Democrat presidential debate official thread

LL, I'm happy that Bernie has moved the party to the left but I wont vote for him either and I do not like many of the Congress women and men that support him. I would definitely vote for Warren over Sanders and Bloomberg, still undecided on the others in the race.

comedyrelief wrote:

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

Little Mikey supports death panels:

https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/18/mike-bloomberg-deny-treatment-elderly-cancer-patients/

His campaign is doomed.

I actually support this idea. I think if you are over 80, you should have to carry your own private cancer supplement, otherwise you should just receive palliative care. People trying everything to live forever is bankrupting health care, making it less affordable for you and I.

I have seen this ridiculous waste of resources with people over 80 in the last year and a half.

One was a 4 pack a day smoker , one a junk food junkie , and the other simply had some much cancer and other problems it was obvious to anyone that he was a goner.

Kaiser takes goes all intensive care on them for a few months and they die, of course. If I have seen it happen 3 times in such a short period , it happens all the time. Kaiser kicks them out right before they die. Sends the home or to one of those hotels where people die.

I would like a good explanation for why this happens? Where does the"follow the money" go to?

You would think Kaiser , who at most times is stingy with services

So we have similar views.

I appreciate that Bernie has steered the conversation towards progressive ideas.

The fact that ALL of the moderate Democrats propose a public option is very much due to the efforts of Sanders.

Otherwise, they might bring that up but not push for it.

But I feel the one who governs needs to be more realistic on what can be done.

I see Warren pushing those things as leverage to compromise, which is what politicians are supposed to do.

And the others I see as proposing the Public Option and compromising on simply restoring the ACA to full strength, which is not really progress.

I don't think Biden would get a public option passed. He may bring back the penalty for not having insurance and bring back the advertising for the exchanges. Whoop-de-doo.

Yeah. The greatest stumbling block is not Trump and Moscow Mitch, but "moderate" Republicans in the Congress who are enabling them. If more of them were like Amash and Romney, our menace would have been gone a long time ago.

dunes runner wrote:

Martin Luther King Junior's disappointment with "moderates."

https://preview.redd.it/6kg9a40wpci41.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=8c14bbc95764f062859ae4ebd011dbafb3869a8a

L L wrote:

So we have similar views.

I appreciate that Bernie has steered the conversation towards progressive ideas.

The fact that ALL of the moderate Democrats propose a public option is very much due to the efforts of Sanders.

Otherwise, they might bring that up but not push for it.

But I feel the one who governs needs to be more realistic on what can be done.

I see Warren pushing those things as leverage to compromise, which is what politicians are supposed to do.

And the others I see as proposing the Public Option and compromising on simply restoring the ACA to full strength, which is not really progress.

I don't think Biden would get a public option passed. He may bring back the penalty for not having insurance and bring back the advertising for the exchanges. Whoop-de-doo.

I like Klobuchar both from policy perspective and as a person.

But in order to get what she is proposing, we might need a street fighter like Warren.

Not Born in the USA wrote:

Yeah. The greatest stumbling block is not Trump and Moscow Mitch, but "moderate" Republicans in the Congress who are enabling them. If more of them were like Amash and Romney, our menace would have been gone a long time ago.

dunes runner wrote:

Martin Luther King Junior's disappointment with "moderates."

https://preview.redd.it/6kg9a40wpci41.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=8c14bbc95764f062859ae4ebd011dbafb3869a8a

Yes, and quite a few "never trump"ers have fallen in line and have said nothing these last three years.

Not Born in the USA wrote:

Yeah. The greatest stumbling block is not Trump and Moscow Mitch, but "moderate" Republicans in the Congress who are enabling them. If more of them were like Amash and Romney, our menace would have been gone a long time ago.

dunes runner wrote:

Martin Luther King Junior's disappointment with "moderates."

https://preview.redd.it/6kg9a40wpci41.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=8c14bbc95764f062859ae4ebd011dbafb3869a8a

And the "moderate" democrats who are totally and completely willing to overlook Bloomberg's racism.

And the "moderate" democrats who are totally and completely willing to overlook Bloomberg's racism.

Pragmatic, not racist.

In the case of 80 year olds, the money trail leads to a Medicare system that is rapidly becoming insolvent. Just because some medical researcher comes up with an innovative treatment that costs $130k to prolong an individuals life from 80 to 82 years, doesn't mean a person should automatically be eligible for the treatment. Especially since it endangers the ability of future generations to receive basic care. If you look back 50 years, people didn't receive that treatment, they died (as we all will someday) and the Medicare and Social Security systems were healthy. If a person wants treatment after 80 for stuff like that, they should have to pay for a separate cancer policy, as it is really a premium form of care trying to make people immortal. If you want immortality, you should have to pay for it.

What I see are goners going to Kaiser instead of palliative care. Getting all kinds of procedures and using tons of medical consumables, even as they are dying and then going home, or to an appropriate end of life palliative situation. Kaiser is very dirty if it's a Medicare scam.

They are getting any benefit from going to the hospital or having these procedures , just more pain and suffering , not to mention trouble for the families.

Politics makes hypocrites out of the best of us: "Sanders and his allies want Democrats to ignore the rules he helped rewrite and coronate him at the party's convention this summer if he arrives with a plurality — but not a majority — of delegates. Even though Sanders has long been wary of the role party leaders can play in hand-picking a nominee, his position now is a reversal from the one he took in 2016, when he looked to so-called superdelegates to overcome Hillary Clinton's lead in regular delegates at the end of their primary race. The risk for Sanders is that voters might begin to believe that his definition of a "rigged" system has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with whether he wins or loses. If they determine that's true when it comes to party rules, they might also start to question whether he's the right messenger to take on the economic and political systems he says are "rigged" against ordinary Americans."

coach wrote:

LL, I'm happy that Bernie has moved the party to the left but I wont vote for him either and I do not like many of the Congress women and men that support him. I would definitely vote for Warren over Sanders and Bloomberg, still undecided on the others in the race.

What are you babbling about? Sanders never "looked to super delegates to overcome Hillary Clinton's lead in regular delegates" in 2016. He and his supporters expressed concern that the superdelegates could override the actual voter support. Of course Clinton received most of the regular delegates, but the bigger issue at the time was transparency - news organizations reported superdelegate committments from the beginning, making it seem like Clinton had a huge lead. It's moronic to suggest Sanders was courting superdelegates - they're the party insiders!

There is nothing inconsistent about his stance here.

the letter why wrote:

What are you babbling about? Sanders never "looked to super delegates to overcome Hillary Clinton's lead in regular delegates" in 2016. He and his supporters expressed concern that the superdelegates could override the actual voter support. Of course Clinton received most of the regular delegates, but the bigger issue at the time was transparency - news organizations reported superdelegate committments from the beginning, making it seem like Clinton had a huge lead. It's moronic to suggest Sanders was courting superdelegates - they're the party insiders!

There is nothing inconsistent about his stance here.

If you noticed my post was a quotation from an article. The point being Bernie help pass a rule that the winner of the plurality would not automatically get the nomination. Now he feels different because it is not to hisbenefit.

RyecorDone wrote:

And the "moderate" democrats who are totally and completely willing to overlook Bloomberg's racism.

Pragmatic, not racist.

Is pgagmatic the term we are using to excuse racism now?

Stop and frisk and Muslim surveillance were racist policies.

They were pretty much the opposite of pragmatic, because they were huge deployments of resources that did not produce results, but did violate constitutional rights of a huge number of citizens.

The winner of a plurality (of voting delegates) NEVER was guaranteed the nomination, because super delegates were always theoretically able to swing things. The NYT article (and you) suggest that he attempted to use superdelegates in 2016 to do exactly that which is ludicrous.

The change he pushed for was to remove superdelegates from the first ballot, which makes the process more democratic. It has nothing to do with the plurality issue and it’s ridiculously disingenuous to suggest that his stance on this is inconsistent.

I think the winner will get the majority of the delegates though the primaries/caucuses and there won't be an issue.

But I also think we all agree that the system is bad and dated.

If no one gets a majority, maybe the candidates at the bottom can choose who to donate their delegates to and publicly announce it before hand through a formal endorsement as they drop out.

It's a bit democratic in that the voters chose them specifically to make presidential decisions and it would be much more transparent that the current system.

No one would the invent the current system from scratch if a system was made today.

Clinton was getting superdelegate pledges before the convention. That made it look like it was mathematically impossible for Bernie to overcome her lead. Bernie got them to change the rules so that the superdelegates were not released to make their pick until the second round of voting at the convention. The whole point of the change was to keep the superdelegates from influencing the primaries in a close race, not to give superdelegates the power to pick someone who did not have the highest popular vote total.

I have a feeling all this may end up being a moot point after Super Tuesday. Warren, Klobuchar and Pete will probably be on life support after ST and at least one if not all three will have to drop out. Biden will probably win SC and the DNC will want everyone to back him after ST. Bloomberg will probably have a dismal showing on ST and may get a lot of pressure to give up from the DNC power brokers. If the race thins out to Biden v Bernie, Bernie may be able to get to the convention with enough delegates to avoid a second vote. If no clear 2nd place finisher emerges after ST and everyone stays in, it will be very difficult for Bernie to get to the convention without needing a second ballot. However, I have a feeling that the more the DNC establishment squawks about plots to defeat Bernie at the convention, the more voters will rally to his side as the forbidden fruit candidate. This is very similar to how Trump was able to consolidate his wins in the Republican primaries. The more the establishment Republicans came out against him, the more the electorate came to support him.

Precious Roy wrote:

Warren, Klobuchar and Pete will probably be on life support after ST and at least one if not all three will have to drop out.

I can't see all three of them dropping out after ST.

No one expects Klobuchar to survive.

Warren and Pete may have spotted results.

You're suggesting that the YOUNGEST surviving candidate after Super Tuesday will be 77 years old.

Biden the youngster!

L L wrote:

Precious Roy wrote:

Warren, Klobuchar and Pete will probably be on life support after ST and at least one if not all three will have to drop out.

I can't see all three of them dropping out after ST.

No one expects Klobuchar to survive.

Warren and Pete may have spotted results.

You're suggesting that the YOUNGEST surviving candidate after Super Tuesday will be 77 years old.

Biden the youngster!

That's really depressing.