• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Terra Torment

Banned
Jan 4, 2020
840
My feeling is that the corporate faction of the Democrats have never had those values in the first place every since Clinton brought neoliberalism to the Democratic party. They've always been wonks for the millionaire class, but polite and culturally aligned with urbane liberals.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
My feeling is that the corporate faction of the Democrats have never had those values in the first place every since Clinton brought neoliberalism to the Democratic party. They've always been wonks for the millionaire class, but polite and culturally aligned with urbane liberals.

I'm not sure what this is in response to but lol
 

KidAAlbum

Member
Nov 18, 2017
3,177
At this point? When in the last 60 years was it not clear that the executive branch needn't do shit about Congressional approval?

Through the 60s and 70s, nearly every single policy on Vietnam was carried out through the executive branch because Congress didn't want to touch it. Reagan's ventures needed no approval from Congress, nor did Clinton in Somalia or Kosovo. The Bush administration went to Congress regarding Afghanistan and Iraq because they knew they had support and it made it more "official", but there was no formal declaration of war in either case (and hasn't been one since Korea). Random missiles strikes and military maneuvers across every administration required no formal sign-off from Congress.
Exactly. If anything I was being pragmatic, to grant even that. That's why if we even assume the president doesn't have the power and somehow it's some deep state shit (what some moderates like to believe), then I want my president to use their platform to point out why the decision making wasn't in their hands. To just continue these wars is a huge deal to me, so if a president does not do everything in their power to bring them home, then yes I will attack them. This includes Sanders should he get the nomination. Many moderates hate to blame their favorite presidents simply because they were democrats.
 

Deleted member 2426

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,988
Last edited:

Bradbatross

Member
Mar 17, 2018
14,192

Chaos Legion

The Wise Ones
Member
Oct 30, 2017
16,897
Aaaah you are right https://twitter.com/ArjavRawal/status/1221255434335449089?s=20

ABC hasn't had a poll since October, Biden 28, Warren 23, Bernie 17. So maybe Warren is leading?

He also said this though:


So probably The Bern is leading?

This is more exciting than a Nintendo Direct.
It's definitely Bernie from his tweets, he's a Warren fan and isn't too enthusiastic about the results.

NH poll tomorrow that qualifies Yang too from his leaks.
 

Dekim

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,300
Is Buttigieg one and done after Iowa? Is he polling well enough in NH to push on if he falls to third place or worse in Iowa?
 

daschysta

Member
Mar 24, 2019
884
National per the leaker
Bernie leading despite Yang at 7 percent would be a nice result for him. We would also have to start figuring out whether Biden really has such a dominating lead down south if Bernie is in fact somehow ahead nationally. Some demographic has to have broken for Bernie. That or somewhere like California (young people and Hispanics) are consolidating such that they perhaps would break heavy for him, which could offset the south on syler tuesday.
 

Arm Van Dam

self-requested ban
Banned
Mar 30, 2019
5,951
Illinois
I was not expecting Warren to get endorsed by DMR, I sincerely thought that Biden or Pete or even Amy would get endorsed.

Also Yang at 7%, WTF?
 

Kusagari

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,369
It's hilarious how Pete's national momentum has completely evaporated, to the point he's behind Yang in some polls now, but he remains an actual threat to win Iowa.
 

Chaos Legion

The Wise Ones
Member
Oct 30, 2017
16,897
Bernie leading despite Yang at 7 percent would be a nice result for him. We would also have to start figuring out whether Biden really has such a dominating lead down south if Bernie is in fact somehow ahead nationally. Some demographic has to have broken for Bernie. That or somewhere like California (young people and Hispanics) are consolidating such that they perhaps would break heavy for him, which could offset the south on syler tuesday.
I think we're seeing in a weird way Bloomberg'
effect on Biden. Not that he's losing his base as he's been fairly static, but the moderates you'd assume would break his way.

Bloomberg and Steyer being Bernie plants 🤣
I miss Beto standing on things.
Bless you
 

Blue Skies

Banned
Mar 27, 2019
9,224
Beto was the safest candidate, the only negatives were "experience" and that doesn't really matter.
While awesome that he went so against guns, that's maybe what killed him.
 

sphagnum

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,058
Very interesting @ Trump fearing that he'd lose 2016 if Hillary had picked Bernie.

Guess maybe we should pick the candidate he fears.
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,964
The whole selling point of M4A is: No deductible, no premiums, no co pay and covers dental, hearing, vision, mental health etc. Also no network meaning you can go to any doctor and hospital you want.

And one of the question you get is "Will I keep my employer's insurance?"

I guess because there's more than 1 type of Medicare making people think they need their employer's to get the cover they need?

What you describe in the first paragraph is actually nothing like Medicare anyway. I don't know if you actually realise this...

The different "types" of Medicare, assuming you mean Parts A through D cover different aspects of medical care. So I don't really see why that would make people think they need their employers for coverage.

People are just justifiably skeptical of the claim that everything will stay the same but be free.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.