08 Feb 2020, 5:55 pm
The_Walrus wrote:
Michael Bennet is probably the candidate who is closest to me. Like me, he has no chance of becoming President this year.
The other candidates I was enthusiastic about were Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Kirsten Gillibrand. All have dropped out and were sensible to do so.
There is a large group I consider broadly acceptable. Patrick, Steyer, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg are the survivors of this group. However, while they are more electable than Bennet, it looks like none of them have the ability to win the nomination any more.
Andrew Yang deserves a special mention. On policies he’d probably be my second choice after Bennet, but I don’t think he has the essential personal qualities that a President needs, including his complete lack of political experience and his suspect views on race. I’m also concerned that his generalised support for “autism treatments” will probably translate to ABA. He often uses his autistic child as a prop, which firstly I wish he wouldn’t do (his child has a right to privacy) and secondly is disappointing because his autism policies fall well short of Hillary Clinton. Don’t say “I have an autistic kid”, set out your vision!
There are two candidates I would be happy to see in the White House who still have a realistic chance. They are Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg. I think Buttigieg has two big weaknesses: his lack of experience, and his alienation of the black population of South Bend which seems to have impacted his wider appeal to black voters. I get the impression he wouldn’t have run if Ted Cruz was President.
Joe Biden, well, it all goes without saying. He’d be an excellent president and he has a broad coalition of support. My concerns are his age, and his tendency to make mistakes when speaking from the cuff.
Then there are two candidates who I would still prefer to Trump but it would mean I spent months holding my nose and biting my tongue.
Bernie Sanders is far too left-wing for my tastes. He has also made several populist attacks on freedom (his dismissal of open borders as “a Koch brothers proposal” was particularly nauseating). But on some issues, he takes bold positions that I agree with. Although he’s anti-immigration, he is also anti-deportation. I think that would probably be a viable stepping stone to the US returning to an open-borders policy, even though it is plainly incoherent in itself. Sanders also supports expansion of franchise for felons and prisoners, which is a key issue.
Elizabeth Warren has tried to market herself as “Bernie if he wasn’t an idiot”. Unfortunately this has led to her keeping his rubbish economic policies (abolishing private healthcare, free college for millionaires) but not the radical social positions which unite some socialists with liberals and libertarians.
Then there’s Tulsi Gabbard. A truly disgusting individual who cuddles up to dictators and has a long history of anti-LGBT statements. She has the worst of Sanders’ economics and the worst of Trump’s conscience. If she won the nomination it would be as devastating to the Democratic Party as Trump’s nomination was for the Republican Party, and would represent the total hollowing out of American democracy. Supporting Gabbard would be just a case of supporting “the blue team” and would be just as morally unconscionable as Republicans sticking by Trump because he’s “on the red team”. Fortunately, Gabbard’s refusal to impeach Trump has destroyed her already-low support with Democrats.
The other candidates I was enthusiastic about were Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Kirsten Gillibrand. All have dropped out and were sensible to do so.
There is a large group I consider broadly acceptable. Patrick, Steyer, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg are the survivors of this group. However, while they are more electable than Bennet, it looks like none of them have the ability to win the nomination any more.
Andrew Yang deserves a special mention. On policies he’d probably be my second choice after Bennet, but I don’t think he has the essential personal qualities that a President needs, including his complete lack of political experience and his suspect views on race. I’m also concerned that his generalised support for “autism treatments” will probably translate to ABA. He often uses his autistic child as a prop, which firstly I wish he wouldn’t do (his child has a right to privacy) and secondly is disappointing because his autism policies fall well short of Hillary Clinton. Don’t say “I have an autistic kid”, set out your vision!
There are two candidates I would be happy to see in the White House who still have a realistic chance. They are Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg. I think Buttigieg has two big weaknesses: his lack of experience, and his alienation of the black population of South Bend which seems to have impacted his wider appeal to black voters. I get the impression he wouldn’t have run if Ted Cruz was President.
Joe Biden, well, it all goes without saying. He’d be an excellent president and he has a broad coalition of support. My concerns are his age, and his tendency to make mistakes when speaking from the cuff.
Then there are two candidates who I would still prefer to Trump but it would mean I spent months holding my nose and biting my tongue.
Bernie Sanders is far too left-wing for my tastes. He has also made several populist attacks on freedom (his dismissal of open borders as “a Koch brothers proposal” was particularly nauseating). But on some issues, he takes bold positions that I agree with. Although he’s anti-immigration, he is also anti-deportation. I think that would probably be a viable stepping stone to the US returning to an open-borders policy, even though it is plainly incoherent in itself. Sanders also supports expansion of franchise for felons and prisoners, which is a key issue.
Elizabeth Warren has tried to market herself as “Bernie if he wasn’t an idiot”. Unfortunately this has led to her keeping his rubbish economic policies (abolishing private healthcare, free college for millionaires) but not the radical social positions which unite some socialists with liberals and libertarians.
Then there’s Tulsi Gabbard. A truly disgusting individual who cuddles up to dictators and has a long history of anti-LGBT statements. She has the worst of Sanders’ economics and the worst of Trump’s conscience. If she won the nomination it would be as devastating to the Democratic Party as Trump’s nomination was for the Republican Party, and would represent the total hollowing out of American democracy. Supporting Gabbard would be just a case of supporting “the blue team” and would be just as morally unconscionable as Republicans sticking by Trump because he’s “on the red team”. Fortunately, Gabbard’s refusal to impeach Trump has destroyed her already-low support with Democrats.
Dude. Don't try to make predictions cause yours are always hideously wrong.
The Democrats tried your theory with Clinton last time and she lost to a game show host
No rational human being supports open borders. Especially the working class that you don't understand and hate. You obviously don't mix with normal people. Proposing giving free healthcare to illegal immigrants is mentally derranged. Gabbard is the only one who isn't thick or insane enough to do so.
Try to just listen to others and learn from them.
08 Feb 2020, 6:30 pm
08 Feb 2020, 6:43 pm
08 Feb 2020, 7:02 pm
08 Feb 2020, 7:50 pm
08 Feb 2020, 7:53 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,449
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
08 Feb 2020, 8:07 pm
08 Feb 2020, 8:47 pm
08 Feb 2020, 8:53 pm
09 Feb 2020, 1:19 am
JohnPowell wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Michael Bennet is probably the candidate who is closest to me. Like me, he has no chance of becoming President this year.
The other candidates I was enthusiastic about were Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Kirsten Gillibrand. All have dropped out and were sensible to do so.
There is a large group I consider broadly acceptable. Patrick, Steyer, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg are the survivors of this group. However, while they are more electable than Bennet, it looks like none of them have the ability to win the nomination any more.
Andrew Yang deserves a special mention. On policies he’d probably be my second choice after Bennet, but I don’t think he has the essential personal qualities that a President needs, including his complete lack of political experience and his suspect views on race. I’m also concerned that his generalised support for “autism treatments” will probably translate to ABA. He often uses his autistic child as a prop, which firstly I wish he wouldn’t do (his child has a right to privacy) and secondly is disappointing because his autism policies fall well short of Hillary Clinton. Don’t say “I have an autistic kid”, set out your vision!
There are two candidates I would be happy to see in the White House who still have a realistic chance. They are Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg. I think Buttigieg has two big weaknesses: his lack of experience, and his alienation of the black population of South Bend which seems to have impacted his wider appeal to black voters. I get the impression he wouldn’t have run if Ted Cruz was President.
Joe Biden, well, it all goes without saying. He’d be an excellent president and he has a broad coalition of support. My concerns are his age, and his tendency to make mistakes when speaking from the cuff.
Then there are two candidates who I would still prefer to Trump but it would mean I spent months holding my nose and biting my tongue.
Bernie Sanders is far too left-wing for my tastes. He has also made several populist attacks on freedom (his dismissal of open borders as “a Koch brothers proposal” was particularly nauseating). But on some issues, he takes bold positions that I agree with. Although he’s anti-immigration, he is also anti-deportation. I think that would probably be a viable stepping stone to the US returning to an open-borders policy, even though it is plainly incoherent in itself. Sanders also supports expansion of franchise for felons and prisoners, which is a key issue.
Elizabeth Warren has tried to market herself as “Bernie if he wasn’t an idiot”. Unfortunately this has led to her keeping his rubbish economic policies (abolishing private healthcare, free college for millionaires) but not the radical social positions which unite some socialists with liberals and libertarians.
Then there’s Tulsi Gabbard. A truly disgusting individual who cuddles up to dictators and has a long history of anti-LGBT statements. She has the worst of Sanders’ economics and the worst of Trump’s conscience. If she won the nomination it would be as devastating to the Democratic Party as Trump’s nomination was for the Republican Party, and would represent the total hollowing out of American democracy. Supporting Gabbard would be just a case of supporting “the blue team” and would be just as morally unconscionable as Republicans sticking by Trump because he’s “on the red team”. Fortunately, Gabbard’s refusal to impeach Trump has destroyed her already-low support with Democrats.
The other candidates I was enthusiastic about were Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Kirsten Gillibrand. All have dropped out and were sensible to do so.
There is a large group I consider broadly acceptable. Patrick, Steyer, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg are the survivors of this group. However, while they are more electable than Bennet, it looks like none of them have the ability to win the nomination any more.
Andrew Yang deserves a special mention. On policies he’d probably be my second choice after Bennet, but I don’t think he has the essential personal qualities that a President needs, including his complete lack of political experience and his suspect views on race. I’m also concerned that his generalised support for “autism treatments” will probably translate to ABA. He often uses his autistic child as a prop, which firstly I wish he wouldn’t do (his child has a right to privacy) and secondly is disappointing because his autism policies fall well short of Hillary Clinton. Don’t say “I have an autistic kid”, set out your vision!
There are two candidates I would be happy to see in the White House who still have a realistic chance. They are Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg. I think Buttigieg has two big weaknesses: his lack of experience, and his alienation of the black population of South Bend which seems to have impacted his wider appeal to black voters. I get the impression he wouldn’t have run if Ted Cruz was President.
Joe Biden, well, it all goes without saying. He’d be an excellent president and he has a broad coalition of support. My concerns are his age, and his tendency to make mistakes when speaking from the cuff.
Then there are two candidates who I would still prefer to Trump but it would mean I spent months holding my nose and biting my tongue.
Bernie Sanders is far too left-wing for my tastes. He has also made several populist attacks on freedom (his dismissal of open borders as “a Koch brothers proposal” was particularly nauseating). But on some issues, he takes bold positions that I agree with. Although he’s anti-immigration, he is also anti-deportation. I think that would probably be a viable stepping stone to the US returning to an open-borders policy, even though it is plainly incoherent in itself. Sanders also supports expansion of franchise for felons and prisoners, which is a key issue.
Elizabeth Warren has tried to market herself as “Bernie if he wasn’t an idiot”. Unfortunately this has led to her keeping his rubbish economic policies (abolishing private healthcare, free college for millionaires) but not the radical social positions which unite some socialists with liberals and libertarians.
Then there’s Tulsi Gabbard. A truly disgusting individual who cuddles up to dictators and has a long history of anti-LGBT statements. She has the worst of Sanders’ economics and the worst of Trump’s conscience. If she won the nomination it would be as devastating to the Democratic Party as Trump’s nomination was for the Republican Party, and would represent the total hollowing out of American democracy. Supporting Gabbard would be just a case of supporting “the blue team” and would be just as morally unconscionable as Republicans sticking by Trump because he’s “on the red team”. Fortunately, Gabbard’s refusal to impeach Trump has destroyed her already-low support with Democrats.
Dude. Don't try to make predictions cause yours are always hideously wrong.
The Democrats tried your theory with Clinton last time and she lost to a game show host
No rational human being supports open borders. Especially the working class that you don't understand and hate. You obviously don't mix with normal people. Proposing giving free healthcare to illegal immigrants is mentally derranged. Gabbard is the only one who isn't thick or insane enough to do so.
Try to just listen to others and learn from them.
Or You can do the research and find out for Yourself.
"In Thailand, migrants — who account for more than 6 percent of the country's 67.1 million population — are able to immediately buy and access the country's universal health care.
It's the only country in the world where migrants there illegally have the same health care rights as nationals. This policy has been in place since August 2013, when Thailand's Ministry of Public Health extended the country's extant universal health care policy — which has been in place for Thai nationals since 2002 — to include migrants."
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandso ... d-migrants
FACT CHECKING IS FUN!
Google is Your Friend..
Takes all of about 2 seconds, for me at least..
Per Wiki, Buddhism Comprises 94.5 Percent of Religious Participation There; Not Surprising to me.
True; Highly Unlikely; and Highly Ironic that 'Republican Political Leaders' who Profess "Jesus Christ"
as their Lord and Savior Would Provide Health Care to the Stranger With No Resources at all; of course that Stranger
is who 'Jesus' Said He Will Be in all cases; as that Obviously Is the Same Hypocrisy that many 'Republican Christians'
continue to make; for those who Do not Believe in the actual Teachings of Jesus that most Definitely do
Support the Stranger With Nothing From Foreign Lands. So, i guess if the Jesus Dude was real and
really wanted to come back; Thailand would be the only place Housing Buddhists who would really
Welcome His Teachings, overall, today.
09 Feb 2020, 4:34 am
09 Feb 2020, 6:46 am
09 Feb 2020, 7:45 am
11 Feb 2020, 12:10 pm
11 Feb 2020, 12:13 pm
11 Feb 2020, 12:28 pm
The_Walrus wrote:
Tim_Tex wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
The UK gives free healthcare to illegal immigrants...
Isn’t undocumented the word to use?
In the US, yes, that's quite popular as it removes the unfair stigma of "illegal" (there's nothing wrong with immigrating, even if the law says you can't).
In the UK, anti-immigration rhetoric doesn't really distinguish between "legal" and "illegal" very much - there's more focus on "skilled" versus "unskilled" (even though we need both), as well as calling asylum seekers and refugees "economic migrants". As Karamazov rightly points out, our immigration policy isn't utopian, but all forms of immigrant including illegal immigrants, are allowed to register with a GP for free, attend hospital appointments for free, and receive emergency and non-emergency care for free. Source.
My view, very strongly held, is that:
1) Barriers to immigration are very hard to justify. I think you could justify it only if you had good reason to believe that the individual concerned was a serious threat to public safety.
2) There is no justification for discrimination against immigrants. It's bigotry, plain and simple.
They are illegal immigrants as they are in the country illegally. If Japan didn't have a sensible immigration system they would become China overnight. Same with South Korea who would have people flooding in from the North.
It's not bigotry it is just sanity. You don't bring the 3rd would up by pouring them into the country. Try to stop supporting bigoted/racist/imperialist/murderous policies that leave people wanting to escape their own countries. You don't have a leg to stand on.
