Uncle Milty wrote:

JUburton wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:

pacino wrote:Why should an "illegal immigrant" ,as you write, not receive healthcare

Why should they?

It's because they're human.

As are billions around the world who don't have access to even basic healthcare, yet alone healthcare coverage. They're also not citizens or lawful residents of the US. Should we give them healthcare too?

Holy strawman Batman.

Uncle Milty wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:also a majority of illegal immigrants pay federal, state and local taxes!

Do you have a source for this? I've encountered the statement many times but never found solid numbers. Just estimates and guessing.

No doubt many pay taxes with TINs and misappropriated SSNs. Doesn't change the fact they're living here illegally.

Please don't use that argument on Trumpers. Best not confirm that illegal immigrants ARE filling regular jobs instead of that unemployed guy they know.

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/1/18241692/u ... ocal-taxes

Also, why the fuck would we want to win over Trump supporters who want to end DACA and the ACA on an issue of immigration and healthcare? There are some issues that you need to drag people too. Our immigration system is broken, but the answer isn't to let undocumented citizens to die because they cannot access healthcare.

Squire wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:It really is hard for me to wrap my head around these daily scandals, none of which are moving the needle one iota.

Are we living in a simulation?

I won't ever argue that the Republicans aren't at least 5 times worse than the Democrats with regard to this....but its been basically 30 years of both sides hysterically pointing at the other side through their sympathetic media outlets. People are de-sensitized and can't recognize an actual existential threat from politics as usual. All that matters to the Trump supporters is that he's on their team and hates the other team. Its tragic but true.

It's also the cynicism people hold.

Things like McConnell's Senate Leadership PAC funding another PAC to campaign for a Dem against another Dem in the NC Senate race only strengthen the cynicism.

I shouldn't be but I'm shocked at the traction Warren's gotten with her NDA pandering. I have no desire to defend Bloomberg but if I understood the WAPO author right this stuff is 20-30 years ago.

If we need people to account today for long-past actions then we need to talk with Bernie about the Brady Act, long minimum sentences for non-violent offenders and holding gun makers harmless when crimes are committed with their product.

I think the distinction is that Bernie has actually addressed those votes and acknowledged how he would govern differently. His gun votes he attributed to representing a rural state with a high percentage of gun owners. He expressed lots of reluctance about the crime bill at the time, but voted for it because it included provisions to fund the Violence Against Women Act. These were all wrong votes, but he fully expresses regret about it, unlike a Bloomberg who hides behind NDAs or a Biden who reflexively defends nearly all of his record.

Stuff you did 20 years ago matters. If you can show how you’ve evolved and grown and will make amends, there’s a seat for you at the table. If you can’t, you should be held accountable. I see no reason to believe that a President Sanders would veto gun control legislation. I also see no reason to believe that a President Bloomberg wouldn’t bring deeply toxic ideas about women and people of color to the White House.

Trump furious Americans infected with coronavirus flew back to US without his permission - Fox News baby

Rockinghorse wrote:They hardly ever spell out what Russia has done or is doing. That leaves people to basically just start finger-pointing amongst ourselves, and the media of course gobbles that up. Which is likely the whole point of foreign interference to begin with, demoralizing everyone so we just tune out (and don't vote).

But we'll never know if we don't get specifics on what Russia etc has done to cause this concern. I wish they wouldn't give the story so much play without that info.

There's been plenty of good reporting done on Russia's Internet Research Agency. Along with a ton of indictments ... But yeah, you're not going to get specifics of stuff like this from CNN and the likes.

I wonder if anyone drops out after today. Probably not with Super Tuesday so close.

if the moderates want to prevent Bernie from winning the entire thing, they'd actually get together and decide who of them will be left. but they won't so Bernie will win! After Super Tuesday this thing is OVAH

pacino wrote:if the moderates want to prevent Bernie from winning the entire thing, they'd actually get together and decide who of them will be left. but they won't so Bernie will win! After Super Tuesday this thing is OVAH

It is funny after 2016 that the establishment would underestimate Bernie so much that they went after Warren which just made it even more likely for him to win.

Man. Sanders is doing it. Gonna be quite the general election.

pacino wrote:if the moderates want to prevent Bernie from winning the entire thing, they'd actually get together and decide who of them will be left. but they won't so Bernie will win! After Super Tuesday this thing is OVAH

At the very least klobuchar and stier need to go

If Bernie doesn’t get the required number of delegates he won’t be the nominee

My only message to Pete Buttigeg, who is of course reading the politics thread on a phillies message board tonight: SCOREBOARD! LOOK AT IT!

Warszawa wrote:

pacino wrote:if the moderates want to prevent Bernie from winning the entire thing, they'd actually get together and decide who of them will be left. but they won't so Bernie will win! After Super Tuesday this thing is OVAH

At the very least klobuchar and stier need to go

If Bernie doesn’t get the required number of delegates he won’t be the nominee

if the nomination is denied Bernie when he has the most delegates the party may as well burn itself down and close up shop for a generation

i have no interest in voting for Bernie. None.

The Savior wrote:i have no interest in voting for Bernie. None.

Same. Yet I will anyway.

The Savior wrote:i have no interest in voting for Bernie. None.

#BlueNoMatterWho

You were posting about not voting for Bloomberg, no?

[quote=“Wolfgang622”] Speaking of which, with the Iowa caucus merely a week away, let's play: Predict the Democratic nominee!

Joe Biden remains the favorite, of course. I see trouble for him in that I could easily see Bernie Sanders winning the first three races, if he picks up Nevada over 2016, giving him some momentum heading into Super Tuesday; I could also see that momentum being broken up by an inevitable Biden win in South Carolina. But Bernie may get a boost, depending on how Warren decides to play her hand, if she wants to help him by carefully timing her withdrawal from the race to be between SC on Saturday 2/29 and Super Tuesday on 3/3. She has enough monehy in the bank that she probably wants to hang in until Super Tuesday, but despite the fact that she would stand a good shot of winning Minnesota, and would certainly win in Massachusetts, I think the hand-writing will be on the wall by then for her candidacy, and she is smart enough to read it. If she wants real influence over policy, she may be persuaded to drop out, say, the day after the SC primary, and endorse Bernie, perhaps in exchange for a promise of the VP slot and an active hand in policy-making. I could then see Bernie picking up a couple of big upsets - say California, which seems entirely plausible to me, and obviously Massachusetts, with Warren's delegates going to Bernie - that could spell problems for Biden presumptive. It would guarantee Sanders Minnesota, where I believe Warren is favored right now.[/quote]

Well, the first part of this path I charted has essentially happened.

Doesn’t look like Warren has any particular plans of dropping out, so Bernie will have to do it on his own.

However, now as opposed to then, I think it is entirely possible that Sanders wins SC in a week. That would be a knock out blow for Biden, I would think.

Sanders certainly looking more and more formidable in this process.

I thought it fairly spot on In a piece I skimmed yesterday that said the Democrats have managed to find a potential candidate as divisive as Trump in Bernie.