***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[RustyShackleford]

My point is, you don't get to be the longest serving independent in congress by firmly being apart of the establishment. Sure, you could say that he likes the dems when it works for him but really your proving my point there

Dude came into Congress on the back of NRA support, on some both sides steez. When he got to Congress, Barney Frank said dude realized that he was wrong, the GOP was the real issue. The Dems could have easily got him out the paint eventually by running liberal in his district and spitting the vote. But they didn't.

-He started caucusing with the Dems

-The DCCC endorsed him for House elections. Just like they do all registered Democratic candidates

-He has been to big donor retreats in Martha's Vineyard

-He endorsed Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, and Hillary. He always endorses Dems. Other independents like Angus King (with Susan Collins) and Joe Lieberman (with McCain) have broken with the party in much bigger ways in this area.

-When a Senate seat opened up, the Dems pushed him. And sent the brightest young star (Barack Obama) and Mr. New England Dem Establishment at the time Ted Kennedy, to campaign for him

-He has been given leadership positions in Senate by Democrats

-He is the one that negotiated primary reforms with the DNC

You boy is 'ESTABLISHMENT" as ****. He is the longest sitting independent in Congress because the Dem establishment protects him, and they do that because is part of the squad.

 

[elpablo21]

The fact that the media has to repeatedly mention this is the first "test" for candidates in a diverse conglomerate shows you Iowa and NH should never ever be first in the process ever again

 

[fargin]

Bernie triggers Star Citizen kickstarter flashbacks.

 

[moe200069]

The more I think about this the more I wonder if Russia is just saying they are going to help Bernie just to delegitimize the results if he wins. It seems pretty clear he is going to be the nominee so by saying they are helping Bernie and Trump they win either way. Trump wins the left cries foul. Bernie wins the Right cries foul. Win win for them

If Putin starts commenting in support of Sanders and the voices start getting loud, and i know this might scare many Americans, I could see Bernie talking about the necessity of creating a better relationship with Russia to address climate change with the “global community” in mind

democrats gotta get those spin-doctors ready

 

[rolaholic]

No wonder they've spent most of the time discussing 2nd place more than anything

 

[RustyShackleford]

That's because it is one, at least for me. You quote a lot of the articles that go into how the sausage is made but has never really mattered in policy for the rich, the logistics never seem to come up or matter much at all when more funding can be obtained for the never-ending warmachine. We've landed foreign bodies on other planets plenty of times but universal healthcare is somehow a gargantuan task The thought of even discussing the logistics is insulting to the people that actually need it and is really highlights the divide between actually leftists and liberals.

I don't mean any of the above as an insult to you or anybody here btw, it's just how I feel on the subject matter and why I argue or debate the way I do.

Dude, I am an economist by trade, so I care about how **** works, I would happily accept if it could work. I understand you are passionate about people getting healthcare, that why I what a serious discussion and proposals to make things better, that can get us to affordable universal coverage as quickly as possible. I can't take the plan seriously because there not being the votes for it. There is not widespread public support for it, and the math doesn't work at the moment. And the plan to overcome all those things, by next year this time, sounds utterly stupid. Instead of discussing how to make it work so we can get the votes and get the support, it just becomes purity testing season. And once the purity test starts, all serious discussions about other reforms stop. Hell M4A is not even the most progressive plan someone can propose, nor is it a panacea. So even the purity test is kind of trash.

Secondly, M4A, as Bernie purposes it is not the only way to get to universal coverage. Tons of other countries have universal coverage, NONE, of them, do it the way Sanders proposes. So stop with the "if you are against M4A, you are against universal health insurance". Plain and simple. Here, this should reinforce my point...


But M4A cost more than a single war; it cost more than landing someone on the moon, it cost more than an individual tax cut. It is a significant restructuring of a large part of the economy that will cost trillions above any of those things, and no one will say honestly where the revenue will come from.

All those policy papers that leftists like to cite to make their case for M4A are usually written by liberal academics/economist. There are very few Marxist economists out there. The wonk class that writes and proposes so many of the plans filled his policy platform with are mainly liberals. Hell, most liberal would happily admit that if we were starting from scratch on health insurance, you do single payer, not a hybrid system. So can fall back to this petty leftist vs. liberals thing but is don't give two ****s about it. There are people that care on both sides of that ideological divide. I find it ridiculous that because someone is a liberal, especially progressive liberal, and doesn't handwave the roadblocks, that they somehow don't care. That they are somehow okay with all the waste that happens, elsewhere, and all the cruelty inflicted on the most vulnerable.

I was to help as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. I want our socioeconomic system to be fundamentally restructured. That is why I have little patience for people that use a healthcare plan as mainly a political attack, and not a serious piece of business to make things better.

If being a leftist is ignoring the legislative roadblocks, if being a leftist is being insincere in discussions about positive change, if being leftist is just having a vision and not a plan, then that is precisely why I am more liberal progressive and not a leftist. But I don't think that is what being a leftist is. So offer me the same respect and please stop acting like accepting the status quo is what being a liberal is.

 

[moe200069]

The fact that the media has to repeatedly mention this is the first "test" for candidates in a diverse conglomerate shows you Iowa and NH should never ever be first in the process ever again

100%

Why people believe Iowa and NH are a litmus test for how the rest of the dominoes will fall is one of the stupidest things. Between the two states they represent, what, less than 1% of all combined delegates? Am i missing something

 

[RustyShackleford]

No wonder they've spent most of the time discussing 2nd place more than anything

White Rastafarian vote in Nevada:

1.Bernie 100%
2.Bernie 100%
3.Bernie 100%
4.Bernie 100%
5.Bernie 100%

 

[-Red-]

Your read on Obama is so weird given the fact that one of the main complaint about him is that he didn't try to schmooze with Congress people. He expected them to act in good faith and negotiate with him where there was common ground. Sure that was naive but this read you have on Obama seems out of step with that he actually did. Biden is the one that bit the hill and did the smiling and handshaking. To pass Obamacare, which he barely got through, and got damaged in the media, he held rallies to whip up support so and ask people to put enough pressure on the centrist and Blue Dogs so it could get through.

Hell Obama's victory and his inauguration speech was about needing a movement of people. One of my biggest criticism of Obama is that after 2008 he had an extensive grassroots infrastructure that he could have continued to build and become a major political force, and he just let it crumble.

So yeah, I'm not buying this argument that Obama just sold himself as some sort of magical negro.

Yeah Bernie's plan sound cool, and I agree we do need a civil awakening in America, but where is the movement gonna come from exactly? It certainly doesn't seem it will be born out of his presidency. He is gonna win with one of the lowest support since Mondale. And if he wins it won't be with the same blowout Obama had. So his plan hinges on him motivating mass amounts of people, where are they exactly? Not to mention like always, a ton of people probably think Bernie is a Benevolent Santa, just like they did with Obama and will get disillusioned when he can't deliver.

Bernie's plan to actually try pass stuff like M4A is not through a mass movement of people. It is to jam in through reconciliation before the CBO can score it, probably without public trials, while completely breaking the Senate rules, and expecting centrist to back the play. Which is completely asinine.

At least Warren and even Pete who realized that it we don't change the rules of the game, nothing really gets done, and nothing sticks

Yeah, there is no way given the facts at hand I'm I buying Bernie got a better grasp on things than Warren. Outside of legislative and electoral politics, Warren clearly got a better grasp of economics too. So downplay all her plans all you want, talking about visions all you want, at least I know she is serious and competent.

I don't think we're saying different things about Obama, we're just coming to different conclusions. I'm not saying he thought he could go talk to Republicans or whoever else and win them over—I'm saying he thought there was basically little to no need to do so. He was here and it was the dawn of a new day, a new way of doing politics, and people would, as you stated, act in good faith and negotiate. But it was apparent almost immediately in his first term how misguided this notion was, though it didn't seem to dawn on him until maybe the end of his first term. (Or maybe he just felt he was in a bind, since he ran on a conciliatory vision of commonsense, good-faith, bipartisan cooperation, so he couldn't deviate from that stance. I don't know.) But it was really strange for someone coming out of Chicago especially—though he was never involved in city politics—that he seemingly didn't grasp the realities of some basic political dynamics. But even nationally, was he not paying attention to how the GOP treated Bill Clinton in the 1990s, even when Clinton had basically adopted their entire political program?

But during the campaign his force of personality overshadowed both this naivete and his moderate political program. And to be clear, I was definitely an Obama guy back then. I was working at a high school about a mile from his home—but on the "wrong" side of Drexel Ave.—and was also living in the area. I was in Grant Park on Election Night in 2008 partying with hundreds of thousands of other people. I was excited to be part of the historic election of the first black president. I was drinking the Kool-Aid. I was young and naive. A lot of other people were also drinking the Kool-Aid that probably should have known better. Interestingly, a lot of folks still can't seem to see things for what they were. Like you said, Obama dismantled his incredible grassroots political movement after he won in 2008. He didn't believe in a movement—he believed in himself. How else can you interpret what he did?

As for Bernie, he's using the campaign as a means of helping to build the movement we need. Obviously, that's not going to do it alone by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a start. And, to be clear, we are basically starting from ground zero in terms of building a movement for working people inclusive of all identities, ascriptive and otherwise. Who said Bernie won't try to change the rules of the game or prioritize that when the time comes? He's clear about his political vision where others are unclear and uncommitted—but strategy changes based on circumstances as they unfold. In the immortal words of Mike Tyson, "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." Give me a president with a compelling and unequivocal political vision and an open strategy to a president with an unclear and shifting political vision with an ostensibly great strategy any day. The former is going to change strategies to fight for the vision, the latter is likelier to change the vision to maintain the strategy.

I will agree that Warren, Pete, Booker, and probably a couple of other candidates are "smarter" than Bernie. They may know more economics, etc. My response is: Who gives a damn? What does all that smartness get us? Obama was brilliant, too. So was Bill Clinton. So was Hillary. What, exactly, did we actually get from all of that intelligence in terms of political victories for working people? That's basically been the Democrats' strategy for decades—let's try to elect the smartest, most credentialied people regardless of their political program or how compelling they are as a political candidate. No thanks, I've seen that movie way too many times, and it has ended in nothing but failure and misery every time. The difference with Bernie is that he's smarter than the other candidates in terms of what matters most in this arena—politics and power. And he has a clear, compelling, and unwavering political vision. All that other stuff is pretty much irrelevant at the end of the day.

 

[youngogjosh]

Dude came into Congress on the back of NRA support, on some both sides steez. When he got to Congress, Barney Frank said dude realized that he was wrong, the GOP was the real issue. The Dems could have easily got him out the paint eventually by running liberal in his district and spitting the vote. But they didn't.

-He started caucusing with the Dems

-The DCCC endorsed him for House elections. Just like they do all registered Democratic candidates

-He has been to big donor retreats in Martha's Vineyard

-He endorsed Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, and Hillary. He always endorses Dems. Other independents like Angus King (with Susan Collins) and Joe Lieberman (with McCain) have broken with the party in much bigger ways in this area.

-When a Senate seat opened up, the Dems pushed him. And sent the brightest young star (Barack Obama) and Mr. New England Dem Establishment at the time Ted Kennedy, to campaign for him

-He has been given leadership positions in Senate by Democrats

-He is the one that negotiated primary reforms with the DNC

You boy is 'ESTABLISHMENT" as ****. He is the longest sitting independent in Congress because the Dem establishment protects him, and they do that because is part of the squad.

-He ran against a democrat 1981 as in independent in the mayoral election of Burlingtion, Vermont

-He would do the same in 1983, 1985, and 1987 against both republicans and democrats

-His ran as an independent for Governor of Vermont in 1986, albeit losing

-He made it into the House as an independent



Suffice to say he clearly doesn't need to be protected under the wing of the Democratic establishment to win against them or republicans. I'm not seeing how him having donors is a strike against him considering you don't even bother to quote whether it had any noticeable influence on his voting within the party or his own political positions, it reads like the champaign socialist trope. It's especially odd to bring donors and funding up now considering he has some of the highest grass roots funding of all the current nominees.

Again, I'm not arguing that he's devoid of the democrats at all but to say that he's "one of the boys" is a wildly unsubstantiated claim.

 

[storm2006]

I just want to point out how I I love that aepps20 has no joke United NikeTalk. Got dudes in random threads (Ex: Qaden Bayles thread) using his character

Thoughts and prayers for Quaden. After Disneyland. He needs to go to White House and meet Americas child Baron Trump who knows a thing or two about the evil toxic attacks the nasty liberals pull on his father and the emotional damage it’s done to him. Quaden and Baron will be friends forever and we will keep America great this November and end bullying by reporting it to the cyber police and the state police. They dun goofed.

Then in another thread either him or whywesteppin was in character and had MikeD asking multiple times if he was serious before RustyShackleford had to step in and say it was a joke because he sensed the escalation. Got everyone shouting out Latham in the NBA Thread. It’s amazing #Influence

 

[aepps20]

I just want to point out how I I love that aepps20 has no joke United NikeTalk. Got dudes in random threads (Ex: Qaden Bayles thread) using his character



Then in another thread either him or whywesteppin was in character and had MikeD asking multiple times if he was serious before RustyShackleford had to step in and say it was a joke because he sensed the escalation. Got everyone shouting out Latham in the NBA Thread. It’s amazing #Influence

Really glad to be a part of the larger movement. We love our country, guns, PRESIDENT ELECT and Coal.

 

[junglejim]

 

[IATT]

What the hell is he even trying to say here?

Dementia hittin

secret message to dwalk31

 

[RustyShackleford]

-He ran against a democrat 1981 as in independent in the mayoral election of Burlingtion, Vermont

-He would do the same in 1983, 1985, and 1987 against both republicans and democrats

-His ran as an independent for Governor of Vermont in 1986, albeit losing

-He made it into the House as an independent



Suffice to say he clearly doesn't need to be protected under the wing of the Democratic establishment to win against them or republicans. I'm not seeing how him having donors is a strike against him considering you don't even bother to quote whether it had any noticeable influence on his voting within the party or his own political positions, it reads like the champaign socialist trope. It's especially odd to bring donors and funding up now considering he has some of the highest grass roots funding of all the current nominees.

Again, I'm not arguing that he's devoid of the democrats at all but to say that he's "one of the boys" is a wildly unsubstantiated claim.

Your examples make no sense within the context of the discussion. They are not counterexamples to mine.

We are talking about the political Democratic establishment in Washington. That is the one Bernie attacks. And your examples are from before he came to Washington. You want to say he was independent of the Vermont Democratic party in the 80s, sure I agree. But I also know there is a difference between state party infrastructure and national party infrastructure. So again, your examples prove nothing.

And I am not saying me going to a donor event influenced his vote. I am just pointing that if he is so independent, why he yucking it up with the Democratic donor base. Someone he and his supporters swear now influence other Dems.

It is not unsubstantiated, you just don't want to believe it because it goes against his branding.

The NRA help Bernie get into Congress, the Dems help keep him there.

 

[cedric ceballos]

I just want to point out how I I love that aepps20 has no joke United NikeTalk. Got dudes in random threads (Ex: Qaden Bayles thread) using his character



Then in another thread either him or whywesteppin was in character and had MikeD asking multiple times if he was serious before RustyShackleford had to step in and say it was a joke because he sensed the escalation. Got everyone shouting out Latham in the NBA Thread. It’s amazing #Influence

aepps20 made me rediscover how important it is to follow our civic duty to be proud Patriots. I rebelled in my younger years and would be defiant toward the cops. Liberal figureheads like Colin Kaepernick had me sitting for the national anthem. He helped me denounce my past, realize that all lives matter, we back the blue and we’re ready to fight for Donald Trump. This is more than a character. It’s a movement.

 

[aepps20]

Can't wait for RustyShackleford to come home again. #RUSTYISACONSERVATIVE

 

[plansb]

The echo chamber is in full force today I see.

 

[handullz]

Seriously, who the **** cares how much this is gonna cost?

we do this dumb **** with war, we can do it with maintaining a decent chance at life for all people.

**** like child care, healthcare, and decent living wages should be a given.

cut the military budget to sensible levels, tax corporations and wealthiest, and get audits in place for government entity

boom, trillion as of dollars opened up right there.

Now we can move past “but how ya gonna pay for it?”

 

[youngogjosh]

Dude I am an economist by trade so I care about how **** works, I would happily accept if it could work. I understand you are passionate about people getting healthcare but so I'm I, that why I what a serious discussion and proposals to make things better, that can get us to affordable universal coverage as quickly as possible. I can't take the plan serious because there not being the votes for it, there not being widespread public support for it, the math doesn't work at the moment. And the plan to overcome all those things, by next year this time, sounds utterly asinine. Instead of discussing how to make it work so we can get the votes and get the support, it just becomes purity testing season. And once the purity test start, all serious discussion about other reforms stop. Hell M4A is not even the most progressive plan someone can propose, nor is it a panacea. So even the purity test is kinda trash.

Secondly, M4A as Bernie purposes it is not the inly way to get to universal coverage. Tons of other countries have universal coverage, NONE, of them do it the way Sanders proposes. So stop with the "if you are against M4A, you are against universal health insurance". Plain and simple. Here, this should reinforce by point...


But M4A cost more than a single war, it cost more than landing someone on the moon, it cost more than a single tax cut. It is a mayor restructuring of a large part of the economy that will cost trillions above any of those things, and no one will say honestly where the revenue will come from.

All those policy papers that leftist like to cite to make their case for M4A are usually written by liberal academics/economist. There are very few Marxist economist out there. The wonk class that writes and proposes so many of the plan filled his policy platform with are mainly liberals. So can fall back to this petty leftist vs liberals thing but is really don't give two ****s about it. People that care on both sides of that ideological divide. I find is ridiculous that because someone is a liberal, especially progressive liberal, and doesn't handwave the roadblocks, that they somehow don't care. That they somehow are find with all the waste that happens elsewhere, and all the cruelty inflicted on the most vulnerable.

I was to help as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. I want our socioeconomic system to be fundamentally restructure. That is why I have little patience for people that use a healthcare plan as mainly a political attack, and not a serious piece of business to make things better.

If being a leftist is ignoring the roadblocks it get pass, if being a leftist is being insincere in discussions about positive change, if being leftist is just having a vision and not a plan, then that is exactly why I am a liberal progressive and not a leftist. But I don't think that is what being a leftist is. So offer me the same respect and please stop acting like accepting the status quo is what being a liberal is.

To whittle the US warmachine down to just a "single war" is nonsense, it whitewashes the defense contracts, the money pulled from the welfare state to fund them, the damage caused to people on both sides and the damage to the countries that the US pilfer resources from spreads "democracy" to. M4A and the warmachine are vastly unequal in the returns if any that the public/electorate receives. One's an investment in people the other is an investment in maintaining the yolk that's been placed upon them.

That tweet is a meme, it removes any nuance for from the subjects and widdles the position down to four basic points with binary answers which, to be honest, isn't consistent with how you typically argue things. I mean, if that's (the meme that is) a valid critique of Bernie's M4A plan than surely you should take no issue with me or other M4A supporters not caring for the logistics like you previously did.....

Lastly, my critique of liberals isn't that they're not for change, it's how they go about it. You are trying to bring about change in a system that strongly resists and despises it. Liberals have been endlessly arguing with themselves and neocons for decades, largely bringing about very little substantial change. At some point, it should become apparent that having plans and sounding nice while explaining them means nothing when it comes to implementing them.

 

[youngogjosh]

Your examples make no sense within the context of the discussion. They are not counterexamples to mine.

We are talking about the political Democratic establishment in Washington. That is the one Bernie attacks. And your examples are from before he came to Washington. You want to say he was independent of the Vermont Democratic party in the 80s, sure I agree. But I also know there is a difference between state party infrastructure and national party infrastructure. So again, your examples prove nothing.

And I am not saying me going to a donor event influenced his vote. I am just pointing that if he is so independent, why he yucking it up with the Democratic donor base. Someone he and his supporters swear now influence other Dems.

It is not unsubstantiated, you just don't want to believe it because it goes against his branding.

The NRA help Bernie get into Congress, the Dems help keep him there.

My point about him having taken money from non grassroots donors is that he's never been "bought" or influenced by those donors. Effectively, Bernie finessed some checks out of some rich dudes. That seems perfectly on-brand tbh.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I don't think we're saying different things about Obama, we're just coming to different conclusions. I'm not saying he thought he could go talk to Republicans or whoever else and win them over—I'm saying he thought there was basically little to no need to do so. He was here and it was the dawn of a new day, a new way of doing politics, and people would, as you stated, act in good faith and negotiate. But it was apparent almost immediately in his first term how misguided this notion was, though it didn't seem to dawn on him until maybe the end of his first term. (Or maybe he just felt he was in a bind, since he ran on a conciliatory vision of commonsense, good-faith, bipartisan cooperation, so he couldn't deviate from that stance. I don't know.) But it was really strange for someone coming out of Chicago especially—though he was never involved in city politics—that he seemingly didn't grasp the realities of some basic political dynamics. But even nationally, was he not paying attention to how the GOP treated Bill Clinton in the 1990s, even when Clinton had basically adopted their entire political program?

But during the campaign his force of personality overshadowed both this naivete and his moderate political program. And to be clear, I was definitely an Obama guy back then. I was working at a high school about a mile from his home—but on the "wrong" side of Drexel Ave.—and was also living in the area. I was in Grant Park on Election Night in 2008 partying with hundreds of thousands of other people. I was excited to be part of the historic election of the first black president. I was drinking the Kool-Aid. I was young and naive. A lot of other people were also drinking the Kool-Aid that probably should have known better. Interestingly, a lot of folks still can't seem to see things for what they were. Like you said, Obama dismantled his incredible grassroots political movement after he won in 2008. He didn't believe in a movement—he believed in himself. How else can you interpret what he did?

As for Bernie, he's using the campaign as a means of helping to build the movement we need. Obviously, that's not going to do it alone by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a start. And, to be clear, we are basically starting from ground zero in terms of building a movement. Who said Bernie won't try to change the rules of the game or prioritize that when the time comes? He's clear about his political vision where others are unclear and uncommitted. But strategy changes based on circumstances as they unfold. In the words of the immortal Mike Tyson, "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." Give me a president with a compelling and unequivocal political vision and an open strategy to a president with an unclear and shifting political vision with an ostensibly great strategy any day. The former is going to do whatever they can to fight for the vision, the latter is going to change the vision for the strategy.

I will agree that Warren, Pete, Booker, and probably a couple of other candidates are "smarter" than Bernie. They may know more economics, etc. My response is: Who gives a damn? What does all that smartness get us? Obama was brilliant, too. So was Bill Clinton. So was Hillary. What, exactly, did we actually get from all of that intelligence in terms of political victories for working people? That's basically been the Democrats' strategy for decades—let's try to elect the smartest, most credentialied people regardless of their political program or how compelling they are as a political candidate. No thanks, I've seen that movie way too many times, and it has ended in nothing but failure and misery every time. The difference with Bernie is that he's smarter than the other candidates in terms of what matters most in this arena—politics and power. And he has a clear, compelling, and unwavering political vision. All that other stuff is pretty much irrelevant at the end of the day.

-I can interpret it as Obama making a serious miscalculation about American politics at the time. The movement need him to be involved for it to stay afloat, he thought it could run on autopilot without him. And a ton of other things happens that compounded the situation and made it worst. So yeah, I read it as more as naivete than arrogance.

-Here is the thing, you kind like Bernie for whatever reason, do you, but I don't have to buy into the BS. And I think over the last few months and years I have proven that I just don't pull criticism and push backs out my *** regarding dude. You want to handwave other candidates smarts because you want something different politically, then fine, do you my dude. But lets us talk about in here. We can't even have a detailed debate about M4A in here because if someone dare wants to have one in regards to the roadblocks, or the mechanics of the program it is handwaved as "not lacking vision". Sorry but if I raise a point in good faith about the economics of M4A, do not I get an argument within the frame of economics, instead I get some implication that people not onboard completely with this are somehow fine with the status quo. So it is frustrating when lacking vision, or liberals this, and liberals that, all kinds of other handwavely stuff, is used in place of actually discussion that damn policy itself.

You can call the other stuff irrelevant to "politics", but what happens when we get the opportunity to actually pass something. When it come time to legislate, when it comes time to make positive change, Will the smart people have input to write a plan that doesn't collapse on itself or struck down by even a liberal judge. Will people actually listen or will the purity test remain?

Because there is this weird frame that Bernie supporters want political discussion to happen under when it comes to Bernie. Be informed enough to realize Bernie diagnosis the problem of the economy better than the other candidates, but not informed enough to question the problems with his proposed remedies.

- If it was really just about the political vision, you won't be so jumpy at people that criticize him. You do a ton of defend of Bernie beyond just the vision. Damn near all the Bernie supporters on NT and in real life do too. Famb, I really think you are drinking the Kool-Aid again, just a different flavor.

 

[junglejim]

Bernie has passed 7 bills in 30 years but he is going to be the guy that passes the most comprehensive medical reform in modern American history while getting 60 votes in the senate. Got it

 

[RustyShackleford]

To whittle the US warmachine down to just a "single war" is nonsense, it whitewashes the defense contracts, the money pulled from the welfare state to fund them, the damage caused to people on both sides and the damage to the countries that the US pilfer resources from spreads "democracy" to. M4A and the warmachine are vastly unequal in the returns if any that the public/electorate receives. One's an investment in people the other is an investment in maintaining the yolk that's been placed upon them.

That tweet is a meme, it removes any nuance for from the subjects and widdles the position down to four basic points with binary answers which, to be honest, isn't consistent with how you typically argue things. I mean, if that's (the meme that is) a valid critique of Bernie's M4A plan than surely you should take no issue with me or other M4A supporters not caring for the logistics like you previously did.....

Lastly, my critique of liberals isn't that they're not for change, it's how they go about it. You are trying to bring about change in a system that strongly resists and despises it. Liberals have been endlessly arguing with themselves and neocons for decades, largely bringing about very little substantial change. At some point, it should become apparent that having plans and sounding nice while explaining them means nothing when it comes to implementing them.

If we funded the military as 0 a year, still not enough to pay for it famb. The numbers are don't add up. That's all I am saying. I am not defending military spending, I am just pointing out that if we are talking funding, the money is not there.

It is not a meme, it is facts about the differences between Bernie's plans and the rest of the world. It is a meme, go ahead disprove it. Sure there are similarities, the Tweet points those out too. However I am pretty sure I have been consistent with my phrasing.

But this should be easy: Show me a developed country that does it exactly like Bernie proposes? If M4A is the only way to get to universal coverage, just list the countries that use a plan just like Bernie's?

Brah, leftist love liberal plans. They cite the liberal economist and academics that write them all the time. If leftist are going to be the ones that get those plans into place, then great, I am all for it. I want people to get helped I don't give a **** about how the help comes. I just think the Bernie coalition tells themselves convenient lies to handwave legit criticisms people raise. If you guys want to ignore political history, macroeconomics, and structural barriers, and just get **** done. Then cool, I hope the strategy works.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Seriously, who the **** cares how much this is gonna cost?

we do this dumb **** with war, we can do it with maintaining a decent chance at life for all people.

**** like child care, healthcare, and decent living wages should be a given.

cut the military budget to sensible levels, tax corporations and wealthiest, and get audits in place for government entity

boom, trillion as of dollars opened up right there.

Now we can move past “but how ya gonna pay for it?”

My dude, you go no idea what you talking about with this

Even after your plan, we are still trillions short.

For M4A to be paid for, a sizable increase in middle class taxes are needed. There is no way around that.

Like I'm down for it, but let us keep it #1HUNNA about what that means.

And we care about how much it is gonna cost because funding something this big permanent through deficit spending would cause the plan to implode on itself and cause a debt crisis. When is gonna **** over a ton of vulnerable people.