Buttigieg 2020

[bad_teammate 13132]

If Pete is going to lean on cheap nationalism now, and he has zero foreign policy experience or standing, what might that indicate his future positions as leader of the world's largest and most interventionist military?

[tantric superman 4667]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

If Pete is going to lean on cheap nationalism now, and he has zero foreign policy experience or standing, what might that indicate his future positions as leader of the world's largest and most interventionist military?

He might, in a 50 second soundbite, overpraise the British private mariners in terms of the actions at Dunkirk?

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

If Pete is going to lean on cheap nationalism now, and he has zero foreign policy experience or standing, what might that indicate his future positions as leader of the world's largest and most interventionist military?

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

Now the next and most important step. We'll see if he can make good progress. 

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

He might, in a 50 second soundbite, overpraise the British private mariners in terms of the actions at Dunkirk?

Unacceptable.

Do you think someone whose main campaign argument is "I was a troop!" and who is happy to promote jingoistic myths is going to say no to pressure for continuing the typical method of foreign interventionism?

[tantric superman 4667]

I'll stop because this is getting silly.  You're the guy who is going jingo.  This guy decided to call out Vietnam vets (850,000 - lots under VA care) for praise.

And you're having a bizarre cow about it.

[Bama Chick 28596]

BT ya always got to overdo it.

Pete’s a snarky teacher’s pet who lacks the relevant experience and who is too susceptible to bend his policies to what he thinks is most popular.

No need to get in the weeds about it.

[babysdaddy 2718]

51 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

slight thread jack but who is this person?  for research.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Kate Beckinsale, I think?

[Guest Lobo]

Or Kate, Sienna Miller, and Kate Mara all merged in one beautiful woman.  

I'll be in my bunk.  

On a side note---does anyone remember the awful film "The Adventures of Ford Fairlane"?  When Ed O'Neill sang the disco song?  Booty Time 'cross the USA?  

[Neonmoon 38127]

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

21 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

slight thread jack but who is this person?  for research.

 

18 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Kate Beckinsale, I think?

This cuts a little deep. 

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

It's Cheryl Cole. 

 

[henrygandorf 29174]

2 hours ago, Lobo said:

On a side note---does anyone remember the awful film "The Adventures of Ford Fairlane"?  When Ed O'Neill sang the disco song?  Booty Time 'cross the USA?  

no.

i remember an awesome film with the same name and scene.

[Guest Lobo]

Fair enough, I forgot Zuzu Petals stood up at your wedding.   Your cinematic recall had always impressed me.  Anyway, Pete needs to use that song.  

[tantric superman 4667]

5 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Kate Beckinsale, I think?

surly motto material?

[babysdaddy 2718]

Clearly she doesn’t follow recruiting

[ChiTownDoc 21098]

I wanna see Pete gain even more steam just to see how far off the rails BT can go.  
 

I kind of feel bad for admitting that...

[henrygandorf 29174]

1 hour ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I wanna see Pete gain even more steam just to see how far off the rails BT can go.  
 

I kind of feel bad for admitting that...

you’re just saying what we’re all thinking. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

So is Pete's idea that we are going to have some kind of hybrid system indefinitely until we get literally 100% of Americans saying they want to be on the government plan?

Because he's saying that single-payer is the goal AND he's saying it's wrong (from a moral perspective, not just a strategic perspective) to put people on the plan directly.

What if 90% of Americans say they want the government plan, do we prop up the private health insurance industry so the remaining 10% can keep their plans?

If the government plan gets so big it kills private insurance, isn't that the same things as forcing people off those private insurance plans?

I know none of you are going to even try to address these questions as your allegiances aren't about values, beliefs, or policies, but are instead cultural signifiers and a desperate desire to maintain class dominance, but I'm asking anyway.

And if you're thinking Pete is a smarter tactician and more likely to get his thing done...

- What happens when the Republicans start running ads of Obama and Pete side by side saying "If you like your plan, you can keep it" and then showing how Obama knew ahead of time that was a lie and rightly saying that Pete also knows it's a lie? 

- Will handing the Republicans that real and legitimate attack not matter enough to sink the hopes of the legislation?

Edited November 13, 2019 by bad_teammate

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

- Will handing the Republicans that real and legitimate attack not matter enough to sink the hopes of the legislation?

To be fair, that was a weak and ineffective attack against Obama.  Pete is nothing like Obama though except younger and more inexperienced.

[fattyflattie 4636]

17 hours ago, Lobo said:

Or Kate, Sienna Miller, and Kate Mara all merged in one beautiful woman.

Man, we don’t agree on much wrt to politics, but you just put together one hell of a group. Bravo. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

53 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

To be fair, that was a weak and ineffective attack against Obama.  Pete is nothing like Obama though except younger and more inexperienced.

The news that Obama knew about it ahead of time came out after the 2012 election. The Republicans were (correctly) saying that "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor! If you like your plan, you can keep it!" was a lie, but there wasn't evidence that Obama knew it would happen so we had plausible deniability to pretend it wasn't the case.

Pete doesn't have anything like that advantage. We have Obama already saying it dishonestly in recent history as a ready-made (and correct) attack.

And it's not just about that attack against Pete,  it's the hundreds of other races where Dems are vulnerable and hearing this from their local constituents. Obama himself remained untouched electorally, but the party as a whole was annihilated throughout his entire term.

M4A is a tough sell, yes, but at least it's honest. It's a tough fight for a lie vs a tough fight for the truth. I'll take the latter every time.

[henrygandorf 29174]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

If the government plan gets so big it kills private insurance, isn't that the same things as forcing people off those private insurance plans?

no, it isn't.  the end result is the same, though.  he has said repeatedly that, "if the govt option is better, which we think it will be, then it will happen organically."

it's all heading towards single payer.  he has said this multiple times.  it's about what he thinks is the best path to get there - just like everyone else is doing - deciding which path makes the most sense for them and what they can get accomplished as president.

i think it's become obvious that the more drastic the change (farther left/progressive), the more difficult it will be to pass.  if bernie becomes president and won't budge, and m4a doesn't get passed, is that scenario preferable to you?  if warren becomes president and ends up compromising and changing it to something that looks like pete's plan by the time it gets passed, is that scenario preferable to you?

i understand that during the campaigning process, you present your ideals and you stick by your guns.  bernie will stick by his.  pete has decided that his best course of action is to present it this way, as a gradual evolution towards the end goal.  have bernie and warren publicly acknowledged how difficult it will be to pass m4a in the state that they're proposing?  have they released details on a plan of what to do if they cannot get it done?

the goal isn't about putting insurance companies out of business, or crippling the medical industry at large.  the goal is to get the most people covered as quickly as possible.  period, the end.  maybe all this hate and frustration aimed at everything not sanders/warren is the realization that a good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow...or possibly never.

[bad_teammate 13132]

21 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

no, it isn't.  the end result is the same, though.  he has said repeatedly that, "if the govt option is better, which we think it will be, then it will happen organically."

What does "organically" mean here? People choosing the government plan or the government plan being chosen for them (either by employer or government)?

Is your employer taking away your plan more inorganic than the government doing it? If so, why?

Quote

i think it's become obvious that the more drastic the change (farther left/progressive), the more difficult it will be to pass.

What is that logic based on? People will fight if they have something to fight for. If you give them nothing to fight for, they won't fight for you.

Quote

 if bernie becomes president and won't budge, and m4a doesn't get passed, is that scenario preferable to you?  if warren becomes president and ends up compromising and changing it to something that looks like pete's plan by the time it gets passed, is that scenario preferable to you?

We're not in the middle of a legislative session, we're in a primary. You need to learn the difference between those two things. You act like we're negotiating in Congress right now, we're not.

Pete isn't negotiating in a legislative session. He's not compromising from his previous position because he wants something passed soon, he's compromising from his previous position and attacking single-payer now because he's negotiating with donor and voting bases in the primary.

If what you want is M4AWWI, then you start the negotiations in Congress left of that because you are going to be pulled right in negotiations. This is common sense. Pete isn't stupid, he's cynical and ambitious.

Quote

have bernie and warren publicly acknowledged how difficult it will be to pass m4a in the state that they're proposing?

Are you actually serious with this question? All Bernie talks about is the necessity of a nationwide political revolution to actually get things done.

What drugs are you on?

Quote

  have they released details on a plan of what to do if they cannot get it done?

Publishing backup plans? Are you OK?

When has that ever been a thing?

Quote

the goal isn't about putting insurance companies out of business, or crippling the medical industry at large.  the goal is to get the most people covered as quickly as possible.  period, the end.

No, the goal is 100%. If your goal is less than 100% you aren't worth listening to in this primary. If your goal is to still leave some people uninsured you aren't worth listening to in this primary. We can listen to Republicans when it's time to negotiate actual legislation, we don't need to do that now.

Quote

 maybe all this hate and frustration aimed at everything not sanders/warren is the realization that a good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow...or possibly never.

Why on earth should anyone think that Pete Buttigieg, a 37-year-old whose big win was getting 8,500 votes to be mayor in not even the largest city in Indiana, has a better view of what is legislatively possible in DC than actual Senators?

[TexEx15 17456]

I think some folks on this board need to realize what the priority will be post trump. The next POTUS needs to work on getting the BB’s back in the box (to use a familiar saying on this board). For example, while the goal of MFA is noble that does not happen in a single term after the division that trump has caused. The first order of business is healing and going from one extreme to the other won’t do that. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 minute ago, TexEx15 said:

I think some folks on this board need to realize what the priority will be post trump. The next POTUS needs to work on getting the BB’s back in the box (to use a familiar saying on this board). For example, while the goal of MFA is noble that does not happen in a single term after the division that trump has caused. The first order of business is healing and going from one extreme to the other won’t do that. 

Is this a parody post? Because if so, it's really good.

The next POTUS needs to work on getting the BB’s back in the box - What does this actually mean? Be specific.

that does not happen in a single term after the division that trump has caused - What does this actually mean? Be specific.

The first order of business is healing - What does this actually mean? Be specific.

going from one extreme to the other - What does this actually mean? Be specific.

[TexEx15 17456]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Is this a parody post? Because if so, it's really good.

The next POTUS needs to work on getting the BB’s back in the box - What does this actually mean? Be specific.

that does not happen in a single term after the division that trump has caused - What does this actually mean? Be specific.

The first order of business is healing - What does this actually mean? Be specific.

going from one extreme to the other - What does this actually mean? Be specific.

Go elsewhere with tour oblivious bullshit bt.  I’m not playing that game and you know very well what I mean when I talk about one extreme Trump to another MFA.

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 minute ago, TexEx15 said:

you know very well what I mean when I talk about one extreme Trump to another MFA.

I guess what you're saying is that you just want the arguing to stop, right? You feel like Trump has strong feelings and he talks loudly and Bernie also has strong feelings and he talks loudly, so we need someone who doesn't have strong feelings and talks calmly?

You feel like Trump's racist fascism is bad, and Bernie's non-racist mass-mobilized democracy is the opposite extreme so we need a little racism and only a small amount of fascism?

I genuinely don't know what you're talking about. I have a feeling you don't, either.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

3 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

I think some folks on this board need to realize what the priority will be post trump. The next POTUS needs to work on getting the BB’s back in the box (to use a familiar saying on this board). For example, while the goal of MFA is noble that does not happen in a single term after the division that trump has caused. The first order of business is healing and going from one extreme to the other won’t do that. 

This is a good centrist perspective because it’s yearning for an old status quo.

The flaw that progressives see, including myself, is it ignores the societal breakdown that led to Trump in the first place.  If you want to go back in time just before Trump, you are going to get another Trump and keep repeating the cycle creeping towards a full blown fascist police state run by moron mob bosses. 

Single payer healthcare is a hill worth dying on for progressives because Americans are literally dying without it.  

The only thing that is going to heal this country is for most everyone to rally around a bold idea. 

Educating our children, healing the sick, and making the billionaires pay for it are the crazy radical ideas progressives like Warren and Sanders are offering.  

To say we shouldn’t try to do these things now because Trump has set this country back too far is a position of surrendering in my view.

[Hank Scorpio 17721]

Business of healing. That’s fucking gold Jerry. God dammit I wish I came up with that. 

[TexEx15 17456]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Is this a parody post? Because if so, it's really good.

The next POTUS needs to work on getting the BB’s back in the box - What does this actually mean? Be specific.

that does not happen in a single term after the division that trump has caused - What does this actually mean? Be specific.

The first order of business is healing - What does this actually mean? Be specific.

going from one extreme to the other - What does this actually mean? Be specific.

Go elsewhere with tour oblivious bullshit bt.  I’m not playing that game and you know very well what I mean when I talk about one extreme Trump to another MFA.

[bad_teammate 13132]

The "business of healing" thing is just centrists admitting that they are going to fight progressive change if Bernie or Warren win.

Because they admit that Republicans are going to be howling monkeys regardless.

[Fozzz 152]

Instead of voting this sack of shit to be the Democratic nominee, is there any way we can vote to airdrop him into Gaza so he can get a taste of Israel "defending" itself?

 

 

[henrygandorf 29174]

41 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What does "organically" mean here? People choosing the government plan or the government plan being chosen for them (either by employer or government)?

Is your employer taking away your plan more inorganic than the government doing it? If so, why?

free market.  when people choose the govt plan, it will eventually run private insurance out of business, or force them to be competitive.  in america, people like things to work this way.  they don't like it when things are chosen for them.  we both know this is true, which is why you know that a "revolution" is what is necessary to overcome this.  neither way is right or wrong here, just the two ways it can get done.

and yes, there is a difference between your employer making changes to your plan, and the govt forcing changes to everyone's plans.  as a union supporter, you know better than most.

44 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What is that logic based on? People will fight if they have something to fight for. If you give them nothing to fight for, they won't fight for you.

people aren't fighting for this.  even if they were, ultimately it won't be up to them.  even if bernie won in a landslide, his m4a would be more difficult to pass than a m4awwi plan, and you know it.  big structural change is more difficult given the setup of the american govt.  to say otherwise is being willfully obtuse.

47 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Pete isn't negotiating in a legislative session. He's not compromising from his previous position because he wants something passed soon, he's compromising from his previous position and attacking single-payer now because he's negotiating with donor and voting bases in the primary.

If what you want is M4AWWI, then you start the negotiations in Congress left of that because you are going to be pulled right in negotiations. This is common sense. Pete isn't stupid, he's cynical and ambitious.

yes, typical by-the-book response from the bros.  "he's going in with a pre-compromised position!"  so i guess you're counting on bernie compromising once he gets elected?  that doesn't sound like something you or your fellow bernie supporters would be cool with.  if you don't win, then you can't do anything.  everyone in the primary is doing what they can to win, because like you said, this is a primary.

50 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Are you actually serious with this question? All Bernie talks about is the necessity of a nationwide political revolution to actually get things done.

was more of a rhetorical question/statement to set up how unrealistic things are over there.

52 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What drugs are you on?

cocaine and xanax.  healthcare works differently in hollywood.

52 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Are you OK?

yes, of all the people on the politics board, i'm definitely the one we should all be making sure is "ok".

53 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

No, the goal is 100%. If your goal is less than 100% you aren't worth listening to in this primary. If your goal is to still leave some people uninsured you aren't worth listening to in this primary. We can listen to Republicans when it's time to negotiate actual legislation, we don't need to do that now.

exactly.  the goal is 100% coverage.  the goal isn't to cripple insurance companies or worry about who's profiting.  if one thing affects the other, then great.  but the goal is coverage, not cash.  and by definition, if the m4a 100% is more difficult and time-consuming to pass, then it doesn't achieve the most important goal.  i understand that this is not the opinion you have, or the point you're making, but a lot of people think of things in these terms.  the "all-or-nothing" or "i'd rather burn it down" is fun on a message board, but isn't practical.

56 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Why on earth should anyone think that Pete Buttigieg, a 37-year-old whose big win was getting 8,500 votes to be mayor in not even the largest city in Indiana, has a better view of what is legislatively possible in DC than actual Senators?

oh!  another bro talking point.  tallying vote totals!  we almost made it to the end without "state-wide election" or "8,000 votes".  if you don't like him or his ideas, then don't vote for him. 

wait for it...

 

you have that freedom (cue a longcat response followed by a bald eagle gif).

[Bama Chick 28596]

Yeah I used to buy into the “get back to normal” and “heal the divisions” pablum but now I recognize it for what it is.

People who have the privilege to be okay with the status quo but they’re just queasy with the way it’s been presented by Trump.

They just want the veneer of civility back in politics because big structural change might be hard.

You can’t “heal the nation” when 40% of the country doesn’t want to heal anything - they LOVE this garbage.

The nation will be healed when the government actually serves ALL of us and not just the well off, the straight, the christian, the male, the white, and the healthy.

Any candidate saying their first priority is to heal and be nice and return to the normal way can fuck off.

I don’t care if you’re gonna be nice on Twitter - I want action.

Fuck the old normal. Democrats have played by the rules and all we got out of it was getting played.

[bad_teammate 13132]

26 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

free market.  when people choose the govt plan, it will eventually run private insurance out of business, or force them to be competitive.  in america, people like things to work this way.

Americans like the government entering the free market and pushing out smaller companies with its largesse?

Damn, you really understand this stuff!

Quote

and yes, there is a difference between your employer making changes to your plan, and the govt forcing changes to everyone's plans.

Explain the difference and why that difference is meaningful. If possible, do so in a way that isn't just Republican talking points about the inherent evil of government, if possible.

Quote

so i guess you're counting on bernie compromising once he gets elected?  that doesn't sound like something you or your fellow bernie supporters would be cool with.

What is it about Bernie's legislative history that indicates to you that he's incapable of or unwilling to compromise? What was his vote on ACA?

Quote

and by definition, if the m4a 100% is more difficult and time-consuming to pass, then it doesn't achieve the most important goal.  i understand that this is not the opinion you have, or the point you're making, but a lot of people think of things in these terms.  the "all-or-nothing" or "i'd rather burn it down" is fun on a message board, but isn't practical.

Who promotes "all-or-nothing" or "i'd rather burn it down"? Who are you quoting?

If your goal is to get $5/unit, you don't go into the negotiation asking for $5/unit. If you're selling, you go in asking for $7/unit. If you're buying, you go in offering $3/unit.

If you are OK with a public option, you don't go in asking for a public option. You go in asking for the better option ("Your entire industry is going to die immediately.") and then fall back to, "Fine, we'll just do a public option so you can try to outcompete the government plan and give you a chance to buy enough elections to destroy the public option."

Bernie's fallback is 100% coverage via a wasteful public option.

What is Pete's fallback?

[henrygandorf 29174]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Americans like the government entering the free market and pushing out smaller companies with its largesse?

so now insurance companies are "smaller companies"?  you're definitely winning this argument, i can tell.

americans like options, and they'll choose the one they want.  it isn't always a smart choice or the "right" choice, but people are funny that way.  first class arrives the same time as coach.  bringing in a public option will allow another choice.  if it's perfect out of the box, then yay, everybody wins!  govt products are always known to be vastly superior and get released with utmost speed and efficiency, so this should be an absolute no-brainer.

companies (large and small) that can't compete, fail, and go away.  if insurance companies struggle, then everyone can pop bottles on their bloating rotted corpses.

25 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Explain the difference and why that difference is meaningful. If possible, do so in a way that isn't just Republican talking points about the inherent evil of government, if possible.

i'm gonna always state my opinion.  not my friend's.  not my candidate's.  not some shit i read on twitter that has accumulated a legit # of likes.  so since i'm not a republican, the talking points i spew are hg talking points.  nobody likes labels you good-for-nothing socialist commie traitor (too far?). 

i haven't worked much in a standard "corporate" environment.  but the one time i did, i was on the small committee that chose our plans and the parameters governing them.  people gave us input, and we had a lot of options to choose from.  our boss was a maniac, so depending on the day, we had differing amounts to spend, or differing coverage we were able to "like" or "hate" based on his whims.  just in our small-ish group, we had a variety of needs and voices, and we tried to do our best, narrowed it down, and presented to the company. 

the money deducted from our paychecks was the same either way, but in no way was there one "obvious" choice.  i would assume, in the future, if/when there is a public option, it will become very popular based on affordability and plan details.  if we had that option at the time, maybe it would've been an easy choice.  and if that is available in the future, then it will be an easy choice for others.  if the public option is so so so much better, then why not let the market dictate this?  why force it on people if you don't have to?  if the choices are pizza, liver, and broccoli, i'll choose pizza.  no need to make everyone choose pizza when it's the obvious choice.

and this is just my personal experience.  what about the unions and all the cba's around the country, and all the negotiating and scratching and clawing.  are we just gonna tell them thanks for the effort, and we'll take it from here - this is what you get and like it, because there are others who aren't in unions and they need the same exact coverage?  or do we want a situation where both get what they want?

38 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What is it about Bernie's legislative history that indicates to you that he's incapable of or unwilling to compromise? What was his vote on ACA?

well this isn't about how senator bernie will vote.  this is about how president bernie will (or won't) deliver on his campaign promises.  are you cool with president bernie softening his stance and negotiating when it comes to m4a?  are you ok if it gets compromised down to a public option, similar to pete's?  this is sounding less and less like a revolution.

41 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Who promotes "all-or-nothing" or "i'd rather burn it down"? Who are you quoting?

do i need to go hunting down this type of rhetoric on twitter from the bros?  i have a busy afternoon but can probably get to it later tonight.

42 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If your goal is to get $5/unit, you don't go into the negotiation asking for $5/unit. If you're selling, you go in asking for $7/unit. If you're buying, you go in offering $3/unit.

truly you have a dizzying intellect.

43 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If you are OK with a public option, you don't go in asking for a public option. You go in asking for the better option ("Your entire industry is going to die immediately.") and then fall back to, "Fine, we'll just do a public option so you can try to outcompete the government plan and give you a chance to buy enough elections to destroy the public option."

bt an hour ago - "we're not in the middle of a legislative session, we're in a primary."

bt now - you have to make campaign proposals now like you're negotiating in the middle of a legislative session.

this is the plan pete wants, so this is the plan he's presenting.  the fact that it's more realistic makes more people like him and listen to him and hopefully, for him, vote for him.  campaign in poetry, govern in prose.  sounds like you're happy to have bernie campaign as a broad strokes revolutionary, but pete is forced to cement his stance now that he will use when he walks into congress.

double standards are fun for the whole family!

[bad_teammate 13132]

10 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

so now insurance companies are "smaller companies"?

Yes. "Smaller" is a comparative adjective used to show the relationship between two or more nouns. Compared to the US government, every single insurer is smaller.

UHC covers 50M people.

The US Government covers 53M just through Medicare. (Not even counting Medicaid, VA, etc...)

The revenues of the US government dwarf all of the other insurers' revenues combined.

They're smaller.

Quote

if the public option is so so so much better, then why not let the market dictate this?

Because "the market" isn't actually a fair and free market. Because insurance interests will buy Congress if a profit motive is allowed to live and will kill the public option (again).

Quote

  why force it on people if you don't have to?

Many reasons (including the need to kill the corrupt lobbying of the health insurance industry), but another one is to avoid private insurers kicking sick/old people onto the public health rolls and then pointing to the expensive public health (necessitated by having sick/elderly clientele) as reasons to jack up their rates (despite covering only healthy people).

Lots of other reasons, too.

Quote

what about the unions and all the cba's around the country, and all the negotiating and scratching and clawing.  are we just gonna tell them thanks for the effort, and we'll take it from here - this is what you get and like it, because there are others who aren't in unions and they need the same exact coverage?  or do we want a situation where both get what they want?

I think we should listen to the unions themselves, yes? That would be a good idea?

Name the unions that oppose M4A, please.

Name the unions who have endorsed Pete, please.

Quote

are you cool with president bernie softening his stance and negotiating when it comes to m4a?  are you ok if it gets compromised down to a public option, similar to pete's? 

Temporarily, of course. You accept progress in the moment and then keep fighting for the actual goal until you get it. Then you develop an even better goal and fight towards that one, never actually stopping the fight even as incrementalist progress is made.

You negotiate when you need to negotiate, not before. That's not even radical leftist thinking, that's just basic common sense.

Quote

this is sounding less and less like a revolution.

It's certainly how a political one would work.
 

Quote

bt an hour ago - "we're not in the middle of a legislative session, we're in a primary."

bt now - you have to make campaign proposals now like you're negotiating in the middle of a legislative session

Obviously I don't think he should articulate it openly. No politician should go in saying, "Here's what I want when I don't get what I say we deserve!" But surely a smart politician has actual negotiation points in mind, right? Surely we should expect that level of expertise and thought?

What do you think Pete's fallback will be given his current position?

Bernie and Warren seem to have pretty obvious fallback points if they work as hard as they can and rouse as much rabble as they can but can't get M4A over the line as outlined, right?

Quote

this is the plan pete wants, so this is the plan he's presenting.  the fact that it's more realistic makes more people like him and listen to him and hopefully, for him, vote for him.

It has all the disruption of M4A with none of the long-term stability. It's far less realistic as a plan.

Quote

  campaign in poetry, govern in prose.  sounds like you're happy to have bernie campaign as a broad strokes revolutionary, but pete is forced to cement his stance now that he will use when he walks into congress.

I don't think he should say what his fallback is. I'm asking you to reason it out.

What do you think the fallback from M4AWWI is?

[henrygandorf 29174]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't think he should say what his fallback is. I'm asking you to reason it out.

What do you think the fallback from M4AWWI is?

in an uber, so i'll just address the fallback question.  i think the compromise here comes in funding and/or rollout process, not in policy.  i think pure m4a has created one end of the spectrum, and obamacare (whatever it looks like in jan 2021) is the other end.  you add a govt option no matter what, otherwise why even try something new.  i think the govt option is the incremental change that most people (dem/ind voters and moderates) will overwhelmingly support.  it's also probably not that far from whatever m4a gets compromised down to, depending on the makeup of the house/senate.

i don't think it's hyperbole to say that taking the senate back can do more for m4a (among other policies) than bernie, warren, and pete could do combined.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It has all the disruption of M4A with none of the long-term stability. It's far less realistic as a plan.

This is the irony of Pete’s plan.  It’s an idea that is intended to be defeated.  Either by single payer or the status quo.  It’s an entirely unsustainable grey area and will only keep healthcare as the #1 issue among voters instead of actually solving the cost/care problem. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Quote

  i think pure m4a has created one end of the spectrum, and obamacare (whatever it looks like in jan 2021) is the other end.  you add a govt option no matter what, otherwise why even try something new.  i think the govt option is the incremental change that most people (dem/ind voters and moderates) will overwhelmingly support.  it's also probably not that far from whatever m4a gets compromised down to, depending on the makeup of the house/senate.

OK so what's the fallback when Pete and the more progressive Dems walk in with M4AWWI and Republicans/Republicrats say, "This is just a trojan horse for a single-payer takeover of private insurance which employs millions. The government is just going to use its power and strength to bully good, responsible businesses out. You're going to say 'Private companies can still compete' but you're going to stack the deck in favor of the public option."?

Because that is what is going to happen regardless of who walks in for the Dems as president, agree?

Is Pete going to walk away? Does he have anything to give them?

Quote

i don't think it's hyperbole to say that taking the senate back can do more for m4a (among other policies) than bernie, warren, and pete could do combined.

Yes, agreed. What's the strategy to achieve that?

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This is the irony of Pete’s plan.  It’s an idea that is intended to be defeated.  Either by single payer or the status quo.  It’s an entirely unsustainable grey area and will only keep healthcare as the #1 issue among voters instead of actually solving the cost/care problem. 

Fair.

[BradInATX 9208]

This is the irony of Pete’s plan.  It’s an idea that is intended to be defeated.  Either by single payer or the status quo.

That's the point.

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

7 hours ago, Fozzz said:

Instead of voting this sack of shit to be the Democratic nominee, is there any way we can vote to airdrop him into Gaza so he can get a taste of Israel "defending" itself?

 

 

I would also like to say this tweet from Buttigieg is really bad. 

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[Guest Lobo]

I would also like to say I like Mayor Pete and fuck Palestine.  The next American I meet that actually knows one of these people will be the first.  

The world has always needed Israel.  None of you would have any fucking clue if Palestine didn't exist tomorrow except for some facebook campaign or fundraising concert.  

[bad_teammate 13132]

17 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I would also like to say I like Mayor Pete and fuck Palestine.  The next American I meet that actually knows one of these people will be the first.  

The world has always needed Israel.  None of you would have any fucking clue if Palestine didn't exist tomorrow except for some facebook campaign or fundraising concert.  

The company you keep, fellas.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Pete leaning hard AF into a “we’ll do whatever makes everyone happy but don’t ask me specifics.”  

 

[TexArcher 37508]

12 hours ago, Lobo said:

I would also like to say I like Mayor Pete and fuck Palestine.  The next American I meet that actually knows one of these people will be the first.

That's true on both sides.  I find it strange that we Americsns are so polarized on Israel/Palestine.  Most of us seem convinced that one is the good guy and the other is the bad guy. 

It seems pretty clear to me that it's just two groups of people doing unspeakable things to each other because they want the same plot of land.  Oldest story in the world.  And there isn't a good guy.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

25 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

I find it strange that we Americsns are so polarized on Israel/Palestine.  Most of us seem convinced that one is the good guy and the other is the bad guy. 

It seems pretty clear to me that it's just two groups of people doing unspeakable things to each other because they want the same plot of land.  Oldest story in the world.  And there isn't a good guy.

This is why I give domestic politicians a little breathing room when they don't take a hard-line side on Israel.  Yes, the situation sucks, both sides have a legit case. There is no correct answer as to the role of the United States in this situation but there are plenty of wrong answers. 

[Fozzz 152]

13 hours ago, Lobo said:

I would also like to say I like Mayor Pete and fuck Palestine.  The next American I meet that actually knows one of these people will be the first.  

The world has always needed Israel.  None of you would have any fucking clue if Palestine didn't exist tomorrow except for some facebook campaign or fundraising concert.  

You don't sound like a psychopath at all bro.

[Fozzz 152]

35 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

That's true on both sides.  I find it strange that we Americsns are so polarized on Israel/Palestine.  Most of us seem convinced that one is the good guy and the other is the bad guy. 

It seems pretty clear to me that it's just two groups of people doing unspeakable things to each other because they want the same plot of land.  Oldest story in the world.  And there isn't a good guy.

Please do not both sides this shit.  Israeli causalities are absolutely minuscule compared to Palestinian casualties.  Gaza is an open air prison and Israel is an apartheid state.  These are facts.