Brand X
 
  3  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 08:09 am
I like Andrew Yang. He's already qualified for the debates and has a passion for problem solving, doesn't talk like a politician. I doubt he can get any real traction for being a nominee which is sad. He has a really comprehensive web site with a ton of issues he's addressed.

https://www.yang2020.com/
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 08:11 am
@Brand X,
Brand X wrote:

I like Andrew Yang. He's already qualified for the debates and has a passion for problem solving, doesn't talk like a politician. I doubt he can get any real traction for being a nominee which is sad. He has a really comprehensive web site with a ton of issues he's addressed.

https://www.yang2020.com/


So much of everything right now is name-recognition. It will be good to see him and others in debates.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 09:07 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

You don't understand. Bernie would have gotten 436 million votes if the primaries weren't rigged because truthfully, secretly, deep down all the voters support Bernie and his great ideas.

Yes, he would have gotten all the votes of the ones who aren’t stupid, or corrupted and deluded by the evil corporate democrats.
Yeah, that’s the ticket.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 09:18 am
@hightor,
It’s what more than 70% of the electorate wants, it’s what Canada and most of Europe has, and it’s what people need to survive.

I guess you call it **** because you’ve got what you need.
Other people are dying for it.
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 09:49 am
@Lash,
I'm sorry that you took my comment to mean that the idea of universal healthcare is "****". It should definitely be the goal, something we pledge to work for. The employer-based system we have at present is a cruel joke. What I referred to as "****" is the idea that it can be easily implemented in the current economic and political climate. I'm not quite as certain as you are that the 70% figure is that meaningful. I'd like to know the parameters of the survey, who was conducting it, and what sort of follow up might have been done.
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 09:54 am
@hightor,
You're right to be uncertain about the 70% number. Ususally, from what I've seen, the question is something along the lines of "Do you support Medicare for All" with a yes or no question.

As we all should know, there are many flavors of medicare for all out there. And as people learn more about what Medicare for all actually means, the support for the initiatives drop.

Here is an example of that
https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/9273-figure-6.png?w=800&h=450

Much more detail at the link to the study
https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kff-health-tracking-poll-january-2019/
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 09:58 am
@maporsche,
I thought this particular question was interesting too.

Roughly 70% of Americans don't think that Medicare for All would make them better off at all (with 26% of those thinking they'd be worse off).

Also interesting that among the current uninsured, well over half of them don't think that Medicare for All will make them better off either.

https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/9273-figure-8.png?w=800&h=450
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 10:50 am
@maporsche,
Thanks — exactly the sort of perspective which is needed.

In this climate of demagoguery everything gets broken down to phrases and slogans. So someone who advocates "the public option" is now considered the ideological enemy of the side which favors "Medicare for all". The details are missing. All we have is each side's insistence that their position is the only acceptable choice. Even though the motivation to support either program is largely the same and that there could be a host of tweaks and compromises which could bring the two sides together.
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 10:54 am
@hightor,
If you go into the link to the study I sent you, you can even find areas where Democrats and Republicans can agree on some healthcare changes (such as lowering the prices of prescription drugs -- though there may be disagreement on how to lower the prices of Px drugs -- the how is always the important part).
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 12:53 pm
https://scontent.fhou1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/54258345_2598914606792458_1873113049708101632_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_ht=scontent.fhou1-1.fna&oh=c3f03660fbc316db43fb6e418f2e1128&oe=5D0982AD
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 01:14 pm
@edgarblythe,
Here are some Islamophobics. Dead Islamophobics.
Quote:
Other Recent "Misunderstandings
of Islam"

2019.03.17 (DRC)
Three woman and a 9-year-old child are massacred by ADF Islamists.

2019.03.17 (Israel)
A rabbi is among two Israelis shot to death by a Palestinian terrorist.

2019.03.16 (India)
A female police officer is gunned down outside her home by Muslim terrorists.

2019.03.15 (Mozambique)
Thirteen villagers are hacked to death by Sharia proponents.

2019.03.15 (Syria)
Three female suicide bombers strike families fleeing the caliphate, killing six members.

2019.03.13 (Iraq)
A man collecting truffles is captured and executed by the Islamic State.

(Note: Data for each attack is sometimes pulled from multiple sources. The provided link may not be in complete agreement with the updated detail for the incident).

https://thereligionofpeace.com/
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 01:20 pm
https://thereligionofpeace.com/images/history/0319a.jpg
Quote:
On This Day...
Mar 19, 2015: Kabul, Afghanistan
A young woman is beaten to death by a mob after being
falsely accused by an imam of burning a Quran: 1 Killed

Nope, nothing to be scared of, my ass.
https://thereligionofpeace.com/
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 01:38 pm
Go, establishment Dems. Them increments are making us better.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-boost-to-big-banks-draws-democratic-support_n_5c8ff1bfe4b04ed2c1ad4ab7?utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=politics_fb&section=politics&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013&utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages&fbclid=IwAR18MzfzFy0bh2TJ3ivKM3cAESx_m3xw4bTP-9JyjTllmvdYtjFM1nGt5mE

Four top federal regulators ― including two Democrats ― urged the Federal Reserve last month to weaken a key post-crisis rule limiting risk-taking at the nation’s six largest banks. If successful, the bipartisan effort would boost short-term bank profits but render the financial system vulnerable to another crash.

At issue is the supplementary leverage rule, which was adopted in the aftermath of the 2008 collapse as a last line of defense against financial excess. While most banking rules involve a dizzying array of technical definitions, exceptions and complications to account for different risks, the leverage rule was designed to be a simple, blunt instrument.

At the most basic operational level, banks get into trouble when they rely too heavily on borrowed money to “leverage” their own capital. The more borrowed money banks use, the bigger their profits during a boom and the larger their losses in an unforeseen downturn. Regulators impose leverage requirements in order to reduce the amount of borrowed money banks can put into play.

But four out of five top officials at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission want the Fed to lower leverage requirements by changing the way the officials treat derivatives ― complex financial instruments that banks buy and sell on behalf of other institutional clients. Two of the four regulators, Rostin Behnam and Dan Berkovitz, were handpicked by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to fill the agency’s dedicated slots for Democrats. The fifth commissioner, Dawn Stump, recused herself from commenting on the rule.

In the years since the banking crash, even Republicans have been reluctant to openly call for looser regulations on the largest banks. Wall Street’s advocates in Washington typically point to the assistance that deregulation will provide to small banks, or blame federal regulators for problems instead of the banks they oversee.

But that posture may be changing. Trump Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin endorsed a plan to lower leverage requirements for big banks in 2017. At a congressional hearing last week, Reps. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) and Roger Williams (R-Texas) defended the scandal-plagued banking behemoth Wells Fargo, deriding its critics as advocates of “socialist banking” and “socialism.” Last month, five Republican Senators led by Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) wrote to the Government Accountability Office, seeking to build a case for repealing regulatory guidance on the largest banks through the Congressional Review Act.

And at least some Democrats appear to be joining the deregulation push. Derivatives typically function as a sort of bet on economic activity ― a gamble that the price of a financial asset will move up or down. When banks trade derivatives for hedge funds or other investors, they are required to charge a small up-front fee called “margin,” which the bank can use to help cushion any losses should their clients be unable to pay up. Berkovitz, Behnam and Republican Commissioners Christopher Giancarlo and Brian Quintenz argue that this margin should be excluded from leverage calculations, increasing the amount of borrowed money banks can put into play under existing leverage requirements.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 02:12 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
http://scontent.fhou1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/54258345_2598914606792458_1873113049708101632_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_ht=scontent.fhou1-1.fna&oh=c3f03660fbc316db43fb6e418f2e1128&oe=5D0982AD

Cite for any recent gun ban in New Zealand?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 02:56 pm
@maporsche,
Certainly no possible reason that the ******* Kaiser Foundation might skew facts and responses...

Definitely know why Myporsche fits with establishment Dems.
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 02:57 pm
@maporsche,
I think you’ll find the starving people are much more pro-food than the well-fed ones, too.

Be ashamed.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 03:08 pm
Breaking News!!!: Pharmaceutical CEOs polled say people are happy paying thousands for very special pills...plus, what did those lazy people do to get so sick anyway...
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 03:30 pm
Bernie Sanders was secretly paying a journalist, and at the same time the journalist was attacking other Democratic candidates in his publication.

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/585259/

Quote:
Since December, David Sirota has, on Twitter, on his own website, and in columns in The Guardian, been trashing most of Sanders’s Democratic opponents—all without disclosing his work with Sanders—and has been pushing back on critics by saying that he was criticizing the other Democrats as a journalist. He centered many of his attacks on Beto O’Rourke, but he also bashed Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Joe Biden, Kirsten Gillibrand, Michael Bennet, John Hickenlooper, Mike Bloomberg, and even Andrew Cuomo.

Sirota’s hiring as a senior adviser and speechwriter was announced by the Sanders campaign on Tuesday morning after The Atlantic contacted the campaign and inquired about the undisclosed role Sirota held while attacking other Democrats.



Also Bernie Sanders
Quote:
[We must]do our very best to engage respectfully with our Democratic opponents—talking about the issues we are fighting for, not about personalities or past grievances. I want to be clear that I condemn bullying and harassment of any kind and in any space.
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 03:33 pm
@maporsche,
Bullshit. Sirota disclosed past work with Bernie, more recent work with others, and a return to Bernie because he’s the only one who makes any sense.

Hahaha! But, thrilled you’re forwarding that lame bullshit.

Secretly, your lily white Conservative ass.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 03:37 pm
DAVID SIROTA ONCE WORKED FOR BERNIE!!!!!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/heavy.com/news/2019/01/david-sirota-bernie/amp/

Excerpt:

David Sirota, an award-winning journalist, just recently shared on Twitter that a job with Bernie Sanders 20 years ago still brings him the most accusations and questions of any job he’s had all these years later. The job made it tougher for him to get other jobs, and he’s still “accused” of being affiliated with Sanders to this day. “The hatred of Bernie by the political/media class is very real,” he said in a recent string of tweets.

David Sirota is a nationally syndicated columnist, political commentator, radio host, and blogger. He took to Twitter to share that out of all the jobs he’s had over the years, the one he had 20 years ago with Bernie Sanders has given him the most difficult and the most scrutiny, even all these years later.

He wrote: “I worked for Bernie right out of college. For 20 yrs, this — and only this — has made getting any job in politics/media far more difficult. I’m not complaining, but I speak from experience when I say that the hatred of him & his ideology by the political/media class is very real.”
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 12:55:34