[Beren]

It's fairly easy to please me. Don't be a scummy cop who upheld wrongful convictions, protected crooked cops, supported the death penalty, jailed the parents of truant children, and a host of other regressive shit.

I guess Hungarians just take politicians at their latest word without investigating their record at all or looking at other primary candidates 2 years out from an election?

Well, I'd still be fucking glad if someone like her challenged our dear leader anyway.

[Red_Army]

@blackjack21 I'm not going to debate your Fox News talking points, but I already mentioned you somehow predicted Trump when it seemed very unlikely. You can own me with my previous disbelief if you think that will play out the same way, but I have no confidence that independents want a socially liberal fiscal conservative. Trump won because of his lying to the working class and his focus on essentially racist fearmongering. No one is afraid of Schulz and he probably won't even run. If he does I'd be happy to be rid of the centrist democrats anyway. It would make the party more left wing. You are right that we have no idea what will happen though. It will be very interesting to see who ends up with the nomination since things have changed a lot since 2016.

@Beren I too would prefer Harris to Trump, but since we are not in the general election yet I will criticize primary candidates on their record.

[Beren]

@Beren I too would prefer Harris to Trump, but since we are not in the general election yet I will criticize primary candidates on their record.

You're right, it's not the general election yet and there's still plenty of time left, so why not let Coffee Man have his 15 minutes plus a thread on PoFo?

[Red_Army]

Do you think I reported this thread or something?

[Beren]

Do you think I reported this thread or something?

No, I'm just sure Coffee Man deserves this thread, although in my opinion not even Bloomberg could "marginalize" the Democrats in 2020, even if the Democratic candidate runs on Medicare-for-all. He couldn't "marginalize" Kamala Harris, for example, unless she becomes another Hillary Clinton due to her "record".

[skinster]

[Red_Army]

I have no idea what your point or perspective is @Beren. Medicare for All (the real shit) is the only thing that will get people out to vote for Dems. Why do you even know about Kamala Harris?

[Beren]

I have no idea what your point or perspective is @Beren. Medicare for All (the real shit) is the only thing that will get people out to vote for Dems. Why do you even know about Kamala Harris?

My point is that how Coffee Man could "marginalize" the Democrats in 2020 when even Bloomberg couldn't exactly because Medicare For All is such a winner.

I know about Kamala Harris because she runs for president and it seems serious.

[skinster]

[Beren]

Are you campaigning for her, @skinster?

[skinster]

Not into cops, vomit.

[Beren]

Not into cops, vomit.

How about your own propaganda? Well, dear Rania didn't put her bullshit between quotation marks at least.

[skinster]

[Beren]

I'd suggest anyone watch the video itself and decide for themselves if she advocates more jails for the people. However, some (or even many) people have to be put in jail indeed.

[skinster]

[Beren]

Both the adviser and Harris national press secretary Ian Sams said her willingness to consider alternate routes to a single payer system should not cast doubt on her commitment to the policy.

"Medicare-for-all is the plan that she believes will solve the problem and get all Americans covered. Period," Sams told CNN. "She has co-sponsored other pieces of legislation that she sees as a path to getting us there, but this is the plan she is running on."

Their description of Harris' views is backed up by her record in the Senate, where she co-sponsored Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for all" bill, which would phase out for-profit insurers, but also the less aggressive approaches proposed by Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz, whose bill would effectively create a "public option" by allowing certain Americans to buy-in to Medicaid, and a plan from Sens. Jeff Merkley and Chris Murphy that would allow individuals to enroll in a new form of Medicare and employers to purchase it for their workforce.

She was also a co-sponsor on a bill called "Medicare X," from Sens. Michael Bennet and Tim Kaine, which would create a public insurance option on the Affordable Care Act exchanges, along side the private insurance plans. The goal would be to give Americans more choices when buying Obamacare coverage, particularly in areas where few carriers participate.

Harris's comments on Monday and her adviser's more cautious words on Tuesday highlight the tensions among Democrats over health care, an issue they united over in defense of Obamacare in 2017. Now, there is an increasingly heated intra-party debate over whether to open up Medicare or Medicaid to more Americans, create a public insurance option that would retain the current job-based insurance plans or replace the entire system, like "Medicare for all" promises to do, with a Medicare-type plan for everyone. Many establishment Democrats, including some top officials, are skeptical of all those approaches, preferring instead to shore up the existing Obamacare marketplaces.

The argument has implications that go beyond health care policy in a presidential primary that is expected to test the ideological boundaries of the party. Harris has repeatedly affirmed her support for "Medicare for all" but her record and support for more moderate legislation suggests that she could also be open to allowing insurers to remain or supporting a buy-in system, less than 24 hours after her comments in Iowa, could seed new skepticism among the progressives she is seeking to win over.

For more: Kamala Harris is open to multiple paths to 'Medicare-for-all'

[skinster]

[Beren]

[blackjack21]

@blackjack21 I'm not going to debate your Fox News talking points, but I already mentioned you somehow predicted Trump when it seemed very unlikely. You can own me with my previous disbelief if you think that will play out the same way, but I have no confidence that independents want a socially liberal fiscal conservative.

I don't think independents are a monolith by any stretch of the imagination. I'm an independent. I differ remarkably from people who say, "I'm a social liberal, but a fiscal conservative..." I just have no patience for the so-called "grown-ups" in the Republican party whose answer to everything is caving in to the Democrats.

The reason there was a bit of hullabaloo about Kamala Harris is the belief that she's likeable, while Trump is not. That's why they fear Schultz. He is likable--and nowhere near as crazy as the Democrats who have announced so far.

Trump won because of his lying to the working class and his focus on essentially racist fearmongering.

As the Geico commercials say, "It's so easy, a caveman could do it." The working class was lied to from the Clinton administration through the Obama administration. As I said, Ross Perot's "Giant Sucking Sound" turned out to be right. It's not like voters weren't warned. They just would not vote for a third party en masse. Trump just woke them up to the fact that Bill Clinton, W. Bush and Obama were lying to them along with McCain, Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton. Trump didn't trash blacks as the Democrats did with their crime bills, but rather illegal alien crime. You also have to remember the debate where Hillary Clinton was unapologetically for late-term abortion and Trump condemned it. The Democrats are going down that road again in an even more extreme way this year--post partum abortion/infanticide. It may not be a significant problem, but the Democrats will be on the wrong side of the issue and once again the most unlikely person imaginable--Donald Trump--will win the evangelical vote. I would almost say that's in the bag already.

No one is afraid of Schulz and he probably won't even run.

Nobody is afraid he will win, but the Democrats are afraid he will bleed off support from a leftist DNC nominee, which is a legitimate fear. If that happens, Trump could win by splitting the Democrat vote.

He couldn't "marginalize" Kamala Harris, for example, unless she becomes another Hillary Clinton due to her "record".

Well, it's already clear from Willie Brown that she slept her way to higher levels of political power. So she will not be very effective at trying to play a "war on women" narrative the way Hillary Clinton tried (and failed miserably) to do.

Medicare for All (the real shit) is the only thing that will get people out to vote for Dems.

It's already going bankrupt. Until there are real cuts to the program, it would be utterly unaffordable.

https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/994611327552274432?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E994611327552274432&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.marijuanamoment.net%2Fwhere-presidential-candidate-kamala-harris-stands-on-marijuana%2F

Gun control laws are not equally applied either. People who support "common sense gun control" usually fail to mention that blacks are disproportionately convicted of gun control violations, too. Yet, we don't hear the same people wanting to get rid of "common sense gun control" because it is unfairly applied (because black people violate those laws, along with marijuana laws, and typically greet police officers with greetings like, "What choo want mutha fucka?? You in the wrong neighborhood."

[Red_Army]

I just have no patience for the so-called "grown-ups" in the Republican party whose answer to everything is caving in to the Democrats.

We definitely agree there. Never Trump conservatives are lizard morons.

As the Geico commercials say, "It's so easy, a caveman could do it." The working class was lied to from the Clinton administration through the Obama administration.

I should have made it more explicit that Clinton lost the election (even though she won 3 million more votes than Trump because Republican gerrymandering and the electoral college system is undemocratic) because she was a terrible candidate. I was just trying to explain why Trump won the primary and galvanized the hooting morons. The late-term abortion shit might be important to you, but I doubt it matters to most people. Anyone who thinks at all logically is against abortion entirely or doesn't have an emotional relationship to other people's abortion choice. What I mean is that people who think life begins at conception (and is sacred) shouldn't care about any mitigating circumstances and the people that don't, don't.

It's already going bankrupt. Until there are real cuts to the program, it would be utterly unaffordable.

Doesn't seem to be an issue with criminalization of bullshit and endless war. You seem vaguely libertarian: the powers that be constantly invent funds. It's cool to have a massive cold war military budget and build pointless walls, but not good to provide healthcare, housing, and education. Seems like naked castle mentality evil to me.