Moderates didn’t have the guts to convict trump and lost all influence until he is gone, gone, gone.
Moderates didn’t have the guts to convict trump and lost all influence until he is gone, gone, gone.
Moderates were willing to ignore Biden's (euphemism alert)..."problematic" record on race...
moderates suck wrote:
Gee, nobody could support a policy proposal that is going to save the American family $2400/year, saves lives, and covers everybody. That would be terrible...
https://www.newsweek.com/medicare-all-would-save-450-billion-annually-while-preventing-68000-deaths-new-study-shows-1487862
Yes, because the govt always accurately predicts the costs of its programs!!
jesseriley wrote:
Moderates didn’t have the guts to convict trump and lost all influence until he is gone, gone, gone.
There are no moderate Republicans. Trump has seen to that. In following a modern-day Hitler it isn't possible to be a moderate - you are either a National Socialist or a "Never Trumper".
Fat boy predicted that tax breaks for billionaires would SAVE money! Better than FREE!
Trump 2020 KAG wrote:
Yes, because the govt always accurately predicts the costs of its programs!!
It's not "the govt" predicting this costs. There are lots of studies. They all agree that Medicare for all saves money.
The study by the Mercatus center, a libertarian think tank funded by the Koch brothers, concluded that Medicare for all will save money.
moderates suck wrote:
Trump 2020 KAG wrote:
Yes, because the govt always accurately predicts the costs of its programs!!
It's not "the govt" predicting this costs. There are lots of studies. They all agree that Medicare for all saves money.
The study by the Mercatus center, a libertarian think tank funded by the Koch brothers, concluded that Medicare for all will save money.
the author of the study denies that his study found that M4A would save money.
"Last year I published a study with the Mercatus Center projecting that enacting Medicare for All (M4A) would add at least $32.6 trillion to federal budget costs over the first 10 years. After the study was published, some advocates misattributed a finding to it, specifically that M4A would lower national healthcare costs by $2 trillion over that same time period. This misattribution has since been repeated in various press reports. Multiple fact-checking sites have pointed out that the study contains no such finding, as did a follow-up piece I published with e21 last year. However, because the mistake continues to appear occasionally, this article provides additional detail about how and why it is wrong."
https://economics21.org/blahous-study-didnt-find-medicare-for-all-lowers-costs-two-trillionagip wrote:
the author of the study denies that his study found that M4A would save money.
"Last year I published a study with the Mercatus Center projecting that enacting Medicare for All (M4A) would add at least $32.6 trillion to federal budget costs over the first 10 years. After the study was published, some advocates misattributed a finding to it, specifically that M4A would lower national healthcare costs by $2 trillion over that same time period. This misattribution has since been repeated in various press reports. Multiple fact-checking sites have pointed out that the study contains no such finding, as did a follow-up piece I published with e21 last year. However, because the mistake continues to appear occasionally, this article provides additional detail about how and why it is wrong."
https://economics21.org/blahous-study-didnt-find-medicare-for-all-lowers-costs-two-trillion
Pretty damn funny that he had to backpedal that fast because he published an analysis that was inconvenient for his funders....
It appears that Sanders, as of today, is the most likely to win the Democratic Party nomination. He's not my favorite among them all. Klobuchar is my favorite today, and ultimately, if he gets some national and/or international experience, Buttigieg would my favorite of the bunch.
I have already said Trump can't win in 2020 without cheating, and that is already correct because his illegal activity has sullied Biden to the point that Biden likely will not be the nominee, and he likely was the best candidate to beat Trump.
Of course I do not want Trump to win in 2020, but I am filled with curiosity about how bad things can get if he does indeed win again.
Will Trumpers care if he tries to keep power after a second term? Will they care if he tries to just appoint Don Jr. or Ivanka as the next president? Seems silly to consider, but it has already been proven that Republicans in the Senate will let him get away with anything, so why not either of those things too?
He will continue committing crimes too in a second term, because criminals gonna criminal, so ultimately it would be better for him if he does not win a second term. Of course, I couldn't care less what is better for him. He's an immoral dictator wannabe (and very close to being a dictator), and he deserves anything bad (legally) that is coming his way.
moderates suck wrote:
agip wrote:
the author of the study denies that his study found that M4A would save money.
"Last year I published a study with the Mercatus Center projecting that enacting Medicare for All (M4A) would add at least $32.6 trillion to federal budget costs over the first 10 years. After the study was published, some advocates misattributed a finding to it, specifically that M4A would lower national healthcare costs by $2 trillion over that same time period. This misattribution has since been repeated in various press reports. Multiple fact-checking sites have pointed out that the study contains no such finding, as did a follow-up piece I published with e21 last year. However, because the mistake continues to appear occasionally, this article provides additional detail about how and why it is wrong."
https://economics21.org/blahous-study-didnt-find-medicare-for-all-lowers-costs-two-trillionPretty damn funny that he had to backpedal that fast because he published an analysis that was inconvenient for his funders....
see this is why moderates *don't* suck.
People on the far left of the spectrum and Spankists are never going to change their minds on anything. You two just aren't looking for the truth. You are looking for information that buttresses your views.
Moderates don't have that built in bias. Not as much anyway.
agip wrote:
moderates suck wrote:
Pretty damn funny that he had to backpedal that fast because he published an analysis that was inconvenient for his funders....
see this is why moderates *don't* suck.
People on the far left of the spectrum and Spankists are never going to change their minds on anything. You two just aren't looking for the truth. You are looking for information that buttresses your views.
Moderates don't have that built in bias. Not as much anyway.
This is completely false on so many levels.
I am not a Sanders supporter. I am a Warren supporter.
I am not looking for information that buttresses my views. I read the original study. I have read a bunch of the other studies.
Moderates have their own build in biases. You decided Biden's "problematic" record of race was OK because racism just isn't that important to you and found ways to dismiss and minimize his actual record.
Trollminator wrote:
L L wrote:
Ways to address illegal immigration:
Crack down on companies like the Trump organization that make a habit of employing immigrants without papers and giving them fake paperwork.
Give a clear path to provide legal paperwork for immigrant workers to work that are needed.
Provide help to Central American countries where distressed people are fleeing from.
Walls and vilification of these people aren't helping.
Trump was never interested in solving a problem, he only wanted to create scapegoats
Replace "Trump" with "Sally".
Sally agreed with what I wrote, yet he defends Trump's approach to immigration.
moderates suck wrote:
agip wrote:
see this is why moderates *don't* suck.
People on the far left of the spectrum and Spankists are never going to change their minds on anything. You two just aren't looking for the truth. You are looking for information that buttresses your views.
Moderates don't have that built in bias. Not as much anyway.
This is completely false on so many levels.
I am not a Sanders supporter. I am a Warren supporter.
I am not looking for information that buttresses my views. I read the original study. I have read a bunch of the other studies.
Moderates have their own build in biases. You decided Biden's "problematic" record of race was OK because racism just isn't that important to you and found ways to dismiss and minimize his actual record.
A) I didn't say you were a Sanders supporter.
B) Your response went straight to conspiracy rather than 'oh that's interesting let me read the author's response and then decide.' Conspiracy is the first resort of extremists.
People confuse Moderate with Loyalist.
Of course there are moderates....but in the primary system they are overshadowed by idealists. In the end the moderate will bite his tongue and go along with the party he is loyal to.
At the end of the day policy wont matter. It will be as it always has been....who's more likeable? Who has momentum?
Alan
Runningart2004 wrote:
People confuse Moderate with Loyalist.
Of course there are moderates....but in the primary system they are overshadowed by idealists. In the end the moderate will bite his tongue and go along with the party he is loyal to.
At the end of the day policy wont matter. It will be as it always has been....who's more likeable? Who has momentum?
Alan
yeah, truth.
It takes the form of
Who would I want to have a beer with?
Who would I want to have as a boss?
Who would I like to look at and be talked to for four years?
The primary system is stupid - it helps the extremists in each party and punishes the moderates.
A Moderate wrote:
moderates suck wrote:
This article talks about the Dem. establishment on TV, but it reminds me so much of the "moderates" supporters on this board. So fearful of anything out of the mainstream they were willing to back a failing Biden who was without any ideas, passion, or message. There were (and still are) moderates in the race that I could support. I never understood the idea that anybody thought Biden was electable.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/establishment-bernie-sanders-taunting-boo-hoo.htmlI respect your opinion of me that I suck.
Bernie just released his economic plan that includes suing fossil fuel companies to pay for free college.
While that sounds great, as a moderate, I believe that is very unrealistic. In my view offering a lot of free stuff with no real way to pay for it is not a sensible approach. Therefore, Bernie as president would not be a sensible choice.
As a moderate I find most issues to be somewhere in the middle. There are issues that you would deem me a liberal. For instance, I am completely against Trumps wall and do believe the environment should be a high priority. However there are also issues you would deem me a conservative. For instance, I believe taxes should be low.
But for the most part I look at both sides and fall in the middle. The economy is always the biggest issue. I see Bernie as being too far left. I also see Trump as being too far right. Therefore, I do hope a more sensible candidate from the Democratic Party is chosen. If that means I suck then so be it.
The Bernie-Bros are going be all over you. :)
Solid post though.
agip wrote:
The primary system is stupid - it helps the extremists in each party and punishes the moderates.
I agree. Which is why instead of having primaries for each party, we should have a series of open primaries that whittle the candidates to two of any party for the general election.
agip wrote:
A) I didn't say you were a Sanders supporter.
B) Your response went straight to conspiracy rather than 'oh that's interesting let me read the author's response and then decide.' Conspiracy is the first resort of extremists.
Truncated for readability.
I didn't go straight to conspiracy. I had read this disavowal of his own work previously. I considered his arguments in light of his own work and the work of other researchers on the subject. He disavowed his own work because it was an example of a Kinsley gaffe.
The problem with moderates is that they have ideological blinders but are convinced that they do not. They think their presumptions are correct and therefore any blinders are there because they are the right ones to have.
A Moderate wrote:
moderates suck wrote:
This article talks about the Dem. establishment on TV, but it reminds me so much of the "moderates" supporters on this board. So fearful of anything out of the mainstream they were willing to back a failing Biden who was without any ideas, passion, or message. There were (and still are) moderates in the race that I could support. I never understood the idea that anybody thought Biden was electable.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/establishment-bernie-sanders-taunting-boo-hoo.htmlI respect your opinion of me that I suck.
Bernie just released his economic plan that includes suing fossil fuel companies to pay for free college.
While that sounds great, as a moderate, I believe that is very unrealistic. In my view offering a lot of free stuff with no real way to pay for it is not a sensible approach. Therefore, Bernie as president would not be a sensible choice.
As a moderate I find most issues to be somewhere in the middle. There are issues that you would deem me a liberal. For instance, I am completely against Trumps wall and do believe the environment should be a high priority. However there are also issues you would deem me a conservative. For instance, I believe taxes should be low.
But for the most part I look at both sides and fall in the middle. The economy is always the biggest issue. I see Bernie as being too far left. I also see Trump as being too far right. Therefore, I do hope a more sensible candidate from the Democratic Party is chosen. If that means I suck then so be it.
I think you misread the plan. Free college would be paid for primarily from a tax on Wall St. transactions.
Suing fossil fuel companies will help pay for the Green New Deal. Let's face it. The fossil fuel companies need to be liquidated. The harm they knowingly did to our planet goes far beyond their net worth. So by suing them for damages we can get rid of their ilk once and for all as we transition away from fossil fuels.
Trump 2020 KAG wrote:
moderates suck wrote:
Gee, nobody could support a policy proposal that is going to save the American family $2400/year, saves lives, and covers everybody. That would be terrible...
https://www.newsweek.com/medicare-all-would-save-450-billion-annually-while-preventing-68000-deaths-new-study-shows-1487862Yes, because the govt always accurately predicts the costs of its programs!!
First, this is not a government estimate.
Second, the idea that Medicare for All will save money is pretty obvious. This program removes all insurance company profits, marketing, and administrative overhead. It lowers the price of drugs so that drug companies aren't allowed to make us pay ten times what they pay in Canada. It controls hospital costs by adopting Medicare's cost-control formulas.
Basically, it takes all the waste out of the system and gives us universal care at a lower cost, which is exactly what they do in every other industrialized country.