she just won't go away.

So despite the "Russian asset" conspiracy from Clinton, you still think that Tulsi is the one spreading a conspiracy theory? HRC has threatened to jump into the race lately, is that not unwanted interference in the race? She's meeting with Warren behind closed doors, published in every newspaper. You think that won't be used by Trump in the general unless Tulsi debuts the attack? That seems naive. If HRC is the face of the Democrats in 2020, they lose. Tulsi didn't shine that spotlight, HRC did. HRC deserves 100% of the blame here, for interfering where she isn't wanted, in a way that seriously damages the party. These motherfuckers wanna talk about unity?

I wish Bernie could split the difference between his own "Joe is a very good friend of mine" cushioning his blows and Tulsi's ruthlessness.

Ok, I will ask it this way then--do you think if HRC attacked Bernie right now that he'd imply she is running a secret conspiracy to destroy him, take agency away from American voters, and is really behind the scenes pulling all the strings, and a vote for anyone but Bernie is a vote for HRC? I don't think he would, especially since that sort of thing reminds me of the Protocols of Zion BS that one super suspicious poster who was here during the 2016 was spouting before he disappeared once Trump got elected. Again, I am not defending HRC here. I don't see how anything I have said can be taken that way. Everyone should call her out and remind her she had her chance, she needs to go away. No one would be more angry than me if she decides to jump into the race. I still cannot bring myself to thinking she will. I will admit I am wrong if she does and at that point, I hope all the candidates go on the offense against her. Until then, I hope that very idea is laughed off until she realizes how horrible it is. Connecting her to the other candidates is a bad idea for anyone who cares about defeating Trump. I can't think of a more damaging attack strategy than connecting other candidates to HRC. She is politically toxic.

ETA: Can you at least admit how absurdly narcissistic it is for Tulsi to suggest this election is really her vs HRC? She is damn near last place and HRC isn't even running! I think she really believes she'd be winning if it wasn't for HRC undermining her. That is some Trump level hubris.

[Teenwolf]

How would Bernie respond if Hillary called Sanders a Russian asset, with HRC cronies spreading the rumor in NYT and elsewhere? He would probably do the exact same counter attack, given his disdain for the DNC power structure.

Bernie took a big shot at the DNC and Democrats during the last debate when he said of the health insurance industry "if all that we can do is take their money, we should be ashamed of ourselves." The "we" in question is the Democratic party. The money in question is being collected by corrupt actors like Buttigieg, who went from calling Med4All the compromise position between the system in the UK, and a free for all like the US today (back in feb) to currently attacking Med4All after leading the pack in health care industry donors. It's so transparent how bought and paid for they all are.

[Teenwolf]

Interesting poll from Iowa. Trump won Iowa by 9.5% over Clinton in 2016. Sanders leads the way, an almost 12% swing from '16:

Iowa: Trump vs. Biden	Emerson	Trump 51, Biden 49	Trump +2
Iowa: Trump vs. Warren	Emerson	Trump 51, Warren 49	Trump +2
Iowa: Trump vs. Sanders	Emerson	Sanders 51, Trump 49	[B]Sanders +[/B]2

Interesting misleading headline on this poll from The Hill:

poll: trump leads warren and biden in iowa

[Teenwolf]

Little tidbit I found interesting. Apparently Warren supporters have a more favorable opinion of AOC than Bernie supporters. 63% to 55%. Seems like AOC could help Bernie more than anticipated.

https://www.businessinsider.com/aoc-...warren-2019-10

[Sour Masher]

Little tidbit I found interesting. Apparently Warren supporters have a more favorable opinion of AOC than Bernie supporters. 63% to 55%. Seems like AOC could help Bernie more than anticipated.

https://www.businessinsider.com/aoc-...warren-2019-10

That is surprising. I wonder if gender is a factor in that.

[Sour Masher]

Getting back to the Med4All numbers and my point that people are for it until they are told it costs money. Again, I make this point, not because I don't see medical care as a basic human right in an advanced and wealthy society that can afford to give that to every citizen. I want that. But I don't believe Med4All can pass right now, and the next best thing is getting someone in there that can think of a plan b that covers the most people at the best cost.

https://www.newsweek.com/majority-am...-shows-1302010

"While participants were largely in favor of the idea, the poll found significant differences in support for the single-payer plan depending on how the question was put forward.

Told that "Medicare for all" would "guarantee health insurance as a right for all Americans," support for the plan surged up to 71 percent. However, when participants were told that the health insurance system would raise taxes for more Americans, that number fell to just 37 percent."

[DMT]

https://twitter.com/shane_bauer/status/1185463486127706112?s=09

[DMT]

Getting back to the Med4All numbers and my point that people are for it until they are told it costs money. Again, I make this point, not because I don't see medical care as a basic human right in an advanced and wealthy society that can afford to give that to every citizen. I want that. But I don't believe Med4All can pass right now, and the next best thing is getting someone in there that can think of a plan b that covers the most people at the best cost.

https://www.newsweek.com/majority-am...-shows-1302010

"While participants were largely in favor of the idea, the poll found significant differences in support for the single-payer plan depending on how the question was put forward.

Told that "Medicare for all" would "guarantee health insurance as a right for all Americans," support for the plan surged up to 71 percent. However, when participants were told that the health insurance system would raise taxes for more Americans, that number fell to just 37 percent."

Because people in general are stupid and selfish.

[Sour Masher]

Because people in general are stupid and selfish.

Yep, as a whole, mostly they are. It is surprising to me that TW has a better opinion of people than I do .

ETA: I will say that it is understandable to be selfish to a degree. We are wired to protect ourselves and our bloodline above all else. An uncomfortable truth of Med4All that no one, including Bernie will tackle head on is that it will hurt/cost more for some families that have good insurance right now. I know the retort to that of the greater good, but some of those that it will hurt are middle class people living paycheck to paycheck. I am MUCH more forgiving of folks living at that level protecting what they have than the 46 people in the world that control 50% of ALL the money in the WORLD. It is NUTS that each one of those 46, on average, have as much wealth as 175 million human beings. You want a conspiracy of power? There it is. No one should have that much wealth while millions suffer ad die. That is why I'm cool with Warren's wealth tax, if it could work.

[nots]

The money doesn’t come close to working on MFA. If you doubled everyone’s taxes and doubled the corporate tax, you still aren’t there. Put another way, if you taxed everyone making 500k a year at 100% and they someone how decided to keep working, you still aren’t there.
Neither of those stats figures in the rampant inefficiency in the Federal Government nor does it consider the success rate of other big government programs (spoiler alert: it isn’t good). If the Democrats won all 435 seats in The house and won every seat in the Senate that is up for re-election, I doubt you would have enough votes to pass it. It’s fiscally impossible.

[nots]

Yep, as a whole, mostly they are. It is surprising to me that TW has a better opinion of people than I do .

ETA: I will say that it is understandable to be selfish to a degree. We are wired to protect ourselves and our bloodline above all else. An uncomfortable truth of Med4All that no one, including Bernie will tackle head on is that it will hurt/cost more for some families that have good insurance right now. I know the retort to that of the greater good, but some of those that it will hurt are middle class people. I am much more forgiving of folks living at that level protecting what they have than the 46 people in the world that control 50% of ALL the money in the WORLD. It is NUTS that each one of those 46, on average, have as much wealth as 175 million human beings. You want a conspiracy of power? There it is. No one should have that much wealth while millions suffer ad die. That is why I'm cool with Warren's wealth tax, if it could work.

In 1990, there were 12 European countries that had a wealth tax. Today there are 3. Putting aside the strong argument against its Constitutionality, if it doesn’t work there and those countries with financial problems are walking away from it, why do you think it would work here? Put another way, do you think Jeff Bezos is going to write a check to the Fed Government for $30B over the next decade, or do you think he might renounce his citizenship and move to St Kitts or somewhere else?

[Sour Masher]

In 1990, there were 12 European countries that had a wealth tax. Today there are 3. Putting aside the strong argument against its Constitutionality, if it doesn’t work there and those countries with financial problems are walking away from it, why do you think it would work here? Put another way, do you think Jeff Bezos is going to write a check to the Fed Government for $30B over the next decade, or do you think he might renounce his citizenship and move to St Kitts or somewhere else?

Do you believe that a system built on the labor of millions that allows 46 people to accumulate 50% of the wealth in the world is flawed? A wealth tax is an imperfect solution, but what is the alternative? I've made this argument before, but those people, benefiting from the economy of scale, could never have had that much if it wasn't for flaws in the system. I'm not against wealth and prosperity. I am not a communist who believes everyone should have the same of everything, but come on, even the most ardent of capitalists must see that our system is flawed. Something needs to be done about it. It is not an unreasonable ask to have the ultra rich give a little back to make sure they have happy and healthy consumers to get that money back from. It is good for the health of the society if the people living in it are healthy.

[nots]

The system maybe flawed, but your solution is also flawed. Nothing wrong with examining our tax laws, raising some rates, closing some loopholes, but why would you support an idea of a wealth tax that has demonstrably failed in Europe? And again, there are strong arguments as to its Constitutionality.