• 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

tiltdeac said:
I find this a little strange. Do you not think it is possible change the way things are done, even a little bit, to limit that corruption? Of course it will never be perfect, but I think there's a lot of low hanging fruit out there that could make a big difference. Warren has some ideas here: https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/after-trump
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with you - corruption can and should be lessened, incrementally. But it will always exist, and it will always be a meaningful part of our society that, unfortunately, is never going to work for huge numbers of Americans. The sooner that we smack ourselves in the face, wake up and realize that, the better. Or, should I say, the sooner some of us do.

Warren is much more of a pragmatist than Bernie. That is probably why she is slipping in the polls. She knows M4A is not achievable, and she is too intellectually honest to boldly claim otherwise. She is too much of a politician, however, to abandon it. She is in no [wo]man's land, and she shouldn't be, but she got forced into making a call - for or against M4A????? Since she fancied and/or branded herself as a full-on progressive, she had to go with M4A. She got called on it, mostly by Pete, and hasn't really recovered. This is exactly why it shouldn't even be a talking point of the left.

Townie's point above about "ask for the moon and settle for something less" echoes Warren more than Bernie (I think he said he favored Warren), and it is much more palatable and achievable than anything Bernie has to offer.

The GOP swung way too far into fringe/identity politics, such that even John Bolton is now not "Republican Enough." That is lunacy. The left is doing the same exact thing, unfortunately.

The harder the pendulum swings, the more likely it is to reach a tipping point. I just don't think that reaching the tipping point - to either side - would be good for more than about 5% of the total US population. So, it should be avoided by both parties in theory. We are probably past that point, which is why long-term the only real solution will be viable, additional parties. Assuming the nation survives for 20+ more years, I think there will be 4 or 5 viable parties, and potentially, some real compromise. Hunker down/buckle up until then, and try to avoid the extremists.
 
ABCDeac said:
The GOP swung way too far into fringe/identity politics, such that even John Bolton is now not "Republican Enough." That is lunacy. The left is doing the same exact thing, unfortunately..
Click to expand...

identity politics? on the right?
 
TownieDeac said:
I said it once before but if you want to call premiums taxes (which I think is certainly fine) your overall tax liability will be lowered under the Sanders M4A plan. The argument about whether that could be passed with the 2021 Congress is another story altogether, and a place where I think there's room for the Warren-style incremental progress, getting health/pharma/biomed lobbying out of elections, negotiating drug prices, decouple insurance from employment, etc., etc. But to make your actual platform starting point Medicare For All Who Want It And Make Those Who Don't Want It Pay Thousands Of Dollars And Don't Ensure Every American Is Covered Because We Can Pass This, I think that's not a good sales pitch to Americans and I think you're naive for assuming Republicans will negotiate with you in good faith.
Click to expand...

We would agree that Day One a bill should be passed demanding (not allowing/demanding) that all government RX contracts be negotiated using the size of the total pools to lower prices. Once this happens, going to the staged concept would happen even quicker and with even less resistance.

I think my way is much more likely to work and to get to universal coverage quicker and with the least amount of resistance. Besides being the model that it used by other G7 countries, individuals will save much more money nearly immediately.

Do you actually think there is any company that would pay 20% more for less?

The RWers who oppose these ideas would be voted out. The RW companies who tried to pay more would see their stock prices drop and have an exodus of their employees to companies who do.

We've seen this concept work on the internet in the virtual elimination of brick and mortar travel agents and dramatically lower number of human auto insurance agents among many other businesses.
 
Damn, she reads the boards!

 
 
avalon said:
Click to expand...

These alliances are kind of inevitable. A question becomes, what will Warren do if she comes in 3rd/4th in each of the first two. Going to SC, she won't do much better there. She could wield a lot of power even if she is losing.
 
 
Demonwolverine said:
Facepalm
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have always kinda liked her as a politician, but this is why I thought she was doomed from the beginning - she lacks personality and charisma. She's polling well in neighboring IA but isn't making much of a dent elsewhere. If Warren doesn't start polling better and winning some primaries, I see Klobuchar, Buttigieg and Warren all facing the inevitable and throwing their support behind Biden or Sanders. But I don't know that Bloomberg is going to get that same memo.
 
Meh. Corny suburban white women who wear t-shirts about drinking wine are a key Dem demographic n
 
You’ve said that repeatedly but suburban white women voted pretty handily for trump
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top