Jump to content

Independent/Third Party 2020 Presidential Candidate "Mega"thread

bad_teammate

By bad_teammate
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

Yeah because in this day and age when literally every other politician gets visible positive feedback on Twitter, somehow his positive feedback is only being sent to him via email.

Okayyyyy, Howie.

I’m not exaggerating when I say I’ve yet to see one single positive comment about him on social media.

His multitude of supporters must just be using that new fangled email thingy.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Yes, I'm sure a twitter account that retweets Paul Joseph Watson, Dana Loesch, James Woods and Jacob Wohl is acting in good faith with the Howard Schultz support. 

So you’re saying they’re trolling?

Owning the libs by faking support for Schultz on twitter.

No way that could backfire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

Obviously there’s a few outliers due to military leadership (Grant, Ike, et al) or just living 70 years in our country as a gelatin based Moron (trump),  but what’s the average number of elected office years of service for our presidents?   Moreover, how many years of elected office do they have under their belt before they’re elected to the highest office?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

I’d laugh my ass off if all these efforts by Fox News and GOP operatives to push Schultz backfired and actually results in siphoning off reluctant Trump voters.

Because ain’t no Democrats nor anti-Trump Independents getting swayed by GOP media messaging or watching Fox News.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 21062

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

So you’re saying they’re trolling?

Owning the libs by faking support for Schultz on twitter.

No way that could backfire.

Yes.

Pathetic and obvious attempt to get Ds to think Schultz is viable. 

Do you think that tweet is sincere? You’re “i’ll allow it” gif confuses me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Yes.

Pathetic and obvious attempt to get Ds to think Schultz is viable. 

Do you think that tweet is sincere? You’re “i’ll allow it” gif confuses me.

The republicans are dumb enough to fall for Schultz. 

If he becomes even slightly viable and splits GOP voters, that could put solid red states in jeopardy.

I say troll away GOP4Schultz 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28910

Posted
Posted

I don't think Schultz is involved in any conspiracy to derail the Democrats, he has come out pretty hard in opposition to the Dems with a slight expression of distaste for the Donald. Unlike Trump he is an extremely successful businessman and doesn't need to deal with the underworld. Due to his inexperience he has managed to kick off a class conflict in the media and left the Right Wing talking heads no choice but to support his statement's.

I think the guy is driven by pure fucking ego and is oblivious to why he keeps punching himself in the dick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29782

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Rich old white dude afraid of higher taxes.

There’s nothing more republican than that.

I'll give him one thing; he's OG GOP.

Not whatever you call this merry band of traitorous and mendacious nitwits running the party nowadays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85662

Posted
Posted

None of what is being floated is free.  It's paid for, the these things everyone pays in some form or another, called taxes.

I bet Meghan McCain was giving him a foot job during his Republican talking points about how we "can't afford" it but, y'know, tax cuts for the rich and bloated military spending and a wall.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

None of what is being floated is free.  It's paid for, the these things everyone pays in some form or another, called taxes.

I bet Meghan McCain was giving him a foot job during his Republican talking points about how we "can't afford" it but, y'know, tax cuts for the rich and bloated military spending and a wall.

The “can’t afford it” is such a tired line.  America is already paying for health care and college. We’re just getting screwed six ways to Sunday.  We the people can’t afford health care and that is a fixable problem with enough political will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29782

Posted
Posted

^ This. I know I'm speaking to the choir but we're collectively spending twice the amount of our GDP on healthcare than any other advanced economy and still get worse overall results. I don't have the time now to look it up but, if I recall correctly, there's at least one study that found most of the difference was made up in insurance and related administrative costs. 

Take out the middleman should be the mantra on this issue. We're still paying either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

so the Democrats get to use Superdelegates and intimidation to control both their own nominee and bully any independents out of running?  Seems big-tent.  Got it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GHOSTUSER

GHOSTUSER 361

Posted
Posted (edited)

This country can’t afford M4A and the destruction of the private health care industry. Obamacare is as good as its going to get for people pushing for that. Universal, free health care can work in a small, ethnically homogeneous country like those in Scandinavia. This country is being ripped apart by the negative impact of the hordes of illegals on social cohesion. Add trillions of dollars in new taxes for M4A while still allowing for millions of illegals to remain and continue to stream in like a torrent into this country like they are and you will see a civil war in this country. If Democrats want some progressive wins like a more robust public option for health care, they need to sell their illegal immigrant loving asses down the river.

Edited by Iconoclast Texan
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmokeyTheBear

SmokeyTheBear 5569

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Smart Human Being: "Hey I grew up poor but through a combination of good luck and smart business, making decisions and managing risks, understanding trends and marketing and even helping to create a brand and market, while also trying to be as decent as possible and pretty socially liberal and made a billion bucks!"

Big brained Democrats who average three $SBUX Americano's a week: "Evil billionaires should be hung from a guillotine and then shot until dead! This guy got lucky and is not smart and doesn't have the experience to be a great leader."

Stop. The guy is coming in at the wrong time in our history to think he can be the answer. We have a "billionaire" in the office who, just a couple years ago, sold the same bullshit reasons for why they have the tools to run the government. Running a business is not running the government. The over arching goal is completely different. 

You also have a large part of the population tired of the disproportionate power those few individuals wield over our lives due to PACs and other tools the GOP has installed. 

pic_giant_081514_Kochs-2.jpg?fit=788,460

Give me someone who has spent their lives trying to work within government to bring about change for the common good, over someone who has spent their life in pursuit of money. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85662

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Smart Human Being: "Hey I grew up poor but through a combination of good luck and smart business, making decisions and managing risks, understanding trends and marketing and even helping to create a brand and market, while also trying to be as decent as possible and pretty socially liberal and made a billion bucks!"

Big brained Democrats who average three $SBUX Americano's a week: "Evil billionaires should be hung from a guillotine and then shot until dead! This guy got lucky and is not smart and doesn't have the experience to be a great leader."

This is the dumbest thing I've read today.  And I've read Trump's shitter twitter.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmokeyTheBear

SmokeyTheBear 5569

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

lol what.

Trump's "business" acumen and accomplishments and abilities versus Howie's are not even in the same universe.

Also Trump isn't a billionaire. He's worth maybe $100mm. If that. Refusal to release tax info out front shoulda told ya.

Yeah, hence the quotes around billionaire.

I'm talking optics. You are crying about the perception of Dems being anti billionaire. Its the wrong time in history for people to want to buy back into someone of Trump/Schultz group (from an optics standpoint). ESPECIALLY with the understanding of the results of decades of billionaires meddling in politics

Edited by SmokeyTheBear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmokeyTheBear

SmokeyTheBear 5569

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

So you are saying it's just bad timing and Howard is being vilified and smart-businessman-and-rich shamed because of the sins of Trump, not because of any rational and valid reasons of his own person or making. Got it, timing is a b-word.

Hillary didn't become President because of optics. She was far and away a better candidate, but a lot of people were tired of politics as usual. Optics matter. 

And rational and valid reasons are that just because you are a billionaire, doesnt make you a solid candidate. You are making those claims based on no rational or valid reasons. 

Edited by SmokeyTheBear
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29782

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Lobo said:

so the Democrats get to use Superdelegates and intimidation to control both their own nominee and bully any independents out of running?  Seems big-tent.  Got it.  

A concession and three points:

I never understood the purpose of Superdelegates other than to game the system. The whole idea stunk of favoritism. (concession)

Points:

  1. Bernie would've lost the nomination fight in spite of the Superdelegates.
  2. Last year, the Democratic Party stripped Superdelegates from having a say in the nominating process. (Except in the event of a contested convention.)
  3. The game of politics is one of persuasion. Right now, they're trying to persuade the public that Schultz sucks. Sure, you can call that "bullying" but if he can't take the heat, then he needs to get the fuck out of the kitchen.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23484

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, bolverk said:

^ This. I know I'm speaking to the choir but we're collectively spending twice the amount of our GDP on healthcare than any other advanced economy and still get worse overall results. I don't have the time now to look it up but, if I recall correctly, there's at least one study that found most of the difference was made up in insurance and related administrative costs. 

Take out the middleman should be the mantra on this issue. We're still paying either way.

That makes no sense. You are saying that half of our healthcare expenditures are administrative costs? We have a very inefficient system, but the drivers of expenditures are 1) Hospitals 2) Pharma 3) Providers. Admin including both government and private insurers is mid single digits.  Administrative inefficiencies need to be addressed. I am not sure that more government has ever been the solution to inefficiency, but maybe this time would be different. If you really want to impact NHE you have to address pharma and hospitals.  Pharma margins are stupid.  Hospital billing practices are totally nonsensical. Provider reimbursement needs to be fundamentally reshaped towards outcomes and away from FFS. What we need is a fundamental realignment of incentives across the board. I think that some legislative solutions may be necessary and beneficial, and that the reality is that administrative costs will likely increase as a percent of NHE in the short and medium term. You are not going to fundamentally reshape healthcare in this country without administrative outlays. And that is OK, not all administrative costs are created equal.  Some represent a good ROI, others do not. We need more of the former, less of the latter.

 

 

original.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85662

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Okay den. 

You know what lifts people out of poverty?

Affordable healthcare

Access to higher education (and graduating 100% or as close to debt-free as possible)

Strong social safety net to ensure adequate housing and access to food

 

Schultz doesn't advocate for any of these things. Because wE cAnt AfFoRd ThEm

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pancho

Pancho 45378

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

But she wasn't a better candidate. She will go down in history as being one of the worst candidates (one of the few that could actually lose to Trump). Unless we are talking about theoretical candidate versus what people in impactful electoral college areas want in a candidate and want to vote for.

 

One of the worst candidates in terms of what because it surely can’t be because policy and experience.

so what are you and Fox News referring to

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29782

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

This country can’t afford M4A and the destruction of the private health care industry. Obamacare is as good as its going to get for people pushing for that. Universal, free health care can work in a small, ethnically homogeneous country like those in Scandinavia. This country is being ripped apart by the negative impact of the hordes of illegals on social cohesion. Add trillions of dollars in new taxes for M4A while still allowing for millions of illegals to remain and continue to stream in like a torrent into this country like they are and you will see a civil war in this country. If Democrats want some progressive wins like a more robust public option for health care, they need to sell their illegal immigrant loving asses down the river.

I wouldn't exactly call France small and ethnically homogenous. It's difficult to say exactly what the racial and ethnic composition of the country is because it's against the law for the government to ask those questions in the country's Census. That said, I've seen studies that state somewhere between 15 and 25% of the French population is of foreign ancestry (most of whom are from Africa). Also, it's ranked 22nd in population by the UN out of 233.

The point being, government-sponsored universal healthcare insurance works perfectly fine in France. I would know because at one time I was a recipient of it while living there, and you'd never hear a single French citizen complain about it. In fact, they're quite proud of their system and think it's superior to the UK's model and leaves ours in the dust. In fact, I heard more than once while living there that they think our system is completely immoral because it allows such inequities in care.

As a middle-class, multi-generational white American, born and bred in Texas, I agree and would have no qualms whatsoever in helping subsidize the healthcare of the poor, regardless of race/ethnicity status, through my hard-earned tax dollars. Why? Because I see it as more than a public good but as a necessity for having a healthy and prosperous society.

So, no, this white man will not fall into your horrid race baiting about universal healthcare coverage.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29782

Posted
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

That makes no sense. You are saying that half of our healthcare expenditures are administrative costs? We have a very inefficient system, but the drivers of expenditures are 1) Hospitals 2) Pharma 3) Providers. Admin including both government and private insurers is mid single digits.  Administrative inefficiencies need to be addressed. I am not sure that more government has ever been the solution to inefficiency, but maybe this time would be different. If you really want to impact NHE you have to address pharma and hospitals.  Pharma margins are stupid.  Hospital billing practices are totally nonsensical. Provider reimbursement needs to be fundamentally reshaped towards outcomes and away from FFS. What we need is a fundamental realignment of incentives across the board. I think that some legislative solutions may be necessary and beneficial, and that the reality is that administrative costs will likely increase as a percent of NHE in the short and medium term. You are not going to fundamentally reshape healthcare in this country without administrative outlays. And that is OK, not all administrative costs are created equal.  Some represent a good ROI, others do not. We need more of the former, less of the latter.

2

You might be right. I don't work in the health field and said, "if I recall correctly." I'll try to spend some time later tracking down what I think I remembered being said about the differences in where our dollars go compared to other countries.

Edited by bolverk
I've already spent too much time on the board this morning and need to get work done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pancho

Pancho 45378

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Worst candidates in the terms of electibilty. Again, if we are talking theoretics she was a great candidate. If we are talking about practicality and trying to execute a goal (to get elected, which means being liked in key areas of the country in an electoral college construct), then she was one of the worst.

Sorry for breaking this to you, but as you can see, she didn't get elected. Against a monster like Trump. lol

What are you even saying? I know she didn’t win. 

Trump wasn’t a monster. She lost Florida by 2, Wisconsin by 1, penn by 1, and Nawf Carolina by 3. How is that the worst? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pancho

Pancho 45378

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Trump wasn't a monster?

You can't understand what I'm saying?

Your community college must really be proud of their distinguished fellows and thinkers 😐

I’ve asked you twice to explain how he was a “monster” and you’ve yet to answer both times. Then you ridicule my career all because you failed at explaining your logic and reasoning.

 

fuck outta here

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...