ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING! , 2020 elections , democratic party , presidential candidates

Closed Thread
Old 23rd September 2019, 01:54 PM   #1081
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,654
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
With the Ukraine/Hunter Biden angle, do we all agree that Joe Biden's campaign is dead in the water?
I've been calling it for months, but we're now at the stage where thinking Biden has any chance may as well break out the healing crystals and get the positivity potpourri cooking.

Momentum wins nominations - and the evidence is abundantly clear, unless people don't remember Obama's and Trump's campaigns.

Biden's momentum is all the wrong way, while Liz is on the up, and strongly.

A smart party would see every known Democrat coalescing behind Warren and saying "This is who we need" and concentrate on beating the pulsating piece of human waste in the White House.

Also, she needs to get my bae Lizzo on stage with her. All bases covered.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 02:03 PM   #1082
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Wall Street is really upset about the prospect of the "two cents on each dollar of wealth over $50 million" tax, looks like:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/inves...153648886.html
Quote:
Investors and analysts have voiced unease at the prospect of a Warren presidency. In July, for example, KBW said a Warren Wall Street plan hinted at “central planning.” In an April survey conducted by RBC, investors viewed Warren as the least stocks-friendly Democratic candidate, edging out Senator Bernie Sanders by 51% to 38%.

“The ultimate irony” is that Trump may be “going after the wrong opponent,” Valliere said. “His scorched Earth assault on Biden comes as the former vice president is slipping into second place in the fight to win the nomination. Warren is the candidate Trump needs to worry about; simply calling her ‘Pocahontas’ will not be sufficient to stop her momentum.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 02:13 PM   #1083
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,654
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Wall Street is really upset about the prospect of the "two cents on each dollar of wealth over $50 million" tax, looks like:

Warren is the candidate Trump needs to worry about; simply calling her ‘Pocahontas’ will not be sufficient to stop her momentum.”
It's all adding up.

Can we get a range of hats with Make America Liz! on them.

In fact, an even better option would be to embrace "Pocahontas" and get hats with that embroided on them, or: Pocahontas coming to get yo fat white ass!
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 02:23 PM   #1084
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I've been calling it for months, but we're now at the stage where thinking Biden has any chance may as well break out the healing crystals and get the positivity potpourri cooking.

Momentum wins nominations - and the evidence is abundantly clear, unless people don't remember Obama's and Trump's campaigns.

Biden's momentum is all the wrong way, while Liz is on the up, and strongly.
He has no chance of getting the 50+% needed to win the nomination outright.

How it could go down at a contested convention, of if Sanders drops out right before or early in the primaries is up in the air, though, to some extent.

One recent poll has Biden beating Warren in a 2 way race:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox...ber-15-17-2019


...and another has Warren beating Biden in a 2 way race.
https://www.fairvote.org/democratic_...unner_rankings
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 04:14 PM   #1085
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 19,690
Trump telling lies on Biden and his son was a golden gift that Joe didn't take. He could have hit Trump, gone for the jugular and thereby "assumed the close", defining this as a race between the two.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 06:21 PM   #1086
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,654
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
One recent poll has Biden beating Warren in a 2 way race:
If the vote was next week, it might matter.

Take a look where it was only a couple of weeks ago - Warren's vote is climbing fast, while Joe's losing and Sanders is stagnant.

If she's in front and they don't pick her, I'd advise betting heavily on 4 more years of Trumpistan.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 07:31 PM   #1087
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 79,918
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
It's going to be really hard to credibly argue that there's nothing at all wrong with Hunter getting a $50k a month job at a Ukrainian gas company after his dad helped back a coup and was then partially in charge of US policy there.

The whole "but her emails" thing was merely stupid. This sort of quasi-legal corruption is genuinely problematic.

This is also worth remembering:

https://www.ft.com/content/c98078d0-...1-d87a9fea034f
Behind a paywall.

This is not what reports say Trump currently accuses Biden of doing.

Biden (and I assume Obama) wanted Ukraine to fire a corrupt prosecutor, trying to decrease corruption in the Ukraine. Supposedly EU leaders wanted the prosecutor gone as well. The charge is that this prosecutor was investigating the company Biden's son was working for.

But it turns out that investigation was over already.

I'll have to look into your find. It wasn't mentioned in the sources I read.
__________________
Trump Lied, People Died What color hat should I order with that logo? I think red on black.

Space Force.
Because feeding poor people is socialism.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 23rd September 2019 at 07:54 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 08:55 PM   #1088
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Behind a paywall.

This is not what reports say Trump currently accuses Biden of doing.
What Trump's accusing Biden of doing is total BS, almost for sure. Biden did pressure the Ukraine to fire Shorkin, but there's no reason to believe he did so to protect Hunter. Shorkin was just exceedingly corrupt.

Quote:
Biden (and I assume Obama) wanted Ukraine to fire a corrupt prosecutor, trying to decrease corruption in the Ukraine. Supposedly EU leaders wanted the prosecutor gone as well. The charge is that this prosecutor was investigating the company Biden's son was working for.

But it turns out that investigation was over already.

I'll have to look into your find. It wasn't mentioned in the sources I read.
Correct on all accounts.

The Ukraine WAS interfering (or attempting to interfere) in the 2016 US election...only verified in the form of paying Manafort, (uncovered/confirmed later by Mueller, of course.)

It looks like Ukrainian politicians overwhelmingly backed Clinton, since Trump was so pro-Russia, and some were were trying to buy off/buy influence in the Trump camp, too....in the same way Trump and co are playing both sides with Russia and the Ukraine.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 09:04 PM   #1089
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 79,918
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
What Trump's accusing Biden of doing is total BS, almost for sure. Biden did pressure the Ukraine to fire Shorkin, but there's no reason to believe he did so to protect Hunter. Shorkin was just exceedingly corrupt.
You're repeating what I just said.



Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
....
The Ukraine WAS interfering (or attempting to interfere) in the 2016 US election...only verified in the form of paying Manafort, (uncovered/confirmed later by Mueller, of course.)

It looks like Ukrainian politicians overwhelmingly backed Clinton, since Trump was so pro-Russia, and some were were trying to buy off/buy influence in the Trump camp, too....in the same way Trump and co are playing both sides with Russia and the Ukraine.
I haven't seen evidence of this. Manafort was an agent of the Ukraine before he ever joined the Trump campaign.
__________________
Trump Lied, People Died What color hat should I order with that logo? I think red on black.

Space Force.
Because feeding poor people is socialism.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 09:22 PM   #1090
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You're repeating what I just said.
I was agreeing with you.


Quote:
I haven't seen evidence of this.
You haven't seen evidence of what?

eta:
Quote:
Manafort was an agent of the Ukraine before he ever joined the Trump campaign.
My bad...it does look like Manafort was getting payment way back in 2005?
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

Last edited by kellyb; 23rd September 2019 at 09:26 PM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 11:13 PM   #1091
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,497
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
With the Ukraine/Hunter Biden angle, do we all agree that Joe Biden's campaign is dead in the water?
Not really. Like him or not (he's among my least favorites), he still has a strong base that for now really doesn't have another place to go - although this could change once we get to the point where people seriously start to pay attention.

Meanwhile, I see that the Buttigieg police story I've been talking about has started breaking through. *He's* a dead man walking, and truthfully always was, as I said months ago when I first heard rumors of something very ugly going on. At the very best, he was easily fooled by a handful of racist cops and donors, at worst he was a part of it. Either way, not a good look, particularly for the older black people that make up the core of the dem's base, GOTV efforts, and so forth.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 05:38 AM   #1092
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
New national poll has Warren leading:
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release...ReleaseID=3641
Quote:
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is essentially tied with former Vice President Joe Biden in today's Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea-ack) University national poll. Warren gets 27 percent of the vote while Biden gets 25 percent of Democratic voters and independent voters who lean Democratic.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 05:46 AM   #1093
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 11,441
Too soon...
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 09:09 AM   #1094
SuburbanTurkey
Illuminator
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Norwood, MA
Posts: 3,310
Bernie's town hall on the failures of our US medical system was gut wrenching. It is not for the faint of heart, all stories of misery inflicted on people due to our insane privatized health system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=o3NcYzH3nNI

About 25 minutes in, a man describes that his late wife hid her cancer diagnosis from him until she was on death's door to spare him the stress and financial ruin of treatment.

How any Democratic candidate can be against single payer is a mystery to me.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 08:40 PM   #1095
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,789
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
If she's in front and they don't pick her, I'd advise betting heavily on 4 more years of Trumpistan.
It's waaaaay to early to be reaching that conclusion. It's ~100 days to Iowa and A LOT can happen in the interim.

BTW, I am a Warren fan so don't misread this post.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 08:51 PM   #1096
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,789
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Look at the audience. It's whiter than flour.

It is really stupid that Iowa plays such a prominent role in presidential politics. I hope that some day (probably in the far future) a saner, more representative method of holding primary races is put in place. One essential part of any improvement must be the elimination of using a caucus to decide who the state's votes go to. S.T.U.P.I.D.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 09:00 PM   #1097
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,501
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
Not really. Like him or not (he's among my least favorites), he still has a strong base that for now really doesn't have another place to go - although this could change once we get to the point where people seriously start to pay attention.

Meanwhile, I see that the Buttigieg police story I've been talking about has started breaking through. *He's* a dead man walking, and truthfully always was, as I said months ago when I first heard rumors of something very ugly going on. At the very best, he was easily fooled by a handful of racist cops and donors, at worst he was a part of it. Either way, not a good look, particularly for the older black people that make up the core of the dem's base, GOTV efforts, and so forth.
I don't buy the latter conclusion. AT ALL. What I do believe is that he was a relatively new mayor who instinctively sided with the cops. I like him a lot. But he didn't stand a chance.

To the best of my knowledge an openly gay man has never won a statewide election in any of the 50 states. Demonstrate to me that an openly gay man can win a statewide election before you ask me to risk a national election.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 09:56 PM   #1098
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,024
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
New national poll has Warren leading:
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release...ReleaseID=3641
In a more localized poll...

Elizabeth Warren surges ahead of Biden, Sanders in California primary poll


Quote:
A new poll released by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies reports that, for the first time this season, Sen. Elizabeth Warren leads all Democratic candidates, with 29% of Californians likely to vote saying they would choose her from the Democratic field. This is an 11-point rise for Warren since June, the last time the UC Berkeley IGS published poll results.

That number rises to 68% when participants are asked which candidates they are giving at least some consideration to supporting in the Democratic primary. That’s 22 and 23 points higher than the next-highest Democratic candidates, former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders, respectively.
For reference, the top three contenders are

Quote:
Elizabeth Warren 29
Joe Biden 20
Bernie Sanders 19
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 09:58 PM   #1099
rdaneel
Illuminator
 
rdaneel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: I'M IN THE PHONEBOOK! I'M SOMEBODY!!!
Posts: 3,858
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I don't buy the latter conclusion. AT ALL. What I do believe is that he was a relatively new mayor who instinctively sided with the cops. I like him a lot. But he didn't stand a chance.

To the best of my knowledge an openly gay man has never won a statewide election in any of the 50 states. Demonstrate to me that an openly gay man can win a statewide election before you ask me to risk a national election.
Meet Colorado Governor Jared Polis.
__________________
"Let me guess, my theories appall you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters, and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
"I heard some things I can't prove from someone I don't know, and God dammit, that's enough for me." - Penny Arcade
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from Science!" - Agatha Heterodyne
rdaneel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 11:50 PM   #1100
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 4,069
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I don't buy the latter conclusion. AT ALL. What I do believe is that he was a relatively new mayor who instinctively sided with the cops. I like him a lot. But he didn't stand a chance.
Exactly. Everyone in Indiana who paid attention knows Buttigieg was in his late 20s as mayor. He was young fresh eager to please, perhaps a bit too eager.

The cops led him blind, if you like. I don't buy that he was complicit.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th September 2019, 01:15 AM   #1101
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,540
Biden's still got his firewall in South Carolina. And now that Warren has moved up in the polls, she will start getting extra scrutiny by the media, which is always looking to provide the sine-wave coverage necessary to make the horse race more interesting.

Warren has benefited from pretty positive political coverage since the DNA fiasco died down. She's been releasing detailed position papers on every issue under the sun, as the media keep telling us.

But the minute the media decide she is the front-runner, they will turn on her.

Bernie may not be going anywhere. Yet. But he needs to draw to an inside straight at this point. His lane has been taken by Warren.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th September 2019, 02:44 AM   #1102
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
But the minute the media decide she is the front-runner, they will turn on her.
The "liberal media"?

lol
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th September 2019, 04:10 AM   #1103
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,913
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
Look at the audience. It's whiter than flour.

It is really stupid that Iowa plays such a prominent role in presidential politics. I hope that some day (probably in the far future) a saner, more representative method of holding primary races is put in place. One essential part of any improvement must be the elimination of using a caucus to decide who the state's votes go to. S.T.U.P.I.D.
I'm not too familiar with how caucuses work here. Can you explain how it's S.T.U.P.I.D.?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th September 2019, 05:44 AM   #1104
SuburbanTurkey
Illuminator
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Norwood, MA
Posts: 3,310
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I'm not too familiar with how caucuses work here. Can you explain how it's S.T.U.P.I.D.?
Caucuses are terrible. Basically, rather than just casting ballots, a candidate is selected by whoever can accumulate the most standing bodies of supporters. If you wanted to participate in the primary, you have to show up the caucus and aggregate with fellow supporters. Speeches are given to try to persuade undecided attendees. Candidate supporters harangue each other as they try to build up majorities. Delegates are assigned based on final head counts of each candidates supporters. It can take multiple hours and is generally a huge pain in the ass to be involved in.

Caucuses generally have lower turnout than just ordinary voting and tends to prefer candidates with more ardent fanbases who are willing to put up with this terrible system. Regular people who aren't super enthusiastic see this clown-show and decide they'd rather spend their day anywhere else and are excluded from the process.

There's really nothing a caucus does that can't be done better by another system, such as ranked choice voting, and the negatives are quite stark.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 26th September 2019 at 05:45 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th September 2019, 09:58 AM   #1105
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,784
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Caucuses are terrible. Basically, rather than just casting ballots, a candidate is selected by whoever can accumulate the most standing bodies of supporters. If you wanted to participate in the primary, you have to show up the caucus and aggregate with fellow supporters. Speeches are given to try to persuade undecided attendees. Candidate supporters harangue each other as they try to build up majorities. Delegates are assigned based on final head counts of each candidates supporters. It can take multiple hours and is generally a huge pain in the ass to be involved in.

Caucuses generally have lower turnout than just ordinary voting and tends to prefer candidates with more ardent fanbases who are willing to put up with this terrible system. Regular people who aren't super enthusiastic see this clown-show and decide they'd rather spend their day anywhere else and are excluded from the process.

There's really nothing a caucus does that can't be done better by another system, such as ranked choice voting, and the negatives are quite stark.
I'm still not seeing the negatives. I mean, there's obvious drawbacks to caucuses, but nothing that says, "flawed outcomes". It just sounds like a pain in the ass way to get a decent outcome.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th September 2019, 10:35 AM   #1106
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,139
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Bernie's town hall on the failures of our US medical system was gut wrenching.
...
How any Democratic candidate can be against single payer is a mystery to me.
(Hope this isn't too much of a rehash of stuff that's been discussed at various places on the forum)

To me the big problem is how people define 'single payer'.

Some people think 'single payer' is simply equivalent to 'universal coverage', meaning some people may have private insurance, but some sort of public support will be there to fill in the gaps.

But that's not what Sanders is proposing... instead, he's suggesting getting rid of all private insurance, and forcing everyone into one system. (To me, that's a more accurate definition of 'single payer'.) Which, in my opinion, is an incredibly dumb way to do it. The best health care systems in the world seem to have a mixed public/private system. On the other hand, the one country with a health care system closest to Sander's plan is Canada, a country with significant problems with waiting lists.

The U.S. health care system needs to be fixed. The question is the best way to fix it, and there are better models to follow than the Canadian "single payer" system.

Not only would Sander's plan be emulating a system which has some major flaws, it would also probably be politically unpopular. Most people want universal coverage, but only a minority support ending private insurance. Sander's plan would give the republicans plenty to attack.

From: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...vate-insurance
Sixty-seven percent of registered voters support allowing people under 65 to have an option to buy health care coverage through a Medicare program, while keeping private insurance options available...Less than half of registered voters, 41 percent, support a single-payer Medicare for All system that would eliminate the private health insurance...

From:
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th September 2019, 10:43 AM   #1107
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,540
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm still not seeing the negatives. I mean, there's obvious drawbacks to caucuses, but nothing that says, "flawed outcomes". It just sounds like a pain in the ass way to get a decent outcome.
Well, the Democrats are all about making voting easier. Pain in the ass is definitely the opposite of easy.

I think the caucuses serve a useful purpose; they gauge not just whom the voters prefer, but the depth of that commitment. If you're willing to go out on a cold Iowa January evening and put up with the speeches by candidate surrogates and run the risk that your candidate will fail to get 15%, in which case you have the option to leave or support a different candidate, then obviously you are really committed.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th September 2019, 10:53 AM   #1108
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,784
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Well, the Democrats are all about making voting easier. Pain in the ass is definitely the opposite of easy.
I tend to make a distinction between "voting" as a democratic process involving citizens as such, and "selecting the party's nominee", which is an internal party matter that may or may not involve votes of some sort. I don't think it's inconsistent for a party to want to make "voting" easier, but still prefer a more complicated or awkward process for "selecting the party's nominee".

Quote:
I think the caucuses serve a useful purpose; they gauge not just whom the voters prefer, but the depth of that commitment. If you're willing to go out on a cold Iowa January evening and put up with the speeches by candidate surrogates and run the risk that your candidate will fail to get 15%, in which case you have the option to leave or support a different candidate, then obviously you are really committed.
As someone who firmly believes that an abstention is just as much a vote as a marked ballot, I feel like caucuses are probably not a problem. I don't have to be enthusiastic about the candidates for nomination. I just have to feel like the party is doing an acceptable job muddling through with the serious fanbase, and I'll be alright with whatever nominee they pick. And if that ever changes, I always have the option of getting out there and caucusing myself (if you want a job done right...) or switching to a party with a better track record of nominating candidates I like.

Though, I might not even have to bother switching parties. If the other party is producing better candidates, I can simply let them carry on, and then vote for their nominee in the actual election.

So I don't really see a problem with caucuses. Except in the "looks like a pain in the ass, so I'll leave it to the hardcore party fans" sense.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th September 2019, 10:53 AM   #1109
SuburbanTurkey
Illuminator
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Norwood, MA
Posts: 3,310
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm still not seeing the negatives. I mean, there's obvious drawbacks to caucuses, but nothing that says, "flawed outcomes". It just sounds like a pain in the ass way to get a decent outcome.
It makes participation difficult for average people. The point of any electoral process should be to get an accurate accounting of the will of the people. Caucuses have a heavy bias towards highly enthusiastic voters and are a poor representation of the average voter who might not be willing to engage in such a raucous, time consuming, and unpleasant event. A candidate selected this way may not actually be one that is general favorite of the party, but just the favorite of the several very enthusiastic factions.

Participating in a caucus pretty much means spending the day at the polls. Not everyone is able or willing to take off work and spend precious time that way, where many more may be willing to drop off a ballot during their lunch break.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 26th September 2019 at 11:03 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th September 2019, 11:09 AM   #1110
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,088
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm still not seeing the negatives. I mean, there's obvious drawbacks to caucuses, but nothing that says, "flawed outcomes". It just sounds like a pain in the ass way to get a decent outcome.
One positive is that they're usually a form of ranked choice with multiple rounds: If your candidate gets eliminated, you go stand with another group. You keep eliminating the smallest group until someone has a majority.

Last edited by WilliamSeger; 26th September 2019 at 11:13 AM.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th September 2019, 11:15 AM   #1111
SuburbanTurkey
Illuminator
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Norwood, MA
Posts: 3,310
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
(Hope this isn't too much of a rehash of stuff that's been discussed at various places on the forum)

To me the big problem is how people define 'single payer'.

Some people think 'single payer' is simply equivalent to 'universal coverage', meaning some people may have private insurance, but some sort of public support will be there to fill in the gaps.

But that's not what Sanders is proposing... instead, he's suggesting getting rid of all private insurance, and forcing everyone into one system. (To me, that's a more accurate definition of 'single payer'.) Which, in my opinion, is an incredibly dumb way to do it. The best health care systems in the world seem to have a mixed public/private system. On the other hand, the one country with a health care system closest to Sander's plan is Canada, a country with significant problems with waiting lists.

The U.S. health care system needs to be fixed. The question is the best way to fix it, and there are better models to follow than the Canadian "single payer" system.

Not only would Sander's plan be emulating a system which has some major flaws, it would also probably be politically unpopular. Most people want universal coverage, but only a minority support ending private insurance. Sander's plan would give the republicans plenty to attack.

From: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...vate-insurance
Sixty-seven percent of registered voters support allowing people under 65 to have an option to buy health care coverage through a Medicare program, while keeping private insurance options available...Less than half of registered voters, 41 percent, support a single-payer Medicare for All system that would eliminate the private health insurance...

From:
How serious is this Canadian wait problem? My cursory research seems to indicate longer waits are only common for major, non-emergency surgeries. So yeah, a joint replacement might take a few months. That's unpleasant, but not life threatening.

Comparisons to the US system always have a major data hole, which is the uninsured who simply are not receiving services that they need. Someone who cannot afford a non-emergency procedure simply never gets it, so their waiting time is basically forever. This isn't considered a "wait time", because they are electing not to have a procedure, though that election is driven by lack of funds. Plenty of uninsured people simply never treat their chronic issues, because there is not duty to treat non-life threatening, non-emergency problems without payment up front.

I imagine that in the US, if we were ever to have universal medical care such as Bernie suggests, our medical system would be heavily overtaxed because so many people who previously had no access would enter the system all at once. I don't see this as an indictment of such a scheme, but rather an indictment of our current scheme that leaves so many without needed care. The medical system will have to grow and the short term may be a bit rocky until it can catch up.

A buy into medicare system strikes me as non-optimal. Unless you start allowing for rejection of pre-existing conditions, why wouldn't people just opt out until they need medical care? If the goal is to cover the medical risks for the entire US population, the simplest route is to just tax the general population like we do for other universal services and provide it. The added layer of insurance bureaucracy does not add value.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 26th September 2019 at 11:17 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th September 2019, 11:29 AM   #1112
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,913
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Caucuses are terrible. Basically, rather than just casting ballots, a candidate is selected by whoever can accumulate the most standing bodies of supporters. If you wanted to participate in the primary, you have to show up the caucus and aggregate with fellow supporters. Speeches are given to try to persuade undecided attendees. Candidate supporters harangue each other as they try to build up majorities. Delegates are assigned based on final head counts of each candidates supporters. It can take multiple hours and is generally a huge pain in the ass to be involved in.

Caucuses generally have lower turnout than just ordinary voting and tends to prefer candidates with more ardent fanbases who are willing to put up with this terrible system. Regular people who aren't super enthusiastic see this clown-show and decide they'd rather spend their day anywhere else and are excluded from the process.

There's really nothing a caucus does that can't be done better by another system, such as ranked choice voting, and the negatives are quite stark.
Thanks for the summary. Sounds like a pretty sucky system.

Americans don't seem to understand how to conduct democracy, ironically enough.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm still not seeing the negatives. I mean, there's obvious drawbacks to caucuses, but nothing that says, "flawed outcomes". It just sounds like a pain in the ass way to get a decent outcome.
Drawbacks aren't negatives?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th September 2019, 11:30 AM   #1113
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,784
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Thanks for the summary. Sounds like a pretty sucky system.



Americans don't seem to understand how to conduct democracy, ironically enough.







Drawbacks aren't negatives?
Already addressed.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th September 2019, 11:33 AM   #1114
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,913
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
How serious is this Canadian wait problem?
Very. But as you say, only for non-emergencies. The problem is that the long wait times means that something that's not serious may become serious if left untreated for too long, and some cancers can similarily go undetected until it's too late.

But sure, if you need an emergency surgery you'll get it right away at no cost.

It's not a bad system per se. It's just really poorly managed, with politics and doctors' unions being prime culprits.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th September 2019, 11:34 AM   #1115
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,913
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Already addressed.
A simple yes or no would've been quicker.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th September 2019, 11:41 AM   #1116
SuburbanTurkey
Illuminator
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Norwood, MA
Posts: 3,310
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Very. But as you say, only for non-emergencies. The problem is that the long wait times means that something that's not serious may become serious if left untreated for too long, and some cancers can similarily go undetected until it's too late.

But sure, if you need an emergency surgery you'll get it right away at no cost.

It's not a bad system per se. It's just really poorly managed, with politics and doctors' unions being prime culprits.
Not sure how this compares to other countries with universal coverage, but this is almost certainly preferable to the American system.

The big attack point is that people who have good coverage now might see a decline is service quality, such as longer waits. But the upside is that people who are getting no service will be granted access.

It's not a question of rationing and managing care, because that is already happening in every system. In Canada, there are wait times. In the US, poor people don't get medical care.

I think a big upside of a Canadian system is that everyone is in the same boat, so to speak. In the US, social programs that only benefit the poor have a funny way of getting gutted over time. Social programs that are universal tend to be popular and more protected. If there is a problem with a universal social program, there is widespread pressure from the electorate to have it fixed.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 26th September 2019 at 11:45 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th September 2019, 11:47 AM   #1117
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 47,868
At this moment you have to wonder if some of the candidates are really running for Vice President....
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th September 2019, 11:49 AM   #1118
SuburbanTurkey
Illuminator
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Norwood, MA
Posts: 3,310
2008 Iowa caucus of the mostly three way race between Obama, Edwards, and Clinton. You can see why so many voters want no part of this trainwreck:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnh-136QqO8
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th September 2019, 11:50 AM   #1119
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,139
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Quote:
The U.S. health care system needs to be fixed. The question is the best way to fix it, and there are better models to follow than the Canadian "single payer" system.

Not only would Sander's plan be emulating a system which has some major flaws, it would also probably be politically unpopular. Most people want universal coverage, but only a minority support ending private insurance. Sander's plan would give the republicans plenty to attack.
How serious is this Canadian wait problem?
I guess it depends on whether you're one of the people that's stuck on the wait list.

There was actually a case before the supreme court of Canada where someone sued the government over being stuck on a wait list... he won the case when they found it violated the provincial charter of rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaoulli_v_Quebec_(AG)

Now the thing about Canada is that we don't have a single health care system... we have multiple systems (one for each province), so different provinces will have different issues with wait lists, depending on location.
Quote:
My cursory research seems to indicate longer waits are only common for major, non-emergency surgeries. So yeah, a joint replacement might take a few months. That's unpleasant, but not life threatening.
Yes, emergencies do get handled quickly. But even non-emergencies can be serious. They can impact quality of life and even cause premature death.

You casually dismiss a joint replacement delay as 'unpleasant' but if you're under severe pain because of it you might not be so happy.

I'm a perfect example: Earlier this year, I went to the doctor for a routine visit (get the oil changed, rotate the tires, etc.) I brought up 2 issues: a skin growth that has been increasing in size (doc said it should be biopsied as it could be cancerous), and an issue where I stop breathing at night (possible sleep apnea, which has been linked to premature death). It took over 6 months for them to contact me to set up an appointment with a dermatologist. By the time I actually have the appointment, it will have been almost 10 months... and that's just for the initial consult. It may be over a year before I actually get treated. And the possible sleep apnea? Still haven't been scheduled for a sleep study.

I also have a cousin who (possibly) tore a ligament. He was on the waiting list for an MRI for months in order to get diagnosed.

Quote:
Comparisons to the US system always have a major data hole, which is the uninsured who simply are not receiving services that they need.
Actually the biggest problem here is that whenever I bring up the problems with Canada's health care system, they always jump in to compare it to the United States.

Once again: I am not comparing the Canadian system to the American system. I am comparing the Canadian system to places like the U.K., which mix private and public systems, with better results than Canada's system.

I'm not saying "Keep your American system the way it is". (I'm acknowledging your system largely sucks.) I'm saying "Don't replace it with the second worst system... replace it with one of the better systems".

Quote:
A buy into medicare system strikes me as non-optimal. Unless you start allowing for rejection of pre-existing conditions, why wouldn't people just opt out until they need medical care? If the goal is to cover the medical risks for the entire US population, the simplest route is to just tax the general population like we do for other universal services and provide it. The added layer of insurance bureaucracy does not add value.
Allowing people the option to buy private insurance gives a health care system flexibility.... if someone wants to wait for treatment on the public system they can; if someone thinks "Its better for my state of mind to get faster treatment" they can go private. Not everyone has the same mind-set when it comes to their financial and life priorities.

And governments are often slow to react to changes in health care technology. (Canada often lags behind the U.S. in certain treatments.)

Plus, put it this way: Lets say Sanders gets his way and you have a fully funded single-payer health care system. A decade down the road, the republicans (under, lets say, Paul Ryan) get elected. He now gets to decide what to fund and how much. Would you really want to be in the situation where your health care is dependent on him?
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th September 2019, 11:57 AM   #1120
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,913
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Not sure how this compares to other countries with universal coverage, but this is almost certainly preferable to the American system.

The big attack point is that people who have good coverage now might see a decline is service quality, such as longer waits. But the upside is that people who are getting no service will be granted access.

It's not a question of rationing and managing care, because that is already happening in every system. In Canada, there are wait times. In the US, poor people don't get medical care.

I think a big upside of a Canadian system is that everyone is in the same boat, so to speak. In the US, social programs that only benefit the poor have a funny way of getting gutted over time. Social programs that are universal tend to be popular and more protected. If there is a problem with a universal social program, there is widespread pressure from the electorate to have it fixed.
No argument there. We clearly have the better system up here. It just needs to be cleaned up, is all.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:53 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.