Board 8 > Politics Internment Topic 226

(+) Yeah! (+)

StealThisSheen posted...

Also I didn't say you wrote the article?

...

Nrrr posted...

How much do you think my posts here are having a major effect on the election outcome?

StealThisSheen posted...

I was referring to writing articles to combat super obvious fake presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren

---

You were suggesting I shouldn't waste time talking about her because of a totally made up idea that I think she is a fake candidate in a smug, condescending manner (the only ever contribution you have here) to insult me while evading any discussion of anything anyone actually brought up in the topic at any point in time. You are useless and going on ignore.

If you are claiming what you were getting at is asking why the press is writing articles about Elizabeth Warren, that is even more of an incredibly stupid question that deserves the exact response it was given.

StealThisSheen posted...

I mean you said she's only running to spoil Bernie so I'm just trying to grasp the lore here

At this point this is literally all I'm trying to do. You've said several oddball things like this and have never expanded on them when people have asked. Are you denying you said this?
---

NFUN posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Also I didn't say you wrote the article?

...

Nrrr posted...

How much do you think my posts here are having a major effect on the election outcome?

StealThisSheen posted...

I was referring to writing articles to combat super obvious fake presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren

I just now noticed this post wasn't by Nrr

My initial post was an "in general" post not aimed specifically at him, not a "Man Nrrr why are you wasting time writing articles"

I figured that should be obvious since Nrrr doesn't write for the Washington Examiner...?
---

For all we know, he could write for them!
---

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dems-real-risk-losing-transformational-candidate-ocasio-cortez/story?id=63744684

She gets it, and this is exactly what Cyclo was saying. Its not enough to pick the most electable candidate. Democrats usually only win when people are actually energized, and even if they managed to eek out a victory with someone like, say, Biden, where does that leave us in 2024 when nothing gets done?

I sure wish AOC would step fence-sitting and pick a candidate.
---

AOC can't be expected to pick a candidate with this many choices.

As for Biden, he could get a lot done the same way Clinton did - by signing Republican legislation into law.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dems-real-risk-losing-transformational-candidate-ocasio-cortez/story?id=63744684

She gets it, and this is exactly what Cyclo was saying. Its not enough to pick the most electable candidate. Democrats usually only win when people are actually energized, and even if they managed to eek out a victory with someone like, say, Biden, where does that leave us in 2024 when nothing gets done?

I sure wish AOC would step fence-sitting and pick a candidate.

https://www.gq.com/story/koch-brothers-eye-the-democrats/amp

When the right wing donors and the Dems organization see eye to eye...(for those unaware, the Dems have taken measures to prevent future situations like AOC by protecting incumbents) as for AOC, she will endorse at some point. Nobody is paying attention right now. Trump literally was polling at 1% this far out.

Nrrr posted...

Trump literally was polling at 1% this far out.

Trump literally declared he was running yesterday 4 years ago. (really, yesterday was the 4 year "anniversary" of that day) so really you can't make a comparison to the democrats right now

also his 538 primary polling average was 3.5% on june 17

~~~

I highly doubt AOC makes an endorsement with Warren and Sanders both still competitive, especially with each other. If it was just one of them against Biden, sure, maybe. But in this field? She might not endorse until we have a projected winner, much like Obama won't.

Also speaking of Warren, there was a MN poll having her leading all candidates - Biden included - in the primary. Just one poll but the momentum. >_>
---

Supreme Court rules in favor of the new un-gerrymandered Virginia districts.

From The Hill

In the 5-4 ruling, the justices found that the House didn't have the standing to appeal a lower court ruling that found that the new district maps must be used ahead of statewide elections later this year. Those new maps are already in use.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch.

Justices Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh dissented

Theres some fun alliances
---

Didnt they recently rule that crazy purely political gerrymandering was allowed?

So this is pretty minor victory for fixing gerrymandering after a big loss.
---

This was not a ruling against gerrymandered districts. This was a ruling that the Virginia legislature did not have standing to continue the case after the governor/AG refused to do so.

This suggests that Congress does not have standing to defend any federal laws that the President/AG declines to defend....
---

Unless it was based on the VA constitution specifically? (No idea if thats the case or not)

But yeah, thats presumably a big part of why it isnt a partisan split here
---

The VA ruling was strictly a procedural issue because Virginia specifically has a law that basically says only the state itself or somebody specifically designated by the state (the AG) can represent the state in court. The VA Legislature cannot, and ergo has no standing to appeal the decision they were appealing. Nothing about the merits of the gerrymandering itself

At least, that's my understanding.

Poll finds that 60% of the public (and 73% of Dems) take Medicare for All to mean a public option, not universal single payer:

https://twitter.com/aedwardslevy/status/1140681343464067072?s=21

It also finds that the former is extremely popular (+46 net approval) and the latter slightly unpopular (-6 net)
---

A public option is perfectly fine as long as it gives the government enough negotiating power to manage costs. And if you like your insurance for some reason, you can keep it.

LordoftheMorons posted...

Poll finds that 60% of the public (and 73% of Dems) take Medicare for All to mean a public option, not universal single payer:

https://twitter.com/aedwardslevy/status/1140681343464067072?s=21

It also finds that the former is extremely popular (+46 net approval) and the latter slightly unpopular (-6 net)

It's hard to argue against a public option. Worst case, it's no cheaper than private insurance, and people don't buy it. Best case, it turns out that a lot of the cost of insurance in the US is from lack of competition among insurers and the entry of the public option leads to a price war.
---

https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1140699466577645568?s=21

Jesus fucking Christ
---

Reg posted...

The VA ruling was strictly a procedural issue because Virginia specifically has a law that basically says only the state itself or somebody specifically designated by the state (the AG) can represent the state in court. The VA Legislature cannot, and ergo has no standing to appeal the decision they were appealing. Nothing about the merits of the gerrymandering itself

At least, that's my understanding.

How did THAT get to the Supreme Court?
---

Read through the opinion quickly. They said that VA had copied federal law in designating its attorney general to have exclusive authority to represent it in court. So by implication, Congress cannot defend Obamacare in court if the AG refuses to do so.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Reg posted...

The VA ruling was strictly a procedural issue because Virginia specifically has a law that basically says only the state itself or somebody specifically designated by the state (the AG) can represent the state in court. The VA Legislature cannot, and ergo has no standing to appeal the decision they were appealing. Nothing about the merits of the gerrymandering itself

At least, that's my understanding.

How did THAT get to the Supreme Court?

As far as I can tell, the State appealed to the Appeals Court, but declined to take it to SCOTUS, at which point the Republicans in the VA Legislature took it on themselves to try to represent the state and appeal further.

Jakyl25 posted...

Reg posted...

The VA ruling was strictly a procedural issue because Virginia specifically has a law that basically says only the state itself or somebody specifically designated by the state (the AG) can represent the state in court. The VA Legislature cannot, and ergo has no standing to appeal the decision they were appealing. Nothing about the merits of the gerrymandering itself

At least, that's my understanding.

How did THAT get to the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court issues this kind of ruling frequently when it doesn't want to issue a substantive decision. And this is an important legal issue, it's come up repeatedly under Obama and Trump where the president refused to enforce a law and a house of Congress wanted to do so in his stead.
---

I mean I guess if 4 dissented across ideological lines there must be some rationale for ignoring the state constitution
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Poll finds that 60% of the public (and 73% of Dems) take Medicare for All to mean a public option, not universal single payer:

https://twitter.com/aedwardslevy/status/1140681343464067072?s=21

It also finds that the former is extremely popular (+46 net approval) and the latter slightly unpopular (-6 net)

Buy Medicare?

I have literally never heard of a single person who thinks the best solution for our healthcare woes is for people to be able to pay for government insurance, that does jackshit for poor people.

Edit: Also based on that graphic, the wording of this question specifically asked Would you prefer to have the option to buy Medicare, or would you rather be forced to take Medicare?

Theres a lot of baggage with Medicare in the US, with people assuming it means lower quality and access to care. Of course people are wary of being told hey what if we took away what you have and gave you something you think sucks.

Please stop trying to make this argument if youre not gonna be nuanced about it.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I mean I guess if 4 dissented across ideological lines there must be some rationale for ignoring the state constitution

They said the House of Delegates has standing on its own independently of being Virginia's agent.
---

https://twitter.com/whstancil/status/1140582007879151618

This is the reason a complete overhaul and political revolution is the only way forward. Dem leadership is utterly useless and does not respond to the desires of Dem voters. This is why, sure it's nice when they get pressured into running on more progressive issues - there is no evidence or reason to believe that they will actually fight to accomplish them when given power. Because they don't care what the voters want except to get your vote. Ultimately the donors decide policy. One major reason not to trust Warren to be a progressive hero - she will be big donor funded. Bernie will represent his donors too, regular people.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Poll finds that 60% of the public (and 73% of Dems) take Medicare for All to mean a public option, not universal single payer:

https://twitter.com/aedwardslevy/status/1140681343464067072?s=21

It also finds that the former is extremely popular (+46 net approval) and the latter slightly unpopular (-6 net)

Buy Medicare?

I have literally never heard of a single person who thinks the best solution for our healthcare woes is for people to be able to pay for government insurance, that does jackshit for poor people.

Edit: Also based on that graphic, the wording of this question specifically asked Would you prefer to have the option to buy Medicare, or would you rather be forced to take Medicare?

Theres a lot of baggage with Medicare in the US, with people assuming it means lower quality and access to care. Of course people are wary of being told hey what if we took away what you have and gave you something you think sucks.

Please stop trying to make this argument if youre not gonna be nuanced about it.

A real interesting question is - if people are confused about what "Medicare for all" means, why is that? If people are confused about the policy, the corporate backed candidates can co-opt the messaging to make progressives stand out less and seem less necessary. So sure, you have many people running on Medicare for all, and if you say you support Bernie because you want Medicare for all, they can say but everyone else is running on that! When actually they are running on that messaging, and going to try to do a public option.

Nrrr posted...

One major reason not to trust Warren to be a progressive hero - she will be big donor funded. Bernie will represent his donors too, regular people.

oh my god stop
---

https://imgur.com/P1osQ9Z

Everyone stop everything

https://twitter.com/thedemocrats/status/1139908928383410176?s=21

I think we all need to collectively die of embarrassment RIGHT NOW
---

https://twitter.com/gilbertjasono/status/1140645994662703104

I don't know what any of these things mean

Am I old now
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I don't know what any of these things mean

Am I old now

You desperately need that phone wallpaper
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I don't know what any of these things mean

Am I old now

Well you do think people are too hard on Biden...

CelesMyUserName posted...

Nrrr posted...

One major reason not to trust Warren to be a progressive hero - she will be big donor funded. Bernie will represent his donors too, regular people.

oh my god stop

I dont see the comment where this was said, but its worth noting Warren pledged to not take ANY PAC money, including grassroots PACs.

Also, Tulsi locked up the most important endorsement of the year: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=eu74VBI_OqU
---

Warren is only keeping that pledge for the primaries. She has said she will take anything she can in the general.

I'd love to have a discussion about what's worrisome about Warren, but I know how it will go in this topic. Snark snark and usually no attempt at discussion or rebutal.

I just find it interesting and unsettling that the establishment and millionaire class at large seem pretty ok with her candidacy, while they're seemingly terrified of Bernie. I shared that article before about how the Wall Street "donor class" said they'd probably vote Trump over Bernie.

That should tell you everything about where these people's loyalties lie.

I will of fucking course support Warren over Trump, if it shakes out that way, but I also can't ignore the fact that so many Democrats get so so so mad when you criticize any Dems, but then shit on Bernie constantly. inb4 someone misses the point and calls Bernie not a Dem.

edit: and I'd even say I like Warren A LOT. But the people who support her make me uneasy.
---

Tony, I promise not to snark if you start a discussion on your issues with Warren.

The reason I snarked on Cyclo was because he made the statement that Warren is only running to play spoiler for Bernie, and then refused to elaborate any further since. It's hard to want to listen to his concerns when he's making bold claims like that and then not backing them up.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I'd love to have a discussion about what's worrisome about Warren, but I know how it will go in this topic. Snark snark and usually no attempt at discussion or rebutal.

I just find it interesting and unsettling that the establishment and millionaire class at large seem pretty ok with her candidacy, while they're seemingly terrified of Bernie. I shared that article before about how the Wall Street "donor class" said they'd probably vote Trump over Bernie.

That should tell you everything about where these people's loyalties lie.

I will of fucking course support Warren over Trump, if it shakes out that way, but I also can't ignore the fact that so many Democrats get so so so mad when you criticize any Dems, but then shit on Bernie constantly. inb4 someone misses the point and calls Bernie not a Dem.

edit: and I'd even say I like Warren A LOT. But the people who support her make me uneasy.

It's interesting, when I bring up the questionable figures that seem to find Warren acceptable, I am told it means nothing. When I bring up the fact that Warren was a Republican until she was 47, described by classmates as a diehard conservative, I am told that people can change!

However, Tulsi Gabbard is irredeemable because of her past, untrustworthy because of her supporters. Bizarre how that works. At this point I just don't take anyone's critiques at face value. Whether or not personal behavior, associations, past, and even your own words actually matter vary wildly depending on if they like that candidate.

Luckily there is one consistent candidate who all those people don't wanna see win!

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I'd love to have a discussion about what's worrisome about Warren, but I know how it will go in this topic. Snark snark and usually no attempt at discussion or rebutal.

I just find it interesting and unsettling that the establishment and millionaire class at large seem pretty ok with her candidacy, while they're seemingly terrified of Bernie. I shared that article before about how the Wall Street "donor class" said they'd probably vote Trump over Bernie.

That should tell you everything about where these people's loyalties lie.

I will of fucking course support Warren over Trump, if it shakes out that way, but I also can't ignore the fact that so many Democrats get so so so mad when you criticize any Dems, but then shit on Bernie constantly. inb4 someone misses the point and calls Bernie not a Dem.

edit: and I'd even say I like Warren A LOT. But the people who support her make me uneasy.

This is exactly why I'm wary of Warren.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I'd love to have a discussion about what's worrisome about Warren, but I know how it will go in this topic. Snark snark and usually no attempt at discussion or rebutal.

if you hate this topic this much, i'm not sure why you continue to regularly post here
---

I was under the impression that wall street people were not big fans of Warren either (not that I agree that that's a good way to evaluate candidates...)
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I was under the impression that wall street people were not big fans of Warren either (not that I agree that that's a good way to evaluate candidates...)

They didn't used to be big fans of Trump either. They were big Hillary fans.
---

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1140750023342403584

This kind of touches on what I said earlier. And this is why Bernie is the leader we need! We are up against a lot, and need someone to organize us to become politically active and put the pressure on the oligarchs. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of our political situation (oligarchy) to think we can just nominate someone, elect them, and magically get nice things. They don't fear Warren because she isn't creating a movement and organizing the people, she isn't creating class consciousness. She can be defeated, just like Obama. All of us together can not be defeated.

They obviously didn't like him, but business interests were "OK with" FDR too.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I was under the impression that wall street people were not big fans of Warren either (not that I agree that that's a good way to evaluate candidates...)

they aren't lol
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I'd love to have a discussion about what's worrisome about Warren, but I know how it will go in this topic. Snark snark and usually no attempt at discussion or rebutal.

if you hate this topic this much, i'm not sure why you continue to regularly post here

Didnt say that. Ty for your contribution.
---

sorry for jumping to conclusions but "snark snark and usually no attempt at discussion or rebuttal" doesn't sound like you're much enjoying this topic
---

Do you even read this topic?
---

i have read and archived almost all of the topics since topic 1, yes
---