2020 Democratic Nominee

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

40 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

pete - bernie/liz approach can polarize and divide.

liz fan - i'm gonna show everyone how wrong he is by telling pete he's cancelled.

 

lulz.

I’d still run to the polls to vote for him if he’s the nominee but he’s moving towards being Biden light.  He started his campaign by saying we need big bold progressive “generational change” but now says Bernie and Liz’s big ideas are “polarizing”?  Lol okay Pete. 

Pete doesn’t articulate his vision well beyond “I’m a young gay guy that checks the boxes and speaks really well”.  He’s got a bright future but not in this election.  JMO

[Hank Kingsley 21089]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’d still run to the polls to vote for him if he’s the nominee but he’s moving towards being Biden light.  He started his campaign by saying we need big bold progressive “generational change” but now says Bernie and Liz’s big ideas are “polarizing”?  Lol okay Pete. 

Apparently wanting to abolish the electoral college, abolish the filibuster, SC reform, and calling for the return of constitutional amendments are not examples of big bold progressive generational change. 

 

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

Apparently wanting to abolish the electoral college, abolish the filibuster, SC reform, and calling for the return of constitutional amendments are not examples of big bold progressive generational change. 

Those aren’t even provocative ideas and by themselves do nothing for regular people.  

[Hank Kingsley 21089]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Those aren’t even provocative ideas and by themselves do nothing for regular people.  

LOL! 

 

 

[henrygandorf 29199]

he's also been supporting "medicare for all who want it" which is closer to bernie than biden.  he thinks the future is single payer.  anyone pushing medicare for all likely transitions to a "all who want it" in the immediate future anyway, right?

apparently you're either bernie/liz or you're biden.  no, i can't imagine why anyone would be 'concerned' that this type of approach 'can' be polarizing and divisive.

 

[henrygandorf 29199]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Those aren’t even provocative ideas and by themselves do nothing for regular people.  

i love self-awareness like this.  holy shit.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

i love self-awareness like this.  holy shit.

Perhaps I’m out of touch but I doubt the average voter gives a shit about the filibuster.  No democrat in their right mind is defending the Electoral College and I doubt many are against expanding the Supreme Court.  Pete hasn’t really demonstrated that he’s willing to fight much for these ideas either.  They’re nice ideas but are they going to be a serious part of his agenda as president?  Skeptical hippo is skeptical.

I see Pete pivoting and working more towards the status quo than really trying to change things.  It’s kinda obvious Pete wanted to be president since he was five years old and he’d do whatever it takes to get there.  

[Hank Kingsley 21089]

 

[henrygandorf 29199]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Perhaps I’m out of touch but I doubt the average voter gives a shit about the filibuster.  No democrat in their right mind is defending the Electoral College and I doubt many are against expanding the Supreme Court.  Pete hasn’t really demonstrated that he’s willing to fight much for these ideas either.  They’re nice ideas but are they going to be a serious part of his agenda as president?  Skeptical hippo is skeptical.

I see Pete pivoting and working more towards the status quo than really trying to change things.  It’s kinda obvious Pete wanted to be president since he was five years old and he’d do whatever it takes to get there.  

not sure why your skeptical hippo speech was attached to my quote, but hey why not.

the electoral college has become a problem.  this affects every person, regular or not.  this is why donald trump is president.

issues governing the structure and integrity of the supreme court have become so partisan and bitter, that they may overturn roe.  this affects every person, regular or not.

you can't say he stands or doesn't stand for certain things, then when called on it, say, "well, in my opinion he hasn't demonstrated he's willing to fight for these things."  you said it yourself - no dem is going to fight him on those issues.  he's running in the democratic primary.  asked and answered, hippo.

i just thought the whole thing was funny from how it started.  pete gave his opinion (and i only saw the 1 min clip) about a couple of candidates that have an "all of nothing" approach that could turn some people off - thus the terms "polarizing" and "dividing".  he didn't say they were silly, stupid, or wrong.  he didn't say anything untrue. 

i think it's been beaten to death on this board, but there's the candidates, and there's the supporters of those candidates on social media.  two separate entities.  i found it funny that in response to pete's opinion, the level-headed, non-polarizing, non-divisive liz supporter said "bye pete."  you sure showed him!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Hey, I could be wrong and perhaps Pete is being politically savvy by isolating Warren and Bernie as “too far left and potentially polarizing” but to me he’s starting to sound like a cable news pundit instead of a candidate. 

However, I hope this is a play to peel off Biden supporters and I hope it works.  Go Pete!

Edited September 16, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Pete's just running his campaign. Drawing contrasts and arguing why he's the best choice is what he's supposed to be doing.  You don't have to agree with him, but there's nothing wrong with him trying to make the case that he represents the best balance of progressive ideas and pragmatism. 

[henrygandorf 29199]

14 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Hey, I could be wrong and perhaps Pete is being politically savvy by isolating Warren and Bernie as “too far left and potentially polarizing” but to me he’s starting to sound like a cable news pundit instead of a candidate. 

However, I hope this is a play to peel off Biden supporters and I hope it works.  Go Pete!

or maybe he's just giving his opinion to slanted questions from cable news pundits fishing for a story (it's pretty much their entire job description).  not just in that tweet, and not just interviews with pete.  and i didn't hear him say "too far left".  i also heard him slamming biden in that same one-minute clip.

that said, i don't think his concern is completely unfounded.  i do take issue with always grouping warren and bernie together.  i don't think that's a completely fair characterization for a number of reasons, and i would think their supporters would largely agree.

[Hank Kingsley 21089]

37 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Hey, I could be wrong and perhaps Pete is being politically savvy by isolating Warren and Bernie as “too far left and potentially polarizing” but to me he’s starting to sound like a cable news pundit instead of a candidate. 

He only grouped Warren and Bernie together on healthcare, which makes sense since Liz says she's "with Bernie on M4A". If she's gonna claim it, Pete is gonna make her own it. He's trying to carve out his own lane. Sounds like good politics to me. 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[bad_teammate 13303]

So the argument here is that Pete thinks the future is single-payer but is publicly tearing it down because doing so will help him achieve power?

Fucking owns

[henrygandorf 29199]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

So the argument here is that Pete thinks the future is single-payer but is publicly tearing it down because doing so will help him achieve power?

Fucking owns

when was he publicly tearing it down?  all i've ever heard from pete is his "medicare for all who want it" plan which offers a govt option, but allows people to stay on their employer plan if they want to.  he thinks (and mentioned it in the debate) that once it becomes clear that the public option makes the most sense to people (read financially), it will organically work itself out to the same eventual solution.

i'm not completely versed (nor am i being disingenuous) in bernie's rollout, but isn't that basically what the first few years look like in his m4a (and i guess warren's too)?

i think the second part of your question is hugo's argument, but he can answer that for himself.

[bad_teammate 13303]

7 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

when was he publicly tearing it down? 

He called advocating for single-payer polarizing and divisive.

Quote

all i've ever heard from pete is his "medicare for all who want it" plan which offers a govt option, but allows people to stay on their employer plan if they want to.  he thinks (and mentioned it in the debate) that once it becomes clear that the public option makes the most sense to people (read financially), it will organically work itself out to the same eventual solution.

Then he's also lying, because his plan doesn't do that. Under his plan, companies would be able to drop their existing private insurance offerings in favor of the public option and employees would, in fact, NOT be able to stay on the private insurance plan they currently have. Unless employers are required to keep the existing plans and private insurers are required to leave all of those plans unchanged, this is a very obvious and simple lie.

Also, the idea that anything will organically work itself out is absurd. Any Democratic plan that passes will be under immediate and powerful assault from the industries involved and the Republicans at large. We cannot make the necessary change with cowardly leadership who doesn't want to risk its good boy image.

Quote

i'm not completely versed (nor am i being disingenuous) in bernie's rollout, but isn't that basically what the first few years look like in his m4a (and i guess warren's too)?

M4A has a 4-year auto-enrollment tiered by age. Private insurance can still exist for those who haven't been auto-enrolled yet, but it is not an open-ended hope and dream that maybe one day, by gosh, if we dream big enough and make our eyes round and hopeful enough that maybe our healthcare will be free from employers and private insurers.

[Patrick Bateman 3942]

 

Edited September 16, 2019 by Patrick Bateman

[Hank Kingsley 21089]

Wow. That's gotta be a gut punch for the Bernie camp. 

 

 

[406W30th 1111]

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I'm confused as to what "M4A Who Want It" means from a practical standpoint.

My employer health insurance is okay, I think, but I am in no fucking way attached to it on any level. 

My employer pays $1,183/month of my premium, I pay $384/month. That's $14,207 and $4,600 annually, respectively. (My annual deductible is $5,600 with a $7,900 max out-of-pocket; both of those figures are for my family.)

So in this hypothetical "M4A Who Want It" option, let's say I want Medicare. My employer is paying $14,207 less annually, and I'm paying $4,600 less annually in deductibles. 

Where does that premium money (i.e. the $14K paid by my employer) go? Into my paycheck? After all, that benefit is one of the reasons I took my job. And how much do my taxes go up by opting into Medicare for my family? What are my out of pocket costs?

Sorry if these are dumb questions, and I don't want to derail the thread, but M4A makes sense to me. M4AWWI does not.

[Patrick Bateman 3942]

14 minutes ago, 406W30th said:

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I'm confused as to what "M4A Who Want It" means from a practical standpoint.

My employer health insurance is okay, I think, but I am in no fucking way attached to it on any level. 

My employer pays $1,183/month of my premium, I pay $384/month. That's $14,207 and $4,600 annually, respectively. (My annual deductible is $5,600 with a $7,900 max out-of-pocket; both of those figures are for my family.)

So in this hypothetical "M4A Who Want It" option, let's say I want Medicare. My employer is paying $14,207 less annually, and I'm paying $4,600 less annually in deductibles. 

Where does that premium money (i.e. the $14K paid by my employer) go? Into my paycheck? After all, that benefit is one of the reasons I took my job. And how much do my taxes go up by opting into Medicare for my family? What are my out of pocket costs?

Sorry if these are dumb questions, and I don't want to derail the thread, but M4A makes sense to me. M4AWWI does not.

Unknown.  A public option could potentially lead to companies deciding to pay the payroll tax and stop offering healthcare (they get tax benefits for offering) in which I would assume the company would keep the overage and perhaps some of the cost savings would seep into salaries (but probably not enough).  There's a lot of massaging and onboarding which would affect how and when a public option vs employer sponsored program could potentially work.  If the public option is strong and cheap enough, then you could potentially see employees move to it where organically employer's stop offering with demand so low and highly compensated workers or HNW families could decide to buy private insurance if they saw fit.  

[Mojo Hand 4580]

I don't know the specifics of the bills, but is there not a mechanism whereby current company contributions to private health insurance automatically have to be diverted either to the MFA system or into the employee paychecks? 

[Bama Chick 28596]

My issue with Pete’s latest messaging is his bullshittery about Beto’s stance on guns

 

Democrats have been letting the NRA define the conversation and set expectations for decades.

 

Beto’s stance will be a battle - but one worth fighting and the public reaction supports the boldness and going on offense instead of placating and compromising with ourselves before we even get to the table.

 

For Pete to come out and argue that staking out a position and putting the gun nutters on the defensive for once is dangerous and playing into the Republicans hands is weak as hell.

 

Fuck that. What other bold issues is Pete willing to temper his stance on because he’s afraid of how republicans will frame them?

 

How will Pete achieve what he claims is his main goal - wholesale democratic reform - if he starts from a place of worry about how the other side will react?

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Ringing endorsement for Pete here

 

[Hank Kingsley 21089]

Buttigieg needs to release his comprehensive healthcare plan sooner than later. My guess is it'll come out before the next debate. 

[Hank Kingsley 21089]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Ringing endorsement for Pete here

 

She's been on the Buttigieg train for a long time. Not that I give a shit about what Jennifer Rubin thinks. 

 

[Hank Kingsley 21089]

3 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

My issue with Pete’s latest messaging is his bullshittery about Beto’s stance on guns

Democrats have been letting the NRA define the conversation and set expectations for decades.

Beto’s stance will be a battle - but one worth fighting and the public reaction supports the boldness and going on offense instead of placating and compromising with ourselves before we even get to the table.

For Pete to come out and argue that staking out a position and putting the gun nutters on the defensive for once is dangerous and playing into the Republicans hands is weak as hell.

Fuck that. What other bold issues is Pete willing to temper his stance on because he’s afraid of how republicans will frame them?

We’re never going to achieve what Pete claims his main goal - wholesale democratic reform - if he starts from a place of worry about how the other side will react?

You're making a lot out of nothing. Tapper asked Pete a question. He responded and quickly turned to his ideas on gun reform, which include a ban on new purchases of assault weapons. He has the same position as Warren and Sanders. 

 

 

[Patrick Bateman 3942]

14 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I don't know the specifics of the bills, but is there not a mechanism whereby current company contributions to private health insurance automatically have to be diverted either to the MFA system or into the employee paychecks? 

No.  Or at least there are no details in most plans for this.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I think the bottom line is some candidates are “No more playing defense, it’s time to go on offense.”

Pete is like, “Well, I don’t know, wouldn’t want to divide the country, we need to bring everyone together.”  

That’s the vibe I’m getting. 

Edited September 16, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Bama Chick 28596]

Good for Pete, Sanders, and Warren.

They’re all stuck in the past on this issue and following old conventional wisdom instead of leading.

Any candidate who uses the excuse of “we’re playing into the Republicans hands” on any bold idea gets a huge side eye from me.

I bet Pete’s glad we didn’t use that excuse when it came to gay marriage.

I bet Warren wouldn’t say that about financial reform.

I bet Sanders wouldn’t say that about labor or healthcare.

Biden uses that hedge about every issue.

Don’t be like Biden.

It’s weak.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Just now, Bama Chick said:

My issue with Pete’s latest messaging is his bullshittery about Beto’s stance on guns

Democrats have been letting the NRA define the conversation and set expectations for decades.

Beto’s stance will be a battle - but one worth fighting and the public reaction supports the boldness and going on offense instead of placating and compromising with ourselves before we even get to the table.

For Pete to come out and argue that staking out a position and putting the gun nutters on the defensive for once is dangerous and playing into the Republicans hands is weak as hell.

Fuck that. What other bold issues is Pete willing to temper his stance on because he’s afraid of how republicans will frame them?

We’re never going to achieve what Pete claims his main goal - wholesale democratic reform - if he starts from a place of worry about how the other side will react?

Yeah, and that's the real problem with Pete's youth and inexperience.   We don't know how he'll respond when push comes to shove, as it inevitably does.   My guess is that he's like Obama in that respect:  he'll waste years thinking that he can persuade Republicans to deal based on the power of his reason and vision.   Obama showed plenty of signs of that during the campaign, and Pete is too. 

The notion that Beto is playing into Republicans' hands by giving them a sound bite is completely divorced from reality, in which Republicans have not needed any sound bite to rally every person that a sound bite would rally.   The gun nuts thought Obama was about to confiscate their guns for 8 years, despite him never "playing into their hands" by saying something like Beto said. 

30+ years of GOP strategy has been based around them setting the terms of the debate through bold, confident pronouncements from the far right.   And the Dems have long played into their hands by accepting those terms and trying to left-center positions within a framework already skewed to the far right. 

What Beto (on guns) and Bernie and Warren (on other issues) are doing may scare a few people, but far more people will hear them and realize it's okay to be for the same ideas too.   That's how you move public sentiment rather than just accepting where the other side has moved it. 

[Hank Kingsley 21089]

1 minute ago, Bama Chick said:

Good for Pete, Sanders, and Warren.

They’re all stuck in the past on this issue and following old conventional wisdom instead of leading.

Any candidate who uses the excuse of “we’re playing into the Republicans hands” on any bold idea gets a huge side eye from me.

I bet Pete’s glad we didn’t use that excuse when it came to gay marriage.

I bet Warren wouldn’t say that about financial reform.

I bet Sanders wouldn’t say that about labor or healthcare.

Biden uses that hedge about every issue.

Don’t be like Biden.

It’s weak.

I appreciate that the El Paso mass shooting has updated Beto's stance on guns. Prior to that tragedy, he was fully on board with anyone owning and "continuing to use" an AR-15 if it was purchased legally. 

Policies change and get updated. Good for Beto to stop giving a shit about what people think. But let's not pretend this 3rd or 4th iteration of Beto the Presidential candidate has been "leading" on this issue for very long. 

 

 

[DixonHur 11603]

9 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Good for Pete, Sanders, and Warren.

They’re all stuck in the past on this issue and following old conventional wisdom instead of leading.

Any candidate who uses the excuse of “we’re playing into the Republicans hands” on any bold idea gets a huge side eye from me.

I bet Pete’s glad we didn’t use that excuse when it came to gay marriage.

I bet Warren wouldn’t say that about financial reform.

I bet Sanders wouldn’t say that about labor or healthcare.

Biden uses that hedge about every issue.

Don’t be like Biden.

It’s weak.

I don't know about all that.  I agree with Pete, to me it's just about not poking the hornets nest when you don't have to.  Beto's quip about "taking" guns felt like an unforced error.

I'm totally on board with meaningful gun regulations, but talking about taking people's guns is a bit over the top to me.  

[henrygandorf 29199]

19 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I don't know about all that.  I agree with Pete, to me it's just about not poking the hornets nest when you don't have to.  Beto's quip about "taking" guns felt like an unforced error.

I'm totally on board with meaningful gun regulations, but talking about taking people's guns is a bit over the top to me.  

if you watch the actual interview (instead of just reading the twitter headlines) this is basically what he was getting at.  he thinks we're close now to a lot of meaningful gun reform, and doesn't want to see it get mucked up by the other side's sudden outrage over a decades-old debate.

we also have a case where a lot of candidates are running on "things they would like to get accomplished once they're president".  but we also have a lot of these candidates who are already part of the law-making process.  bernie, liz, kamala are senators.  pete, beto, biden are not part of the federal government. 

i'm fine with beto getting emotional from his current role as a candidate, and he's not "wrong" or "right".  his job is to let people know what he stands for, and that's great.  but to pretend that pete is somehow "wrong" or "right" or "bullshitting" about his opinion when asked, and how he thinks it will affect the process of reform, is a pointless waste of time.  people are judging candidates, and part of that is seeing how they react and how their brains process the twists and turns that lead towards what they hope to accomplish.

it's up to the voters to judge accordingly.  or they can just "get a vibe" to how they feel someone is thinking.  that also works.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

33 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I don't know about all that.  I agree with Pete, to me it's just about not poking the hornets nest when you don't have to.  Beto's quip about "taking" guns felt like an unforced error.

I'm totally on board with meaningful gun regulations, but talking about taking people's guns is a bit over the top to me.  

While your position is reasonable, I strongly disagree.   Let's get real:  everyone knows/thinks that Dems would ban and confiscate most guns if they could do it without any risk of negative political fallout.   If 70% of the country was suddenly vocally anti-gun, would Dems be as horrified by that development as staunch Republicans?   Hell no, we all know Dems would be falling over themselves to head the confiscation movement. 

What has each party done with this reality?   The Republicans tell everyone that no matter what Dems say, they are fucking liars and want to take everyone's guns.   Which is pretty much true, so gun people are enthusiastic R voters.    Meanwhile, Dems say, no, please believe us, we don't want to take your guns, we just want some band-aids and there's no slippery slope.   Which (1) doesn't make many gun people vote Dem (2) alienates all of the anti-gun voters, and (3) tells all of the sheeple in the middle that it's not okay to be anti-gun, so they sort of check out on the issue.  

I don't know why Dems are so scared to own their beliefs and take progressive stands.  Look at all of the fucking blue on this chart from the Great Depression until Clinton, and look at all the red since then:

The Dem obsession with not scaring the middle has led to its collapse.  

Edited September 16, 2019 by Mojo Hand
numbers, how do they work?

[DixonHur 11603]

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

While your position is reasonable, I strongly disagree.   Let's get real:  everyone knows/thinks that Dems would ban and confiscate most guns if they could do it without any risk of negative political fallout.   If 70% of the country was suddenly vocally anti-gun, would Dems be as horrified by that development as staunch Republicans?   Hell no, we all know Dems would be falling over themselves to head the confiscation movement. 

What has each party done with this reality?   The Republicans tell everyone that no matter what Dems say, they are fucking liars and want to take everyone's guns.   Which is pretty much true, so gun people are enthusiastic R voters.    Meanwhile, Dems say, no, please believe us, we don't want to take your guns, we just want some band-aids and there's no slippery slope.   Which (1) doesn't make many gun people vote Dem (1) alienates all of the anti-gun voters, and (2) tells all of the sheeple in the middle that it's not okay to be anti-gun, so they sort of check out on the issue.  

I don't know why Dems are so scared to own their beliefs and take progressive stands.  Look at all of the fucking blue on this chart from the Great Depression until Clinton, and look at all the red since then:

The Dem obsession with not scaring the middle has led to its collapse.  

I understand your point, but to me it was the equivalent of bulletin board material in football.  It may or may not hurt, but it rarely helps.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

I understand your point, but to me it was the equivalent of bulletin board material in football.  It may or may not hurt, but it rarely helps.

I don't think that comparison works.   The political equivalent of bulletin board material would be something like Hillary's "deplorables" or Romney's 47% comments:  it has no real substantive content and just pisses off a ton of people.   Beto's comments are a policy statement.  He's not saying that gun owners are morons with small dicks.   He's just taking a confident policy stance that we should confiscate high capacity guns.   Yeah, that pisses some people off, but it also energizes and leads plenty of other people, because it has real substantive content. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Also, another aspect of taking strong stands is that it brings out the real nuts on the other side.   Guys like Briscoe Cain come out of the woodwork as the face of the gun rights movement.  That moves public opinion too. 

[Hank Kingsley 21089]

This will be a BIG poll. I think there's a decent chance Biden will not be at the top of it. 

 

[DixonHur 11603]

8 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I don't think that comparison works.   The political equivalent of bulletin board material would be something like Hillary's "deplorables" or Romney's 47% comments:  it has no real substantive content and just pisses off a ton of people.   Beto's comments are a policy statement.  He's not saying that gun owners are morons with small dicks.   He's just taking a confident policy stance that we should confiscate high capacity guns.   Yeah, that pisses some people off, but it also energizes and leads plenty of other people, because it has real substantive content. 

I think the comparison holds up, so we can agree to disagree on that.

I just question the upside?  I think we can agree that the hardcore bases of both sides aren't gonna move on the issue, but the folks like me in the middle might find it off-putting.   In fact, I did, and I was a Beto fan, and haven't owned a gun in 25+ years.  For me, it's not a gun issue, but rather a government overreach issue.

I also think it would have been different if he said, "I'm going to take your guns", not "we".  Now the GOP has a soundbite that ropes in the entire Dem field to his policy.  Yes, I know it's not a factual ascertain, but if we've learned nothing else recently, it's that we are in a post-fact world right now.  All that matters is perception.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The replies tho...

 

[DixonHur 11603]

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

 

That's a problem since white folks vote at higher rates than minorities.  Hopefully that changes

[Hank Kingsley 21089]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The replies tho...

 

The writing is on the wall. Either Bernie starts actively differentiating himself over Warren or he's done. 

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

I think the comparison holds up, so we can agree to disagree on that.

I just question the upside?  I think we can agree that the hardcore bases of both sides aren't gonna move on the issue, but the folks like me in the middle might find it off-putting.   In fact, I did, and I was a Beto fan, and haven't owned a gun in 25+ years.  For me, it's not a gun issue, but rather a government overreach issue.

I also think it would have been different if he said, "I'm going to take your guns", not "we".  Now the GOP has a soundbite that ropes in the entire Dem field to his policy.  Yes, I know it's not a factual ascertain, but if we've learned nothing else recently, it's that we are in a post-fact world right now.  All that matters is perception.

Well, it's done, so I guess we'll see if this sinks the Dems or, conversely, if confiscation starts polling more strongly.  I'm interested in the results for sure. 

I don't dispute that the middle will find it off-putting in the short term.   That's part of the process of changing narratives.  But I don't think that comes from a place of innate and unchangeable political judgment inside.   I think it's a product of the conventional wisdom that has dominated for the past while, which itself was created by political messaging.   And I think that the more that gets displaced by new political messaging, the less off-putting it will be, until it's the new normal. 

The only thing that is truly and innately off-putting in this debate is the slaughter of innocent people going about their daily lives.   El Paso and Newtown and the rest.   If Dems get real, that will win out over depriving yahoos of the fun of emptying their magazines for kicks. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The writing is on the wall. Either Bernie starts actively differentiating himself over Warren or he's done. 

 

I don't know how he even can, honestly.  She drank his milkshake without even attacking him — in fact, while bear-hugging him.   I think he just has to hope that she gets sunk by some other thing. 

[bad_teammate 13303]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The writing is on the wall. Either Bernie starts actively differentiating himself over Warren or he's done.

This is a powerful bit of punditry based on the endorsement of a regional party.

Also, it's pretty obvious what happened here. The bosses of the party wanted Warren, the people wanted Sanders.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That's not what "secret ballot" means, bud lol

[DixonHur 11603]

10 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Well, it's done, so I guess we'll see if this sinks the Dems or, conversely, if confiscation starts polling more strongly.  I'm interested in the results for sure. 

I don't dispute that the middle will find it off-putting in the short term.   That's part of the process of changing narratives.  But I don't think that comes from a place of innate and unchangeable political judgment inside.   I think it's a product of the conventional wisdom that has dominated for the past while, which itself was created by political messaging.   And I think that the more that gets displaced by new political messaging, the less off-putting it will be, until it's the new normal. 

The only thing that is truly and innately off-putting in this debate is the slaughter of innocent people going about their daily lives.   El Paso and Newtown and the rest.   If Dems get real, that will win out over depriving yahoos of the fun of emptying their magazines for kicks. 

Agreed. 

Personally, I think it's too late to put the toothpaste back in the tube regarding the guns that are out there.  I'd suggest going Beto's original idea...from that same day, I think....make it a financial issue.  I think he was specifically talking about credit card usage at gun shows, etc., but I'd expand the idea so that all guns must be registered, licensed, and insured....just like cars.  I'd imagine the rates for an AR-15 would be pretty high, given the risks.  And if you are caught without any of the three components, your gun would be impounded and you would be fined, or jailed.

Obviously a lot of the details would have to be worked out, but that's kind of an overview of my thoughts.

Edited September 16, 2019 by DixonHur

[Bozo_Casanova 26684]

2 hours ago, 406W30th said:

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I'm confused as to what "M4A Who Want It" means from a practical standpoint.

My employer health insurance is okay, I think, but I am in no fucking way attached to it on any level. 

My employer pays $1,183/month of my premium, I pay $384/month. That's $14,207 and $4,600 annually, respectively. (My annual deductible is $5,600 with a $7,900 max out-of-pocket; both of those figures are for my family.)

So in this hypothetical "M4A Who Want It" option, let's say I want Medicare. My employer is paying $14,207 less annually, and I'm paying $4,600 less annually in deductibles. 

Where does that premium money (i.e. the $14K paid by my employer) go? Into my paycheck? After all, that benefit is one of the reasons I took my job. And how much do my taxes go up by opting into Medicare for my family? What are my out of pocket costs?

Sorry if these are dumb questions, and I don't want to derail the thread, but M4A makes sense to me. M4AWWI does not.

Those aren't dumb questions. Those are good questions. Right now M4A doesn't mean anything right now. As of right now its a loose mashup of dozen(s) of things, but there are some major buckets. Since the party has coalesced around the branding I feel confident that pretty much anything will carry that label. 

 See below:

 

Edited September 16, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[Hank Kingsley 21089]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

This is a powerful bit of punditry based on the endorsement of a regional party.

Of course you're downplaying it. 

Bernie has been an activist for working families practically his entire adult life. Warren overtakes him and wins the endorsement with 5-6 months of progressive political maneuvering. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

Of course you're downplaying it. 

Bernie has been an activist for working families practically his entire adult life. Warren overtakes him and wins the endorsement with 5-6 months of progressive political maneuvering. 

I just can't get around Bernie's flat polling for the last 6 months on this chart:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html.

It's fine when you're way out in first place, like Biden, but if not, how can you argue that nothing needs to change?  I guess if you think you can win Iowa and New Hampshire, maybe things will snowball, but Warren’s playing hard for those states while also steadily rising in national polls.