| Forum Index > Closed |
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value. Rules: - Don't post meaningless one-liners. - Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate. - Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand. - Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm. This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1081 Posts
But what if she was telling the truth? Wouldn’t she feel quite betrayed? Wouldn’t she be quite disappointed in the integrity of Sanders? Would she really support a guy who directly lied and made her look like a liar in the process? Things are more complicated than just policy. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35171 Posts
| ||
Nakajin
Canada8989 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17279 Posts
On March 09 2020 10:19 RenSC2 wrote: What if Warren was telling the truth about Sanders’s comments on a woman becoming president? He didn’t deflect/explain it like he easily could have (“I was making a comment on how difficult it is for a woman to become president after what happened with Hillary, who I supported btw”). No, he flat out denied ever saying it. He basically called Warren a liar in the process and the whole thing seemed to hurt her campaign. But what if she was telling the truth? Wouldn’t she feel quite betrayed? Wouldn’t she be quite disappointed in the integrity of Sanders? Would she really support a guy who directly lied and made her look like a liar in the process? i think you are over simplifying Sanders' denial. Here is Sanders exact denial. I love the James Madison reference in this vid.  Sanders handled Warren's uncorroborated accusation perfectly. He rose in popularity and she fell. Done deal. She ran around throwing grenades while Sanders stuck to his platform and the issues. Warren runs around throwing grenades while she has huge integrity issues herself. Anyhow , Warren yammers on and on about how women can defeat men and women have a better track record etc etc. I'd like to reply with the title of a song by Rush. "Show Me Don't Tell Me". | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1081 Posts
On March 09 2020 13:12 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i think you are over simplifying Sanders' denial. Here is Sanders exact denial. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5CUfvoRCx4 I love the James Madison reference in this vid. Sanders handled Warren's uncorroborated accusation perfectly. He rose in popularity and she fell. Done deal. She ran around throwing grenades while Sanders stuck to his platform and the issues. Warren runs around throwing grenades while she has huge integrity issues herself. Anyhow , Warren yammers on and on about how women can defeat men and women have a better track record etc etc. I'd like to reply with the title of a song by Rush. "Show Me Don't Tell Me". Yep, he rose, she fell. Would be a pretty bitter pill if she was telling the truth and he was lying. The type that might make someone think twice before endorsing you. Sanders definitely won that battle, but perhaps it cost him the war. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17279 Posts
If she has no proof she needs to have the savvy and experience to see how dumb she looks making an unproveable accusation. Bernie won out after that big dust up and he is full value for the win. Tell ya man, if Bernie were more similar to Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter on the major issues that face the USA and he were 50 years old.... he'd be a great President. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 09 2020 14:44 SK.Testie wrote: "Pay for illegal migrant healthcare." No, he'd be an awful president and his policies would lead America to absolute ruin. Most people that think like that don't vote in the Democratic primary. I'm gonna say that isn't very applicable unless I hear an actual Democrat say he hears other Democrats have that take on the matter. | ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
Unless Sanders miraculously turns it around this week, it's gonna be Biden. I dont see how Biden in his current form can stand up to him, Trump is gonna be relentless and wont pull his punches, like Bernie does. Im really interested how that will shape the party, meaning if Biden loses the general. On one hand, it would be clear that Bernie couldnt take over, and that wave is kinda halted (with no heir-apparent in sight), on the other hand the "party picks the most electable candidate" would be on an epic loss-streak (Biden, Hillary, Kerry even Al Gore) | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11758 Posts
On March 09 2020 14:44 SK.Testie wrote: "Pay for illegal migrant healthcare." No, he'd be an awful president and his policies would lead America to absolute ruin. You could have universal healthcare and pay for every "illegal migrant" and still pay less than you currently do. The US system is uniquely expensive without delivering any better results. You might have to accept the ultimate horror of everyone having access to healthcare, not only the rich. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/d7884747-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/d7884747-en Also, as others have stated, you wouldn't vote democrat no matter who the candidate is. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12402 Posts
On March 09 2020 17:38 Geo.Rion wrote: Im really interested how that will shape the party, meaning if Biden loses the general. On one hand, it would be clear that Bernie couldnt take over, and that wave is kinda halted (with no heir-apparent in sight), on the other hand the "party picks the most electable candidate" would be on an epic loss-streak (Biden, Hillary, Kerry even Al Gore) In that scenario we would have to make sure this argument lands with the boomers, because the people who convinced them with that argument of electability obviously aren't interested in changing tune. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17279 Posts
IMO, There is so much grifting and corruption within the current US private system that if one attempted a change from a poor private system to a different well run private system... you'd get just as big of an opposition. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On March 09 2020 06:17 Sr18 wrote: Or maybe the world is complex place, in which decisions aren't made based on some arbitrary distinction like progressive vs moderate. It's not that complex this primary with the remaining candidates. You support medicare for all, or you don't. You support college debt relief or you don't. You support expanding family leave or you don't. On March 09 2020 06:19 Nebuchad wrote: "I'm trying to figure out what's best for my political future and act in accordance to that" is not that complex. The hilarious thing is that what's best for her political future would have been endorsing Sanders immediately (before ST ideally, but when she dropped out would be just as good). Her entire claim to a Biden cabinet position is that she would be a unity appointee. Appoint Warren, unite the party, win vs Trump. But she's not a unity appointee anymore. Young African Americans, Latinxes, working class white men, and Sander's leaning white educated men that all make up Warren dislike her. The minority groups never brought into her, nor did the working class, and the "Bernie Bro" white man demographic knows what she's done and is doing. Without a Sanders endorsement she has no claim to unity and is just hurting her own cabinet position. If he had endorsed, especially dropped before ST and endorsed, she could have a strong claim to VP in either admin (Sanders obviously would give it to her, Biden would feel pressured to to unite the party). The good will she would have gotten among progressives would give her claim as a strong unity appointee. If anything without an endorsement she's going to be a giant anchor around Biden's neck. "Biden appointed Pocahontas" is going to just be a freebie for Trump and the only voters Warren will excite/bring to the table are people in heavily blue states/areas that would vote blue anyways. ----- I think there is one semi-charitable reading here. She's not endorsing Sanders because she is bitter that he ran. She announced before he did, and before he had even decided if he should run again by some accounts. Now that her campaign is ended I think she takes issue with Sanders both entering the race and driving her out of the progressive lane. So from her point of view I do buy that there's bad blood, but it's entirely of her own doing and entitlement and is still inexcusable. | ||
|
Tribune
Australia60 Posts
On March 09 2020 14:44 SK.Testie wrote: "Pay for illegal migrant healthcare." No, he'd be an awful president and his policies would lead America to absolute ruin. The NHS covers everybody in the UK, no question. It's not such a crazy idea | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On March 09 2020 23:16 Tribune wrote: The NHS covers everybody in the UK, no question. It's not such a crazy idea The extra cost is worth the streamlined medical care where you don't need to go through a bunch of paperwork to prove you deserve care. The extra cost is worth not having a COVID-19 positive migrant avoiding quarantine/hospital care. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11758 Posts
On March 09 2020 23:18 Logo wrote: The extra cost is worth the streamlined medical care where you don't need to go through a bunch of paperwork to prove you deserve care. The extra cost is worth not having a COVID-19 positive migrant avoiding quarantine/hospital care. Especially considering that the extra cost of turning the US system into a reasonable system would be negative money. Because the US system is currently by far the most expensive in the world. I keep repeating this, because a lot of people seem to believe that the US system is cheaper than that of other countries. It is not. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/876d99c3-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/876d99c3-en The US system costs more public money than any other healthcare system in the world, both per capita and % GDP. It also costs a lot of additional "voluntary" money, AND it delivers worse results. AND it means that not everyone "deserves" healthcare in the US. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/d7884747-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/d7884747-en | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
Already that's a distortion of facts. For entirely too many people, one's financial ability to pay thousands out of pocket to begin receiving care causes them to put it off, until you're no longer talking about preventative care, but instead emergency intervention. It cannot be overstated what kind of an effect it would have if people could simply... go to a doctor when they're ill. The private insurance industry we have has it wrapped up in so much red tape, to ensure maximum profit margins, which often means pushing people to get emergency intervention, rather than healthier, less expensive preventative care. The line when you finally sit in the hospital may be longer, but for the average person they'd be able to get seen months or years sooner than they do right now. At any hospital they want or need. If you don't think there'd be massive economic benefits down the line from having a streamlined system that provides to-the-point preventative care to people who currently have to choose whether to treat one disease or the other after the fact, you're dreaming. Rather than being farmed for disability money for their permanent illness, so many people would be working instead. Moral good aside, it's an investment in people. Our system is a shambles, and it's because a fraction of a fraction of the wealthy want it that way. There is no metric which indicates our system is anything but backwards. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1952 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9175 Posts
On March 09 2020 23:49 Simberto wrote: Especially considering that the extra cost of turning the US system into a reasonable system would be negative money. Because the US system is currently by far the most expensive in the world. I keep repeating this, because a lot of people seem to believe that the US system is cheaper than that of other countries. It is not. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/876d99c3-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/876d99c3-en The US system costs more public money than any other healthcare system in the world, both per capita and % GDP. It also costs a lot of additional "voluntary" money, AND it delivers worse results. AND it means that not everyone "deserves" healthcare in the US. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/d7884747-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/d7884747-en I don't think they believe that, it's just that some people would rather burn their tax money than having part of it used on providing services to 'leechers'. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On March 10 2020 01:42 Dan HH wrote: I don't think they believe that, it's just that some people would rather burn their tax money than having part of it used on providing services to 'leechers'. Well right now the leechers are working for the insurance companies, taking more money from their check than they do in any other country, and providing nothing whatsoever in return as they also pay out of pocket. This is explained to people, but here we remain. It's a relief that it's even gotten as far as the standard Democratic platform. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
WardiTV Winter Champion…
Replay Cast
Ultimate Battle
Light vs ZerO
WardiTV Winter Champion…
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
