-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada
- Thread starter Makai
- Start date
- Status
They all have all of her emails because they're all being released to the public. Remember?
"Activist judges" only means judges you don't agree with.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Bernie, probably...
I mean his supporters are kind of pissing me off but I'll try not to hold that against the candidate.
eBay Huckster
Member
Those 3-4 pages weren't talking about the single-payer program - they're talking about the second biggest component of his platform.
JesseEwiak
Member
You realize you're linking to a right wing site that gives Chuck Norris op ed space, right?
The difference is Obama campaigned on no middle class tax increases - Sanders is promising that. Again, this goes back to the socialist thing. There's a difference of being accused of being a socialist and admitting it to swing voters in suburban Virginia, Ohio, and Colorado.
Ok so... do you just want him elected or do you want his policies enacted??
Roland_Gunner
Member
When has this ever worked? FDR knew that after you become President momentum gets lost and the ability to get things accomplished is diminished. That was the entire rationale behind his first 100 days program. If the plan is elect Sanders, have a conversation, then do things, you'll get about as much accomplished as Obama in 2011.
Veritigo_X
Member
Noticing this more and more from people on the left...
....this article has people who are defending Obama's spending proposals. Even if it didn't, it was written at a point in time where everyone knew the core of Obama's campaign economics team and what his top handful of priorities would be going into office. The issue is not that Some Guy has criticized Sanders, it's that Sanders has what is essentially a climate-denier support rate among economists and no realistic advisors.
Honestly I have really mixed thoughts about this. I get that a non-cakewalk can be helpful, that Clinton may come out of this stronger, that it's up to her to win, that if she loses it's its own form of weakness, etc. At the same time recent history has no shortage of examples where this is NOT true. See Akin, Todd.
I try not to point it out anymore given how often it's happening these days.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
The idea of a general election where neither candidate supports single payer and both support the death penalty is a little deflating.
GuyKazama
Member
Rafa=FedKilla
Banned
Lol. Just now at the Trump rally, Donald invited two men on stage to speak after stopping a protester. One man was nearly brought to tears and there was thunderous applause.
Veritigo_X
Member
It's usually met with "attack the article itself not the source" so it gets kinda tiring. It's like, where do I even begin?
JesseEwiak
Member
I mean, that's only been every election in American history.
I think the last major party candidate to oppose the death penalty in a presidential election was Dukakis. I don't even know who the last to actively campaign on single payer would have been.
It means much more than that. But granted, from my perspective they are the same
I find Citizens United to be an "activist" court. I find corporate personhood to be "activist". This works both ways.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
So? Shouldn't that bother anyone who supports single payer and ending the death penalty?
If those are the issues that you vote on, maybe.
Macho Madness
Member
Well. That Onion article hit my Twitter timeline. Satire Site Posts Article, Twitter Real Mad It Was Positive About Not Their Candidate Of Choice.
The thing is, the general electorate is such that you can't come right out and say you want to end the death penalty without taking an unneeded hit for it so you have to hint at it.
Wait, seriously?
Predictit seems to think there's an 84% chance that Obama will get a nominee confirmed.
Tempting, but it might not cash out for another year.
Tempting, but it might not cash out for another year.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Racial inequality is my biggest issue personally. Not a single candidate is wholly satisfactory on that front, even "radical leftist" Bernie Sanders. It's just disheartening.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Yeah but those things benefit republicans hurdur
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Predictit also thinks there's a 30% chance Clinton gets indicted. When it comes to stuff that doesn't have polls, predictit is basically trash.
Macho Madness
Member
Google the intercept Univision the onion
I knew about the sale, I was talking about the reaction to the article. I went and searched it out and it made my head hurt.
That's so Biden.
They're not at all unprecedented. They've been used for over 20 years by the right wing.
It's ridiculous.
It means much more than that. But granted, from my perspective they are the same
So what does it mean, then?
Dixon's Jet
Banned
I should familiarize myself with right wing sites so this stops happening.
Frank the Great
Banned
It is well established in legal circles that "activist" is just a term used to describe Justices with whom one disagrees.
Personally, I never use the term. It is a terrible descriptor because it literally applies to all judges.
Personally, I never use the term. It is a terrible descriptor because it literally applies to all judges.
It's Glen Greenwald's site, so pretty much.
Yea, that intercept article just appeared all over my facebook.
Can't even enjoy my satire anymore.
See, I found Obama disappointing in certain areas which I don't believe would be the same under Sanders.
- Sanders first of all would not select a SoS like Clinton - I expect a more level headed administration in terms of foreign policy and certain a fewer numbers of dictators/governments toppled. I find that liberals who are happy to vote for a Clinton's foreign policy doctrine puzzling.
- The Drug War is another piece that I've found Obama's stance simply not good enough - changing the focus and rescheduling Marijuana paving the way for legalization and more research would be a good place to start and can be fairly easily implemented.
- Campaign finance needs to be overhauled on which I simply trust in Sanders while Clinton is less trustworthy on the subject - realistically it appears she doesn't understand the corrupting influence of the system she is part of. She obviously didn't feel it would be problematic to be running for president while doing a speaking tours to cheer up big business - while it obviously is a huge issue this election.
- Trade deals being more transparent for the public and more focused on bringing in countries that follow humanitarian norms.
- Education should be a right not a privilege, when I hear Clinton talk about Trumps kids I literally cringe - what sort of half arsed logic is she using. If Trumps grand kids want to go to go through public education system they are free to do so and their tuition should be free.
- Sanders is the only candidate that wants all people eligible to be automatically registered to vote and is also proposing election day to be a public holiday.
Those are just some areas where I think he differs pretty greatly with Clinton - whether his plan or her plan is better is immaterial because both have a zero chance of being implemented in the 100 days following their inauguration. Clinton lost me last election with her foreign policy stance. Clinton and Obama didn't really differ as greatly on other subject, yet she lost. From the start I've said she is a bad candidate even before seriously considering Sanders. The fact that people need to defend her with Republican talking points and fear-monger about the dangers of Sanders is very amusing to me. Just face it - even in the least competitive field imaginable she is loosing ground to a nominee who barely anyone knew 8 months ago. Forget Obama and Sanders the problem lies with Clinton and her failure to relate with other people, failure to understand the underlining issues people have with her and why they question her integrity, or to understand that being a policy wonk doesn't win elections. To me she is a weaker GE candidate and the faster realists realize this the better it is for the GE.
Like I said Bernie's "unprecedented attacks" are nothing compared to what Trump and other GOP hopefuls will fling at her. You can say that she is prepared after 30 years of attacks but obviously she is not prepared enough considering she lost to Obama and is currently losing her lead to a 74 year old socialist who barely anyone knew 8 months ago, who has practically no support from the party and had no organization in most primary states 2 months ago.
Please enlighten me about these attacks that have been user over the last 20 years which Sanders has employed ?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-endorsement-swap-bernie-sanders-219321
Estimates still need to be based on valid premises though. Thorpe doesn't provide a lot of documentation for his estimates, but his citations seem to indicate that he bases those estimates on Vermont's attempt to implement single payer. Vermont's experience simply cannot be extrapolated to a nationwide implementation of Canadian style singe payer in the United States.
http://dollarsandsense.org/Friedman-response-to-Thorpe-paper-020516.pdf
http://www1.cuny.edu/mu/forum/2016/01/29/on-kenneth-thorpes-analysis-of-senator-sanders-single-payer-reform-plan/
TumblingHippo
Member
Politics, where a scream or a bark can be weaponized against you, but saying you'll discriminate against an entire group of people will get you votes.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Part of the vagueness in estimating Sanders' plan is that you can't even reliably track what the incomes for it are. For instance, when politifact tried to sum everything up they couldn't because the treatment of deductibles and co-pays isn't specified. Requiring critics of your plan to accurately estimate savings when the plan is intentionally vague on key points is pretty unfair.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ch-would-bernie-sanders-health-care-plan-cos/
Roland_Gunner
Member
Thom Tillis, of all people, is also walking back the idea that the Senate won't even look at an Obama Supreme Court nominee. Its starting to look like this weekend was the Republicans opening bargaining position and now they've looking for someone that can be quietly approved.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tillis-scotus-nom
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tillis-scotus-nom
There have been numerous studies done on the savings associated with implementing single payer in the United States. Those studies all come to the obvious conclusion that such plans would bring U.S. health care costs closer to those of countries where single-payer type plans are used - in other words, U.S. health care costs would fall. While Sander's plan may not have the details some would like, basing estimates of the plan's impacts on wildly unrealistic premises helps nobody. Right now, people in Colorado are trying to implement their own version of Single Payer. Poor analyses such as Thorpe's just spread FUD and hurt everybody. As for Sander's plan in particular, it's obviously just a rough sketch of what would be enacted in a perfect world.
When are the primaries over? I can't imagine the Republicans confirming anyone while there's still the threat of a primary challenge.
Srinivasan would probably be the least controversial choice, but Cuellar or bust tbh.
BoboBrazil
Member
This guy is a dumbass. The same American people that voted Obama for president over the RNC goon Romney..
RustyNails
Member
I really need to know how srinivasan will vote on citizens united, obamacare (if more lawsuits bubble up) and Obama's immigration orders. It's too much to risk on someone who media is calling "centrist". Wish we could clone RBG and stack her 8 times on the bench.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked