Democratic debate #3

[SMOGZINN]

How does someone like Beto who wants to seize guns get elected in Texas of all places??

His campaign even printed up t-shirts for the occasion. Someone is probably going to get shot for wearing one of those shirts in Texas 🙂

Because Texans are tired of all the mass murders too.

 

[woolfe9998]

Anyway, so far I watched 2/3's of the debate. Will finish tonight. On the whole, the best debate we've had. Lots of candidates are doing well. Even Klobuchar, who has receded into the background in the other debates, is having a decent night.

Beto, who has no chance, is having a great night. He gets praised by 4 other candidates for his comments on the El Paso shooting, and his own comments were excellent. He's raising his future stock with the party.

The only one I think hasn't done well is Castro. His early attacks on Biden were overly aggressive for a primary debate and came across as petty and mean. He should have saved the vitriol for Trump. Whatever Biden's other shortcomings, he tends to be personally likable and I doubt Castro's attacks will be well received. My wife and daughter came out of the first 2 hours hating him and asking me to fast forward through his comments (I refused), yet neither of them supports Biden any more than I do.

I didn't care for Warren's partial ducking of the question about raising middle class taxes for Medicare For All. Other than that, however, she's been strong on every answer and hasn't been ducking anything.

None of this changes my opinion that this is looking like a two person race between Biden and Warren down the stretch. Sanders continues to be Sanders, delivering everything with the same angry old man tone. I think he became the standard bearer for the progressive wing in 2016 because Warren didn't run. He's losing his voters to her and I think that will continue.

None of this changes my support for Buttigieg. He's always good but never has a breakout moment, which doesn't change the fact that he'd be the best POTUS of the lot.

 

[zinfamous]

The problem for the Democrat candidates is that they speak in bumper stickers, applause lines. Here and there a smattering of substance, but lots of nothing speak meant to sound good and not much more.

holy fuck, are you trying to pretend that you don't currently support the biggest, most hollow bumper sticker assclown ever?

 

[Brainonska511]

didn't care for Warren's partial ducking of the question about raising middle class taxes for Medicare For All. Other than that, however, she's been strong on every answer and hasn't been ducking anything.

One thing that the questions on taxes seems to do is to take taxes out of context. Your paycheck doesn't care if you pay $$$ because of taxes or insurance premiums. At the end of the day you're out that money. But only focusing on one side (taxes) ignores that you'd be swapping current insurance premiums for taxes under Warren's system. So when Biden went off about a family paying $5k more in taxes, it was a disingenuous attack as he didn't say what they were currently paying for insurance premiums...

 

[glenn1]

"How do we pay for healthcare!?"
Says the only developed nation that cannot pay for healthcare.

Anyone noticing an American theme here? We have become a nation of "can not" and "do not" when it comes to the well being and prosperity of our people.

The people who incur healthcare costs should be the ones liable for paying them or having insurance to cover their costs. Forget "can not" or "do not" when it comes to the productive paying for the healthcare of the slacker class, it's a "should not." Urban progressives have more than enough money to pay from their own pockets for the healthcare of whomever they want without needing to oblige everyone else to also.

 

[snoopy7548]

The people who incur healthcare costs should be the ones liable for paying them or having insurance to cover their costs. Forget "can not" or "do not" when it comes to the productive paying for the healthcare of the slacker class, it's a "should not." Urban progressives have more than enough money to pay from their own pockets for the healthcare of whomever they want without needing to oblige everyone else to also.

Everybody uses health care, dingus.

 

[woolfe9998]

One thing that the questions on taxes seems to do is to take taxes out of context. Your paycheck doesn't care if you pay $$$ because of taxes or insurance premiums. At the end of the day you're out that money. But only focusing on one side (taxes) ignores that you'd be swapping current insurance premiums for taxes under Warren's system. So when Biden went off about a family paying $5k more in taxes, it was a disingenuous attack as he didn't say what they were currently paying for insurance premiums...

I agree. It's rather worse than that, actually. It's an aggressive insistence on looking at taxes in total isolation. And the whole thing has a very "gotcha" quality to it. The media loves to "gotcha" candidates, but in this case they are doing so by playing off the public's obsession with paying taxes to the exclusion of all else. It isn't a very informative way to approach the subject.

Still, Warren could have given a more candid answer. She should have said, "yes, middle classes taxes will go up somewhat, but the savings on health care will be far greater than whatever you'll pay in additional taxes. My proposal will make the average middle class tax payer better off financially."

The reason Warren doesn't want to answer the question is that if pressed, she has to admit that the above will not be true for everyone. With Medicare-For-All, those who use more medical care will do way better. My family is in that boat. We had to spend almost 10K last year on healthcare because of yearly deductibles and none of us has what I'd call serious health problems. But those who use healthcare barely at all, like people in their 20's, will likely pay more in taxes than they save on healthcare. Warren is ducking the question of taxes because she doesn't want to admit that.

 

[fskimospy]

The people who incur healthcare costs should be the ones liable for paying them or having insurance to cover their costs. Forget "can not" or "do not" when it comes to the productive paying for the healthcare of the slacker class, it's a "should not." Urban progressives have more than enough money to pay from their own pockets for the healthcare of whomever they want without needing to oblige everyone else to also.

Urban progressives already give a lot of money to conservatives who just aren't economically competitive enough so I think it's fair to ask you guys to contribute every now and then as well.

Since you think this is such a bad idea though hopefully the tyranny of this law will be sufficient motivation to conservative areas to become economically competitive enough that they no longer need to rely on funding from progressives. Then everyone wins!

 

[fskimospy]

I agree. It's rather worse than that, actually. It's an aggressive insistence on looking at taxes in total isolation. And the whole thing has a very "gotcha" quality to it. The media loves to "gotcha" candidates, but in this case they are doing so by playing off the public's obsession with paying taxes to the exclusion of all else. It isn't a very informative way to approach the subject.

Still, Warren could have given a more candid answer. She should have said, "yes, middle classes taxes will go up somewhat, but the savings on health care will be far greater than whatever you'll pay in additional taxes. My proposal will make the average middle class tax payer better off financially."

The reason Warren doesn't want to answer the question is that if pressed, she has to admit that the above will not be true for everyone. With Medicare-For-All, those who use more medical care will do way better. My family is in that boat. We had to spend almost 10K last year on healthcare because of yearly deductibles and none of us has what I'd call serious health problems. But those who use healthcare barely at all, like people in their 20's, will likely pay more in taxes than they save on healthcare. Warren is ducking the question of taxes because she doesn't want to admit that.

While I agree when actually making the programs we should establish a stable and robust funding mechanism like the ACA did while campaigning Warren is 100% correct to ignore the question because honesty is harshly punished by electoral politics.

When Republicans say they are going to pass trillions in tax cuts they get asked how they will pay for it. What do they do? They just lie and say it will magically pay for itself. If Warren is asked the same that's exactly what she should do with her plan - claim the efficiencies will be so great that it will pay for itself or even save money overall.

 

[thilanliyan]

Since you think this is such a bad idea though hopefully the tyranny of this law will be sufficient motivation to conservative areas to become economically competitive enough that they no longer need to rely on funding from progressives. Then everyone wins!

Will they finally get those bootstraps they've been raving about? 😀

 

[Vic]

The people who incur healthcare costs should be the ones liable for paying them or having insurance to cover their costs. Forget "can not" or "do not" when it comes to the productive paying for the healthcare of the slacker class, it's a "should not." Urban progressives have more than enough money to pay from their own pockets for the healthcare of whomever they want without needing to oblige everyone else to also.

The problem is that health care is used by everyone and its costs can easily be externalized, which is why we are obliged to get everyone to pay for them.
You see, I used to believe exactly as you do, but then I realized that I was just being a sucker for the people who don't pay for their own costs by disingenuously pointing their fingers at those who can't pay for their own costs.

 

[fskimospy]

The problem is that health care is used by everyone and its costs can easily be externalized, which is why we are obliged to get everyone to pay for them.
You see, I used to believe exactly as you do, but then I realized that I was just being a sucker for the people who don't pay for their own costs by disingenuously pointing their fingers at those who can't pay for their own costs.

Also it all comes down to a simple question: are we willing to allow people to drop dead in the street from preventable conditions because they lack the ability to pay? If the answer is no, and for America it is pretty obviously no, then we are already paying for everyone and now the only question is the manner in which we pay for it.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The people who incur healthcare costs should be the ones liable for paying them or having insurance to cover their costs. Forget "can not" or "do not" when it comes to the productive paying for the healthcare of the slacker class, it's a "should not." Urban progressives have more than enough money to pay from their own pockets for the healthcare of whomever they want without needing to oblige everyone else to also.

Hey I’m game provided those bills are no longer protected from bankruptcy.
Also how do you propose a hospital handle an unknown person who was in a car accident? Should they withhold treatment until coverage is verified or should the treat the person and hope that person can pay?

 

[Vic]

And Beto is an useful idiot feeding the NRA talking points.

 

[woolfe9998]

While I agree when actually making the programs we should establish a stable and robust funding mechanism like the ACA did while campaigning Warren is 100% correct to ignore the question because honesty is harshly punished by electoral politics.

When Republicans say they are going to pass trillions in tax cuts they get asked how they will pay for it. What do they do? They just lie and say it will magically pay for itself. If Warren is asked the same that's exactly what she should do with her plan - claim the efficiencies will be so great that it will pay for itself or even save money overall.

Setting aside the moral question of whether democrats should behave like republicans and looking at this as pure politics, I still don't agree. The problem is that it's obvious to even those of modest intelligence that you can't pay for a program like Medicare-For-All without raising middle class taxes. Which makes her come across as lacking candor. There are definitely voters who are turned off by candidates ducking questions. I've never liked Kamala Harris and would never vote for her because she ducks too many questions and I don't trust her. I'm cutting Warren a pass because she's been very up front in answering on everything else.

Assuming for the sake of argument that ducking questions could be a good political strategy in some cases, I doubt it is in this case because everyone knows she's hiding part of the truth. Particularly on the left, there are those who are craving a candidate who will level with us right now. The best way to be the anti-Trump is to always tell the whole truth.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Setting aside the moral question of whether democrats should behave like republicans and looking at this as pure politics, I still don't agree. The problem is that it's obvious to even those of modest intelligence that you can't pay for a program like Medicare-For-All without raising middle class taxes. Which makes her come across as lacking candor. Assuming for the sake of argument that ducking questions could be a good political strategy in some cases, I doubt it is in this case.

I’m not so sure about that. We pay an awful lot for healthcare, employers pay a lot too.
Just guessing that it would may be more expensive for the first few years but the rate of price increases would slow dramatically if we were to eliminate all the useless middle men.

**obviously above is assuming what you and your employer pay for healthcare becomes a “tax” so yes taxes would increase but net pay would stay about the same**

 

[fskimospy]

Setting aside the moral question of whether democrats should behave like republicans and looking at this as pure politics, I still don't agree. The problem is that it's obvious to even those of modest intelligence that you can't pay for a program like Medicare-For-All without raising middle class taxes. Which makes her come across as lacking candor. Assuming for the sake of argument that ducking questions could be a good political strategy in some cases, I doubt it is in this case.

It is similarly obvious that cutting taxes won't result in the government making more money.

I personally think from an electoral standpoint it's more effective to be thought of as lacking candor (which is already baked in) than to be pledging to raise taxes.

 

[woolfe9998]

I’m not so sure about that. We pay an awful lot for healthcare, employers pay a lot too.
Just guessing that it would may be more expensive for the first few years but the rate of price increases would slow dramatically if we were to eliminate all the useless middle men.

**obviously above is assuming what you and your employer pay for healthcare becomes a “tax” so yes taxes would increase but net pay would stay about the same**

Yes, like I said, she has a good argument that the average middle class family will save more on healthcare than they pay in additional taxes, but she's trying to make that argument while leaving out the second half of the equation. I just think that after Trump people want more than ever a candidate who tells the whole truth. Especially people on the left.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Yes, like I said, she has a good argument that the average middle class family will save more on healthcare than they pay in additional taxes, but she's trying to make that argument while leaving out the second half of the equation. I just think that after Trump people want more than ever a candidate who tells the whole truth. Especially people on the left.

Ah I see, I didn’t watch much of the debate. I missed that part.

 

[vi edit]

My generalized opinion that has probably been mostly rehashed in other posts is....

Biden continues to walk the line of not fucking up just enough for it to cost him big. He's going to flatline between 25% and 30% and probably not move from there unless something really weird happens.

Warren continues to do her thing which is stay on message and not make major flub ups. She's going to continue to erode away Bernie votes.

Bernie. Same dog. No new tricks. But more hoarse from barking too much. He's too proud and stubborn to accept Warren has him bested, bow out and endorse her. He reshaped the Democrat platform, but this isn't his race to win.

Harris. Stick a fork in her. You could almost sense her going from drunk and giddy in the first half to just flat out depressed and accepting her campaign is done. She's out.

Klobochar. She'll make a decent VP. But she's not top ticket. Done.

Castro. Shut up. He was the Delany of this debate. Just an annoying dick. Get out and let the grown ups work.

Beto. I can see Biden tapping him for VP. But he's done. Or just take your national recognition and name back to Texas and take out Cornyn.

Booker. One of his best debates and he had some great prepared statements. But he's not the guy. He's out.

Pete. VP. I could easily vote for a Warren/Pete ticket. But that's way too white to win the general. I don't think he's got a lane to swim in any longer.

Yang. Man I love this guy. But he's like the opposite of Biden's demographics. I sort of see him like Bernie and can shape policy in future elections but this isn't his place to be.

 

[blackangst1]

That was one of the most entertaining shit shows Ive watched in a long time lol I wish the GOP would do one next!

 

[SlowSpyder]

My generalized opinion that has probably been mostly rehashed in other posts is....

Biden continues to walk the line of not fucking up just enough for it to cost him big. He's going to flatline between 25% and 30% and probably not move from there unless something really weird happens.

Warren continues to do her thing which is stay on message and not make major flub ups. She's going to continue to erode away Bernie votes.

Bernie. Same dog. No new tricks. But more hoarse from barking too much. He's too proud and stubborn to accept Warren has him bested, bow out and endorse her. He reshaped the Democrat platform, but this isn't his race to win.

Harris. Stick a fork in her. You could almost sense her going from drunk and giddy in the first half to just flat out depressed and accepting her campaign is done. She's out.

Klobochar. She'll make a decent VP. But she's not top ticket. Done.

Castro. Shut up. He was the Delany of this debate. Just an annoying dick. Get out and let the grown ups work.

Beto. I can see Biden tapping him for VP. But he's done. Or just take your national recognition and name back to Texas and take out Cornyn.

Booker. One of his best debates and he had some great prepared statements. But he's not the guy. He's out.

Pete. VP. I could easily vote for a Warren/Pete ticket. But that's way too white to win the general. I don't think he's got a lane to swim in any longer.

Yang. Man I love this guy. But he's like the opposite of Biden's demographics. I sort of see him like Bernie and can shape policy in future elections but this isn't his place to be.

Any thoughts on those that weren't at the debate? Tulsi? Marianne Williamson (who is starting to realize just how disgusting the left really is)? Messam?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

That was one of the most entertaining shit shows Ive watched in a long time lol I wish the GOP would do one next!

I thought the same about the Republican Clown Car debates but I was wrong. Clown Cars appear to have some magic in them

 

[ivwshane]

Everybody uses health care, dingus.

And those that can't afford it should just hurry up and die, preferably in the streets so banks and creditors can take their remaining property easier.

That's basically what Glenn is advocating and I can only hope that's how it ends for him because of karma.

 

[fskimospy]

Any thoughts on those that weren't at the debate? Tulsi? Marianne Williamson (who is starting to realize just how disgusting the left really is)? Messam?

On a totally separate note I thought it was really funny how oblivious Williamson is. For anyone out there who is apparently as stupid as she is (Slow, this is for you), there is a completely obvious reason why Fox News, Sinclair, and conservatives are nice to her. It would also immediately end the second they thought she would actually a threat to them.

Kind of funny how you thought the craven partisanship, dishonesty and shameless lying of conservative media somehow pointed to something bad about liberals. You really are the world's easiest mark.