Debate Pt. 2 Thread

[BmorePat87]

Night 1 begins in a few minutes. We have Bullock, Buttigieg, Delaney, Hickenlooper, Klobuchar, O'Rourke, Ryan, Sanders, Warren, and Williamson facing off with Warren and Sanders taking the center spots.

[*bfine32*]

Who was that turd that didn't put his hand over his heart? DeBlassio?

If you want to get hammered play a drinking game. Every time the word Trump is mentioned take a shot.

[BmorePat87]

Hickenlooper and Delaney shooting at Bernie and Warren early.

[BmorePat87]

Pretty sure they're gaslighting Delaney. As far as I know, he's right in saying that their medicare for all system would mean he cannot keep his private insurer.

Warren isn't coming off good here.

[*bfine32*]

I'm enjoying the Warren/Sanders show.

[Yojimbo]

I think Warren just ended Delaney’s run.

[BmorePat87]

Warren and Sanders both turn to complaining about inequality anytime someone pushes back on specifics of their policy proposals.

It's intellectually dishonest, but it appeals to voters.

[*bfine32*]

I tried to hang in there and made it for about 1 hour.

Obviously those in the audience where fans of "the more radical it is the more I like it".

Bernie and Liz made sure that folks knew they "weren't afraid to fight" whatever the hell that meant

I disliked Ryan for not placing his hand over his heart, but I liked what he had to say

Williamson is my boo

Pete and Beto took a step back. They need to "not be afraid"

[Belsnickel]

(07-30-2019, 09:30 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Pretty sure they're gaslighting Delaney. As far as I know, he's right in saying that their medicare for all system would mean he cannot keep his private insurer.

Warren isn't coming off good here.

IIRC, both Sanders and Warren have a straight "Medicare for all" position where Harris and another candidate roll with "Medicare for all who want it." That being said, I haven't dug too much into what everyone's position is because by the time March 3rd gets here there will be a few missing and I'm not going to waste my time.

[CJD]

My main takeaway was that most of the candidates on that stage were determined to not be lumped in with the Socialists in the middle of the stage.

[GMDino]

(07-31-2019, 08:34 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: IIRC, both Sanders and Warren have a straight "Medicare for all" position where Harris and another candidate roll with "Medicare for all who want it." That being said, I haven't dug too much into what everyone's position is because by the time March 3rd gets here there will be a few missing and I'm not going to waste my time.

I had the unfortunate (fortunate?) situation where I have not been home during any of the debates so I can't speak to what was said but I wanted to add to this topic just from a personal experience.  while solving all the world's problems over dinner a few weeks ago I was talking to a doctor who was against the plan to get rid of all private health care plans but while talking could he see the merits of a plan that you could opt into (medicare for all) while still having the option of buying a "better" plan on your own.  Not that he was 100% for it.  He has lots of concerns about "government run" anything.

Personally I think that is more workable but I don't know how it would affect premiums on the private plans to have individuals joining and not groups (like all the workers at a business).  I'm certainly no expert on that.

But on another note I'm with you Matt, I can't dig into 21 different plans and platforms when I won't even see half those names on the ballot in the primaries.

I posted elsewhere that we all say we want more choices and then when we have a whole bunch of choices we get overwhelmed and wait until they cut themselves down a little!

[BmorePat87]

(07-31-2019, 08:34 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: IIRC, both Sanders and Warren have a straight "Medicare for all" position where Harris and another candidate roll with "Medicare for all who want it." That being said, I haven't dug too much into what everyone's position is because by the time March 3rd gets here there will be a few missing and I'm not going to waste my time.

Pete is the other candidate with "For all... who want it".


Warren acknowledged later in the debate that her plan would end private insurance during another exchange with Delaney.

[*bfine32*]

(07-31-2019, 08:34 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: IIRC, both Sanders and Warren have a straight "Medicare for all" position where Harris and another candidate roll with "Medicare for all who want it." That being said, I haven't dug too much into what everyone's position is because by the time March 3rd gets here there will be a few missing and I'm not going to waste my time.

I don't consider it wasting time as I watch it for the sheer enjoyment. I was particularly entertained by the competition of who knew/was related to the person in the worst medical condition. 

[Belsnickel]

(07-31-2019, 09:27 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Pete is the other candidate with "For all... who want it".


Warren acknowledged later in the debate that her plan would end private insurance during another exchange with Delaney.

After reading about some of the exchanges, Delaney (I think it was him) brought up the potential harm to rural hospitals/medical centers with Medicare for all types of plans saying they couldn't afford the lower and slower reimbursements. My question is, though, how much of that would be made up by the fact that 100% of those they treat they would receive reimbursements for instead of a lower percentage paying now?

But this is why I don't tend to watch debates. I think about these different angles that require a little more depth than time allows and I just get frustrated watching the questions go unasked or non-answer answers given.

[Vas Deferens]

I think Pete did much better than he's getting credit for. He didnt have to be as controversial as the others on the stage not named warren/sanders because he's ostensibly already made the cut and will level up.

One of his obviously pre-planned comments I really liked from a strategy perspective was when he quickly pivoted out of whatever nonsense question was being asked and said "with me as the candidate you will be able to see a decorated war veteran stand next to the POTUS and ask him why he dodged his responsibilities claiming bone spurs" That's some next level shit. "vote me as your candidate because the theater and entertainment value will be better" --- can't say he's wrong.

[BmorePat87]

(07-31-2019, 09:40 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I think Pete did much better than he's getting credit for.  He didnt have to be as controversial as the others on the stage not named warren/sanders because he's ostensibly already made the cut and will level up.

One of his obviously pre-planned comments I really liked from a strategy perspective was when he quickly pivoted out of whatever nonsense question was being asked and said "with me as the candidate you will be able to see a decorated war veteran stand next to the POTUS and ask him why he dodged his responsibilities claiming bone spurs"  That's some next level shit.  "vote me as your candidate because the theater and entertainment value will be better" ---  can't say he's wrong.

As the resident Mayor Pete supporter, I'm trying to not be too much of a homer. He did good, not great. He presented a rational perspective and focused on policy. He presented his case for the White House quite well.

[Dill]

Go Bullock. Montana is the model for handling corporate donations--if only the Supreme Court would let them be.
Still a long memory of Anaconda Copper there.

Will never vote for Williamson, but love that she is so articulate. Excellent public speaker. Wish she could be in government somewhere, just not president. I am guessing her support could go from statistical 0 to to 2-4% over the next week.

Buttigieg continues to look good. Sober and informed.

Bernie and Warren. Always taking us back to the real problem--corporate capture of government.

Delaney. Warren nailed it--platform constructed on Republican talking points. Poor guy says sensible things but ends up making others look good. Then the body language . . . .

[Dill]

(07-31-2019, 09:31 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't consider it wasting time as I watch it for the sheer enjoyment. I was particularly entertained by the competition of who knew/was related to the person in the worst medical condition. 

Lot of funny stories out there about people without adequate medical care.

Should be some good ones in tonight's debate, too. 

All this empathy for the sick and dying, but no love for taxpayers.

Prediction: no stories about illegal immigrants getting free health care on our tax dollars!  

[Yojimbo]

(07-31-2019, 04:57 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: As the resident Mayor Pete supporter, I'm trying to not be too much of a homer. He did good, not great. He presented a rational perspective and focused on policy. He presented his case for the White House quite well.

I don’t like the guy, but agree with this assessment.

[*bfine32*]

(07-31-2019, 05:06 PM)Dill Wrote: Lot of funny stories out there about people without adequate medical care.

Should be some good ones in tonight's debate, too. 

All this empathy for the sick and dying, but no love for taxpayers.

Prediction: no stories about illegal immigrants getting free health care on our tax dollars!  

Nothing funny about folks with inadequate medical care. The entertainment comes when rich folks try to one up each other on how they are personally affected.