Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 307288 times)

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3463
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #800 on: August 28, 2019, 08:22:52 PM »
Senator Gillebrand is out.

ecchastang

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 133
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #801 on: August 28, 2019, 08:37:27 PM »
"I won't exploit, for political purposes, the youth and inexperience of my opponent"

Such a great quote by Reagan when he was the oldest candidate ever running in 1984.

YttriumNitrate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #802 on: August 28, 2019, 09:08:27 PM »
I wonder how much debates matter.

I like to nerd out and watch them (sometimes with 538.com's stream nearby).  But I don't think most people even watch them, and I think even fewer change their mind based on a debate.  Maybe I'm wrong.
I doubt many voters will switch their favorite candidate based on the debates, but I could see them making a difference when their favorite candidate drops out and they are looking for a new favorite.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2358
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #803 on: August 29, 2019, 03:44:53 AM »
Doesn't it seem like the machine has already picked Biden?  For these people who are saying -- what's more important, to get the first gay president or the first female president -- I think they're all going to be disappointed when Biden is nominated.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2019, 03:46:47 AM by KBecks »

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5884
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #804 on: August 29, 2019, 05:11:51 AM »
Doesn't it seem like the machine has already picked Biden?  For these people who are saying -- what's more important, to get the first gay president or the first female president -- I think they're all going to be disappointed when Biden is nominated.

Not really. Heís recently dropped to third in the polls.

TheContinentalOp

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 286
  • Location: Suburban Philadelphia
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #805 on: August 29, 2019, 06:52:20 AM »
Senator Gillebrand is out.

It was embarrassing how badly she pandered.

TheContinentalOp

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 286
  • Location: Suburban Philadelphia
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #806 on: August 29, 2019, 06:58:35 AM »
Bookerís mayoral campaign profited from corrupt Newark agency, jailed official told FBI
Quote
The ex-director of the agency that once managed Newarkís water told federal investigators in 2015 that she pressured vendors to make campaign contributions to then-mayor Cory Booker and his political friends, new court records show.

Linda Watkins-Brashear, who is currently serving an eight-year sentence for soliciting bribes in exchange for no-show contracts, said a Booker ally at the Newark Watershed Conservation and Development Corp. set a donation goal for vendors who usually bought $500 fundraising tickets without question, she told the FBI. If they refused, there were repercussions, the documents said.

https://www.nj.com/essex/2019/08/bookers-mayoral-campaign-profited-from-corrupt-newark-agency-jailed-official-told-fbi.html

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2358
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #807 on: August 29, 2019, 07:54:56 AM »
Doesn't it seem like the machine has already picked Biden?  For these people who are saying -- what's more important, to get the first gay president or the first female president -- I think they're all going to be disappointed when Biden is nominated.

Not really. Heís recently dropped to third in the polls.

Link, please.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5884
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #808 on: August 29, 2019, 08:00:56 AM »
Doesn't it seem like the machine has already picked Biden?  For these people who are saying -- what's more important, to get the first gay president or the first female president -- I think they're all going to be disappointed when Biden is nominated.

Not really. Heís recently dropped to third in the polls.

Link, please.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-falls-in-new-democratic-primary-poll-as-warren-and-sanders-make-gains/2019/08/26/4373bef4-c814-11e9-a1fe-ca46e8d573c0_story.html
« Last Edit: August 29, 2019, 08:02:33 AM by Kris »

Samuel

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 544
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #809 on: August 29, 2019, 09:11:19 AM »
Doesn't it seem like the machine has already picked Biden?  For these people who are saying -- what's more important, to get the first gay president or the first female president -- I think they're all going to be disappointed when Biden is nominated.

Not really. Heís recently dropped to third in the polls.

Link, please.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-falls-in-new-democratic-primary-poll-as-warren-and-sanders-make-gains/2019/08/26/4373bef4-c814-11e9-a1fe-ca46e8d573c0_story.html

I can't read that (darn paywalls) but 538's most recent collection of polling still has Biden up double digits, on average. To have fallen to third would be big news.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/national/

Samuel

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 544
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #810 on: August 29, 2019, 09:15:43 AM »
I wonder how much debates matter.

I like to nerd out and watch them (sometimes with 538.com's stream nearby).  But I don't think most people even watch them, and I think even fewer change their mind based on a debate.  Maybe I'm wrong.

I think that's right, particularly with Trump. Minds are pretty made up. I could see debates pushing changes in voter participation but is there anyone truly undecided between Trump and any Democrat?

Moonwaves

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1529
  • Location: Germany
    • My blog
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #811 on: August 29, 2019, 09:32:11 AM »
Doesn't it seem like the machine has already picked Biden?  For these people who are saying -- what's more important, to get the first gay president or the first female president -- I think they're all going to be disappointed when Biden is nominated.

Not really. Heís recently dropped to third in the polls.

Link, please.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-falls-in-new-democratic-primary-poll-as-warren-and-sanders-make-gains/2019/08/26/4373bef4-c814-11e9-a1fe-ca46e8d573c0_story.html

I can't read that (darn paywalls) but 538's most recent collection of polling still has Biden up double digits, on average. To have fallen to third would be big news.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/national/

Here's the link from the actual survey that's linked to in that article, (it isn't behind a paywall for me, are you sure you can't read it? - you can usually read a limited number of articles for free):
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_082619/

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3463
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #812 on: August 29, 2019, 09:33:42 AM »
Doesn't it seem like the machine has already picked Biden?  For these people who are saying -- what's more important, to get the first gay president or the first female president -- I think they're all going to be disappointed when Biden is nominated.

Not really. Heís recently dropped to third in the polls.

Link, please.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-falls-in-new-democratic-primary-poll-as-warren-and-sanders-make-gains/2019/08/26/4373bef4-c814-11e9-a1fe-ca46e8d573c0_story.html

I can't read that (darn paywalls) but 538's most recent collection of polling still has Biden up double digits, on average. To have fallen to third would be big news.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/national/

It was a Monmouth University poll about a week ago showing Sanders 20%, Warren 20%, Biden 19%.  MOE was about 5.7% IIRC.  You're right that the RCP average still has Biden up on average...that's because that's an average of most of the recent polls.  Biden's team attacked the poll and Monmouth responded by calling their own poll an "outlier" and saying approximately, "Hey, these things happen."

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 788
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #813 on: August 29, 2019, 09:37:48 AM »
is there anyone truly undecided between Trump and any Democrat?

Maybe not exactly what you're saying, but my vote will definitely depend on which democrat gets the nomination.  I'd absolutely vote for Biden, would never vote for Warren/Bernie and would have to wait and see on the others...so I'm watching the debates and they might matter.

ecchastang

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 133
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #814 on: August 29, 2019, 09:42:53 AM »
is there anyone truly undecided between Trump and any Democrat?

Maybe not exactly what you're saying, but my vote will definitely depend on which democrat gets the nomination.  I'd absolutely vote for Biden, would never vote for Warren/Bernie and would have to wait and see on the others...so I'm watching the debates and they might matter.
Interesting, because Biden is on my list of absolutely not vote for.  My fav is Yang, but others have potential. 

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5884
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #815 on: August 29, 2019, 09:43:08 AM »
Doesn't it seem like the machine has already picked Biden?  For these people who are saying -- what's more important, to get the first gay president or the first female president -- I think they're all going to be disappointed when Biden is nominated.

Not really. Heís recently dropped to third in the polls.

Link, please.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-falls-in-new-democratic-primary-poll-as-warren-and-sanders-make-gains/2019/08/26/4373bef4-c814-11e9-a1fe-ca46e8d573c0_story.html

I can't read that (darn paywalls) but 538's most recent collection of polling still has Biden up double digits, on average. To have fallen to third would be big news.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/national/

It was a Monmouth University poll about a week ago showing Sanders 20%, Warren 20%, Biden 19%.  MOE was about 5.7% IIRC.  You're right that the RCP average still has Biden up on average...that's because that's an average of most of the recent polls.  Biden's team attacked the poll and Monmouth responded by calling their own poll an "outlier" and saying approximately, "Hey, these things happen."

You got to this before I did -- thanks! And thanks to Moonwaves for posting the link to the actual poll. Yes, margin of error makes the "third" claim a bit much. (And my claim of "in the polls" was inaccurate, sorry.) However, Biden is trending downward and Sanders/Warren seem to be trending upward. I no longer think he's gonna get the nomination. (Disregarding my own personal preferences one way or another.)

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 788
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #816 on: August 29, 2019, 09:48:17 AM »
is there anyone truly undecided between Trump and any Democrat?

Maybe not exactly what you're saying, but my vote will definitely depend on which democrat gets the nomination.  I'd absolutely vote for Biden, would never vote for Warren/Bernie and would have to wait and see on the others...so I'm watching the debates and they might matter.
Interesting, because Biden is on my list of absolutely not vote for.  My fav is Yang, but others have potential.

You wouldn't vote for Biden against Trump, or against the other Dems?  I'm registered Rep. so I won't be voting in the primary regardless.  I don't think there's much chance of anyone besides Biden/Warren/Bernie getting the nom, so I haven't spent any real energy getting to know the others.

Samuel

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 544
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #817 on: August 29, 2019, 10:07:52 AM »
Doesn't it seem like the machine has already picked Biden?  For these people who are saying -- what's more important, to get the first gay president or the first female president -- I think they're all going to be disappointed when Biden is nominated.

Not really. Heís recently dropped to third in the polls.

Link, please.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-falls-in-new-democratic-primary-poll-as-warren-and-sanders-make-gains/2019/08/26/4373bef4-c814-11e9-a1fe-ca46e8d573c0_story.html

I can't read that (darn paywalls) but 538's most recent collection of polling still has Biden up double digits, on average. To have fallen to third would be big news.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/national/

Here's the link from the actual survey that's linked to in that article, (it isn't behind a paywall for me, are you sure you can't read it? - you can usually read a limited number of articles for free):
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_082619/

Cool, thanks (and yeah, I tend to burn through the free articles pretty quickly).

is there anyone truly undecided between Trump and any Democrat?

Maybe not exactly what you're saying, but my vote will definitely depend on which democrat gets the nomination.  I'd absolutely vote for Biden, would never vote for Warren/Bernie and would have to wait and see on the others...so I'm watching the debates and they might matter.

But would Warren being the nominee push you to vote for Trump, or just not vote? (Not really asking you specifically, but I think the latter is much more likely)

I just don't see many people deciding between Trump and the Democrat nominee, I think they'll be deciding whether they'll vote at all.

Samuel

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 544
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #818 on: August 29, 2019, 10:21:01 AM »
However, Biden is trending downward and Sanders/Warren seem to be trending upward. I no longer think he's gonna get the nomination. (Disregarding my own personal preferences one way or another.)

Yeah, presumably Sanders and Warren would expect to pick up the bulk of the others' support when one or the other drops out. Biden's lead may well be a bit of an illusion at this point.

Will be interesting to see how big a target Biden has on his back in the next debate.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1338
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #819 on: August 29, 2019, 10:28:55 AM »
The more I see Biden, the more I'm convinced he's not up for this. He really does seem to have slowed down mentally, while Warren and Buttigieg are sharp as tacks. And even though Bernie yells a lot and waves his arms, he does seem sharp and physically in good shape (not withstanding his boxing debacle).

I actually think the 10-person debate will help Biden a little by spreading out the conflicts, at least a while longer. Put it this way, in a five-candidate debate with Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, and Buttigieg, I think Biden would get thrashed, even if it's just by viewers comparing his slowness with the others' mental acuity. I mean, Pete and Warren can express two or three comprehensive ideas in the time it takes for Biden to stumble around one answer.

ecchastang

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 133
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #820 on: August 29, 2019, 10:42:45 AM »
But would Warren being the nominee push you to vote for Trump, or just not vote? (Not really asking you specifically, but I think the latter is much more likely)

I just don't see many people deciding between Trump and the Democrat nominee, I think they'll be deciding whether they'll vote at all.

Only Sanders and Yang are polling above 10% with people who actually voted for Trump in 2016. 

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 788
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #821 on: August 29, 2019, 11:07:32 AM »
is there anyone truly undecided between Trump and any Democrat?

Maybe not exactly what you're saying, but my vote will definitely depend on which democrat gets the nomination.  I'd absolutely vote for Biden, would never vote for Warren/Bernie and would have to wait and see on the others...so I'm watching the debates and they might matter.

But would Warren being the nominee push you to vote for Trump, or just not vote? (Not really asking you specifically, but I think the latter is much more likely)

I just don't see many people deciding between Trump and the Democrat nominee, I think they'll be deciding whether they'll vote at all.

I'll be voting for sure.  Warren would push me to vote for Trump, as would Bernie.

ecchastang

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 133
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #822 on: August 29, 2019, 12:17:06 PM »
is there anyone truly undecided between Trump and any Democrat?

Maybe not exactly what you're saying, but my vote will definitely depend on which democrat gets the nomination.  I'd absolutely vote for Biden, would never vote for Warren/Bernie and would have to wait and see on the others...so I'm watching the debates and they might matter.

But would Warren being the nominee push you to vote for Trump, or just not vote? (Not really asking you specifically, but I think the latter is much more likely)

I just don't see many people deciding between Trump and the Democrat nominee, I think they'll be deciding whether they'll vote at all.

I'll be voting for sure.  Warren would push me to vote for Trump, as would Bernie.

Great quote out of Conservative Washington Examiner article on Yang.

"Yang understands that a Democrat can't get back the 80,000 voters in the Rust Belt that won the Electoral College, or the millions who flipped to vote GOP in 2016, by simply disparaging as racists people who are motivated by job losses and diminished economic opportunities. Even the most ardent libertarians opposed to Yang's universal basic income proposal at least have to appreciate that it's a solution to our current economic shifts more thoughtful than punishing job creators with $15-per-hour minimum wages or exorbitantly taxing the rich for free gender-studies degrees."

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 788
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #823 on: August 29, 2019, 12:23:48 PM »
is there anyone truly undecided between Trump and any Democrat?

Maybe not exactly what you're saying, but my vote will definitely depend on which democrat gets the nomination.  I'd absolutely vote for Biden, would never vote for Warren/Bernie and would have to wait and see on the others...so I'm watching the debates and they might matter.

But would Warren being the nominee push you to vote for Trump, or just not vote? (Not really asking you specifically, but I think the latter is much more likely)

I just don't see many people deciding between Trump and the Democrat nominee, I think they'll be deciding whether they'll vote at all.

I'll be voting for sure.  Warren would push me to vote for Trump, as would Bernie.

Great quote out of Conservative Washington Examiner article on Yang.

"Yang understands that a Democrat can't get back the 80,000 voters in the Rust Belt that won the Electoral College, or the millions who flipped to vote GOP in 2016, by simply disparaging as racists people who are motivated by job losses and diminished economic opportunities. Even the most ardent libertarians opposed to Yang's universal basic income proposal at least have to appreciate that it's a solution to our current economic shifts more thoughtful than punishing job creators with $15-per-hour minimum wages or exorbitantly taxing the rich for free gender-studies degrees."

His website isn't clear...is he pushing for true single-payer healthcare?  That's a non-starter for me, as is UBI.

ecchastang

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 133
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #824 on: August 29, 2019, 12:28:42 PM »

His website isn't clear...is he pushing for true single-payer healthcare?  That's a non-starter for me, as is UBI.
I was against UBI until I read deeper into it. 

I voted for Trump in 2016 for two main reasons.  Hillary is corrupt, and ACA penalty was costing me thousands. 

His UBI is really a dividend from America, the worlds largest company, if you will.  His idea of Human Centered capitalism is more reasonable than anything Bernie or Warren offer.  As is his Climate plan. 

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #825 on: August 29, 2019, 12:39:06 PM »

His website isn't clear...is he pushing for true single-payer healthcare?  That's a non-starter for me, as is UBI.
I was against UBI until I read deeper into it. 

I voted for Trump in 2016 for two main reasons.  Hillary is corrupt, and ACA penalty was costing me thousands. 

His UBI is really a dividend from America, the worlds largest company, if you will.  His idea of Human Centered capitalism is more reasonable than anything Bernie or Warren offer.  As is his Climate plan.

None of this anti-Bernie, anti-Warren stuff makes any sense to me. Is this just brute partisanship? Because Yang's, Sanders', and Warren's climate plans are more or less the same.

People seem to be buying hard into some anti-Sanders/Warren propaganda because there is a whole, a whole lot of "Sanders/Warren is crazy or a hard no" with little to no support behind why.

Directly to your comment: Trump is still if not more corrupt and you're still "paying thousands" in ACA penalties. (Though why do you not have health insurance?). So your anti-Sanders/Warren claim and your claim of wanting a non-corrupt politician don't really line up.

You apparently weren't willing to vote for a conservative democrat like Hillary, but now you're saying you'll vote for Biden? That's a bit hard to believe.

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1257
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #826 on: August 29, 2019, 12:42:12 PM »
Elizabeth Warren is considerably less of a radical leftist than Bernie.  She is progressive, not quasi socialist.  Also, keep in mind that the ultra-progressive policy proposals that get a lot of attention (e.g. student loan forgiveness) are highly unlikely to be enacted.  I think the most likely outcome is Biden as the nominee and the next president, and he will spend most of his time just restoring some stability. 

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4341
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #827 on: August 29, 2019, 12:44:22 PM »

His website isn't clear...is he pushing for true single-payer healthcare?  That's a non-starter for me, as is UBI.
I was against UBI until I read deeper into it. 

I voted for Trump in 2016 for two main reasons.  Hillary is corrupt, and ACA penalty was costing me thousands. 

His UBI is really a dividend from America, the worlds largest company, if you will.  His idea of Human Centered capitalism is more reasonable than anything Bernie or Warren offer.  As is his Climate plan.

If you feel Hillary is corrupt surely you are not going to vote for Trump?

For example if it is about "but her emails", I'm a government employee. During the Obama administration the rules about emails was just filtering down and not clear. Prior to Obama administration it was kind of a free for all. People were really inconsistent and just plain uninformed about email practice. High level people did just what Hillary did with no consequence (or media). Because of the lack of clarity and lack of any evidence of ill intent, while she was critiqued for sloppy and ill-considered practices, she was not proven of any wrong doing.

So after all the "what about her emails" surely Trump and his White house are surely in 100% compliance, right? Except that they aren't. We already learned Trump shared classified info (2017) to the Russians, jeopardizing both our allies and our own intel personnel. Reports are that multiple high level people in the Trump administration have not only been using personal emails and servers, but it is known in at least one case to foreign powers, and often encrypted. And are not cooperating with officials, despite those communications considered government property.  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/us/politics/personal-emails-white-house-ivanka.html

As a government employee I have to agree to ethics rules. Every year I have to read them and agree. I can be censored or fired (or resign) due to violating these rules. Clinton as sec of State is no exception to these rules, but despite $$$ and many many investigations none rose to level of violation (in contrast I believe 15-20 of Trump's staff have resigned/forced to resign due to ethics, with 5-6 being indicted or found criminally guilty so far). Compare that to the Obama White house.

POTUS is supposed to follow these rules, but due to his special position, is exempt from enforcement (impeachment is the "remedy" for the POTUS ethics violations). Every other president has voluntarily agreed to ethics rules for avoiding conflicts of interests or even the appearance of conflict of interests, including the rule to divest or place in a blind trust your business interests. Heck Jimmy Carter even sold his family farm to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest! Other than Nixon there is no precedent for what Trump has done. Any other government employee, if they did even a 10th of what he did, would be fired/forced to resign. Ironically in other countries the Prime Minister or President do not have this exception that the POTUS has, and so are not stuck with our current, very strange predicament, that of a known, compromised president. 

1.Place loyalty to the Constitution, the laws, and ethical principles above private gain.
2.Put forth an honest effort in performing your duties.
3.Act impartially with no unauthorized preferential treatment for private organizations or individuals (*like family members and inlaws? also donors, such as appointing to White house staff, or giving out contracts to https://inhomelandsecurity.com/border-wall-contractor-scrutiny/).
4.Protect and conserve Federal property and other resources. (*he is opening to mining protected Federal monuments as well as coasts)
5.Disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities. (republicans shot down rule that politicians must inform the FBI of any foreign powers offering to give money or information to politicians or appointees)
6.Satisfy your obligations as citizens, including paying your taxes.
7.Obey laws providing Equal Opportunity regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or handicap.
8.Don't hold financial interests that conflict with the performance of official duty. (*Trump refuses to do the basics of avoiding conflicts of interests. The head of the Ethics committee resigned saying that these rules have no teeth. Trump has accepted money as well as gifts in kind from foreign powers. He has also given intel and had private meetings with these same foreign powers/officials)
9.Don't use nonpublic information to further any private interest (see 8).
10.Donít solicit or accept gifts from sources doing business with, or otherwise seeking action from, VA or gifts given because of official position.
11.Donít purport to bind the Government if you do not have authority to do so.
12.Donít use your public office for private gain.
13.Donít take actions that give the appearance that you are violating the law or ethical standard. (he tried to intimidate, get fired or even fire people who were involved in his investigation(s). He announced ahead of time he would give various peoples pardons, who had done criminal activity on his behalf).
14.Donít engage in outside activities that conflict with your duties
« Last Edit: August 29, 2019, 01:58:41 PM by partgypsy »

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 788
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #828 on: August 29, 2019, 12:45:37 PM »

His website isn't clear...is he pushing for true single-payer healthcare?  That's a non-starter for me, as is UBI.
I was against UBI until I read deeper into it. 

I voted for Trump in 2016 for two main reasons.  Hillary is corrupt, and ACA penalty was costing me thousands. 

His UBI is really a dividend from America, the worlds largest company, if you will.  His idea of Human Centered capitalism is more reasonable than anything Bernie or Warren offer.  As is his Climate plan.

None of this anti-Bernie, anti-Warren stuff makes any sense to me. Is this just brute partisanship? Because Yang's, Sanders', and Warren's climate plans are more or less the same.

People seem to be buying hard into some anti-Sanders/Warren propaganda because there is a whole, a whole lot of "Sanders/Warren is crazy or a hard no" with little to no support behind why.

Directly to your comment: Trump is still if not more corrupt and you're still "paying thousands" in ACA penalties. (Though why do you not have health insurance?). So your anti-Sanders/Warren claim and your claim of wanting a non-corrupt politician don't really line up.

You apparently weren't willing to vote for a conservative democrat like Hillary, but now you're saying you'll vote for Biden? That's a bit hard to believe.

I know you're not quoting me, but I'll give my point of view since my comment started this sub-discussion.

I voted for Hillary over Trump.  I would vote for Biden over Trump because I feel like he would govern as a moderate (regardless of what he says or doesn't say on the campaign trail).  I don't believe Warren or Bernie would be moderate in any way...I said above I don't know enough about the other candidates (who aren't, honestly, going to win anyway).  A candidate who strongly, genuinely champions UBI, Single Payer, etc. means I'll be voting for Trump.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4341
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #829 on: August 29, 2019, 01:29:36 PM »

His website isn't clear...is he pushing for true single-payer healthcare?  That's a non-starter for me, as is UBI.
I was against UBI until I read deeper into it. 

I voted for Trump in 2016 for two main reasons.  Hillary is corrupt, and ACA penalty was costing me thousands. 

His UBI is really a dividend from America, the worlds largest company, if you will.  His idea of Human Centered capitalism is more reasonable than anything Bernie or Warren offer.  As is his Climate plan.

None of this anti-Bernie, anti-Warren stuff makes any sense to me. Is this just brute partisanship? Because Yang's, Sanders', and Warren's climate plans are more or less the same.

People seem to be buying hard into some anti-Sanders/Warren propaganda because there is a whole, a whole lot of "Sanders/Warren is crazy or a hard no" with little to no support behind why.

Directly to your comment: Trump is still if not more corrupt and you're still "paying thousands" in ACA penalties. (Though why do you not have health insurance?). So your anti-Sanders/Warren claim and your claim of wanting a non-corrupt politician don't really line up.

You apparently weren't willing to vote for a conservative democrat like Hillary, but now you're saying you'll vote for Biden? That's a bit hard to believe.

I know you're not quoting me, but I'll give my point of view since my comment started this sub-discussion.

I voted for Hillary over Trump.  I would vote for Biden over Trump because I feel like he would govern as a moderate (regardless of what he says or doesn't say on the campaign trail).  I don't believe Warren or Bernie would be moderate in any way...I said above I don't know enough about the other candidates (who aren't, honestly, going to win anyway).  A candidate who strongly, genuinely champions UBI, Single Payer, etc. means I'll be voting for Trump.

I can see why UBI may be controversial, but why single payer? I genuinely don't understand this. There are certain things that the government does better than private enterprise, and time and time again Public health is one of them. We have tiny countries beating our ass in our levels of public health, infant mortality or even average lifespan. It's like saying you want trash collection to be private enterprise, even if it costs $10 a bag, and half the people can't afford it/don't pay and we have trash everywhere. Unless you are the company who are making $$ from trash collection it hurts everyone else and is a stupid solution.

Laserjet3051

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
  • Age: 92
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #830 on: August 29, 2019, 01:32:17 PM »
I wonder how much debates matter.

I like to nerd out and watch them (sometimes with 538.com's stream nearby).  But I don't think most people even watch them, and I think even fewer change their mind based on a debate.  Maybe I'm wrong.

I think that's right, particularly with Trump. Minds are pretty made up. I could see debates pushing changes in voter participation but is there anyone truly undecided between Trump and any Democrat?

tbh, I am firmly in the "will vote for Trump" camp for 2020 but am open minded enough to listen to every candidate to determine if they might be a better President. To date, the only 2 democrats that I would even consider would be Tulsi and Yang. Thus far, they havent convinced me they would be better, but I will give them a chance to be heard and sway my mind.  Nothing, any of the other [DEM] candidates would/could say will change my mind to vote for them. Tulsi/Yang? Maybe.

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 788
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #831 on: August 29, 2019, 01:35:59 PM »

I can see why UBI may be controversial, but why single payer? I genuinely don't understand this. There are certain things that the government does better than private enterprise, and time and time again Public health is one of them. We have tiny countries beating our ass in our levels of public health, infant mortality or even average lifespan. It's like saying you want trash collection to be private enterprise, even if it costs $10 a bag, and half the people can't afford it/don't pay and we have trash everywhere. Unless you are the company who are making $$ from trash collection it hurts everyone else and is a stupid solution.

I just don't believe that the standard of care will increase OR that the cost of care will decrease under a single payer system.  I also think knock on effects (increased regulations / nanny state expansion) that logically follow a switch to single payer are unappealing.

ecchastang

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 133
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #832 on: August 29, 2019, 01:38:30 PM »

His website isn't clear...is he pushing for true single-payer healthcare?  That's a non-starter for me, as is UBI.
I was against UBI until I read deeper into it. 

I voted for Trump in 2016 for two main reasons.  Hillary is corrupt, and ACA penalty was costing me thousands. 

His UBI is really a dividend from America, the worlds largest company, if you will.  His idea of Human Centered capitalism is more reasonable than anything Bernie or Warren offer.  As is his Climate plan.

None of this anti-Bernie, anti-Warren stuff makes any sense to me. Is this just brute partisanship? Because Yang's, Sanders', and Warren's climate plans are more or less the same.

People seem to be buying hard into some anti-Sanders/Warren propaganda because there is a whole, a whole lot of "Sanders/Warren is crazy or a hard no" with little to no support behind why.

Directly to your comment: Trump is still if not more corrupt and you're still "paying thousands" in ACA penalties. (Though why do you not have health insurance?). So your anti-Sanders/Warren claim and your claim of wanting a non-corrupt politician don't really line up.

You apparently weren't willing to vote for a conservative democrat like Hillary, but now you're saying you'll vote for Biden? That's a bit hard to believe.

I am not paying any penalty because Trump got rid of the penalty.  Also, I would have to pay nearly 500 per month with a 6500 deductible, so roughtly 10k out of pocket before any ACA kicks in.  So with that, I would rather pay the penalty. 

I said specifically I WOULD NOT vote for Biden. 

As for Trump, yes he is an A-hole and corrupt, but at least he isn't part of the corrupt political class aka Clinton/Biden.  I would have voted Bernie 4 yrs ago over Trump, but the DNC screwed him over.

As to Yang's climate policy, read it entirely and then read Warren/Sanders and you will see Yang's costs about 5 trillion, not the 15-16 Trillion of the others.   He understands that we in the US only account for 15% of greenhouse gas emissions, so our impact is not the be all/end all of climate change. 

ecchastang

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 133
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #833 on: August 29, 2019, 01:40:47 PM »

I can see why UBI may be controversial, but why single payer? I genuinely don't understand this. There are certain things that the government does better than private enterprise, and time and time again Public health is one of them. We have tiny countries beating our ass in our levels of public health, infant mortality or even average lifespan. It's like saying you want trash collection to be private enterprise, even if it costs $10 a bag, and half the people can't afford it/don't pay and we have trash everywhere. Unless you are the company who are making $$ from trash collection it hurts everyone else and is a stupid solution.

Agreed about Tulsi and Yang.

PDXTabs

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2416
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #834 on: August 29, 2019, 01:48:38 PM »
I can see why UBI may be controversial, but why single payer? I genuinely don't understand this. There are certain things that the government does better than private enterprise, and time and time again Public health is one of them. We have tiny countries beating our ass in our levels of public health, infant mortality or even average lifespan.

You mean like France and Germany, both of which have multi-payer plans?

Don't get me wrong, single payer (a la Canada or the UK) would be way better than the dumpster fire that is US health care, but both France and Germany rate higher than Canada and the UK in terms of health system performance.

I don't understand the US Democratic party's obsession with single payer.

EDITed to add: this post was brought to you by a US/UK dual national.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2019, 01:53:54 PM by PDXTabs »

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4341
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #835 on: August 29, 2019, 01:53:16 PM »

I can see why UBI may be controversial, but why single payer? I genuinely don't understand this. There are certain things that the government does better than private enterprise, and time and time again Public health is one of them. We have tiny countries beating our ass in our levels of public health, infant mortality or even average lifespan. It's like saying you want trash collection to be private enterprise, even if it costs $10 a bag, and half the people can't afford it/don't pay and we have trash everywhere. Unless you are the company who are making $$ from trash collection it hurts everyone else and is a stupid solution.



I just don't believe that the standard of care will increase OR that the cost of care will decrease under a single payer system.  I also think knock on effects (increased regulations / nanny state expansion) that logically follow a switch to single payer are unappealing.

Except, there is no evidence of the things you are afraid of, are a natural by product of single payer. I know because for my NSR post doc I did a whole section on health care and how healthcare is paid for in different countries. For one single payer is less expensive because it cuts out a whole level of middlemen (health insurance companies) that increases costs, restricts care, makes the cost of healthcare procedures opaque) yet adds no value. The beneficial aspects of capitalism don't work for healthcare, because there is not a clear way to comparison shop, nor a true free market (you can only sign up once a year, and your plans are restricted by state). We have the worst of both worlds right now, lots of regulations and limitations but no way to reduce costs by say cost comparing or negotiating. When you have single payer, the country can negotiate lower costs of medications for EVERYONE. That's why Canada laughed at us talking about buying meds through Canada. With our current set up we have no negotiating power. You are letting pharmecutical companies and insurance companies dictate our current healthcare.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2019, 02:05:42 PM by partgypsy »

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4341
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #836 on: August 29, 2019, 01:55:27 PM »
I can see why UBI may be controversial, but why single payer? I genuinely don't understand this. There are certain things that the government does better than private enterprise, and time and time again Public health is one of them. We have tiny countries beating our ass in our levels of public health, infant mortality or even average lifespan.

You mean like France and Germany, both of which have multi-payer plans?

Don't get me wrong, single payer (a la Canada or the UK) would be way better than the dumpster fire that is US health care, but both France and Germany rate higher than Canada and the UK in terms of health system performance.

I don't understand the US Democratic party's obsession with single payer.

EDITed to add: this post was brought to you by a US/UK dual national.

single payer is used as slang for nationalized healthcare. You are right that not all nationalized healthcare plans are single payer. There are different flavors but all have some things in common.

ecchastang

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 133
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #837 on: August 29, 2019, 01:56:48 PM »
When comparing the Freedom Dividend vs raising minimum wage, the problem with a $15 or $20 minimum wage is it negatively affects all the people that were just below to just above the new wage the most.  With Yang's plan it will help out the poorest, and then gradually as your income is higher, it will be less noticeable.  Sure a VAT will cause some inflation, but more so on the wealthiest and spendy-pants-iest. 

PDXTabs

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2416
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #838 on: August 29, 2019, 02:07:15 PM »
single payer is used as slang for nationalized healthcare. You are right that not all nationalized healthcare plans are single payer. There are different flavors but all have some things in common.

As a US voter I disagree. We are talking about medicare for all, which is a true single payer system. I will vote for whichever democrat wins, and hopefully we will get medicare for all. That does not change the fact that Germany will still have a better health system than us.

EDTIed to add - but perhaps it is a political calculation, that "medicare for all" can pass but "germancare for all" can't.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2019, 02:12:00 PM by PDXTabs »

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 788
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #839 on: August 29, 2019, 02:16:52 PM »
The beneficial aspects of capitalism don't work for healthcare, because there is not a clear way to comparison shop, nor a true free market (you can only sign up once a year, and your plans are restricted by state).

These are the things we need to change...totally agree.

And when I'm talking about increased regulation, what I mean is if we go to single payer, it only makes sense for the government to start mandating exercise and limiting the amount of quarter pounders I can eat.  These are things I cannot accept.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2639
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #840 on: August 29, 2019, 02:19:53 PM »
The beneficial aspects of capitalism don't work for healthcare, because there is not a clear way to comparison shop, nor a true free market (you can only sign up once a year, and your plans are restricted by state).

These are the things we need to change...totally agree.

And when I'm talking about increased regulation, what I mean is if we go to single payer, it only makes sense for the government to start mandating exercise and limiting the amount of quarter pounders I can eat.  These are things I cannot accept.

Do other countries with nationalized healthcare do this?

ETA: Canadian chain Boston Pizza offers a 6-layer pizza cake. Your concerns are unwarranted :)

https://www.thrillist.com/eat/nation/canada-s-boston-pizza-offers-pizza-cake-as-part-of-pizza-game-changers-campaign
« Last Edit: August 29, 2019, 02:36:38 PM by Dabnasty »

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #841 on: August 29, 2019, 02:21:33 PM »
The beneficial aspects of capitalism don't work for healthcare, because there is not a clear way to comparison shop, nor a true free market (you can only sign up once a year, and your plans are restricted by state).

These are the things we need to change...totally agree.

And when I'm talking about increased regulation, what I mean is if we go to single payer, it only makes sense for the government to start mandating exercise and limiting the amount of quarter pounders I can eat.  These are things I cannot accept.

I think you need to take a step back and re-examine what single payer systems mean. Because saying that "single-payer = limiting quarter pounder intake" is creating a victim. Ie "This government policy would be immoral because I as an individual would be hurt by restriction of freedom from eating quarter pounders."

1. No one said anything about a fat tax.
2. No one has said anything about reducing your choice as a consumer.

So if you're going to argue against single-payer, please come at it from a more honest and objective perspective.

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 788
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #842 on: August 29, 2019, 02:32:30 PM »
The beneficial aspects of capitalism don't work for healthcare, because there is not a clear way to comparison shop, nor a true free market (you can only sign up once a year, and your plans are restricted by state).

These are the things we need to change...totally agree.

And when I'm talking about increased regulation, what I mean is if we go to single payer, it only makes sense for the government to start mandating exercise and limiting the amount of quarter pounders I can eat.  These are things I cannot accept.

I think you need to take a step back and re-examine what single payer systems mean. Because saying that "single-payer = limiting quarter pounder intake" is creating a victim. Ie "This government policy would be immoral because I as an individual would be hurt by restriction of freedom from eating quarter pounders."

1. No one said anything about a fat tax.
2. No one has said anything about reducing your choice as a consumer.

So if you're going to argue against single-payer, please come at it from a more honest and objective perspective.

I'm saying that those are logical next steps after a single payer system is put in place.  I'm not saying anyone has suggested any of those things yet. 

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #843 on: August 29, 2019, 02:34:23 PM »
And when I'm talking about increased regulation, what I mean is if we go to single payer, it only makes sense for the government to start mandating exercise and limiting the amount of quarter pounders I can eat.  These are things I cannot accept.

A politician's primary incentive is to get re-elected, not to reduce the cost of services the government provides. Any politician who restricted the amount of quarter pounders that Americans can eat would not get re-elected.

This is easily testable. Simply point to the country with nationalized healthcare that enforces an exercise regime on its population. Until then I can't see this as anything other than an imaginary bogeyman.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2019, 02:36:56 PM by sherr »

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 788
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #844 on: August 29, 2019, 02:42:02 PM »
And when I'm talking about increased regulation, what I mean is if we go to single payer, it only makes sense for the government to start mandating exercise and limiting the amount of quarter pounders I can eat.  These are things I cannot accept.

A politician's primary incentive is to get re-elected, not to reduce the cost of services the government provides. Any politician who restricted the amount of quarter pounders that Americans can eat would not get re-elected.

This is easily testable. Simply point to the country with nationalized healthcare that enforces an exercise regime on its population. Until then I can't see this as anything other than an imaginary bogeyman.

Forget other countries, New York has already tried to ban sugary drinks that exceed a certain size. 

ecchastang

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 133
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #845 on: August 29, 2019, 02:48:47 PM »
The beneficial aspects of capitalism don't work for healthcare, because there is not a clear way to comparison shop, nor a true free market (you can only sign up once a year, and your plans are restricted by state).

These are the things we need to change...totally agree.

And when I'm talking about increased regulation, what I mean is if we go to single payer, it only makes sense for the government to start mandating exercise and limiting the amount of quarter pounders I can eat.  These are things I cannot accept.

I think you need to take a step back and re-examine what single payer systems mean. Because saying that "single-payer = limiting quarter pounder intake" is creating a victim. Ie "This government policy would be immoral because I as an individual would be hurt by restriction of freedom from eating quarter pounders."

1. No one said anything about a fat tax.
2. No one has said anything about reducing your choice as a consumer.

So if you're going to argue against single-payer, please come at it from a more honest and objective perspective.

I'm saying that those are logical next steps after a single payer system is put in place.  I'm not saying anyone has suggested any of those things yet.
By that same logic, the logical next steps to our current system is only those with NW upwards of $1,000,000 get medical care. 

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #846 on: August 29, 2019, 02:52:23 PM »
And when I'm talking about increased regulation, what I mean is if we go to single payer, it only makes sense for the government to start mandating exercise and limiting the amount of quarter pounders I can eat.  These are things I cannot accept.

A politician's primary incentive is to get re-elected, not to reduce the cost of services the government provides. Any politician who restricted the amount of quarter pounders that Americans can eat would not get re-elected.

This is easily testable. Simply point to the country with nationalized healthcare that enforces an exercise regime on its population. Until then I can't see this as anything other than an imaginary bogeyman.

Forget other countries, New York has already tried to ban sugary drinks that exceed a certain size.

That would not have prevented you from asking for a refill, or prevented the restaurant from providing one. Is was a matter of setting the default to something smaller, not of restricting how much soda you can consume. Defaults matter because many people just take the default in many situations, and in this case people are programmed not to "waste" the soda they've paid for.

I feel like this is going to continue to get into the weeds. Slippery-slope arguments are always invalid, because you can always imagine some extreme that would be undesirable. That doesn't mean that the best option does not lie in the general direction of that extreme, just that we shouldn't go that far.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2639
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #847 on: August 29, 2019, 03:00:52 PM »
And when I'm talking about increased regulation, what I mean is if we go to single payer, it only makes sense for the government to start mandating exercise and limiting the amount of quarter pounders I can eat.  These are things I cannot accept.

A politician's primary incentive is to get re-elected, not to reduce the cost of services the government provides. Any politician who restricted the amount of quarter pounders that Americans can eat would not get re-elected.

This is easily testable. Simply point to the country with nationalized healthcare that enforces an exercise regime on its population. Until then I can't see this as anything other than an imaginary bogeyman.

Forget other countries, New York has already tried to ban sugary drinks that exceed a certain size.

New York is not in a country with nationalized healthcare. I'm not following this logic.

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #848 on: August 29, 2019, 03:30:38 PM »
And banning drinks a certain size is not even close to the same thing as banning sugary drinks altogether. Just buy more if you want more.

Psychstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1142
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #849 on: August 29, 2019, 04:03:27 PM »
And when I'm talking about increased regulation, what I mean is if we go to single payer, it only makes sense for the government to start mandating exercise and limiting the amount of quarter pounders I can eat.  These are things I cannot accept.

A politician's primary incentive is to get re-elected, not to reduce the cost of services the government provides. Any politician who restricted the amount of quarter pounders that Americans can eat would not get re-elected.

This is easily testable. Simply point to the country with nationalized healthcare that enforces an exercise regime on its population. Until then I can't see this as anything other than an imaginary bogeyman.

Forget other countries, New York has already tried to ban sugary drinks that exceed a certain size.

New York is not in a country with nationalized healthcare. I'm not following this logic.

First they came for the Big Gulps, and I said nothing because I'm not a Big Gulp.

/s