***Official Political Discussion Thread***

I’m not really following on how these things are mutually exclusive.

Warren has been pushing M4A since early on in the campaign and has said she will fight for it.
I disagreed with Rusty earlier when he said he saw it as a mistake that Warren signed up to push M4A from early on. I disagreed because I vaguely recalled a poll showing pretty M4A was pretty popular amongst Democrats, though I might have been wrong. A second reason I disagreed is that I believe every campaign needs a good dose of idealism.
Having a plan B is exactly what it sounds like; a contingency plan in case plan A is unworkable.


Let me illustrate my point about mutual exclusivity with the following example.
When you sell something valuable, you generally set up 2 price options. The non-public ‘real’ price you’re looking to get at minimum and the significantly higher price you demand publicly. Not too high that it turns off the customers but high enough to still be overcharging them when they think they successfully haggled down the price. Ideally the non-public price never enters the eventual negotiations.
It is simply an option to fall back to if necessary, one that is still a successful deal.

Does having those 2 options mean you’re not committed to fighting for the best price?

I probably didn’t pick the greatest example but it’s what came to mind. I’m sure the logic can be applied to plenty of other scenarios to illustrate the point I wanted to make.

Shoot for the stars but work out contingency plans in case you have to settle for the moon in spite of your best efforts.
Couple points...

In the polling it is often shown people confuse what M4A actually is. When they think the plan will be an option it is popular, when they are told they will lose their insurance popularity drop. So in reality people think a robust public option is M4A, not what Bernie is putting forward.

M4A as proposed by Sanders and Warren is not the most popular program, a public option is.

It is great to have idealism but M4A brings a lot of politicial baggage with it too. The whole party is not gonna want to run on it. So while candidate Sanders and Warren are saying we while push for it, you will have House and Senate candidates saying they won't pass it.

Secondly the fiasco with Warren is a preview of what is to come for the General. The payment question is can't be dodged. Trump is gonna ****ing lie his *** off about a great Healthcare plan and the media is gonna fall for it. I really don't think that Warren or Sanders are skilled enough to sell the American people on a middle class tax increase, while the other side is promising cuts.

Third people forget that it wasn't until the early 90s Hillarycare fiasco, the Dems main plan was singlepayer. That blew up in their faces so badly that is what caused them to change their approach and adopt market reforms. Them passing the ACA was a massive achievement. That is why they tolerated so many compromises with it, because of all their previous failures on the issue. So history tells me the most left wing plan will not pass anyway.

So we can run on M4A, but I fear that they are just setting themselves up for another fiasco. Everyone knows that the Dems plan is to pass a public option, that is it. Instead of the Dems having any type of public debate on who they want the public option to function, we instead are debating whether to support a plan we know we can't pass anytime soon even under the best conditions.

Running on two plans confuses the message imo. Especially since the Dems would have to make it clear which one has more chance of happening, and the contingency plan is more popular than the idealistic plan.

In general it is better to run on something, pass it with the compromises needed, and then run on a new plan to build on it. Keep the message simple.
 
To make things clear. I agree that M4A on paper is by far the best health insurance proposal on the table in America. It is just America's politicial and economic systems make it unworkable right now.

But I do wish that our healthcare debate included other topics. Like how to lower the cost of healthcare beyond the market power argument that comes with M4A.
 
The payment question is can't be dodged. Trump is gonna ****ing lie his *** off about a great Healthcare plan and the media is gonna fall for it. I really don't think that Warren or Sanders are skilled enough to sell the American people on a middle class tax increase, while the other side is promising cuts.
On this point specifically, do you think it is possible for anyone to successfully sell a middle class tax increase to the American people when the other side promises cutting taxes?
 
On this point specifically, do you think it is possible for anyone to successfully sell a middle class tax increase to the American people when the other side promises cutting taxes?
Sure, but it would take the right conditions.

A major problem is that the media in America is so trash on this subject. The American public doesn't realize tax cuts cost money, and the benefits that are promised with a tax increase never get covered.
 
Sure, but it would take the right conditions.

A major problem is that the media in America is so trash on this subject. The American public doesn't realize tax cuts cost money, and the benefits that are promised with a tax increase never get covered.
I think another problem with this besides the media is just general education. A high school civics course should be enough to let people know that tax cuts can't possibly pay for themselves and trickle down economics never made any sense.

We also don't teach our kids about other governments. American exceptionalism holds back real discussion in this country about what we can learn from others. America is the successfullest bestest government out there and no one else's works as well and as wonderfully as ours.
 
My apologies, it's not entirely comparable with the M4A matter. Specifically because in this example, the non-public price is something you don't want your customer to know. In the M4A case, the next best option is something you can disclose.

I'll simplify the point I wanted to make:
I do not believe there is a mutual exclusivity between fighting for the best possible ideal and keeping your options open in case that best option is unobtainable.
In general, of course I agree with you. I'm just talking about the particularities of the discussion about healthcare taking place within the context of a primary campaign. Hell, I'm sure Bernie understands M4A may not happen even if he's elected president, and when the rubber meets the road in the process of actual policymaking, negotiating and compromises may be necessary.

But let's sell hard on M4A and build the public demand for it now. While acknowledging many of the practical hurdles to passage and implementation that Rusty outlined last night, you will never know what's possible or not if you don't fight for it. I don't think that M4A gets passed a year from now, and it may never happen. But by pushing the issue, we at least have a shot to make it happen, whether it's one year, five years, or ten years from now by keeping the ball in play and building the base of support around the issue.
 
Things are getting spicy between Bernie and Lizzy's campaigns. :lol: :lol:

i need liz to get spicy with some of the dumb shhh she gotta deal with just because she's a she (yes i know it wont happen because people would then jump to other conclusions because she's a she)

like asking her about her beauty routine like someone aint gone and found out what we need to avoid not to end up like this:

1578940326930.png

1578940354074.png
 
Completely unrelated but by the way, Belgium is now already up to 232 days without a functioning federal government since the election in May.

We're still far away from beating the current Guinness World Record of 541 days.
That record is currently held by
Belgium

Wait functioning government? Surely the US has the record at 1088 days?

BRB - calling Guiness world records.
 
Wait functioning government? Surely the US has the record at 1088 days?

BRB - calling Guiness world records.
:lol:

On a more serious note, Guinness clarified the "functioning" distinction in late 2018. Ireland went way past 541 days without a formal government but Guinness rejected their claim to the record. It was denied on the basis that Ireland could still pass laws during that time, whereas we couldn't.

I remember there were ironic celebrations in various parts of the country when we passed the previous record holder, which was Iraq.

https://www.france24.com/en/2011021...ngest-period-without-government-iraq-election
Day of celebration and shame as Belgium’s deadlock breaks record
Belgium broke a world record Thursday - and beat Iraq in the process – for having gone the longest period of time without a formal government, at 249 days. The government of the country has been in deadlock since the June 13th elections last year.

AP - Many would see it as a humiliation, but for Belgium it's an excuse for a party: the country's citizens are marking 249 days without a government Thursday, a figure that they are treating as a world record.

Day to day the crisis pits the leaders of 6 million Dutch-speaking Flemings against those of 4.5 million French speakers, but people from across the country are putting aside their differences to celebrate the occasion.


4da52a433d929dd7635c23376a91e458.png


ac4eb37a3993c9ee2529cb64632b168c.png
 
Last edited:
Just finished listening to Booker's interview on the Erza Klein show. I was very insightful. Klein really called Booked out on how he sends mix messages, bad assumptions, and challenges him to be specific. Cory Booker is an outstanding person, he demands a lot from himself, but he lets people off the hook a lot. Dude is the best when he just presses the issue instead of trying to be lovable. Dude seems to acknowledge confrontation is essential for change of second, yet acts like it I not necessary the next.

It just leaves me think that he is just bad at the politicial triangulation need to win the Presidency. He refuses to pick a lane so it appear he is swerving all over the place. Just like Harris.

While it is completely impossible I am convinced that if every voter had a chance to interview candidates, Booker would win.

Also mans politics is way more radical that most of the field (except maybe Castro) because he doesn't run from the race issue, and others.

The fact that Castro and Booker gained no traction exposes something America, Democratic voters, and even progressives.

His point about Baby Bonds not getting traction but UBI and $15 minimum wage doing so was very insightful. America focuses too much on income inequality and not enough on wealth inequality. Booker had a line that was like "a paycheck is what helps you get by, wealth is what helps you get ahead". So from that frame, maybe $15 minimum wage and UBI are more appealing to people, including many on the left, because we are fine with helping black people and other minorities getting by, but we are not that committed to helping them get ahead.
 
Last edited:
Lying about matters that could lead to war is always a good sign.


After trying out a bunch of different contradictory stories, now Trump says the legal justification doesn't really matter anyway.


If you question the Supreme Leader, you might as well be a terrorist
 
Last edited:
George Nader pleads guilty to his additional child porn and sex trafficking charges. Nader was an informal adviser to the Trump campaign and cooperated in the Mueller investigation.
He is also charged with illegally funneling several million dollars to the Hillary campaign and affiliated PACs, on behalf of an unspecified country.
The foreign donation conspiracy also included a $1m donation to the Trump Inaugural Committee, made by Nader's co-conspirator in the scheme.
Nader was acting as a UAE emissary at that time but he was known to also have a good relationship with Saudi Arabia's MBS as well. Presumably the "Foreign Country A" in that indictment was the UAE. Nader hasn't pleaded guilty to those charges so far.



The prosecutors also filed a motion to seal part of the statements of fact in the plea, which means Nader remains involved in another ongoing investigation.
EOML_oZWsAYCe-r
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom