Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
***2020 Democrat Primary/Caucus Thread*** Biden Is Your Demoractic Nominee (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter BassNBrew
- Start date
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
Only Harris had that option in her plan.
"Unlike Sanders’s, Harris’s plan would include a substantive role for private insurers, which would still be able to offer plans under a tightly regulated system, similar to the way that private insurers currently do through Medicare Advantage.....", by year three, Warren says she’d take the final step toward single-payer and advocate for a bill to eliminate private health insurance."
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
She's doing a four part documentary series on Hulu that will show the past 50 years of her life and women's lives in general. It's amazing that she speaks for many women and that the others are left with the Republican Party as it currently stands.
As of yesterday, I’m officially registered as a Democrat. I had been without a party affiliation, and my first preference in the primary would be Bill Weld because that’s more of an anti-Trump vote than a vote for any Dem would be. But the Republican primary in California is closed, and I’m not going to register as a Republican while the Republican Party is going through its pro-dictatorship phase.
The Democratic primary is open, so I could have remained without a party affiliation and still voted for a Dem, but I’d have had to jump through extra hoops to do so. (The mailed ballot wouldn’t have included Dems, so I'd have had to physically go to the polling place on election day.)
I think both Buttigieg and Klobuchar would be excellent Presidents. I’ve been leaning toward Buttigieg, but I’m not 100% decided.
I am also really warming up to Bloomberg in reaction to the ridiculous smears against him. On an intellectual level, I understand that voting for a lesser candidate in order to spite annoying people isn’t the most mature course of action; but on an emotional level it’s somewhat compelling.
The Democratic primary is open, so I could have remained without a party affiliation and still voted for a Dem, but I’d have had to jump through extra hoops to do so. (The mailed ballot wouldn’t have included Dems, so I'd have had to physically go to the polling place on election day.)
I think both Buttigieg and Klobuchar would be excellent Presidents. I’ve been leaning toward Buttigieg, but I’m not 100% decided.
I am also really warming up to Bloomberg in reaction to the ridiculous smears against him. On an intellectual level, I understand that voting for a lesser candidate in order to spite annoying people isn’t the most mature course of action; but on an emotional level it’s somewhat compelling.
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
Who, in all earnestness I ask, is responsible for the smearing of Bloomberg? And what are the smears? The Bloomberg thread is full of his own quotes that will sink him, though I agree with you that voting to spite annoying people is somewhat compelling.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Welcome to the club! What do you view as the "ridiculous smears" against Bloomberg?
Ilov80s
Footballguy
One very short (and superficial) answer: people saying he’s as authoritarian as Trump.
The answer more salient to my thought process would involve a lot of typing I’m not going to do at the moment. But the summary is that many people seem to be bending over backwards (often unintentionally due to bias rather than intentionally due to ill will, but there is some of both) to interpret things he’s said in the least charitable way possible and, thereby, in my view, attributing sentiments to him that he likely doesn’t hold. This habit annoys me as a general principle.
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
Unless both the article that caustic linked to was quoting totally out of context and my memory is faulty, there's no reason to suggest the things he's saying aren't every bit as odious to liberty as Trump is.
WoD and strengthening the drug war, which the current President has loosened? By using examples of executions of suppliers? Can you imagine if Trump did that?
Finding new ways to interpret the Constitution so that we might track people better in their correspondence. Can you imagine if Trump did that?
CCTV for everyone?
This isn't even false equivalence -- what he is suggesting is a magnitude worse than Trump has ever broached, for all of Trump's bravado and supposed seeking of concentrations of power.
I don't know exactly what you'd classify "smear" as; they're simply restatements of what Bloomberg has said.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
First, Trump has specifically praised Duterte for his drug policies.
Second, drug policies are just so extremely inconsequential compared to democratic structural issues like wrecking the neutrality and independence of our intelligence agencies, our state department, our justice department, congressional oversight...
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
I don’t think Bloomberg has been smeared more than any other candidate. I understand that Maurile, as a libertarian, likely objects to attacks on his self-funding strategy. But I don’t think it’s a smear to point out that his strategy is to have the biggest megaphone on the street corner.
I also don’t think it’s a smear to point out his use of stop and frisk policies, much less his full-throated defense of those policies until shortly before launching his campaign. Or his comments about the financial crisis stemming from a decrease in redlining. Those are pretty provocative statements.
I also don’t think it’s out of bounds to point to evidence of the corporate culture at Bloomberg toward the end of the last century. Voters are free to conclude that it was a different time 20 years ago, but when your message is explicitly that you’re the guy who can restore gravitas and dignity to the office, it’s worth pointing out the evidence of the times you behaved like the stereotypical misogynist finance bro.
I certainly don’t think Bloomberg will be as bad as Trump, but forgive me if I set the bar a little higher than that.
I also don’t think it’s a smear to point out his use of stop and frisk policies, much less his full-throated defense of those policies until shortly before launching his campaign. Or his comments about the financial crisis stemming from a decrease in redlining. Those are pretty provocative statements.
I also don’t think it’s out of bounds to point to evidence of the corporate culture at Bloomberg toward the end of the last century. Voters are free to conclude that it was a different time 20 years ago, but when your message is explicitly that you’re the guy who can restore gravitas and dignity to the office, it’s worth pointing out the evidence of the times you behaved like the stereotypical misogynist finance bro.
I certainly don’t think Bloomberg will be as bad as Trump, but forgive me if I set the bar a little higher than that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I've read this sentence several times. And I'm trying to give it the most charitable interpretation possible. But I'm not coming up with a good way of reading it. I really, really hope I'm misunderstanding you here. Because drug policy is extraordinarily consequential to the (mostly poor and/or minority) people who have been arrested/convicted because of these policies and to their families. To make a statement like this requires a stunning level of either ignorance or callousness IMO.
rockaction
Footballguy
I guess there's a fundamental divide then, in how we see things. Wrecking the neutrality and independence of our intelligence agencies sounds like a good thing were it brought to citizen oversight rather than existing as they do now, basically shadow executive cabinets. Does anyone expect my heart to bleed for the poor, befouled NSA, CIA, FBI, and State? And congressional oversight of these and other matters? That's almost laughable. Congress has done nothing, outside of Wyden, Paul, and a few others, of rubber stamping crazy surveillance against our own country. What Congress hasn't rubber stamped has been usurped and/or been given away under procedures that likely violate the original spirit of the nondelegation doctrine. And I'm worried about those structures?
No, I'll be more concerned with domestic structures of government affected by an erroneous policy regarding drugs, drug interdiction, treatment, and legalization. Structures? Get back to me when foreign wars aren't being fought to enforce our own policies. Then I'll worry about whether Right Said Fred has less power in the executive branch.
rockaction
Footballguy
I don't think it's callous. I think Maurile is talking about structural elements of the Constitution properly and modernly understood.
I'll bow out of that and let him make the point, though. I'm only commenting because my tone was questioning and prodding, but not in a negative way, hopefully.
This is part of what I'm talking about.
I don't remember the exact quote about redlining, but ranging from least charitable to most charitable, I think what he meant could include:
"I thought redlining was great because I'm super racist."
"Certain well-intentioned legislation designed to address redlining also had unfortunate unintended consequences, such as more high-risk loans leading to more defaults."
I suspect the second sentiment is closer to his true position. But a large segment of twitter seems really eager to attribute something like the first sentiment to him.
higgins
Footballguy
Sounds like you get annoyed by critiques of Bloomberg for much the same reason I get annoyed by critiques of my preferred candidate (Bernie).
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
I can’t count the number of politicians who have, without controversy, cited high-risk loans as a cause of the financial crisis. It’s a very easy point to make without invoking redlining, a term that explicitly refers to treating racial/neighborhood characteristics as a proxy for risk.
When the same guy who says that says that you can “Xerox” a murder suspect so as to look for African American males, I just don’t see how anyone can believe it’s unfair to ask him to explain those statements. Maybe he believes, as fantasycurse believes, that this just reflects reality. But if so, we have a right to hear that.
Ruining a few hundred thousand lives due to dumb drug policies is inconsequential compared to ruining the world's largest democracy. (If Bolivia descends into dictatorship, that's a shame, but the rest of the world should still be okay. If the United States descends into dictatorship, the whole world is screwed.)
It's like when people said that Trump should have been disqualified from voters' consideration because he sexually assaulted twenty-some women (or whatever the count is). I pushed back against that as well. Even if he were to sexually assault a different woman every day for the entirety of his Presidency, that is really inconsequential compared to a 1% increased risk of nuclear war. That was the reason to disqualify him.
I don't support sexual assault. I do support ending the war on drugs. But neither one of those things matters much compared to the long-term integrity of our constitutional democracy.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
So if (Hypothetically) the candidate with the best opportunity of defeating Trump supports draconian policies like the death penalty for drug charges and has a demonstrated history of sexual assault or sweeping sexual harassment under the rug, Democrats should support that candidate?
My thoughts on this essentially mirror what Rock has already said so I'll just say thank you for taking the time to explain your thinking behind this.
In the general election? If the candidate is otherwise basically normal? Yes.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
If I may take a slightly different view of this:
If the two political parties have taken such control of this country that we can no longer vote for anything that even closely approximates what we want in leadership, laws, and governance, then the democracy has already lost its integrity. There is no functional difference in the day-to-day life of most people between living under a dictatorship and living under a system of laws created by multiple people that oppress and destroy the lives of every day people in the same way with no way to vote to change it. When you're voting to allow the President to be above the law and to violate both the bodies of the citizens and the Constitution, it's got much the same effect as voting for a dictator.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
There's a reason it's never been used. It's virtually guaranteed to be unconstitutional.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Ok, I wasn’t talking about the general election. Let’s say we have two candidates vying for the Democratic nomination. Pete Buttigieg and Evil Mirror Universe Michael Bloomberg. By the metric of your choice, head to head polls, betting markets or whatever, Pete is about a pick em against Trump and Bloomberg is a 60% favorite. We should pick Bloomberg?
I've never made that argument.
The extent to which electability in the general should be a consideration in the primary is complicated. Hypotheticals can be manufactured where electability should matter a lot. In the real world, I think it's overrated.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
I mean, Bill Clinton was admittedly awful about that stuff, but Bloomberg’s comments seem to go beyond praise of laws executing drug kingpins.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Ok, I’m just struggling to understand the consequences of what you are arguing. I like some of the current candidates better than others, but I don’t have any information to suggest that any of them represent anything close to a Trumpian level threat to Democratic governance. So we have to make our decision on other factors.
We’re not in the general election yet. We don’t have to pick the least bad option. And thank god, because if it comes down to a Giant ##### v. Turd Sandwich election, we end up with a nation of matsukis who thinks everything’s an equivalent manifestation of partisan rot.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Do Nevada caucuses have a 15% viability threshold like the Iowa caucuses did?We have a Nevada poll!
The poll was done by AARP/Review Journal, conducted Feb. 11-13:
Sanders 25%
Biden 18%
Warren 13%
Steyer 11%
Buttigieg 10%
Klobuchar 10%
Nipsey
Footballguy
May burn a sawbuck on Steyer 1000/1 to win the nom.
The poll was done by AARP/Review Journal, conducted Feb. 11-13:
Sanders 25%
Biden 18%
Warren 13%
Steyer 11%
Buttigieg 10%
Klobuchar 10%
caustic
Footballguy
Yeah, the process is very similar to the IA caucuses. There will be a first vote, a realignment, and a final vote which translates into delegates.
Last edited by a moderator:
msommer
Footballguy
Coincidence that the four oldest candidates running in NV are on top?
The poll was done by AARP/Review Journal, conducted Feb. 11-13:
Sanders 25%
Biden 18%
Warren 13%
Steyer 11%
Buttigieg 10%
Klobuchar 10%
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
When reason butts up against sentiment reason will get excoriated. Unreasonable? Certainly, but there it is. BTW, I agree with your reasoning. I also note that it does not dismiss the concerns about our drug laws and their application, it just notes that high though that concern legitimately is, it is not as high as other concerns. I know that you know this already. I post it for others maybe gathering to sharpen their knifes.
KiddLattimer
Footballguy
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
Interesting and eloquent.
I remember a now-disgraced conservative columnist who once noted the difference between politically granted freedoms, and that of real freedom. In a dictatorship, anarchy can exist in pockets yet the dictatorship may retain all the elements of humanity still subsumed to the state at its discretion. That means that while technically under the thumb of a strongman or woman, people might feasibly lead freer and more constructed everyday lives than that of someone in an officious bureaucracy. They might be happier. Point was, real freedom means freedom to act a bit unfettered, a space to breathe, a mode of thinking and way of life. Does the candidate we vote for have those basic goals, or is it one one hand Trump and on the other officious Mike.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
No that I think it’s relevant, but it’s kind of funny that the AARP did the poll. Surprised Matlock didn’t break 10%.
Navin Johnson
Footballguy
Saw that close to 110,000 Latinos have newly registered since 2016. A total of 80,000 caucused in NV four years ago.
The poll was done by AARP/Review Journal, conducted Feb. 11-13:
Sanders 25%
Biden 18%
Warren 13%
Steyer 11%
Buttigieg 10%
Klobuchar 10%
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
Not to take from the fun, but I did track this down.Wondered if they polled membership or broader.
The age demographics were: 18-24 years old (5 percent), 25-34 years old (11 percent), 35-44 years old (11 percent), 45-54 years old (13 percent), 55-64 years old (20 percent), 65-74 years old (23 percent) and 75+ (12 percent). Five percent did not give their age.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
So 55% were 55 or older. I don’t really know the demographics of Nevada but it looks like we all snarked our way into a legitimate insight. Good job, internet!
Details (not safe for children): https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/culinary-union-officials-face-profanity-laced-attacks-after-scorecard-says-sanders-would-end-their-health-careMaurile Tremblay said:
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
Just anecdotally, I am working on a claim dispute for a Medicare Advantage client this week where the total medical provider bills were just under $500,000. The Medicare Advantage plan paid about $11,000 to satisfy those claims in full. By contrast, a typical self-funded employer health plan or heath insurance plan would probably have paid at least $200,000 or more for that treatment. Granted, this is an extreme example, but it is true that Medicare pays providers far far less across the board than traditional health care plans pay for the same service.
The MAOs get the full benefit of the incredible provider agreements the fed gov has in place for Medicare, but typically tack on additional benefits and services, and they are run by Humana, UHC, etc. - bottom-line oriented for-profit entities. I think the public largely underestimates or misunderstands the reason the health care industry hates Medicare so much - its because they make less money whenever a Medicare beneficiary walks in.
Anyone who believes the cost of health care in our country is crazy out of control should be a huge fan of Medicare for everyone.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
And, in turn, hospitals still make money, in part because Medicare always pays. There are no bad debt charge-offs with Medicare so it doesn't have to be factored into the cost to Medicare.
Similar threads
