2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[applecorped]

The ACA was a decent start.

The GOP sabotaged it bit by bit.

If you consider the ACA a decent start then the GOP really doesn't have much to worry about

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Harris is just another typical ladder climbing, career politician, looking out for her own interests. She would fit in well with the current or any administration...more of the same.

Oh for pity's sake. The GOP elected the most egotistical career con-artist. He flouts the law, lies hourly, created his own family kleptocracy and that's supposed to be better than 'the same' politicians?

I'll take the same old politician rather than this disgusting POTUS any day.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I'll take the same old politician rather than this disgusting POTUS any day.

Same exact mentality that led to Venezuela's opposition never seeing the light of day.

"Out with Chavez. There can literally never be a worst President than him" they said

"Hold my beer" Maduro said.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Biden's latest apology is barely different from his defensive response. Now he's apologizing but still with the false claims about the actual situation. I've not heard him mention his anti-busing legislation. Has anyone else?

 

[bruto]

Oh for pity's sake. The GOP elected the most egotistical career con-artist. He flaunts the law, lies hourly, created his own family kleptocracy and that's supposed to be better than 'the same' politicians?

I'll take the same old politician rather than this disgusting POTUS any day.

Actually, not to be too much of a usage-geek here, but I wish he did flaunt the law. What he does, alas, is flout it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually, not to be too much of a usage-geek here, but I wish he did flaunt the law. What he does, alas, is flout it.

Thanks.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Same exact mentality that led to Venezuela's opposition never seeing the light of day.

"Out with Chavez. There can literally never be a worst President than him" they said

"Hold my beer" Maduro said.

Come on, there is nothing going on in the US that is akin to Chavez or Maduro in Venezuela.

 

[The Atheist]

You may as well all pack your bags and give up - the Democratic Party is determined to be Republican-lite, with Pelosi attacking AOC, Omar, et al, on the same day that Gingrich unloaded a disgraceful load on AOC.

The Dems do not want progressives leading. (That was pretty obvious from Bernie & 2016, but people forget quickly)

Again, were I voting, I'd find Pelosi's attitude enough to give my vote to Trump - at least he doesn't pretend to create an impression that he gives a ****.

 

[theprestige]

In a single universal system, that would mean they'd designing something that benefits everybody as much as it benefits its authors. The only way to see that as a bad thing is to see it as bad if the peasants get any benefits.

Seems to me like on the one hand, unless you prohibited private drug development or private drug purchases, or both, there's always going to be opportunities for private investment in drug development.

And on the other hand, unless your plan includes a budget to replace all the private investment in drug development, you're just going to set back drug development anyway. Not to mention that in the normal course of events, the investment money is repaid with interest, but under a government funding plan you'd have to figure out some other way to raise those funds. Probably through increased taxation.

Which might even look good on paper, except that it's the politicians and the lobbyists who actually put it down on paper.

 

[theprestige]

Correction you mean she lost with 3 million more popular votes than Trump.


you're welcome

Popular votes are the participation trophy of American politics.

Figures progressives would consider them more important than actually winning.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You may as well all pack your bags and give up - the Democratic Party is determined to be Republican-lite, with Pelosi attacking AOC, Omar, et al, on the same day that Gingrich unloaded a disgraceful load on AOC.

The Dems do not want progressives leading. (That was pretty obvious from Bernie & 2016, but people forget quickly)

Again, were I voting, I'd find Pelosi's attitude enough to give my vote to Trump - at least he doesn't pretend to create an impression that he gives a ****.

So you're mad Pelosi isn't a fan of 'as far left as Bernie' so you prefer to vote to trash democracy?

 

[Tero]

Why do you want everyone...children, healthy adults, etc, on a program designed around the needs of the elderly and disabled? That sounds like a bad idea. We are talking federal payment to plans being 3 times what they are in Medicaid.

The structure, the bureaucracy. It's already there. Medicare or any federal insurance, can only negotiate healthcare costs if it has the majority of people in it. It is to provide basic care and medications. Throw in any suppement plan you like. That is how it runs now.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

You may as well all pack your bags and give up - the Democratic Party is determined to be Republican-lite, with Pelosi attacking AOC, Omar, et al, on the same day that Gingrich unloaded a disgraceful load on AOC.

The Dems do not want progressives leading. (That was pretty obvious from Bernie & 2016, but people forget quickly)

Again, were I voting, I'd find Pelosi's attitude enough to give my vote to Trump - at least he doesn't pretend to create an impression that he gives a ****.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ted-by-the-reagan-era/?utm_term=.38c566de9402

For people under a certain age, this slinking in the corner is deeply strange behavior. Young people in the 1990s watched Bill Clinton work with Republicans — to overhaul welfare, try to cut Social Security, deregulate Wall Street — only to see them turn around and impeach him. In the 2000s, they watched Democrats halfheartedly support a war they opposed. Then Obama tried to compromise with Republicans on the size of a post-crash stimulus and the nature of the Affordable Care Act.

None of it calmed Republicans, as younger lawmakers see it, so why not try something else? “The older members really cling to the idea that things are going to go ‘back to normal’ ” after Trump, Ocasio-Cortez told me. “For us, it’s never been normal, and before that the bipartisanship was s—ty anyway and gave us the War on Drugs, DOMA” — the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred federal recognition or benefits for same-sex couples — “and stripping the leg[islative] branch of everything.”

Yeah, I think that about-face on the border bill on the same day as the two who drowned was the last straw for the CPC. Gloves are starting to come off.

“The greatest threat to mankind is the cowardice of the Democratic Party,” Trent told me.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The structure, the bureaucracy. It's already there. Medicare or any federal insurance, can only negotiate healthcare costs if it has the majority of people in it. It is to provide basic care and medications. Throw in any suppement plan you like. That is how it runs now.

I'm not entirely sure how much the Medicare bureaucracy is compatible. Medicaid for all is probably far more realistic.

 

[Aridas]

“The greatest threat to mankind is the cowardice of the Democratic Party,” Trent told me.

Mmm. That quote annoys me. At best, it's the second greatest threat. The greatest threat being what they're being too cowardly to actually fight for.

But yes. There is an excellent point in the part above. Republican politicians are lying, backstabbing agents of evil - and trying to play nicely with them is increasingly a long shot because of their continual betrayals and lies. If Republicans don't like that, it's up to them to expel the rot and corruption from their party. I'm not going to hold my breath, though, given how hooked on right-wing propaganda, what, at least 2/3 of Republicans are?

 

[Venom]

So you're mad Pelosi isn't a fan of 'as far left as Bernie' so you prefer to vote to trash democracy?

I don't get that pitiful reasoning either.

Someone's not good or sincere enough, so out of spite you'll just vote for the monster at the other end.

Maybe it's a political analogue of homeopathy; the more regressive the choice the more progressive it is in the end, or some ****.

 

[Delvo]

Sounds good, but you know what we'd actually get is a system designed around the needs of the politicians and lobbyists who designed it.

In a single universal system, that would mean they'd design something that benefits everybody as much as it benefits its authors. The only way to see that as a bad thing is to see it as bad if the peasants get any benefits.

Seems to me like on the one hand, unless you prohibited private drug development or private drug purchases, or both, there's always going to be opportunities for private investment in drug development.

And on the other hand, unless your plan includes a budget to replace all the private investment in drug development, you're just going to set back drug development anyway.

So, you have nothing on the actual subject you quoted me on, which you had brought up yourself.

Are you even aware of what a runaway that was?

But it's OK, I can just accept your indirect acknowledgement that you've got nothing on one subject and move along to the new one too. First, you need to show a reason why we should believe your claim about research for new drugs. Second, even if that part is correct, you need to show a reason why that would be a bad thing. Continuing to sacrifice the peasants' ability to get even the drugs that already exist, in order to develop even more new ones that, once again, only the rich will be able to get, does not strike me as a good thing that urgently needs to be preserved. It strikes me as just another way that this approach to health non-care is simply fundamentally anti-peasant.

 

[Tero]

Patent law covers most of the Western world. The drug industry makes drugs for Europe and N America. The pricing is determined by whatever each county's system is willing to pay. The purity specs are the same. You can make the drug in either half and sell to both. The cost of health care has also driven up the costs of drug trials. Liability etc. So they in fact have spent a lot before the first Rx is sold. They then have under 20 years to make money.

The small volume drugs are a separate issue. They can charge a lot if they are the only maker. That is pretty much what happens in a lot of cases. Setting up a plant with approval and three runs to validate a process is a years long process. An enterpreneur is not going to set up a plant to make the SECOND identical product. He will seek a drug that is imported in small quantity and make a DIFFERENT product that only he will make.

 

[Brainster]

Looks like Eric Swallwell is going to become our first dropout. Not to fear, Democrats, billionaire Tom Steyer will replace him.

 

[Venom]

Looks like Eric Swallwell is going to become our first dropout. Not to fear, Democrats, billionaire Tom Steyer will replace him.

I thought it was interesting the article calls Need To Impeach a "progressive movement", whatever that means.