Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Joe Biden Debates Donald Trump September 29


DonLever
 Share

Recommended Posts

Looks like Yang might stick around.  If over the summer he gets another percent in the polls, he'll be trying to break into the top 5 going into the caucuses.  Hopefully more than half the field will be gone by the fall.  Candidates need more time to respond than what they got in the first debate.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/451243-yang-meets-donor-requirement-for-third-and-fourth-debates

Yang meets donor requirement for third and fourth debates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/3/2019 at 12:06 AM, thedestroyerofworlds said:

Looks like Yang might stick around.  If over the summer he gets another percent in the polls, he'll be trying to break into the top 5 going into the caucuses.  Hopefully more than half the field will be gone by the fall.  Candidates need more time to respond than what they got in the first debate.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/451243-yang-meets-donor-requirement-for-third-and-fourth-debates

Yang meets donor requirement for third and fourth debates

Haven't watched any debate(s) yet but I imagine with such a large field it would be hard to get everyone in without a 6 hour debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Haven't watched any debate(s) yet but I imagine with such a large field it would be hard to get everyone in without a 6 hour debate.

I don't really think we'll learn anything significant about the candidates' platforms until they start weeding out the also rans, like De Blasio and that "spiritual healing" woman, who's name (not surprisingly) escapes me.

 

The trick for a guy like Yang, (who may actually have some good ideas) is to hang around long enough to get his full story out there. Right now, he's just the "$1000 for everyone" guy and I don't think that's going to fly all on it's own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I don't really think we'll learn anything significant about the candidates' platforms until they start weeding out the also rans, like De Blasio and that "spiritual healing" woman, who's name (not surprisingly) escapes me.

 

The trick for a guy like Yang, (who may actually have some good ideas) is to hang around long enough to get his full story out there. Right now, he's just the "$1000 for everyone" guy and I don't think that's going to fly all on it's own.

How is Sanders doing? Is the hype there like last time? I keep hearing Biden and imo it's like 2016 all over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

How is Sanders doing? Is the hype there like last time? I keep hearing Biden and imo it's like 2016 all over again.

Hard to say this early in the game. He's still in the top echelon with Biden, Warren and Harris, but I don't see the same energy from his supporters that we saw in 2015. I'd consider him a long shot.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Hard to say this early in the game. He's still in the top echelon with Biden, Warren and Harris, but I don't see the same energy from his supporters that we saw in 2015. I'd consider him a long shot.

So Biden would be the one to beat at this point in your opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

So Biden would be the one to beat at this point in your opinion?

According to the polls, but it's early. It seems to me that someone always comes out of the pack. (Obama wasn't the odds-on favorite in 2008)

 

Quite a while back, I was advocating a Harris - Mayor Pete ticket. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see that ultimately happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

According to the polls, but it's early. It seems to me that someone always comes out of the pack. (Obama wasn't the odds-on favorite in 2008)

 

Quite a while back, I was advocating a Harris - Mayor Pete ticket. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see that ultimately happen.

Did that young Kennedy jump in? Congressman I think???

@Warhippy I think it was posted some clips of him a while back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea why Steyer waited this long to enter.  With Swalwell exiting, there may be a few of the other less than 1 percenters who may drop out soon.

 

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-2020-swalwell-presidential-campaign-20190708-story.html

Eric Swalwell is expected to withdraw from presidential race, Tom Steyer to enter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I'm not sure which of these is the most delicious.

 

1. Bernie has to brag about being the first Presidential candidate to have a unionized campaign staff (what, were Democrat candidates treating their employees so bad that they needed union representation and protection?),

2. Bernie then gets caught at effectively paying the lowest level of employees less than his ideal of a minimum wage,

3. That people presumably loyal to Bernie and his platform felt the need to speak out against the practice, or

4. That the union was derelict in its duty in protecting its overworked members.

 

I get that they were on salary, so there is no such thing as overtime.  But if so, and they were being paid based on a 40 hour week, then that's when the work ends, and if there is more work, you gotta bring in more workers, right?  Hell, I know of at least one union down here that realized that their salaried employees were missing out on a day's pay every leap year, and updated the contract for an additional day off during leap years.  You can't tell me that the already known long hours of campaign work were coming as a surprise to everyone involved here.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kragar said:

I'm not sure which of these is the most delicious.

 

1. Bernie has to brag about being the first Presidential candidate to have a unionized campaign staff (what, were Democrat candidates treating their employees so bad that they needed union representation and protection?),

2. Bernie then gets caught at effectively paying the lowest level of employees less than his ideal of a minimum wage,

3. That people presumably loyal to Bernie and his platform felt the need to speak out against the practice, or

4. That the union was derelict in its duty in protecting its overworked members.

 

I get that they were on salary, so there is no such thing as overtime.  But if so, and they were being paid based on a 40 hour week, then that's when the work ends, and if there is more work, you gotta bring in more workers, right?  Hell, I know of at least one union down here that realized that their salaried employees were missing out on a day's pay every leap year, and updated the contract for an additional day off during leap years.  You can't tell me that the already known long hours of campaign work were coming as a surprise to everyone involved here.

I like Bernie.  IMO he’s an honest guy.  If there is an issue with his staff he will fix it in a fair way.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I like Bernie.  IMO he’s an honest guy.  If there is an issue with his staff he will fix it in a fair way.  

It's fixed now.  At least they agreed to a new contract.  I'm sure some nits could be picked over that, but the main issue was apparently resolved.  Anyhow, I'm sure it was a national embarrassment for him, especially since the story broke out of the Washington Post, as opposed to Fox or Breitbart.

 

He's more honest about some things, surely.  Intellectual honesty (i.e. how he intends to pay for all the free stuff) is still lacking, IMO, but then I guess we always get more promises than answers during the campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Kragar said:

It's fixed now.  At least they agreed to a new contract.  I'm sure some nits could be picked over that, but the main issue was apparently resolved.  Anyhow, I'm sure it was a national embarrassment for him, especially since the story broke out of the Washington Post, as opposed to Fox or Breitbart.

 

He's more honest about some things, surely.  Intellectual honesty (i.e. how he intends to pay for all the free stuff) is still lacking, IMO, but then I guess we always get more promises than answers during the campaign.

Here are some factors that led to this story blowing up. 

 

1)  There has been a concerted effort by MSM to smear Bernie and his campaign.

2) Leadership in the Campaign, when made aware of the issues tried to rectify the situation.  The initial proposals were rejected by the union.  This part, due to 1) was not reported.  

 

Honest reporting would know the difference between Salaried employees vs. Hourly employees.  

 

As for the bit about how to pay for everything, Medicare for all is actually cheaper than the current system when you take into account the private taxes (insurance premiums, deductibles,  co-pays), bloated administrative costs of private insurance companies, price gouging by many of the private medical companies,  etc..  A libertarian think tank study proved it, reported on last year.   The free college thing could easily be paid for by actually cutting funding to the Defense budget instead of constantly increasing it.  The Army doesn't want more tanks,  but Congress kept approving more.  There's two.  What more do you need?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

Here are some factors that led to this story blowing up. 

 

1)  There has been a concerted effort by MSM to smear Bernie and his campaign.

2) Leadership in the Campaign, when made aware of the issues tried to rectify the situation.  The initial proposals were rejected by the union.  This part, due to 1) was not reported.  

 

Honest reporting would know the difference between Salaried employees vs. Hourly employees.  

 

As for the bit about how to pay for everything, Medicare for all is actually cheaper than the current system when you take into account the private taxes (insurance premiums, deductibles,  co-pays), bloated administrative costs of private insurance companies, price gouging by many of the private medical companies,  etc..  A libertarian think tank study proved it, reported on last year.   The free college thing could easily be paid for by actually cutting funding to the Defense budget instead of constantly increasing it.  The Army doesn't want more tanks,  but Congress kept approving more.  There's two.  What more do you need?

I understand Bernie is not their fave, but it did slip my mind.

 

Medicare for all also means downgrading our current levels of care, to the point where we will have wait times like in Canada and Britain.  Oh joy.  There are plenty of things that are needed to fix our system.  Socializing it is not the ideal solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Kragar said:

I understand Bernie is not their fave, but it did slip my mind.

 

Medicare for all also means downgrading our current levels of care, to the point where we will have wait times like in Canada and Britain.  Oh joy.  There are plenty of things that are needed to fix our system.  Socializing it is not the ideal solution.

The US system works if you have a great plan or lots of money.  If you don't,  you either go bankrupt due to medical cost (one of if not the leading cause of middle class bankruptcies),  or you ration your care.  Thousands die each year due to the cost of private medicine in the United States. 

 

Wait times happen for elective procedures like joint replacements, etc.  If you go into the hospital with a heart attack,  you get the care.  If you go into the hospital with fingers cut off, you get the care.   If you need an ambulance and it takes you to the nearest hospital,  you don't get a bill afterwards or get told that you need to go to the hospital across town because the one you were initially sent to is out of your network. 

 

Ya, the US system is soooooo great, not.

 

Edit: I'll give a personal example.   I broke my ankle in Whistler mountain biking.   The clinics orthopedic surgeon was only available Monday to Friday, so they sent me home with a boot and crutches (I paid for).  Once home, I went to the hospital and was scheduled for surgery the next day.  I only had to wait due to where and when my injury happened, not due to waitlist rationing, like pro-private healthcare advocates fearmonger.

Edited by thedestroyerofworlds
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

The US system works if you have a great plan or lots of money.  If you don't,  you either go bankrupt due to medical cost (one of if not the leading cause of middle class bankruptcies),  or you ration your care.  Thousands die each year due to the cost of private medicine in the United States. 

 

Wait times happen for elective procedures like joint replacements, etc.  If you go into the hospital with a heart attack,  you get the care.  If you go into the hospital with fingers cut off, you get the care.   If you need an ambulance and it takes you to the nearest hospital,  you don't get a bill afterwards or get told that you need to go to the hospital across town because the one you were initially sent to is out of your network. 

 

Ya, the US system is soooooo great, not.

 

Edit: I'll give a personal example.   I broke my ankle in Whistler mountain biking.   The clinics orthopedic surgeon was only available Monday to Friday, so they sent me home with a boot and crutches (I paid for).  Once home, I went to the hospital and was scheduled for surgery the next day.  I only had to wait due to where and when my injury happened, not due to waitlist rationing, like pro-private healthcare advocates fearmonger.

I'll give a couple Canadian examples of my own.

 

One family member, self employed medical professional.  Car accident, messes up neck and back.  Cannot work until surgery is done.  6 month wait.  Decides it is better to save his practice, and gets treated in Seattle within the week.

 

Best friend, tears Achilles.  4 months wait for surgery.

 

Another family member, non-urgent cancer treatment, 2 month wait.

 

I have a few others I can list, but you get the point.  Every single one of these people are in the Vancouver area.

 

Also, I'm not sure what source is providing you with the bankruptcy info, because in what I saw, there was a slight flaw.

Quote

A new study from academic researchers found that 66.5 percent of all bankruptcies were tied to medical issues —either because of high costs for care or time out of work. An estimated 530,000 families turn to bankruptcy each year because of medical issues and bills, the research found.

 

Other reasons include unaffordable mortgages or foreclosure, at 45 percent; followed by spending or living beyond one’s means, 44.4 percent; providing help to friends or relatives, 28.4 percent; student loans, 25.4 percent; or divorce or separation, 24.4 percent.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/this-is-the-real-reason-most-americans-file-for-bankruptcy.html

 

200% (total of the bolded) is a big number, and I'm sure other categories push that number higher.  While some people do get hammered on their bills, and is the largest single reason for bankruptcy as you mention, it is not the only reason given for their bankruptcy claim.

 

I do not advocate for our system to remain as it is... there are a lot of flaws that need addressing.  I just do not want to see us moving to a similar system you have now.  I'm not completely averse to the country offering coverage, especially to those that need it.  Those that want better should be able to get their choice.  Just like if I can afford a better restaurant, I should be able to go there for a healthier meal.

 

But, I should apologize.  I did derail things a bit here.  You provided some detail as to how Bernie has claimed to pay for his promises (not all are his plans, but the point is fair enough), and he has outlaid his plan more than most who promise similar things.  That was my bad to suggest otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2019 at 12:23 PM, thedestroyerofworlds said:

Here are some factors that led to this story blowing up. 

 

1)  There has been a concerted effort by MSM to smear Bernie and his campaign.

2) Leadership in the Campaign, when made aware of the issues tried to rectify the situation.  The initial proposals were rejected by the union.  This part, due to 1) was not reported.  

 

Honest reporting would know the difference between Salaried employees vs. Hourly employees.  

 

As for the bit about how to pay for everything, Medicare for all is actually cheaper than the current system when you take into account the private taxes (insurance premiums, deductibles,  co-pays), bloated administrative costs of private insurance companies, price gouging by many of the private medical companies,  etc..  A libertarian think tank study proved it, reported on last year.   The free college thing could easily be paid for by actually cutting funding to the Defense budget instead of constantly increasing it.  The Army doesn't want more tanks,  but Congress kept approving more.  There's two.  What more do you need?

Single payer medical care failed in Vermont .

One of the bluest states with population of under 700k and 95% white.

 

Anyone who thinks this could work for the rest of the country is out of their mind.

Its like not being able to swim in 3 ft kids pool and deciding that you should try Bidwell Rapids on Chilko river next.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -DLC- locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...