• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

MHBDemon said:
It's ridiculous and disingenuous to see democratic donors attacking Bernie, see the party releasing bad polls to attack the progressive caucus, see candidates fearmongering with RW talking points about socialism, see Biden lying about Med4All on the campaign trail, etc. and then claim the party has moved to where Bernie is.
Click to expand...

Biden. We’ve got one name, albeit one I gave you. Which other candidates are you talking about?
 
I never said the co-opting was limited to presidential candidates, or even office holders. You created that limitation with your bullshit argument. I already said Valerie Jarrett and Sharice Davids. Again, why are you trying to force me to name names, when you are not disagreeing with the point that the term has been co-opted. You aren't arguing in good faith if your only goal is to paint me as "Bernie or bust."
 
MHBDemon said:
I never said the co-opting was limited to presidential candidates, or even office holders. You created that limitation with your bullshit argument. I already said Valerie Jarrett and Sharice Davids. Again, why are you trying to force me to name names, when you are not disagreeing with the point that the term has been co-opted. You aren't arguing in good faith if your only goal is to paint me as "Bernie or bust."
Click to expand...

In addition to Sharice Davids, how many more Dems do you want to help replaces with extreme RW Republicans? That'll show the Dems!!!
 
MHBDemon said:
I never said the co-opting was limited to presidential candidates, or even office holders. You created that limitation with your bullshit argument. I already said Valerie Jarrett and Sharice Davids. Again, why are you trying to force me to name names, when you are not disagreeing with the point that the term has been co-opted. You aren't arguing in good faith if your only goal is to paint me as "Bernie or bust."
Click to expand...

So then what are these other plans you’re so worried about?

We are making two different arguments about the same thing. I support a concept and realize nobody’s specific plan in July 2019 is going to actually happen. So it is good that the party has largely rallied around Medicare for All which we know isn’t specifically expanding Medicare to everyone. It’s good branding.

You support one candidate. You support one idea. You believe other people getting close to that idea is evil Dems trying to steal Bernie’s thunder.

The truth of the matter is Bernie has no signature accomplishments. Someone else is going to need to take the ball from him for something to actually get accomplished.
 
What are you getting at, Ph? This is unbelievably annoying to watch.

The Bernie or bust accusation was disingenuous and doesn’t make any sense relative to his posts. The post above mine is kind of insane.

He’s not wrong that candidates are fuzzy on what exactly they mean by M4A. Harris and Booker have already walked back their endorsement of the universal Medicare model, and Biden/DNC shills are talking out of both sides of their mouths. Pete, to his credit, doesn’t appear to have ever endorsed M4A. Gillibrand, Warren, and Sanders are the only candidates that I trust to actually implement something like the Medicare for All that Sanders and the DSA has had in mind for awhile now. That’s just the truth. No amount of trolling MHB or high fives from itc is going to change that.
 
If that’s the truth, why doesn’t MHB just say that?

I think the “fuzzy” is fine because I just want some version of universal health care to happen. He thinks it’s bad because he wants Bernie to happen. It’s not a difficult argument and MHB is scared to just own up to it.
 
PhDeac said:
If that’s the truth, why doesn’t MHB just say that?

I think the “fuzzy” is fine because I just want some version of universal health care to happen. He thinks it’s bad because he wants Bernie to happen. It’s not a difficult argument and MHB is scared to just own up to it.
Click to expand...

so it’s semantics? cmon man
 
That’s not semantics. That’s goals. Either the goal is making something happen regardless of who leads it or the goal is for a specific person to lead it regardless if it happens.
 
Strickland33 said:
What are you getting at, Ph? This is unbelievably annoying to watch.

The Bernie or bust accusation was disingenuous and doesn’t make any sense relative to his posts. The post above mine is kind of insane.

He’s not wrong that candidates are fuzzy on what exactly they mean by M4A. Harris and Booker have already walked back their endorsement of the universal Medicare model, and Biden/DNC shills are talking out of both sides of their mouths. Pete, to his credit, doesn’t appear to have ever endorsed M4A. Gillibrand, Warren, and Sanders are the only candidates that I trust to actually implement something like the Medicare for All that Sanders and the DSA has had in mind for awhile now. That’s just the truth. No amount of trolling MHB or high fives from itc is going to change that.
Click to expand...

Sanders is done. If any of the farther left people can be nominated, it is Warren.

RE:M4A- It can't happen overnight. To do so would be the equivalent of taking the ENTIRE economy of Germany and changing it 180 degrees overnight. It can't be done. Making that the cornerstone of a campaign will give Trump a huge advantage.

However, if you use a massive public option that will allow employers and individuals to buy Medicare for employees or individuals, people will support it. It's easy to understand, easy to implement and can be shown how much money it will save for everyone.

For the M4A crew thinks for a minute, they'd realize that this would lead quickly to M4A. Once people started seeing how much money they would save and how much better the coverage is, a vast majority of the public would be on it. Going to universal care would be seamless and much less time.

It doesn't sound as sexy, but is far more efficient and realistic.
 
PhDeac said:
That’s not semantics. That’s goals. Either the goal is making something happen regardless of who leads it or the goal is for a specific person to lead it regardless if it happens.
Click to expand...

Is the goal M4A or not? If you’re okay with fuzzy, then the answer is not. That’s fine, but it’s disingenuous to act like they’re the same.
 
RJKarl said:
Sanders is done. If any of the farther left people can be nominated, it is Warren.

RE:M4A- It can't happen overnight. To do so would be the equivalent of taking the ENTIRE economy of Germany and changing it 180 degrees overnight. It can't be done. Making that the cornerstone of a campaign will give Trump a huge advantage.

However, if you use a massive public option that will allow employers and individuals to buy Medicare for employees or individuals, people will support it. It's easy to understand, easy to implement and can be shown how much money it will save for everyone.

For the M4A crew thinks for a minute, they'd realize that this would lead quickly to M4A. Once people started seeing how much money they would save and how much better the coverage is, a vast majority of the public would be on it. Going to universal care would be seamless and much less time.

It doesn't sound as sexy, but is far more efficient and realistic.
Click to expand...

I probably would agree with this if I already qualified for Medicare.

Boomers are the worst.
 
The goal is medicare for all, more specifically the five platforms i posted. I've said that I don't think democrats are close on the policy. I showed examples that prove democrats are not close on the issue. The "bernie or bust" accusation is a bullshit bad faith argument.
 
Strickland33 said:
Is the goal M4A or not? If you’re okay with fuzzy, then the answer is not. That’s fine, but it’s disingenuous to act like they’re the same.
Click to expand...

We're back where we started. My goal is some form of universal health care. I'm not wed to one specific plan over the other. I realize no specific idea right now will be what would pass the House and Senate in 2021. I think it's more important for the party to be on the same page at this point. I'm not as concerned with which sentence they're focused on. But if you think one plan and one plan only is the way forward, you're probably wed to one candidate and one candidate only.
 
RJKarl said:
Sanders is done. If any of the farther left people can be nominated, it is Warren.

RE:M4A- It can't happen overnight. To do so would be the equivalent of taking the ENTIRE economy of Germany and changing it 180 degrees overnight. It can't be done. Making that the cornerstone of a campaign will give Trump a huge advantage.

However, if you use a massive public option that will allow employers and individuals to buy Medicare for employees or individuals, people will support it. It's easy to understand, easy to implement and can be shown how much money it will save for everyone.

For the M4A crew thinks for a minute, they'd realize that this would lead quickly to M4A. Once people started seeing how much money they would save and how much better the coverage is, a vast majority of the public would be on it. Going to universal care would be seamless and much less time.

It doesn't sound as sexy, but is far more efficient and realistic.
Click to expand...

"Sanders is done." lol. He's got a ton of money and more individual donations that any other candidate. Your boomer arguments are shit. I'm not certain on all the policy specifics, but I believe there is a transition plan in the Med4all plan. Your "can't change it overnight" argument is a bogeyman.
 
Strickland33 said:
I probably would agree with this if I already qualified for Medicare.

Boomers are the worst.
Click to expand...

You can answer without personal insults you fucking asshole! When you can't discuss something rationally go right to that tired trope.

But thanks for showing us you ignorance again. Medicare costs FAR less than private insurance. What do you think businesses will choose if they can buy a private policy for their staff that costs 20-35% more or a public option?

My bad, THINKING is wrong in your world.

My bad the REALITY of telling people their taxes are going to explode immediately won't impact voters. And showing them how they will save money and get more is a TERRIBLE idea.

Quit being so lazy and classless!
 
MHBDemon said:
"Sanders is done." lol. He's got a ton of money and more individual donations that any other candidate. Your boomer arguments are shit. I'm not certain on all the policy specifics, but I believe there is a transition plan in the Med4all plan. Your "can't change it overnight" argument is a bogeyman.
Click to expand...

If you don't the specifics, how can you say something is good?

That doesn't make sense.
 
PhDeac said:
We're back where we started. My goal is some form of universal health care. I'm not wed to one specific plan over the other. I realize no specific idea right now will be what would pass the House and Senate in 2021. I think it's more important for the party to be on the same page at this point. I'm not as concerned with which sentence they're focused on. But if you think one plan and one plan only is the way forward, you're probably wed to one candidate and one candidate only.
Click to expand...

so, you don’t support Medicare for all, but some form of universal coverage. I’m glad we have established this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top