harris for president

[Jasper]

https://www.thelily.com/sen-kamala-harris-kicks-off-her-presidential-campaign-with-a-message-of-unity-and-blunt-talk-about-race/

Front runner ? / first in to commit.

I like her minority message.

[Akrazotile]

OP sounds masculine.

[NumberSix]

Harris is already getting the Hillary treatment. It’s been clear for at least a year that she’s the media’s preferred candidate.

[Facepalm]

Too far left for my liking, would prefer a moderate

[Patrick Chewing]

[QUOTE=NumberSix]Harris is already getting the Hillary treatment. It

[NumberSix]

A CNN Townhall all for her last night nearly two years away from election.


PA-THE-TIC
They did the same with Trump. They gave him a million townhalls, phone-ins and broadcasted all of his rallies live. In his case though, they didn

[Facepalm]

[QUOTE=NumberSix]They did the same with Trump. They gave him a million townhalls, phone-ins and broadcasted all of his rallies live. In his case though, they didn

[Akrazotile]

Patty Chew Toy seems to forget the millions of dollars of free publicity Trump got. He really should thank CNN for getting him elected tbh, they put him on the map. They didn't do it for Hillary though, they did it for the ratings boost


All of this is true.

CNN essentially did get Trump elected, almost singlehandedly. They did it for the ratings/money produced by Trump coverage. Coverage THEIR predominantly left wing viewer base couldnt get enough of.

Now that he’s elected, they comandeer the rabid, riotous “resistance” movement against him. And again, it is done for ratings/money.

The scary thing is, the NPC mob doesnt understand this. They think business, media, and politicians that project a left wing facade ACTUALLY care about liberal/NPC values.




http://iruntheinternet.com/lulzdump/images/gifs/50-cent-car-laughing-patrick-stewart-face-1365035206a.gif

[dude77]

broadcasting trump was a ratings boost but they were definitely doing it with clinton in mind


https://youtu.be/l_vWuduMQSQ?t=140

[Akrazotile]

broadcasting trump was a ratings boost but they were definitely doing it with clinton in mind


https://youtu.be/l_vWuduMQSQ?t=140


They were certainly stumping hard for Hillary, though I think it's unlikely covering Trump was done as a specific pro-Hillary tactic.

Trump was clearly the most brazen, controversial, and polarizing candidate in the republican primaries. The news covers people like that. Plain and simple.

I have friends who've worked in TV news, and they'll tell you it's their JOB to cover that, no matter how they feel about the person or topic. News is a business. Agendas definitely get mixed in and pushed to the public, but they get added to whatever the main story is that's driving the ratings. Ultimately it's about whatever the public wants to see. Otherwise people are out of a job.

Libs were unquenchable in their thirst to see Trump's face and hear his voice to vent all their personal anger, frustration and self loathing. CNN was supplying them a target for their hate. As a business, CNN didn't care whether that was good, bad, or indifferent for the election. They have an extremely hateful and intolerant viewer base, and they played to that audience.

[NumberSix]

Harris is a genuinely terrible politician. She might get better at it over the next two years, but as of today she doesn’t have what it takes to win.

[diamenz]

[QUOTE=NumberSix]Harris is a genuinely terrible politician. She might get better at it over the next two years, but as of today she doesn

[TheMan]

Me no like.

America isn't ready for a female president.

Dems need to run a dude who will get in the gutter with Trump (if he runs again in 2020).

[Akrazotile]

Me no like.

America isn't ready for a female president.

Dems need to run a dude who will get in the gutter with Trump (if he runs again in 2020).


It’s going to be a female. The core of the Dem base is now solidly SJW. There will be a segment of non-left voters who’ll vote for a Democrat in 2020 out of disdain for Trump, but IMO that segment is not going to be as large as you think/Dems hope. The DNC is relying “heavily” (no pun intended) on feminists and their impotent, subservient boyfriends to keep the estsblishment afloat. They have to put forth a woman or feminists will be pissed and turn against them.


I could maybe see Biden being the one male in contention, since they can attach him to Obama, and Barry is still a hero to Dems for being a black guy. Biden’s the one white man who might could get the party establishment’s blessing, since he was Democrat Jesus’ right hand man, and will appeal to minorities and women as a result. Yet he’s still plenty willing to play ball for special interests and establishment string pullers just like Barry-O. That can be forgiven by Dem voters because he was cool with a black guy once.

Sad thing is Im not even joking. That’s probably the actual behind-the-scenes strategic formula :lol

[Patrick Chewing]

Welp, she's already backtracking from her stance on eliminating the private insurance market. :lol


https://www.nationalreview.com/news/kamala-harris-backtracks-after-vowing-to-eliminate-private-insurance-market/

[rufuspaul]

Too far left for my liking, would prefer a moderate


Good luck with that. The entire party is in a race to see who can get the farthest to the left first.

Harris is certainly popular and has all the qualifications the other candidates have. If you look at her record as California AG though it's not very flattering or in line with what Dem voters like.

But hey, black female!

[bladefd]

Welp, she's already backtracking from her stance on eliminating the private insurance market. :lol


https://www.nationalreview.com/news/kamala-harris-backtracks-after-vowing-to-eliminate-private-insurance-market/

People don't realize how much power insurance companies have in this country. They will fight tooth and nails, and I think Harris' advisers must have told her to be careful at least during campaign level.

I don't mind the elimination of them personally because they are the middleman, who have to profit as well.. All on top of big pharma, who also have to profit. The middleman needs to go or at least be eliminated to the point that the average American can get by without purchasing private insurance, but if you are wealthy or have money then you can go get private insurance for top of the line medical coverage.

Most people don't need top of the line coverage to get by in life. I have sh*t insurance that many places don't take and make a fuss about, but I get by just fine.

[rufuspaul]

People don't realize how much power insurance companies have in this country. They will fight tooth and nails, and I think Harris' advisers must have told her to be careful at least during campaign level.



This. Their lobby is huge and fills the pockets of many a campaign, including just about everyone else who will run against her for the nomination. It's a sad state of affairs actually and it's where I agree with her. The only way for a single payor system to work is to basically eliminate private insurance. The costs of care would go way down and the tax hit wouldn't be as bad.

[bladefd]

This. Their lobby is huge and fills the pockets of many a campaign, including just about everyone else who will run against her for the nomination. It's a sad state of affairs actually and it's where I agree with her. The only way for a single payor system to work is to basically eliminate private insurance. The costs of care would go way down and the tax hit wouldn't be as bad.

Any presidential candidate who truly wants single-payer can't outright say they will eliminate/minimize private insurances during either primary campaign or presidential campaign. Just say you support single-payer and will fight for it. That's it.

You can't openly say you will eliminate private insurances or fight with big Pharma to bring down costs. It's a dangerous road to go down because they have so much power. Almost as much power as military industrial complex. They will just pull your funds from under you and target you like they did to Bernie. Only thing that kept Bernie afloat to the end was the public funding him rather than corporations. Big pharma and insurance companies were putting huge money towards Hillary and Trump for this very reason and pushing the "Bernie is a socialist and wants to take your money" narrative. Bernie scared them because he openly said he will take apart private insurance companies. You can't go there.

Once you become president though then all bets are off - as a president, you don't truly answer to lobbyists.. Congress is your primary concern and perhaps the courts, but I see nothing unconstitutional about elimination or minimization of private insurances. What can the courts say or do? No, the only limit here is Congress, mainly the House. If you can get single-payer through the House, then you are in good shape. Senate would probably alter it a bit like they did with ACA (altered it quite a bit actually before sending it to Obama to sign into law). Anyways, getting bit off track here but you get the point.. You have to really think through your strategy -- it's all a mind game to not incite the insurance companies or big Pharma because they will usually win 90% of the time.

[Akrazotile]

Any presidential candidate who truly wants single-payer can't outright say they will eliminate/minimize private insurances during either primary campaign or presidential campaign. Just say you support single-payer and will fight for it. That's it.

You can't openly say you will eliminate private insurances or fight with big Pharma to bring down costs. It's a dangerous road to go down because they have so much power. Almost as much power as military industrial complex. They will just pull your funds from under you and target you like they did to Bernie. Only thing that kept Bernie afloat to the end was the public funding him rather than corporations. Big pharma and insurance companies were putting huge money towards Hillary and Trump for this very reason and pushing the "Bernie is a socialist and wants to take your money" narrative. Bernie scared them because he openly said he will take apart private insurance companies. You can't go there.

Once you become president though then all bets are off - as a president, you don't truly answer to lobbyists.. Congress is your primary concern and perhaps the courts, but I see nothing unconstitutional about elimination or minimization of private insurances. What can the courts say or do? No, the only limit here is Congress, mainly the House. If you can get single-payer through the House, then you are in good shape. Senate would probably alter it a bit like they did with ACA (altered it quite a bit actually before sending it to Obama to sign into law). Anyways, getting bit off track here but you get the point.. You have to really think through your strategy -- it's all a mind game to not incite the insurance companies or big Pharma because they will usually win 90% of the time.

Why don't states like CA and MA simply provide single-payer on their own already?

I'm genuinely curious. I don't know the answer.

[rufuspaul]

Any presidential candidate who truly wants single-payer can't outright say they will eliminate/minimize private insurances during either primary campaign or presidential campaign. Just say you support single-payer and will fight for it. That's it.

You can't openly say you will eliminate private insurances or fight with big Pharma to bring down costs. It's a dangerous road to go down because they have so much power. Almost as much power as military industrial complex. They will just pull your funds from under you and target you like they did to Bernie. Only thing that kept Bernie afloat to the end was the public funding him rather than corporations. Big pharma and insurance companies were putting huge money towards Hillary and Trump for this very reason and pushing the "Bernie is a socialist and wants to take your money" narrative. Bernie scared them because he openly said he will take apart private insurance companies. You can't go there.

Once you become president though then all bets are off - as a president, you don't truly answer to lobbyists.. Congress is your primary concern and perhaps the courts, but I see nothing unconstitutional about elimination or minimization of private insurances. What can the courts say or do? No, the only limit here is Congress, mainly the House. If you can get single-payer through the House, then you are in good shape. Senate would probably alter it a bit like they did with ACA (altered it quite a bit actually before sending it to Obama to sign into law). Anyways, getting bit off track here but you get the point.. You have to really think through your strategy -- it's all a mind game to not incite the insurance companies or big Pharma because they will usually win 90% of the time.

You and I don't agree on much but I'm totally with you here up until the last paragraph. Sadly anyone seeking re-election, which includes pretty much everyone in the government, is influenced by the insurance and pharma lobbies.

[Lakers Legend#32]

I'd totally do Kamala.