[Discussion] The (likely) Depressing Road to the 2020 Election Thread

It's going to be a circus.

Will 45 get impeached or step down or challenged? All 3? MAYBE.

Will the democrats eat themselves alive and hobble literally every potential candidate before the primaries are done? PROBABLY.

Talk about that junk here.

Sorry 'bout that--didn't want to speak for you so I made the point my own. I think what I wrote was something like "the Democrats looked at the Republicans like the person who looks at a bird, and thinks they can fly by adding more feathers to their suit instead of trying to understand how airfoils work."

edit: while looking up stuff on the 80s (which is pretty much all I use the internet for these days), ran across this that I didn't know about our current VP; surprised me that I hadn't heard of it before, so thought it might interest the people in this thread: LINK

Mike Pence, the Indiana governor tapped by Donald Trump to be his Republican running mate, is a curious yet instructive case of change and assimilation in contemporary America.

“The family’s Irish Catholic roots run deep,” the New York Times reported about Pence shortly after his nomination. “Mr. Pence’s maternal grandfather, with whom he was especially close, came to America in 1923 from Ireland and settled in Chicago, where he eventually became a bus driver.”

Pence’s parents and five siblings idolized John Kennedy, and young Mike’s devotion to Democrats continued through his early 20s. But he, unlike other members of his family, started to move away from Catholicism and Democratic allegiance after he had a religious experience in college. He now considers himself an evangelical Christian.

Now I am extremely curious about what kind of 'religious experience' he had.

Shadout wrote:

Now I am extremely curious about what kind of "religious experience" he had.

asking the real questions.

I found the original NYT piece:

When Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana was in college, he found himself admiring a gold cross hanging from the neck of his fraternity “big brother.”

The response he received left such a powerful impression that he would recall it decades later on the floor of Congress.

“Remember, Mike, you have got to wear it in your heart before you wear it around your neck,” Mr. Pence said his fraternity brother told him.

Soon after this exchange, at a Christian music festival in Kentucky, Mr. Pence took a very different sort of pledge from the one he had taken to join Phi Gamma Delta. “I gave my life to Jesus Christ,” he recalled years later, “and that’s changed everything.”

I don't think it was Jesus he was dedicating his life to...

I don't want to assume too much, nor imply the homosexuality is a negative, but that doesn't sound like a person reacting to someone who is 'just a friend.' it certainly gives his future stances on thing like conversion therapy the ring of hypocritical compensation.

Have we talked about how Starbucks billionaire Howard Schultz is seriously contemplating pulling a Ross Perot and guaranteeing a 2020 Donald victory?

Please, you neoliberal entitled asshole, please do not run for President.

I like Harris more now...

Harris backs 'Medicare-for-all' and eliminating private insurance as we know it

California Sen. Kamala Harris fully embraced "Medicare-for-all" single payer health insurance at a CNN town hall Monday and said she's willing to end private insurance to make it happen.

"We need to have Medicare-for-all," Harris told a questioner in the audience, noting it's something she feels "very strongly" about.
When pressed by CNN's Jake Tapper if that means eliminating private insurance, the senator answered affirmatively, saying she would be OK with cutting insurers out of the mix. She also accused them of thinking only of their bottom lines and of burdening Americans with paperwork and approval processes.

While a medicare-for-all is a great idea, I've yet to see anyone that's for it have a reliable way to implement or fund it.

If you haven't already seen this, the vlog brothers do a great job of breaking it down:

Seth wrote:

Have we talked about how Starbucks billionaire Howard Schultz is seriously contemplating pulling a Ross Perot and guaranteeing a 2020 Donald victory?

No, and let's not. There's no reason to give this guy attention.

Seth wrote:

Have we talked about how Starbucks billionaire Howard Schultz is seriously contemplating pulling a Ross Perot and guaranteeing a 2020 Donald victory?

Please, you neoliberal entitled asshole, please do not run for President.

I honestly think he is a sure-fire win for Democrats. I have yet to hear anything he's said that doesn't align with the least crazy parts of what's left of the Republican stance, so he sounds like a safe refuge for sane Republicans to vote for, bleeding off the crazies to vote for more Trump.

ranalin wrote:

While a medicare-for-all is a great idea, I've yet to see anyone that's for it have a reliable way to implement or fund it.

If only there were a country close to you that had it...

eh.

mudbunny wrote:
ranalin wrote:

While a medicare-for-all is a great idea, I've yet to see anyone that's for it have a reliable way to implement or fund it.

If only there were a country close to you that had it...

eh.

or a dozen less close that also have it.

John Green's video is correct. It will require trade offs. We have to accept that no solution is perfect. However I think there is no reason to assume we can't have a better system even if it isn't perfect.

mudbunny wrote:
ranalin wrote:

While a medicare-for-all is a great idea, I've yet to see anyone that's for it have a reliable way to implement or fund it.

If only there were a country close to you that had it...

eh.

Americans are so convinced that we're leaders and innovators that if something hasn't been done here, then it hasn't been done anywhere, and no one has yet had an opportunity to solve the problems that might arise.

I don't think we are that extreme (most of the time) but people do love to argue that somehow America is unique and really we are not that different.

thrawn82 wrote:
mudbunny wrote:
ranalin wrote:

While a medicare-for-all is a great idea, I've yet to see anyone that's for it have a reliable way to implement or fund it.

If only there were a country close to you that had it...

eh.

or a dozen less close that also have it.

Means f*ck all for actually making it work here.

IMAGE(https://i.imgflip.com/2exwii.jpg)

farley3k wrote:

I don't think we are that extreme (most of the time) but people do love to argue that somehow America is unique and really we are not that different.

The divide between governmental and state rights is huge. There's a reason the ACA was such a mess. A significant numbers of governmental laws will have to change and another portion of state rights will have to be removed to make it happen. That's in a good political climate. These days?

ranalin wrote:

That's in a good political climate. These days?

In a good political climate there is often inertia to not change things since it is working now so maybe a bad climate will not be a huge hindrance.

farley3k wrote:
ranalin wrote:

That's in a good political climate. These days?

In a good political climate there is often inertia to not change things since it is working now so maybe a bad climate will not be a huge hindrance.

Bipartisanship divide has been getting wider every day since the ACA was announced. It's been bad and no sign of getting better.

It's a great idea and though experiment, but I've yet to see anyone come close to realistically showing a path forward with it. Until someone does, people saying they're for something that is a good idea, but no way to work is just another form of an empty promise.

The stability thing is kind of a bs argument. It's an excuse not to try not a reason not to do it:

"We can't do it now, the political climate isn't stable enough!"
"We can't do it now, the political climate is stable we don't want to disrupt it!"

IMAGE(https://media1.tenor.com/images/adfc225794344d06697642e8dd16827f/tenor.gif?itemid=9662944)

ranalin wrote:

It's a great idea and though experiment, but I've yet to see anyone come close to realistically showing a path forward with it. Until someone does, people saying they're for something that is a good idea, but no way to work is just another form of an empty promise.

The path forward is that 70% of Americans want it (along with a majority of Republicans).

We've adopted pie-in-the-sky social programs before--Social Security in the midst of the Great Depression--so there's no reason we can't adopt universal health care.

ranalin wrote:
farley3k wrote:

I don't think we are that extreme (most of the time) but people do love to argue that somehow America is unique and really we are not that different.

The divide between governmental and state rights is huge. There's a reason the ACA was such a mess. A significant numbers of governmental laws will have to change and another portion of state rights will have to be removed to make it happen. That's in a good political climate. These days?

So we might as well just let the Tea Party take over, since we are going to give up every time a deplorable has a conniption fit.

thrawn82 wrote:

The stability thing is kind of a bs argument. It's an excuse not to try not a reason not to do it:

"We can't do it now, the political climate isn't stable enough!"
"We can't do it now, the political climate is stable we don't want to disrupt it!"

Like literally everytime there is a mass shooting.

OG_slinger wrote:
ranalin wrote:

It's a great idea and though experiment, but I've yet to see anyone come close to realistically showing a path forward with it. Until someone does, people saying they're for something that is a good idea, but no way to work is just another form of an empty promise.

The path forward is that 70% of Americans want it (along with a majority of Republicans).

We've adopted pie-in-the-sky social programs before--Social Security in the midst of the Great Depression--so there's no reason we can't adopt universal health care.

That's a nice sentiment and i agree it's possible, but again isn't a technical answer. Until we have that, a great idea is all it is.

Also for all the people trying to be amusing... no where did i say we shouldn't try or it shouldn't be done. I'm just not getting excited for any candidate that puts that up as a pillar of their campaign until they have some sort of plan that makes sense to make it work.

ranalin wrote:

Also for all the people trying to be amusing... no where did i say we shouldn't try or it shouldn't be done. I'm just not getting excited for any candidate that puts that up as a pillar of their campaign until they have some sort of plan that makes sense to make it work.

The problem for them is putting forward a plan only opens them up to attack and picking. Since we know that no plan will be perfect they will be attacked again and again for any flaws in the plan they put forward. So just huge amounts of negative press for very little gain.

Personally I am happier knowing they want such a thing and will work to develop a consensus on a plan instead of tossing one out to be ripped by the wolves.