RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Playing with the truth vs. setting it on fire

I wasn't a fan of either of the past presidents. This one has ratcheted things up significantly

---

"Read my lips, no new taxes." "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it " I consider both of those "setting it on fire." No playing with the truth in either of those statements just as there isn't any with Trump's.

---

He's lied in public over 12,000 times dude. He just doesn't give a crap about even appearing to be truthful. It's not on the same scale

---

Show me a politician that hasn't lied in public thousands of times Dude. Damn, I ain't a trump supporter but a lie is a lie is a lie, don't matter how many you tell.

---

Come on man, the guy just spent a week arguing that the most recent hurricane was going to hit Alabama. He still brings up his inauguration crowd. He does not care, at all, about even seeming to be truthful

IseWolf22 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

I would assume because any and every political ad against her in the future would include her saying "yes your taxes will go up" and not include "but your total costs will go down and you won't have to start a gofundme to be able to pay your medical bills should you get diagnosed with cancer and your insurance denies your claim"

Unfortunately anything and everything you say will be used against you and there is no context anymore in politics. That's why she's not coming out and saying "yes your taxes will go up."

At least that's my guess.

---

Trump has broken that paradigm. Say whatever you want and never be held accountable lol

---

statefan,

Colbert pressed Warren on this exact thing. He even defended Medicare for all for her, then she still didn't say it lol. It's a minor thing, but it's really annoying to me how she avoids the direct question.

My bigger issues with her are covered in the article I posted previously by Reason.

IseWolf22 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Playing with the truth vs. setting it on fire

I wasn't a fan of either of the past presidents. This one has ratcheted things up significantly

---

"Read my lips, no new taxes." "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it " I consider both of those "setting it on fire." No playing with the truth in either of those statements just as there isn't any with Trump's.

---

He's lied in public over 12,000 times dude. He just doesn't give a crap about even appearing to be truthful. It's not on the same scale

---

Show me a politician that hasn't lied in public thousands of times Dude. Damn, I ain't a trump supporter but a lie is a lie is a lie, don't matter how many you tell.

---

Come on man, the guy just spent a week arguing that the most recent hurricane was going to hit Alabama. He still brings up his inauguration crowd. He does not care, at all, about even seeming to be truthful

---

And Obama and bush 1 carried the lie for years as well. Again, a lie is a lie is a lie and no, I don't like any of them.

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Playing with the truth vs. setting it on fire

I wasn't a fan of either of the past presidents. This one has ratcheted things up significantly

---

"Read my lips, no new taxes." "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it " I consider both of those "setting it on fire." No playing with the truth in either of those statements just as there isn't any with Trump's.

---

He's lied in public over 12,000 times dude. He just doesn't give a crap about even appearing to be truthful. It's not on the same scale

---

Show me a politician that hasn't lied in public thousands of times Dude. Damn, I ain't a trump supporter but a lie is a lie is a lie, don't matter how many you tell.

---

Come on man, the guy just spent a week arguing that the most recent hurricane was going to hit Alabama. He still brings up his inauguration crowd. He does not care, at all, about even seeming to be truthful

---

And Obama and bush 1 carried the lie for years as well. Again, a lie is a lie is a lie and no, I don't like any of them.

---

I think we'll just need to agree to disagree.

1 lie is 1 lie. 100 lies > 1 lie. Which is about the proportion we are talking about

Understood on Warren. Where do you fall on the major candidates vs. Trump, if you had to "vote" today? I'm unaffiliated but obviously lean Democratic so really anyone the Democrats put up against Trump would get my vote.

statefan91 said:

---

Understood on Warren. Where do you fall on the major candidates vs. Trump, if you had to "vote" today? I'm unaffiliated but obviously lean Democratic so really anyone the Democrats put up against Trump would get my vote.

---

As an unaffiliated who leans Libertarian, 2020 so far is my nightmare scenario of choices. Trump is anathema to pretty much all my views. He's not conservative where I like traditional Republicans and is conservative on the portions where I tack more liberal. Meanwhile the democrats move left is a huge concern for me, and I have my reservations with Biden due to age and previous positions.
I have fantasies about Bernie vs. Trump and then some 3rd part candidate rides in on a white horse and sweeps the nation away with pragmatic centrism (preferably an emphasis on individualism, free trade, and the environment). Now back to reality.

Here is a rough ranking of the democrats who debated for me right now. My favorites are actually in the bottom tier (did not make debates), but I don't want to rank 20 people. I have not dug into many of them yet, so this list could change.

Tier 1 - Yes I will vote for them over Trump
Kloubuchar
Yang
Buttigieg
Biden

Tier 2 - I have major concerns, but could be swayed to vote for them over a 3rd party candidate

Booker
O'rouke
Castro

Tier 3 - I will likely vote 3rd party, even if they have zero chance because I am so unhappy with my choices
Warren
Harris
Sanders

As you can see, there is a good chance I'll vote 3rd party. I don't want to, not on an election this big, but if my choices are sufficiently terrible (according to my views), I may be forced to.

Yeah, I just have a feeling there's this Venn diagram of people that don't want to vote for Trump and don't want Democrats to swerve too far left. I think Biden lands squarely in that cross-over and is most electable of your Tier 1. I think Buttigeig is great, I like Yang and Kloubachar as well. But I think Biden is who has the most realistic chance to beat Trump (as the polls also indicate).

statefan91 said:

---

Yeah, I just have a feeling there's this Venn diagram of people that don't want to vote for Trump and don't want Democrats to swerve too far left. I think Biden lands squarely in that cross-over and is most electable of your Tier 1. I think Buttigeig is great, I like Yang and Kloubachar as well. But I think Biden is who has the most realistic chance to beat Trump (as the polls also indicate).

---

Probably. Gary Johnson got 3% last year when Trump wasn't as unpopular and Hillary wasn't praising socialism. Some of us really liked Gary, but many were just unhappy with the choices.

I just wonder if he is up for it. He seems physically old and loses his train of thought. I know a lot of the lower tier moderate candidates are waiting around, hoping he will implode.
I have mixed feelings on that, as I like the other moderates more than Biden, but he has the best chance of beating the progressive wing.

I definitely think he would have won in 2016 if he had run.

Yes, he probably would. But I believe his son had just died and he didn't have it in him at the time

Well statefan, she just got asked the same question twice in a row and again, would not answer yes/no.

Buttiggege is calling her out right now

Yeah, I don't think she did a good job of explaining it last night. I would have rather seen something like this:

"Tax is irrelevant because your total cost will be less than what it is today with your current taxes and all you spend on medical expenses.

Say you spend $5000 a year on medical expenses and your federal tax bill is $15000. If your taxes go to $18000 and you never have a medical bill to worry about again, and you save $2000 because your total cost goes down, is that a bad thing? You never have to worry about a cancer diagnosis depleting your bank account? You never have to worry about an emergency room visit you knew you couldn't afford but needed help? That's what my plan wants to do"

I am not sold on it, but I also don't understand the people that say they love their health insurance. It is not hyperbole to say that people go bankrupt or exhaust their life savings on a daily basis to pay for cancer treatment / drugs / etc. And that's with good insurance.

I mostly agree. Again, Bernie owns up to the tax increases. Im a numbers guy so the biggest thing I want to see is that we have a funding plan and aren't going to pump trillions into new debt.

I'm not convinced they can rationalize it though. Warren has promised multiple large items would be paid for by her wealth tax, more than could be raised. Yang was also right for saying that most countries who have tried a wealth tax later repealed it as it's incredibly hard to implement (rich people are good at hiding their money). You also have the fact that Bernie and Warren are proposing a more generous package than any other nation offers.

I could support a public option if the details are right. The biggest thing would be that it would have to realistically compete with private companies for any customers some set percentage over the poverty line. We can't be subsidizing people who could afford a private plan. Some people actually do really like their healthcare coverage. At my last company, it was excellent. It would be impossible for me to have gone bankrupt. My current company is just OK. The biggest problem with the current system IMO is price transparency. Healthcare providers should be forced to be able to quote any procedure, both with insurance and our of pocket

Agreed on most of your points. Problem is Healthcare / Pharmaceutical lobbying have made Politicians afraid of doing anything regarding price transparency. That's one of the things Obamacare tried to implement with varying success. Lobbying is really the root of most inaction in Congress, need to find a way to get money out of politics as much as possible.

The other problem is that Healthcare / Insurance can't really be a profitable business if you care about the health of your customers. If Insurance companies are allowed to deny coverage, if Hospitals are allowed to charge whatever they want, if Pharmaceutical companies are able to charge whatever they want after getting their R&D supplemented by the government, we'll never have improvement in the healthcare system of the country.

You can always be profitable with proper competition. The many, complex regulations around health insurance create huge barriers to entry and encourage monolithic, slow innovating companies. The patchwork of state laws and being unable to sell across state lines incurs a huge amount of cost in management of multiple admin systems and complex business rules.
Competition is the lens where I can support a public option. The private insurers should have to do better than our government to be able to survive. Personally I think most will be able to offer better plans, but it will put a baseline in place

Interesting that there's not much talk about this on a national level. This bailout will never be recouped, it is basically paying off potential voters to keep them happy after creating a trade war that we have no strategy forward with.

statefan91 said:

---

Interesting that there's not much talk about this on a national level. This bailout will never be recouped, it is basically paying off potential voters to keep them happy after creating a trade war that we have no strategy forward with.

---

Isn't that what all politicians do? What do you think welfare is for the most part? Every election cycle democrats talk about how the republicans are gonna take this and take that from the people.

Well...yes. However, I don't see the left demonizing the farmers for needing handouts like the attacks on programs like welfare, food stamps, etc. I'm fine with the government supporting those that need help, whether they be rural farmers or inner city families.

cowboypack02 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Interesting that there's not much talk about this on a national level. This bailout will never be recouped, it is basically paying off potential voters to keep them happy after creating a trade war that we have no strategy forward with.

---

Isn't that what all politicians do? What do you think welfare is for the most part? Every election cycle democrats talk about how the republicans are gonna take this and take that from the people.

---

You're gonna get the "ignore" button if you keep saying things that counter the left talking points. Just giving you a heads up.

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Interesting that there's not much talk about this on a national level. This bailout will never be recouped, it is basically paying off potential voters to keep them happy after creating a trade war that we have no strategy forward with.

---

Isn't that what all politicians do? What do you think welfare is for the most part? Every election cycle democrats talk about how the republicans are gonna take this and take that from the people.

---

You're gonna get the "ignore" button if you keep saying things that counter the left talking points. Just giving you a heads up.

---

That would be disappointing. I enjoy the back and forth with those guys

Beto just dropped out. He should have just ran for Senate again against Cornyn. Texas is on the verge of turning blue.

cowboypack02 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Interesting that there's not much talk about this on a national level. This bailout will never be recouped, it is basically paying off potential voters to keep them happy after creating a trade war that we have no strategy forward with.

---

Isn't that what all politicians do? What do you think welfare is for the most part? Every election cycle democrats talk about how the republicans are gonna take this and take that from the people.

---

Your welfare analogy would only work if the president was creating poverty, then dispensing welfare.

Trumps trade war has caused farmers to lose money, manufacturing to decline, and increased costs for US consumers

I enjoy discussing as well and appreciate your POV. I'm just trying to understand why for example, the welfare to farmers is OK but the poor inner city families are demonized. I'm not saying this is definitely your POV, but if you're ok with the farmer bailout I'd just like to understand why.

statefan91 said:

---

I enjoy discussing as well and appreciate your POV. I'm just trying to understand why for example, the welfare to farmers is OK but the poor inner city families are demonized. I'm not saying this is definitely your POV, but if you're ok with the farmer bailout I'd just like to understand why.

---

I think we should be helping those who can't help themselves, such as children, disabled, or the elderly. I don't think we should be giving welfare to anyone outside of that.

Understood - but it's gets messy (in my opinion).

If you want to help children, you have to help their parents. Whether it's things like helping pay for daycare so they can work, school lunches, SNAP so they can provide food for their children, etc.

I think there are also communities devastated by corporations or economics that don't have a lot of hope. Coal miners, small town factory workers, etc. Many of these communities may have only had one or two major employers and when those companies leave or go out of business, they may need help.

statefan91 said:

---

I think there are also communities devastated by corporations or economics that don't have a lot of hope. Coal miners, small town factory workers, etc. Many of these communities may have only had one or two major employers and when those companies leave or go out of business, they may need help.

---

And a key thing is here is to not keep stoking hopes of these jobs coming back. For example, it was borderline criminal for Trump to drum up the completely unrealistic idea of bringing tons of coal jobs back in WV. We need to be helping these folks look ahead to 21st century careers, not 19th century ones.

Agree - and as bad as Clinton did in rural / rustbelt type states, she at least had a plan for moving them into the 21st century vs. promising to bring back dead / dying industries.

[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/01/18/coal-is-losing-political-power-so-why-is-hillary-clinton-proposing-30-billion-to-help-coal-communities/]https://www.forbes.com/sites/ucenergy/2016/11/04/building-on-clintons-plan-to-revitalize-coal-country/#1355633a1953[/url]

Quote:

---

Thousands of out of work coal miners from Kentucky to West Virginia to Pennsylvaniaimportant because of its swing state statushave put a headlamp onto the declining coal industry this election season. Hillary Clinton proposes a multi-prong plan that supports workers and communities in a transition away from coal toward more diverse and sustainable economies. Donald Trump, meanwhile, says he will put coal miners back to work in the mines by strengthening the country's reliance on coal.

As the U.S. Energy Information Administration's Annual Coal Report released this week showed, the reality is, coal will never return to its heyday. In fact, 2015 production was at the lowest level since 1986. Rolling back or stonewalling recent progress in reducing carbon pollutants will not change its downward trajectory. As my colleague, Steve Cicala, explained in this post, those environmental regulations are not the primary reasons why the industry is in a downward spiral. He pointed largely to innovation and market-driven forces, such as cheaper natural gas and long-standing market-based approaches for addressing the pollutants that cause acid rain. Furthermore, mines that continue to operate do so more productively than mines did in the past, meaning that even fewer workers are needed than would have been the case for a similar level of historical production.

---

Somewhat related, but NYC just passed Ranked Choice Voting. NYC is bigger than a majority of the States, so if they're able to implement it successfully it could be a blueprint for other parts of the country that are interested.

statefan91 said:

---

Somewhat related, but NYC just passed Ranked Choice Voting. NYC is bigger than a majority of the States, so if they're able to implement it successfully it could be a blueprint for other parts of the country that are interested.

---

Maine and San Francisco already have it. While I am a big fan of ranked choice voting, I want to see it happen in a truly divided state. In places like San Fran and NYC, it'll only determine which shade of blue wins. I'm interested to see it when there is a legitimate threat of Red/Blue/Other winning

I think it's even more exciting in those places. I feel like there's no choice but for it to drive a more congenial environment with less divisiveness. There's also real opportunity for a 3rd party candidate to come in and win an election.

Just letting people vote their concious is important. You like someone, give them your first vote. If no one else agrees you'll still get to pick a 2nd choice.

Studies do suggest that ranked choice encourages moderates though, which is great IMO

For those of you satisfied with the current Healthcare and Insurance provider systems, are you also satisfied with this -

https://www.insider.com/half-cancer-patients-lose-their-entire-life-savings-2018-10

I don't understand how the rest of the Western world has figured out how to avoid putting people into bankruptcy if they are unfortunate enough to get cancer, but the US can't...

statefan91 said:

---

For those of you satisfied with the current Healthcare and Insurance provider systems, are you also satisfied with this -

https://www.insider.com/half-cancer-patients-lose-their-entire-life-savings-2018-10

I don't understand how the rest of the Western world has figured out how to avoid putting people into bankruptcy if they are unfortunate enough to get cancer, but the US can't...

---

Do you want the Canadian system? And before you answer, have you done the research on that system and what all it involves? Just asking. Not trying to start a fight. Maybe you will or maybe you won't answer. Maybe you still have me on ignore. Who knows but I thought I would ask.

statefan91 said:

---

For those of you satisfied with the current Healthcare and Insurance provider systems, are you also satisfied with this -

https://www.insider.com/half-cancer-patients-lose-their-entire-life-savings-2018-10

I don't understand how the rest of the Western world has figured out how to avoid putting people into bankruptcy if they are unfortunate enough to get cancer, but the US can't...

---

Out of the 42%, how many had little to no life savings in the first place? A large chunk of Americans have approximately $0 and are included in this number. Separate issue.

There are tradeoffs of course. In other countries you largely don't have the right to try new or experimental medicines. I still think the biggest fix to our system is full price transparency. If people can shop for their medical care, prices will go down. Right now you have almost no insight into what your different treatment options cost, and their effectiveness.

In more news related to the thread,

3 drop outs in 2 days:
Sestack (forgot he was running)
Bullock (My #1 but he was polling at 0%)
Harris (Biggest name to leave so far)