2020 US Election Polls

[weed 78,957]

I can't believe he might actually secure the nomination and therefore potentially become president  that's been the goal forever, yeah,  but now I'm like omg president sanders

[Guillaume Hamon 6,992]

35 minutes ago, PoshLife said:

You're shameless.

Say the one who's on GGD 24/7 looking for blames to throw at sanders supporters but doesn't find one to give to a sanders basher for a thread  named "Sanders distributed warren script" when sanders wasn't even accused of doing so.  This hit-thread was impossible to miss for any regular user so for a super regular one like you... 

And the one who, after it, gonna accuse sanders supporters to be hypocrites practicing selective-outrage.  

Say the one who keep saying "bernie bro" for his supporters even after being shown many times it's a smear that isn't even grounded in the reality of his base but who cares when you just want to smear him while pretending to be the balanced/ fair one in a sea of rabid supporters... 

Say the person who after behaving like that gonna play the "victim of the mean sanders supporters", most of the time over pretty much nothing since even LMAO reactions can start a speech about the lack of kindness when people laughing at you cause they know you only fake objectivity seing your sneaky ways is pretty normal...

One more to the block list, I'll keep enjoying the few ones who don't like sanders yet don't go low over that. 

[Guillaume Hamon 6,992]

7 hours ago, lego said:

 

 

Are you antisemitic? 

 

Maybe you mainly saw antisemitic folks mocking sanders name so far but folks mocking the name of a famous person they don't like aren't rare at all and and every celeb' got it, jewish or not.  

[lego 44,165]

Just now, Guillaume Hamon said:

Maybe you mainly saw antisemitic folks mocking sanders name so far but folks mocking the name of a famous person they don't like aren't rare at all and and every celeb' got it, jewish or not.  

 

I just don’t get the reason for constantly calling him names like “sLanders” (from the same user)? Who is he slandering? Same like Trump calling Adam Schiff - Shifty, why? What is behind this? 

If they want to talk like adults, as they often say, why can’t they criticize his policies instead of just insulting or mocking his name or his supporters?

 

[bloom 286]

2 minutes ago, lego said:

 

I just don’t get the reason for constantly calling him names like “sLanders” (from the same user)? Who is he slandering? Same like Trump calling Adam Schiff - Shifty, why? What is behind this? 

If they want to talk like adults, as they often say, why can’t they criticize his policies instead of just insulting or mocking his name or his supporters?

 

Are you xenophobic?

[Guillaume Hamon 6,992]

1 minute ago, lego said:

I just don’t get the reason for constantly calling him names like “sLanders” (from the same user)? Who is he slandering?

I guess they just look for a degrading name close to his actual name. The closest negative thing to sanders is slanders. Just like folks said lady caca cause it was the closest insult.

Oh they probably don't even accuse him of slandering anyone, they're just proud of their nickname lol.

3 minutes ago, lego said:

If they want to talk like adults, as they often say, why can’t they criticize his policies instead of just insulting or mocking his name or his supporters?

Cause they're full of it indeed lol!  

[Varys 30,916]

2 minutes ago, bloom said:

Are you xenophobic?

 

Are you obsessed?

[lego 44,165]

2 minutes ago, bloom said:

Are you xenophobic?

 are you dupe account? 

[Eighteen 5,430]

obstacle 1 should he win iowa will be to stop the dark horse bloomberg who is lurking in the shadows as we speak.

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

28 minutes ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

Say the one who's on GGD 24/7 looking for blames to throw at sanders supporters but doesn't find one to give to a sanders basher for a thread  named "Sanders distributed warren script" when sanders wasn't even accused of doing so.  This hit-thread was impossible to miss for any regular user so for a super regular one like you... 

And the one who, after it, gonna accuse sanders supporters to be hypocrites practicing selective-outrage.  

Say the one who keep saying "bernie bro" for his supporters even after being shown many times it's a smear that isn't even grounded in the reality of his base but who cares when you just want to smear him while pretending to be the balanced/ fair one in a sea of rabid supporters... 

Say the person who after behaving like that gonna play the "victim of the mean sanders supporters", most of the time over pretty much nothing since even LMAO reactions can start a speech about the lack of kindness when people laughing at you cause they know you only fake objectivity seing your sneaky ways is pretty normal...

One more to the block list, I'll keep enjoying the few ones who don't like sanders yet don't go low over that. 

Drag it!!

And so you can read the post again with all its tea and see how the real shameless one is you  @PoshLife

[LibraLove 1,281]

15 hours ago, Halsey said:

Sis you clearly aren’t an American voter or very informed. Biden & Clinton are VERYYY different candidates. And neither identify with centrism, they are further to the left than that. Biden is actually more liberal leaning than Clinton, he actually tried to persuade Clinton/Obama against military involvement on multiple occasions, was pro LGBT before many Democrats, and is very pro labor/union (who have endorsed him extensively).

"Sis," I am a 26 year old U.S. citizen that has voted in every local, state, and federal election I could. I studied politics, I work in politics. This is my life. You don't know me, so sit down. Policy-wise, Clinton and Biden are not that much more different. They are moderate Democrats who stay to the center, then when nominated/elected, will tack to the right (I mean, Biden is on record sounding like a Republican when it comes to discussing Social Security). They are barely center-left at best. Social issues are moot, but he has not been in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights much longer than Clinton or Obama (2010 at best). He has questionable foreign policy stances, which is one reason why I oppose him. As for labor/union, many organizations have also endorse Sanders extensively, it's virtually split 50/50 on that front.

 

But I was not comparing Biden to Clinton, even though their platforms are very similar, which failed in 2016. I was comparing him to trump in which there are many similarities. He will be steam rolled in debates because he can't even finish a thought passed his allotted time - do you think Trump wont cut him off after seeing how easily he stops talking at the sight of the red light? Republicans are gleefully waiting to use the videos of him talking about cutting Social Security "not once, not twice, not three times, but four times" in ads. And don't even get me started on what Trump would do with Hunter Biden, his drug addiction, and the strippers. He is a risk.

[Halycon 48]

Any ideas who Sanders would pick as a running mate? This may sound silly but his age does concern me and I'd like to think his right-hand guy/gal would be competent.

[Emvee 8,831]

13 hours ago, Halsey said:

I actually don’t back Joe, but I will defend him from unnecessary, rude comments.

 

I’m with Pete because he best aligns with what I seek in a candidate. I don’t believe im M4A because my parents get phenomenal due to their employers & I don’t want our family to lose it. I also fear for the effects it could have on the medical industry, as I personally would rather be able to shell out extra $ for my preferred doctor than forced to go with the government provided option. I think M4Awhowantit is a much more fair plan that gives American’s the freedom of choice over where their money goes while still ensuring that EVERYONE can get cheap healthcare. I also value his military experience as someone who is studying International Relations in college. (I will say in terms of foreign policy, Biden makes me the most comfortable due to his experience & connections with world leaders. He has stable relationships with Trudeau/Macron/Merkel, likely Boris Johnson, etc.)

Government provided option? 
 

Medicare-for-all, a single-payer system, is not “government provided” healthcare. 
 

All of the privately ran and operated hospitals, doctors offices, etc. that you and your family enjoy would still be available to you.
 

The only difference is that instead of paying a premium, copay, or deductible to a private insurance company for their profit margin, you pay a tax to the government so that the government is now the single entity paying all of those healthcare organizations and making sure 30k people a year don’t die because of inadequate healthcare. The reason why people find public options to be unacceptable is because the only way this really works - this idea of making sure everyone is covered - is to make sure the system is not partitioned into a socioeconomic tiers that would be vulnerable to budget cuts. 

[Emvee 8,831]

11 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Not trying to convince you of anything, but I will point out a few misconceptions about Medicare For All.

1) Under M4A your parents wouldn't lose their insurance, they would lose the company that charges you for the insurance. Everyone would still be covered, and they actually would probably have more comprehensive insurance depending on how high quality the insurance they currently have is. For example, most insurance plans don't cover in home patient care (something elderly people especially need, but often cannot get due to lack of insurance and which tends to lead to them being shipped off to bad retirement homes), but M4A will cover this at no additional price.

2) The quality of the care they receive would remain the same, as the doctors and providers would be the same literally, though you could now go to previously "out of network" doctors for free and no additional charge - so it could be potentially better!

3) The difference is that they would pay less for their insurance, and it would come as a 4% income tax as opposed to deductibles, co-payments, premiums, and out of pocket expenses

 - That tax would also be most likely a lot less than how much they pay for Deductibles, Premiums, co-pays, and out of pocket expenses, possibly up to thousands less per year. 

- The exception is if your parents are either relatively affluent (like ballpark over $100,000 as individuals) and everyone who has that insurance plan only goes to the doctor like once or twice a year max, in which case it would be only slightly different from what they currently pay on either end, but the average person will save money, and most families of 3 and 4+ would especially save money cause of dependents and joint filings)

4) This one is long, but go with me:

M4AWWI actually doesn't guarantee that EVERYONE can get healthcare, let alone CHEAP healthcare. Let's tackle "everyone"

Under M4AWWI, People would still be uninsured - there are still large chunks of people who would slip through the cracks per the method the plan says it will evaluate people's eligibility for their program (which is a triangulation of people in between their eligibility for medicaid, Obamacare, etc. Millions would be in between qualifying for neither Medicaid and M4AWWI if it was implemented tomorrow).

Its' "automatic enrollment" plan is actually somewhat impossible in our current government tax structure. M4AWWI is a means tested public option, so for those who don't qualify for others but should be "automatically enrolled' per the wording of the plan, there actually isn't a reliable means of ascertaining through our existing tax information and data whether or not the right people will be placed into it. It would have to make assumptions. This is because in America our taxes are not done automatically by the government. We don't just know how much everyone makes, has made, will make, how their dependents change, their address changes, etc. at any given time in a year. What we do know is what they file, which should be expected to fluctuate for the average person as they go through life. One solution to this would be to just use people's tax filings when the government gets them and enroll based off of that information, but that would certainly guarantee lower enrollment on top of delays in enrollment, perhaps even substantial ones that leave potentially millions uninsured for months. There would also need to be more resources put into administration that currently doesn't do this job. There wouldn't be a way for People who work in job fields that are not steady 8-5, 5 day a week jobs, but jobs whose income fluctuates in a year to always be accurately enrolled in the public option if they qualify for it. The people who are being screwed over by their states not expanding Medicaid per the ACA will likely still be screwed by this, just in another annoying way - They will make too little for the ACA, but too much for Medicaid since it wasnt expanded universally, and therefore be screwed under this plan too Imagine being in the awkward state of being between qualifying for the public option at some times, and having to fend their own other times in a single year (which would leave them potentially uninsured for months at a time... This means that potentially millions of people who should be automatically enrolled won't be and will have to voluntarily enroll at different times of the year which is a barrier to access, on top of the mess of reimbursements of hospitals which will have to be dealt with someway...

Ultimately, this means unemployed and underprivileged people can and still will find a way to be uninsured by the millions. It really should be titled "Medicare For The Few Who Can Find It"  

M4A on the other hand can guarantee automatic "enrollment" by the virtue of the fact that it will enroll every living breathing American in this country regardless of their income, taxes filed, etc (and yes, it would also apply to undocumented immigrants who live here then). If you go to the doctor, you can get seen w.o there being insurance paperwork filled - you will be generally assumed to have it, though I believe that M4A proponents think printing out cards would be nice for people that like a tangible sense of being "insured"  though they don't know if its necessary entirely.

About  "cheapness" - I don't think this is a claim that M4AWWI can make honestly. The prices of a public option compared to the rest of the market will almost certainly have to change in orde to keep up with the increasing demands and prices of other programs in order to be viable for people who are wanting a cheaper plan, but don't qualify for some other programs. Insurance companies are operating in a market and with a profit motive, so they have strong incentive to change and adapt in order to get more people and more money. They will  even cater towards taking advantage of desperate people in the process -  but they are self-made in a sense and are only expanding current success, not starting from scratch and they can take risks.  If all the people who "like my current insurance" are tempted to stay on their plans by private insurers, the only people who are on the public option will be increasingly people who are poor and in underserved communities (and again, lots of those people will be under enrolled in the first place per this plans shitty automatic enrollment policy)  and not middle class Americans. So, the vast majority of Americans  who are neither automatically enrolled OR already have private insurance would be disincentivized from moving to the public option. 

Since M4AWWI isn't taxing its base of people as a means of making money, instead just being another private option that charges premiums, deductibles, co-pays, etc. and just offered by the government instead of a corporation, this plan doesn't have the funding to remain competitive. Low enrollment and lack of competitiveness means that its very likely that the public option will overtime become expensive because the current funding price Buttigieg's plan calls for isn't large enough to sustain its "cheapness" without compromises. (Or, shockingly, it will have to implement new taxes or reallocate funds from somewhere later on to help pay for it - the money has to come from somewhere!)

This means that over time it would logically either have to raise its prices to keep running or cut costs somewhere (or both), which could mean that they begin to cover less and less things, which would mean less and less doctors will be available in this public option network (unless they mandate it, but idk how that would work), which is an issue of quality. All of this which makes it very easy in just a few years politically to disassemble this plan as being "just another expensive handout program that only helps a handful of people, and even the people who have it think it is low quality!" (And they'll be right, the lack of access to good doctors, not comprehensive coverage, frustrations over enrollment, and rising prices are all the makings of an unsuccessful plan in the making) 

It will become the VA, but worse and will be attacked by Republicans as part of their electoral strategy for a generation. Meanwhile, poor people are STILL getting screwed over by our health care system from the top down.

So no, M4AWWI specifically does NOT guarantee Universal Health Coverage, or Cheaper healthcare for all.

For comparison, Warren's plan which is also a public option plan, but with a written in glide path to M4A in 3 years (7 total), is a LOT more viable, self sustaining through taxes, enforces regulations on private insurers and drug companies and hospitals to prevent them overtaking the plan, and has a lot more comprehensive care and coverage. It could *actually* work, the only missing variable is how media is able to attack this plan as "socialism!?!?!?" and "Warren wants you to give up your doctors" etc, which every candidate's plan, even Buttigieg, will have to face eventually. Thats just how lobbying and media work.

 

Oh girl, ya beat me to it... and stated it way better than me  
 

On another note, can we change the stan name to “Bernie Sis” or “Bernie Sistren” since he has the most contributions from women than any other candidate? 

[Emvee 8,831]

34 minutes ago, Halycon said:

Any ideas who Sanders would pick as a running mate? This may sound silly but his age does concern me and I'd like to think his right-hand guy/gal would be competent.

Some people say Nina Turner, who is awesome. 
 

Others say Tulsi Gabbard, because she appeals a lot to independents. I personally don’t think Bernie needs Tulsi to appeal to independents. The polling shows this to be true also. 
 

Some are also speculating that Bernie and Warren are still on good terms and she was actually asked about the VP or secretary of treasury positions.