Jump to content

2020 Democratic Nominee

used2b

By used2b
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Js1

Js1 85379

Posted
Posted
Just now, Mojo Hand said:

If that's an exact quote, I see why Kamala got confused.   What is the purpose of the word "their"?  It seems to refer to the insurance personally held by each candidate. 

100% shit question.  You have to define "their"

"Many people watching at home have health insurance coverage through their employer. First, who here would abolish their own private health insurance in favor of a government plan? Okay, and now who here would abolish everyone's private health insurance in favor of a government plan?" 

First part - do you support it for yourself and then you get to see who is a big ole hypocrite. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 23.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bad_teammate

    3638

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2212

  • Hank Kingsley

    1252

  • Js1

    1230

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Huckleberry
Huckleberry

No it doesn't, this is absurd selfishness on a grand scale. Nobody is getting punished. My wife and I paid off our student loans, and you know what I think about younger people or even those in our ge

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

i’ve really enjoyed the 900 posts from bt explaining how bernie people aren’t aggressive, obsessive, and very-online.  truly a learning experience. 

Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton

3rd or 4th thread but whos counting.  Name recognition and ability to collect money is most important to the Democratic Party. They aren't trying to win 2020, they are trying to rebuild and colle

Posted Images

Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted

Switching health insurance plans is a pain in the ass, which is why the conservatives have settled on "they are coming to take away your health insurance plan" as the line of attack against M4A.  Sanders needs to stress that under our current system is incredibly unstable with around 25% of people changing plans every year.  If you don't like losing your plan then you shouldn't like how the system is currently structured.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
If that's an exact quote, I see why Kamala got confused.   What is the purpose of the word "their" before "private insurance"?  It seems to refer to the insurance personally held by each candidate. 

Why would "their" refer to the individual candidates when the very sentence prior references millions of Americans who get insurance through work? C'mon now.

 

 

She also said, in her words, that she's "with Bernie" on healthcare. There is no ambiguity there. Bernie is 100% for eliminating private insurance.

 

She also doubled down on Twitter immediately afterwards. Pound sign medicare4all

 

 

 

 

da8627a1b9441d7e50e6110a9d27455f.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Why would "their" refer to the individual candidates when the very sentence prior references millions of Americans who get insurance through work? C'mon now.

 

 

She also said, in her words, that she's "with Bernie" on healthcare. There is no ambiguity there. Bernie is 100% for eliminating private insurance.

 

She also doubled down on Twitter immediately afterwards. Pound sign medicare4all

 

 

 

 

da8627a1b9441d7e50e6110a9d27455f.jpg

The alternate interpretation would be, "Millions of Americans have private health insurance.  Would you give up your own private insurance in favor of a government plan?"  Just like during the ACA debate, reporters asked Dems if they would give up their private insurance and sign up for Obamacare. 

I'm not saying that Warren was confused.   I'm saying it was a confusing question, and I can see why Kamala was confused.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13215

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Why would "their" refer to the individual candidates when the very sentence prior references millions of Americans who get insurance through work? C'mon now.

"Many people watching at home have health insurance coverage through their employer. Who here would abolish their private health insurance in favor of a government plan?"

This is basic pronoun/antecedent confusion. When you have two different subjects in question, you can't use a pronoun to refer to the subject that wasn't used most recently.

"Who here" is the subject of the sentence, so any personal pronoun coming after will refer to that subject. What the idiot moderators MEANT was "Who here would abolish those people's private health insurance in favor of a government plan?"

Now you can say, "Come on, it's clear from context."

1) No, it's not.
2) How shitty do you have to be as a moderator and writer to fuck up basic pronoun/antecedent agreement when 15+ million people are going to be watching?

It's embarrassing that these news organizations and moderators don't know how to formulate and phrase questions.

But even going past the bad grammar, THE FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTION OF THE QUESTION IS FLAWED!

The moderators either know or should know that no candidate has advocated the complete abolition of private healthcare. If the moderators know that, then they are purposefully asking a misleading question and should be openly attacked by the participants. If the moderators don't know that, then they should be openly attacked by the participants for not doing their research and wasting everyone's time.

Tough questions are fine, but when they are phrased like a C-level middle school student and dishonest in their content, those aren't hard questions, they're bullshit questions.

Here are some good questions:

- "Senator, do you believe that the government should guarantee that every citizen has health coverage regardless of their poor circumstances or poor choices?"

- "Congresswoman, should someone who chooses not to purchase private health insurance be automatically enrolled into a government healthcare plan?"

- "Mayor, would you support a plan that would allow a citizen to choose to not have healthcare coverage?"

I would LOVE for a candidate to respond to one of these garbage questions with something like, "Our democratic process deserves more than the kinds of misleading and pointless questions being asked here with demands for 5 second responses."

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
troph

troph 24837

Posted
Posted
The alternate interpretation would be, "Millions of Americans have private health insurance.  Would you give up your own private insurance in favor of a government plan?"  Just like during the ACA debate, reporters asked Dems if they would give up their private insurance and sign up for Obamacare. 

I'm not saying that Warren was confused.   I'm saying it was a confusing question, and I can see why Kamala was confused.   

M4A with a modest supplemental plan? I might do that and have my taxes raised. My bill - all in for my family approached $35,000 last year. Tax me $5000 more and I’ll use $10,000-15,000 on a supplemental policy and still save more than $1000 a year. Private insurance is clearly becoming a luxury in this country. Needs to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13215

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Bernie campaign manager says campaign will report $24 million for Q2 - $18 million raised + $6 mill transferred from prior accounts

lol doing the same thing Beto did to boost his Day 1 total

Bernie up in here with the fuckery

2 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

everyone: 

b_t: WORSHIP THIS MAN FOR PERFORMING A TASK THAT EVERY 10 YEAR OLD HAS MASTERED, LOOK HOW NORMAL HE IS

Worship? lol ok bud

Just mocking Hank for his meltdown over a dorky guy who cleans fish tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13215

Posted
Posted

Bernie Q2 (comparison with Pete)

- $18M raised during Q2 (lol @ the $6M transfer to get the number (almost) as high as Pete's $24.8M)
- Average donation was $18 (Pete's average donation was $47.42)
- 99.3% of donations were $100 or less
- ~1M individual donations in Q2
- 225k donations from the first 5 primary states alone

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1798

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, troph said:

M4A with a modest supplemental plan? I might do that and have my taxes raised. My bill - all in for my family approached $35,000 last year. Tax me $5000 more and I’ll use $10,000-15,000 on a supplemental policy and still save more than $1000 a year. Private insurance is clearly becoming a luxury in this country. Needs to change.

Yep, raise my taxes and take away the almost thousand dollars I pay every month in premiums, it's going to even out and I would (hope) that all this in-network/out-of-network or apparently getting fucked because you called an emergency service when you fainted.

 

https://khn.org/news/bill-of-the-month-man-faints-after-flu-shot-gets-stuck-with-4700-hospital-bill/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85379

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Bernie Q2 (comparison with Pete)

- $18M raised during Q2 (lol @ the $6M transfer to get the number (almost) as high as Pete's $24.8M)
- Average donation was $18 (Pete's average donation was $47.42)
- 99.3% of donations were $100 or less
- ~1M individual donations in Q2
- 225k donations from the first 5 primary states alone

Top contributing employer was Walmart. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
406W30th

406W30th 1111

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, GSU&UT said:

Love having my employer based insurance that changes every year or even fucks you over because an out-of-network doctor treated you in an in-network hospital. Can't wait for that to continue to be the norm because apparently paying a premium every month isn't a tax.

Love to be terrified of losing my job because it means I'd be absolutely fucked when it comes to insuring my family. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13215

Posted
Posted

Liberal Medial: "Bernie Sanders wants to take away your insurance, do you like that?"

Normal Human Who Doesn't Obsess Over This Stuff: "No!"

Liberal Media: "Will Bernie's Radical Plan Turn Off Voters?"

Meanwhile...

-----------------------

Bernie's campaign saying they have $30M cash on hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20966

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

everyone: 

b_t: WORSHIP THIS MAN FOR PERFORMING A TASK THAT EVERY 10 YEAR OLD HAS MASTERED, LOOK HOW NORMAL HE IS

BT is the only one on here allowed to give Bernie shit, because he's objective and clear-headed.  Everyone else who chimes in is just a centrist. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85379

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, 406W30th said:

Love to be terrified of losing my job because it means I'd be absolutely fucked when it comes to insuring my family. 

Right? We are one stock market bubble burst away from a lot of people being fucked all over again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13215

Posted
Posted
Just now, Chuckie Finster said:

^obsessively supports a 114 year old man becoming the next president

Yes, because it's about the movement and message, not the personality at the top of the ticket.

I am very happy to support the very old man whose base of support is young, working class, and diverse more than the very young man whose base of support is old, rich, and white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13215

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

(Patiently waiting for Elizabeth Warren numbers)

I'm optimistic that she'll be in the $10M range, which would be plenty both in terms of logistics and perception of popular viability. Her steady rise in the polls HAS to portend good things here, right?

Fingers crossed.

We need her in this race to keep the focus on policy and progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85379

Posted
Posted
Quote

That said, the new survey has some sobering findings for Biden, a familiar figure in the state. His level of support didn't change from the Des Moines Register/Mediacom/CNN Iowa Poll taken last month. But among those who watched him debate, more than four in 10 said he did worse than they had expected. And among all of those surveyed, he was the second choice of just 11%, behind three of his rivals.

Harris, in contrast, saw her support more than double compared to the June poll, to 16% from 7%. She was also chosen as the second choice of 17% — a telling measure of the potential breadth of a candidate's support. When first and second choices were combined, Biden only narrowly edged Harris, 35% to 33%.

Inevitability shattered.  Someone punched Biden in the mouth and all his "supporters" felt it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85379

Posted
Posted
Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

 

I knew the 1st debate would be a big deal, but JFC the poll movement based off major candidates speaking for 8-10 minutes on a 10 person stage is crazy. 

 

TBF:

1) it was the first time a majority of Democrats tuned in

2) it shattered Biden's inevitability argument - he got punched in the mouth and looked old and foolish and out of touch

3) it was the first time a lot of people really saw Pete, Warren and Harris.  Biden and Bernie are known.  Beto was a 2018 phenom - but everyone seems pretty unenthused

4) Harris had very good underlying numbers - in terms of who would consider her, her favorability among Democrats, etc.  It feels like people needed to really see her to commit to her

5) On the flip side, it's on her and Warren to sustain these movements.  It's not easy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20966

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, because it's about the movement and message, not the personality at the top of the ticket.

I am very happy to support the very old man whose base of support is young, working class, and diverse more than the very young man whose base of support is old, rich, and white.

Maybe it should be just about the movement and the message, but that's not the reality with American voters.  The messenger is extremely important as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20966

Posted
Posted
Just now, Js1 said:

4) Harris had very good underlying numbers - in terms of who would consider her, her favorability among Democrats, etc.  It feels like people needed to really see her to commit to her

 

Good point. Her numbers were always decent even when she wasn't really in the spotlight at all. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
406W30th

406W30th 1111

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Maybe it should be just about the movement and the message, but that's not the reality with American voters.  The messenger is extremely important as well. 

And Harris put/puts on a good show. She told a very personal, if scripted, story that hit a stumbling Biden right in the jaw. I have a feeling more of these are coming, and not just from Kamala.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm optimistic that she'll be in the $10M range, which would be plenty both in terms of logistics and perception of popular viability. Her steady rise in the polls HAS to portend good things here, right?

Fingers crossed.

We need her in this race to keep the focus on policy and progress.

I think you’re underestimating considering he bold moves in the second quarter like leading the charge on impeachment after the Mueller Report came out and publicly calling out Fox News for its hate for profit corrupt business practices. 

I’d be surprised if she’s under $20 million.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20966

Posted
Posted
Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I think you’re underestimating considering he bold moves in the second quarter like leading the charge on impeachment after the Mueller Report came out and publicly calling out Fox News for its hate for profit corrupt business practices. 

I’d be surprised if she’s under $20 million.

 

Will be interesting to see. She struggled a bit in Q1 but obviously her campaign has taken off the last couple of months. If she's around $20 million, I'd guess a significant part of that financial surge would come from #Resistance and Hillary voters she's wrangled in. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13215

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Maybe it should be just about the movement and the message, but that's not the reality with American voters.  The messenger is extremely important as well. 

The messenger absolutely is important, you're right.

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I think you’re underestimating considering he bold moves in the second quarter like leading the charge on impeachment after the Mueller Report came out and publicly calling out Fox News for its hate for profit corrupt business practices. 

I’d be surprised if she’s under $20 million.

She's not doing the Pete/Joe/Kamala circuit of galas and dinners with the donor class. She's out there among the people with Bernie. The people don't have that kind of money to give.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29927

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Single digits for Bernie huh?

Keep drumming bt. 

 

I love that we've become accustomed to having the Iowa caucus be an important step toward becoming president. In the old days, it was the New Hampshire primary which seemed sort of absurd, but that wasn't enough.

We had to set up a self-fulfilling prophecy that winning the Iowa caucus gave a horse momentum heading into the second furlong in sparsely populated New Hampshire.

It's a very stupid filtering mechanism. Yet, it's part of the horse race, and that's the way it is.

Skidmore, Texas ought to have a straw pole a month before the Iowa caucus. Let's see how stupid we can make this selection process.

And, no, I'm not bitter because my candidate isn't doing well. My candidate is Warren at the moment.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Joe is done.  He loses the top spot after the 2nd debate at the latest. 

While I tend to agree, I feel better with Joe as the front runner right now in these polls.  It takes the heat off the real deal candidates and keeps the Republicans guessing at who the nominee will be.  A huge advantage the GOP had in the lead up to 2016 is they always knew it was going to be Hillary, hence the Benghazi/emails media blitzes.  

Keep the GOP focus on Biden instead of Harris/Warren/Pete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15539

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

He does a great job of acting like belongs and getting media coverage, but sometimes the juxtaposition of where he actually is and where the Senators are is striking and unavoidable.  

Here’s Kamala grilling Brett Kavanaugh or some high level Trump administration official.  Here’s Warren and Bernie talking about their bills for healthcare and Wall Street reform.  Here’s Biden talking about how the Bin Laden raid went down and what the Obama Administration did domestically and in foreign affairs. Here’s Mayor Pete getting yelled at by some guy after a police shooting.

I have thought for a long time that Pete's best play is to raise money, increase his national stature, and then drop out after Iowa/New Hampshire with plenty of time to register for the Indiana governor's race.

  • 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...