Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
seanbrock

2020 Democratic Primary Race

Recommended Posts

This isn't a direct reply to anything Thanatos said btw.. just a rant on the gerrymandering issue as a whole.

Gerrymandering is only a problem to the party who isn't doing it at the time. Look at Maryland, Virginia, New Mexico fairly recently. Back in 2006, just a 5 point lead flipped 31 seats in the House to Democrat favor. A similar lead now would give them a tad less than half that. If Democrats sweep 2020 as they should because Trump is a dumpster fire... I guarantee you gerrymandering doesn't go away. And if it does it will only be banned after the Democrats redraw districts in their favor.

And that's the big problem... Who, above political affiliation, defines what and how is "fair" in drawing districts? lol. No matter how you draw them... no matter your political affiliation -- certain districts are always going to favor one party or another.

This whole thing isn't about saying it's ok because everyone does it. But if we're looking at the problem as just a party problem (regardless of party), we won't be fixing this issue.

We need to get politics out of drawing districts. And that's where the solution really is. A few states have begun to implement nonpartisan commissions to draw districts. We haven't seen how these do just yet and will get a better idea after 2020. Maybe I am just skeptical, but I don't trust those commissions to stay nonpartisan for long. Money and corruption will eventually turn them against the people, IMO. But, I do think it's worth trying so we will see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ThanatosOk, so good post. I agree with a lot of what you said. First, the decision was awful. I think their are a lot of reasons why Republicans dominate politically though.

1. Media is controlled by massive multi-billion dollar conglomerates on the TV, radio and even the internet with YouTube, Facebook and Twitter cracking down on opposing narratives. This has resulted in the media becoming MASSIVELY right wing. (Bill Clinton helped this happen with the telecommunications act btw)

2. It's legal to buy elections. Where do you think the most money goes to? It goes to people who promote conservative foreign and economic policy regardless of party affiliation. Democrats are permitted to be socially liberal because it doesn't effect the bottom line. 

3. Now that the Democrats have abandoned their voting base they have predictably low turn out. That's what happens when you elect Dems and they turn around and ship jobs overseas. 

Gerrymandering is bad and undemocratic to be sure but the Democrats get dominated politically because they have no soul for the most part. They've helped make it so people who might organize or volunteer or even run for office are too poor and don't have the time to do so. They're controlled opposition to the batshit crazy right wing that wants to destroy the planet, start WWIII and put middle America in the poor house. They want to do all those things too but with a smile instead of a boot on the neck and if we keep blindly supporting them, they will continue to move further and further to the right.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, DalaiLama4Ever said:

This isn't a direct reply to anything Thanatos said btw.. just a rant on the gerrymandering issue as a whole.

Gerrymandering is only a problem to the party who isn't doing it at the time. Look at Maryland, Virginia, New Mexico fairly recently. Back in 2006, just a 5 point lead flipped 31 seats in the House to Democrat favor. A similar lead now would give them a tad less than half that. If Democrats sweep 2020 as they should because Trump is a dumpster fire... I guarantee you gerrymandering doesn't go away. And if it does it will only be banned after the Democrats redraw districts in their favor.

And that's the big problem... Who, above political affiliation, defines what and how is "fair" in drawing districts? lol. No matter how you draw them... no matter your political affiliation -- certain districts are always going to favor one party or another.

This whole thing isn't about saying it's ok because everyone does it. But if we're looking at the problem as just a party problem (regardless of party), we won't be fixing this issue.

We need to get politics out of drawing districts. And that's where the solution really is. A few states have begun to implement nonpartisan commissions to draw districts. We haven't seen how these do just yet and will get a better idea after 2020. Maybe I am just skeptical, but I don't trust those commissions to stay nonpartisan for long. Money and corruption will eventually turn them against the people, IMO. But, I do think it's worth trying so we will see. 

I agree we need to get politics out, but it is- at least so far- a myth that Democrats engage in gerrymandering anywhere near the same amount and to the same extreme that the GOP does.

Note that there is now nothing stopping them from doing so, if they should so wish, should they win in 2020- as you pointed out. But the idea that this is currently- or even historically- a both parties problem is simply Republican propaganda. It is the GOP that has done extreme gerrymandering at a rate far far worse than the Dems do. I'm not saying its from the goodness of their hearts, mind you, its just the Dems dont need to do so at this point to win elections. 

For the record, I agree with SteVo here, let math do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Thanatos said:

I agree we need to get politics out, but it is- at least so far- a myth that Democrats engage in gerrymandering anywhere near the same amount and to the same extreme that the GOP does.

Note that there is now nothing stopping them from doing so, if they should so wish, should they win in 2020- as you pointed out. But the idea that this is currently- or even historically- a both parties problem is simply Republican propaganda. It is the GOP that has done extreme gerrymandering at a rate far far worse than the Dems do. I'm not saying its from the goodness of their hearts, mind you, its just the Dems dont need to do so at this point to win elections. 

For the record, I agree with SteVo here, let math do it.

Is it GOP propaganda that Democrats have completely abandoned unions except for when it comes time to ask for their support?

Is it GOP propaganda that California, the bluest state in the country, is also one of the biggest fracking states and has a massive homeless epidemic.

I could go on. The Democrats lose PARTIALLY because of Gerrymandering, sure but the Democrats are supposed to be the party of the worker. Debate tickets went for 2,000 per night. They served Champagne and caviar. Let me ask you, who do you think those debates were for? Were they for teachers and electricians or were they for big money donors? Now let me ask you this, do you think those people are just altruistically giving their money to Democrats or just HOPING that they do what they say with no deals made? The fact is that the Democrats take money from fossil fuel, Pharma and insurance, defense contractors and banks. Can you explain to me how you know that and I do know that you know that but can you please just explain to me how Democrats are different from Republicans?

Democrats serve as controlled opposition. Martin Luther King Jr. himself remarked on this which has been totally white washed from history along with the majority of the man's message. All anyone knows about King is "I HAVE A DREAM" and that he was shot which is a fucking travesty.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Propaganda". Republicans are a lot more blatant about it, for sure. But I did give multiple examples of the opposite happening. AND It's not as simple as "let math do it". You can let math do it a variety of ways. MATH says that unless the Democrats gerrymander almost completely the GOP has more expected seats in SIX OF SIX possible and logical ways to break up the districts. Yet, you want to put forth the narrative that Democrats don't or don't have motivation to gerrymander. 

Obama had a Dem majority in Congress for two years... Why is gerrymandering even still an issue? Why is he... now that he is out of politics pushing to get rid of gerrymandering? Oh right... because he gerrymandered the SHIT out of Chicago and rose to power because of it. He likely never is propelled into the national spotlight if he doesn't use the broken system to his advantage. That's the eventual President of the United States. How does that not more extreme than what the GOP is doing right now? lol. 

FiveThirtyEight did a very in-depth look at this issue. It's about a year and a half old now and I can't find / don't know if they've updated it since but regardless it works as a solid baseline.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/

For example, a lot of people suggest using the proportional method... Whereas districts would be redrawn based on historical voted representatives. If Iowa, on average, voted half their seats to each party then the districts would be redrawn to make a half and half split the expected result. Likewise, if 80% of Texas' representatives are GOP members, their districts would be written to favor the GOP 8 districts out of every 10.

The proportional VS current system isn't much different. Expected GOP seats drop by 16, but the competitive seats move more towards the middle. The current system actually has more purple GOP seats than the proportional. In the end, I don't think it really changes a lot -- but perhaps slightly.

Personally, I prefer the redistricting to get as much competition as possible. Make as few seats as possible a lock for either party. It's the model with the most purple in the link above. I could go on and on as far as why I think this would be the best way to redraw districts but this post is long enough so if someone wants to engage in that debate or which other model is better in their minds -- I will expand at that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2019 at 8:14 AM, seanbrock said:

Bernie Sanders is talking about a plan that would force corporations to give employees stock in their company and also that a percentage of the boardroom is labor. That could be potentially monumental in the distribution of wealth and power in this country. 

Many corps already do this, it is great incentive for performance. I think the board-room thing is pointless in today's business climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BJORN said:

Many corps already do this, it is great incentive for performance. I think the board-room thing is pointless in today's business climate.

What makes you say that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of pandering being done already by the Dems. The responses by some of them in Spanish were a gem.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DJT20 said:

Plenty of pandering being done already by the Dems. The responses by some of them in Spanish were a gem.

Ya some of these candidates all their goal is is to “out progressive” each other. Who can offer up the most free shit !?! And most of them don’t have real plans to pay for it. 

Bernie being cornered and forced to admit that he will be raising taxes in the middle class is a big hell no from me. I can’t understand how you sit up there and talk about the top 1% of the 1% crushing everyone under them,  but then say part of your solution is to raise taxes on those being crushed by the rich. Makes no sense. 

 And he isn’t the only one but he was one of few to say he would totally abolish private insurance ?? When pushed on the issue , he said “ Canada is making it work “. Newsflash Bern, Canada still has private insurance (mostly through employers) and 2/3 of Canadians have supplemental private insurance. The dude is out of touch with reality. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DalaiLama4EverThe premiums and copays cost more for people than the tax increase would and you don't have to live in fear of a medical emergency bankrupting you or changing jobs or starting a business without losing your insurance (imagine if you had kids). What's worse is whoever you work for can just change your insurance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t need to raise the taxes on the middle class for that. Sorry, it’s a non-starter for me. 

VAT taxes and making sure the Googles and Amazons actually pay taxes would be a great way to fund that. I think Bernie has that pegged for free college or something tho. 

I’m totally for it if we can implement it right, but raising taxes on thepeople he’s trying to help and abolishing private insurance isn’t going to do it. 

I don’t know the numbers but I have to imagine there are a lot of people like me out there as well...low middle class, has employer health insurance and (thank God) doesn’t have to use it. 

Thats part of the reason insurance companies are so profitable... you have 100 million paying in... only 10 million legitimately use it enough to even remotely make it worth it. (Fake stats, just using them to demonstrate the point).

Again, idk how many people fall under that same umbrella as me but I get totally fucked by Bernie’s plan. I’m all for the common good but throw me a bone at the least or lube up first. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of this democratic field supports ideas that they say raid rich people's wallets, but in the end will end up raiding all of our wallets to pay for. 

Get behind Tulsi, folks. Fuck these other worthless clowns. 

 

FTR, I fully support Yang's UBI if wellfare and and other social support systems shrink drastically as a result. But he doesn't have a shot at the nomination, so it's irrelevant 

Edited by BwareDWare94
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2019 at 3:42 PM, DJT20 said:

Plenty of pandering being done already by the Dems. The responses by some of them in Spanish were a gem.

Sup Phil. Ever gonna get around to paying up on the bet you made with blots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 7:45 PM, DalaiLama4Ever said:

Don’t need to raise the taxes on the middle class for that. Sorry, it’s a non-starter for me. 

Even if it results in health care that costs less and is a net savings for all of America? Again, instead of co-pays and premiums you pay taxes (which would be less). Also, like I mentioned, you could start your own business or change jobs without worrying about your health care because it would be guaranteed as a right for all. It's not like Bernie just wants to write a blank check here to Pharma either. He's actually been working across the aisle with guys like Rand Paul to make drugs more affordable. Don't you think it's fucked up that you can go bankrupt if you get cancer? You're never going to live in a world where that doesn't happen so long as private companies profit off of denying coverage. Never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, seanbrock said:

Even if it results in health care that costs less and is a net savings for all of America? Again, instead of co-pays and premiums you pay taxes (which would be less). Also, like I mentioned, you could start your own business or change jobs without worrying about your health care because it would be guaranteed as a right for all. It's not like Bernie just wants to write a blank check here to Pharma either. He's actually been working across the aisle with guys like Rand Paul to make drugs more affordable. Don't you think it's fucked up that you can go bankrupt if you get cancer? You're never going to live in a world where that doesn't happen so long as private companies profit off of denying coverage. Never.

Bro, this conversation is going to go back and forth without much resolution unless we can make some progress.

I've said multiple times. I am totally fine with medicare for all -- IF WE DO IT RIGHT. That whole, " do you think it's fucked up that people can go bankrupt if you get cancer " is just rhetoric on your part. Bernie not even knowing that Canada still has private health insurance is mind boggling and tells me he is just reciting the same drivel over and over. He doesn't actually KNOW anything. Health coverage is an important issue to you, yet you're okay with Bernie running around to ONE HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION PEOPLE and telling them that they are going to be switching plans and that they can keep their doctors and hospitals? Sorry... stop me if you've heard this before. 

Also, who says the actual tax cost will be less than the copay/premiums? Bernie...? Who is on a debate stage, and didn't even say that until he was pushed over and over to admit he was bending over the middle class? Right. Who does that caveat apply to? All people? What if Sanders can't abolish private insurance because of Congress? Do those with employer insurance still get the benefits of Bernie's plan? (No, they don't). Would they still pay the increased taxes even though they aren't getting any benefit? (Yes, they would). 

Bloomberg.com looked at Bernie's plan and to cover the cost we're looking at a $10,000 increase per capita. THAT IS INSANE. Granted, that 10k per person would be at a progressive rate (the rich paying more per person) but how much is that going to leave me at? 8K dollars? 5k? 3k? 

Quote

For example, a person making $50,000 with employer-sponsored coverage spends about $5,250 annually on health care, meaning that under Sanders’s plan, her or his taxes would be nearly double the person’s current health care costs. If that person bought her or his own insurance, it would cost about $10,000, equalizing the $10,000 tax increase.

Quote

 

Those on Medicaid, the government-sponsored insurance program for the poor, are likely to see their tax burdens rise far beyond their current health spending, Riedl said. A family of four earning $30,000 spends about $1,200 annually on health costs, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates.

Sanders’ plan also assumes that health providers will be reimbursed at Medicare rates, about 40% below what they receive from private insurers. Health care experts question whether a cut this large is feasible, meaning that the cost for Medicare for All could be even higher.

 

We can not tax ourselves into prosperity. We CAN NOT. 

I am not trying to convince you to turn on Bernie. All I want is to give you a perspective that you do not have at this time. Bernie Sanders' version of medicare for all very likely hurts more than it helps and that is not acceptable. Find another way.

EDIT: Don't you love that last tidbit too? For this to work, Bernie is expecting health providers to cut their payments by almost half. LOLOLOLOLOLOL. That's a joke. Health care is about to get A LOT more expensive if Bernie is ever elected and gets this legislation through. 

Let's all pray that never happens.

Edited by DalaiLama4Ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mondoweiss.net/2019/07/overwhelmingly-opposing-beginning/amp/

I cannot even begin to describe how disappointed I am to see that Tulsi Gabbard apparently doesn't value free speech. Israel has way too much power over our government. I'm voting Green Party. This is bullshit because Bernie sucks in Israel too. He has at least gotten better. Idk man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're a single issue voter?  This really does nothing. And Israel didn't have power they're just a very close ally,  as they should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Omerta said:

So you're a single issue voter?  This really does nothing. And Israel didn't have power they're just a very close ally,  as they should be.

Political corruption is a big issue for me and singing onto an AIPAC resolution is just an absolute non starter for me. Also, you're smoking crack if you don't think the Israeli lobby has power in this country. There are people being forced to sign anti-BDS pledges as a condition of employment for teaching jobs in Texas and we're not talking about private schools. We're talking tax funded public schools. The fact that there's even talk about curbing free speech rights to protect Israel's economy should be all you need to know that Israel has way too much power. 

Israel is trying to get us into war with Iran. Adleson gave Trump hundreds of millions of dollars to put us at the brink of WWIII. They have a lot of Democrats and media organizations in their pocket too. Israel is NOT our friend.

I also don't view this as a single issue. It's about corruption and money in politics but it's also about human rights and democracy. Israel is an evil apartheid state. End of story.

Edited by seanbrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah we will have to agree to disagree. Sure we listen but its not like they are trying to rig a primary here. 

 

And they are indeed our friend, one of the few we have. Just because Omar and Talib doesn't like it does not mean it's true. And your definitely over dramatizing it. Iran is a nobody militarily. Them and their allies would get monkey stomped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Omerta said:

Yeah we will have to agree to disagree. Sure we listen but its not like they are trying to rig a primary here. 

 

And they are indeed our friend, one of the few we have. Just because Omar and Talib doesn't like it does not mean it's true. And your definitely over dramatizing it. Iran is a nobody militarily. Them and their allies would get monkey stomped.

I have been consistent on this issue long before Talib and Omar were elected lol.  Also, even if going to war with Iran doesn't result in WWIII we're still going to be spending trillions murdering innocent people instead of fixing the numerous issues that we have in our own fucking country. How about we get everyone health care instead of murdering people for the MIC and fossil fuel companies to profit?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

Just wanted to add that

Edited by seanbrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×