Jump to content

Kamala Harris 2020

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 614
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Hank Kingsley
Hank Kingsley

"Haven't a clue who this person is and I really don't care as long as he said something that fits my argument" is definitely on brand for Republicans these days.  It's interesting that the curren

SDG
SDG

Hate to spoil your fun, but some “Trumpkins” don’t give a shit about race. Thier voting motive is based on jobs and the economy, MAGA, until you, and the dems, can make that realization you’ll continu

SDG
SDG

How many “why” or “I don’t understand” post did you make on FB after the election results came in?  Maybe try not demonizing those who disagree with you.  As far as election results, claiming victory

Posted Images

Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted

...and what are you worried about her doing? We’ve had politicians who are willing to do anything to get elected for centuries, and outside of a little treason last time around, that’s baked in to the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, BradInATX said:


 

 

 


Who outside of maybe Bernie is this not applicable to?

 

 

Most everyone else, actually.   There's a spectrum, and Bernie is certainly on one end, but from what I've seen, Harris and DiBlasio are on the other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Tuco said:

...and what are you worried about her doing? We’ve had politicians who are willing to do anything to get elected for centuries, and outside of a little treason last time around, that’s baked in to the system.

That's true, which is why it only knocks her down to around #5 on my list.   But what I'm worried about is precisely returning to the business as usual that led to Trump.  I mean, I'll take it over Trump, but I'd prefer a strong Dem who is guided by real principle. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
Most everyone else, actually.   There's a spectrum, and Bernie is certainly on one end, but from what I've seen, Harris and DiBlasio are on the other. 
Based on what though? Imo this is why Democrats lose elections they shouldn't. One of a handful of reasons, but an important one. Picking good candidates apart for no real reason. They have all shown that they will say what they believe needs to be said to be elected. You don't think Obama and bill were neurotically ambitious and ego maniacal?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

That's true, which is why it only knocks her down to around #5 on my list.   But what I'm worried about is precisely returning to the business as usual that led to Trump.  I mean, I'll take it over Trump, but I'd prefer a strong Dem who is guided by real principle. 

Then your choices are down to Bernie and Pete.  Both seem to be pretty honorable, principled people IMO.  Furthermore, if we actually elected honorable, principled people we wouldn't be where we are today, and you know that's on both sides of the aisle.

 

EDIT:  And Mrs. Warren

Edited by Onboard 2.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23362

Posted
  • Author
Posted
22 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Who outside of maybe Bernie is this not applicable to?

Doesn’t do big money fundraisers

Doesn’t take corporate money

Doesn’t do Fox News town halls

Hated by the establishment of both parties 

Doesn’t have a career built on politics 

AAA3878A-EA51-4205-B93F-B793FD1EC0EA_zps

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, BradInATX said:
27 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:
Most everyone else, actually.   There's a spectrum, and Bernie is certainly on one end, but from what I've seen, Harris and DiBlasio are on the other. 

Based on what though? Imo this is why Democrats lose elections they shouldn't. One of a handful of reasons, but an important one. Picking good candidates apart for no real reason. They have all shown that they will say what they believe needs to be said to be elected. You don't think Obama and bill were neurotically ambitious and ego maniacal?

Are we still pretending that Bill Clinton was some kind of awesome Dem president?   Bill absolutely was as you describe, and it led to horrible policy (and politics) that haunts Dems to this day.   That's precisely what we need to avoid.   And I've already said how Kamala reminds me of the worst parts of Obama. 

Dems lose elections when they don't stand for anything real and/or don't fight for it.   When that kind of Dem gets elected, they alienate the base and make independents think there's no difference between them and Republicans, which leads to W and Trump and total Republican government. 

I'm open to Kamala and maybe I'll change my mind.  But for now, I see her administration as being merely a pause on Trumpism, leading to a superficially palatable R president who is a far more effective and competent version of Trump. 

Edited by Mojo Hand
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23362

Posted
  • Author
Posted
12 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Hated by the establishment of both parties (lol if you believe this)

Arguably the reason she became a senator was because Obama passed her over to run the CFPB, (because she wouldn’t get confirmed.)

I won’t deny the dem establishment has warmed up to her over the years but this is mainly because they don’t have a choice.  She ain’t going away.

Warren vs Obama’s Treasury Secretary 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20716

Posted
Posted (edited)

Tuco, I'm concerned people will fall for the mud slinging and false promises that will be pitched by the Kamala campaign. 

Kamala will deliver #Resistance sound bites about Trump and tell Democrats whatever they want to hear policy-wise. It's a winnable strategy if voters choose to keep their heads in the sand. But I'm hoping people will start to realize her campaign (at least so far) is all sizzle and no steak. 

 

Edited by Hank Kingsley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pancho

Pancho 44492

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Didn’t @Pancho say black voters want Trump defeated and will pick whoever they think will do it? 

Pancho, any insight if she actually moved the needle away from Ole Joe?

From what I'm seeing, that answer is still yes, although educated Black women still favor Warren it looks like. 

Blacks will break for Biden, Harris, Warren, Booker, Castro, or Beto.  Anyone else is SOL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Kamala has passed Bernie in RCP's polling average, meaning the top 2 in the polls right now are Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The two worst candidates out of the Top 5.

So that's nice.

Joe gonna take this thing from cop lady by giving the “segregation now, segregation tomorrow” speech. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted

I generally make my decisions on whether (or how much) to support a candidate on three criteria:

1. Their policies 

2. Their ability go get elected

3. Their ability to serve the role competently

For Harris:

1. Policies

In general, most of the candidates are going to have policies which are roughly aligned with mine.  I want to expand the government role in health care, support consumer protections, enact gun policies, and enact policies more favorable to the middle class.  It they were running for king, I'd be more worried about the specifics, but in our system, I'm mostly concerned with the direction they will push.  And they are all pushing in the right direction. I do tend to be more concerned with deficits than most of the field appears to be.  With that being these are some of the positions I heard at her thing, and my reaction to them. 

Taxes - she want to pass a middle class tax cut for those make 100k or less, that will provide "up to" 6k per year.  She will pay for it by repealing the Trump tax cut.  - At first, this was a difficult one for me.  We need to generate revenue.  I am not in favor in replacing one major tax cut with another, regardless if it is geared toward the middle class instead of billionaires.  But, I recognize that running on a pro-tax increase platform is suicide in our political system. 

Gun Control - She will give Congress 100 days to "get their act together" and pass reasonable gun control legislation.  If that doesn't happen, she will take executive action to ban the import of assault weapons.  -It's actually a fairly non-specific policy, not really detailing what that legislation should have.  But banning the import is interesting to me.  I don't know if it will hold up in court, but if Trump can add tariffs as will, I think she would be able to add a 10,000% tariff on assault weapons.  But, more importantly, it's a kick in the nuts to the foreign gun lobby, and that might be enough to get Republicans to the table for legislation.  

Equal pay - She wants to put the requirement for proving it's not a problem on the corporations instead of the individual making the complaint.  - Similar to EEOC compliance, I assume.  Not a real big issue for me, but an interesting approach. 

Teacher pay - Really difficult to get what specifically the policy is, but basically the federal government taking action to put teacher pay on par with other college educated professions.  Wasn't sure if that was a federal subsidy or some way to compel the states, but probably the former.  I don't like this one.  

 

2. Electability

This is where I rate her highly.  Maybe I am underestimating racism and sexism. 

Where I disagree with her policies, I recognize there are good political reasons for them.  You can't run on repealing the Trump tax cut, if you don't provide something in its place. Teacher pay is an issue that a chunk of the public is receptive to. 

And I think she does a great job of translating her policies into relatable stories.  The bring-your-kid-to-the-ER-but-worried-about-deductible stories is well done, if maybe a touch over the top.  Just overall, I think she shows well.  Good voice.  Can can come across as calm, but passionate, at the same time. 

3. Competence

I think she has a good resume.  Time in the biggest state executive branch and time in the Senate. 

 

Shit I don't care about:

Who she fucked when she was in her 20s.

That she was a prosecutor. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85127

Posted
Posted

Kamala is a cop 

Bernie is an old socialist 

Liz is too shrill and the NA stuff was dumb

Biden is a fool and probably racist 

Pete is a rich White liberal wet dream with a McKinsey robot ideology

 

Bitch now. Pick your fave and vote for them. Rally for the eventual nominee and get over it if your guy/gal isn’t it 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Js1

Js1 85127

Posted
Posted

If? You mean when.

Because let's face it, unless she wins, and you pick up 4 Senate seats, and only lose Alabama, Mitch ain't doing SHIT for you.  Also your VP might as well set up residence in the Capitol because they will be there a lot to break 50/50 ties. 

Oh and you can't choose Warren, Brown, or the NH ladies for your cabinet because they'd replaced by Republicans until special elections or 2022. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Close a tax loop hole, tax companies that charge US consumers an amount over an international benchmark. 

Sorry, I meant her plan for executive action.   Looks like it is "investigate and release public findings," then maybe have HHS buy cheaper drugs from Canada to resell in America or license patents to lower-cost competitors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
6th Street

6th Street 6357

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

None of this is true you fucking shill

Bro you are dumb as shit if you think you can slash drug prices and expect the same level of R&D.  

Any changes to pricing will lead to a swift reduction in R&D as a on offset to maintain op margins. 

You are basically dis-incentivizing the likes of PFE, JNJ, MRK etc from innovating.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Scorpio

Hank Scorpio 17723

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Bro you are dumb as shit if you think you can slash drug prices and expect the same level of R&D.  

Any changes to pricing will lead to a swift reduction in R&D as a on offset to maintain op margins. 

You are basically dis-incentivizing the likes of PFE, JNJ, MRK etc from innovating.  

Exactly. And all those people going to Canada to buy their cancer medicine should be executed for treason. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21102

Posted
Posted
On 7/6/2019 at 11:33 AM, Hank Kingsley said:

Tuco, I'm concerned people will fall for the mud slinging and false promises that will be pitched by the Kamala campaign. 

Kamala will deliver #Resistance sound bites about Trump and tell Democrats whatever they want to hear policy-wise. It's a winnable strategy if voters choose to keep their heads in the sand. But I'm hoping people will start to realize her campaign (at least so far) is all sizzle and no steak. 

 

Was nice to see Uncle Joe lose ground, until you saw a lot of those points were going to the second worse candidate out there - Kamala.  Pete, Bern, and Warren  are just too good for this country.  The majority are too stupid to see a genuine well rounded candidate even with tons of exposure.  People gravitate towards the grifters.  And Kamala will say whatever the fuck to these people. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21102

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Bro you are dumb as shit if you think you can slash drug prices and expect the same level of R&D.  

Any changes to pricing will lead to a swift reduction in R&D as a on offset to maintain op margins. 

You are basically dis-incentivizing the likes of PFE, JNJ, MRK etc from innovating.  

I totally get what you are saying but they'd have to slash the living fuck out of prices before these companies slowed down their R&D.  We can worry about that when it approaches those levels of cuts - it will be easy to see.  These companies report all these numbers and they'll bitch and moan, but you watch - it will have to drop A LOT before they really cut into R&D. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
6th Street

6th Street 6357

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Suck my balls with this 2002-era bullshit spin.

 These scumbags spend twice on advertising/bribing doctors that they do on research.

There would be opex reductions across the board to offset the margin dilution from lower pricing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21102

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Suck my balls with this 2002-era bullshit spin.

These scumbags spend twice on advertising/bribing doctors that they do on research.

Speaking of 2002 era bullshit - the bribing/advertising to doctors shit has been largely stopped.  They have to go through all kinds of bullshit to give me a pen these days.  Forget about the 90's when the doctors who wrote the most of any particular drug got fully paid family vacations to Hawaii.  That's a common misconception that shit still works like that for any significant percentage of the industry.  The DOJ set up shop in several ortho device groups about a decade ago and ended a lot of it there too - that was the last stronghold. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted
Speaking of 2002 era bullshit - the bribing/advertising to doctors shit has been largely stopped.  They have to go through all kinds of bullshit to give me a pen these days.  Forget about the 90's when the doctors who wrote the most of any particular drug got fully paid family vacations to Hawaii.  That's a common misconception that shit still works like that for any significant percentage of the industry.  The DOJ set up shop in several ortho device groups about a decade ago and ended a lot of it there too - that was the last stronghold. 


Yes, thank you.

As a drug rep of 20 years, NONE of the urban legends of wining and dining doctors happens.

We can’t even give pens and sticky notes out any longer. It’s not worth the hassle because of The Sunshine Act. If I want to give a doctor a pen worth $.89, I have to get the doc’s signature acknowledging they received the pen, then I have to log it into a reporting system that keeps track of every penny “spent” on every doctor by every company.

And there’s an annual cap per doc and it doesn’t allow for the lavish stuff everyone uses as examples.

You can look up any doctor you want and see how much money they accepted from companies here - https://www.cms.gov/OpenPayments/index.html

The only thing I can do is bring lunch to an office. And that’s capped at $25 per prescriber (doctor or nurse practitioner or PA). But I have to feed the entire staff. So if it’s three docs, one CRNP, and eight staff members, I have to feed all 12 people off $100.

Seriously, pharma companies are evil but they aren’t spending any significant money on getting docs to write their products. They’re using their influence on the pharmacy benefits managers and the insurance company formulary managers.

THOSE are the people who decide what patients get. The doctors hands are tied by what the patient’s insurance will cover.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21102

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Bama Chick said:

 


Yes, thank you.

As a drug rep of 20 years, NONE of the urban legends of wining and dining doctors happens.

We can’t even give pens and sticky notes out any longer. It’s not worth the hassle because of The Sunshine Act. If I want to give a doctor a pen worth $.89, I have to get the doc’s signature acknowledging they received the pen, then I have to log it into a reporting system that keeps track of every penny “spent” on every doctor by every company.

And there’s an annual cap per doc and it doesn’t allow for the lavish stuff everyone uses as examples.

You can look up any doctor you want and see how much money they accepted from companies here - https://www.cms.gov/OpenPayments/index.html

The only thing I can do is bring lunch to an office. And that’s capped at $25 per prescriber (doctor or nurse practitioner or PA). But I have to feed the entire staff. So if it’s three docs, one CRNP, and eight staff members, I have to feed all 12 people off $100.

Seriously, pharma companies are evil but they aren’t spending any significant money on getting docs to write their products. They’re using their influence on the pharmacy benefits managers and the insurance company formulary managers.

THOSE are the people who decide what patients get. The doctors hands are tied by what the patient’s insurance will cover.

 

That's why I get a kick out of BT speaking about any of this as if he knows shit.  Just stick with 'big pharma sucks' BT.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20716

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

lol this candidate is pointless

Up to $20k of debt forgiven when you meet those hilariously-specific criteria.

So I just read more about this “policy”. One of the stupidest things I’ve ever seen. I truly can’t believe they actually put this plan together, and were so proud of it that they’d want to bring attention to this silliness.

I would vote for Biden over Kamala right now. 

 

Edited by Hank Kingsley
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...