Bernie Sanders has a corruption problem. His election into the House of Representatives was bankrolled by the NRA
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Democratic Presidential Primaries & Caucuses |March OT| Last Tuesday was 1000 years ago, old news no one cares about (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
Bernie Sanders has a corruption problem. His election into the House of Representatives was bankrolled by the NRA
I'm going to put you back on my ignore list now, but you should really stop.
No. He said if a theoretical bill magically appeared in his desk he'd veto it if it didn't ensure there were no lapses in coverage and that it didn't present an undue burden on working class families. He expressed concerns about cost, but it's hard to hypothesize on how you'd react to a bill with no contextual information. There are like 5 M4A bills floating around after all.
I mean I guess. It's still weird to me that being bankrolled by the NRA is not corruption but being bankrolled by employees and businesses in Delaware is when you're a Senator from Delaware .
Who actually believes congress will come together as one body in agreement for Medicare for all
Measurable can mean very small. Is that too much of a stretch or do you need to blasted with dozens of fake Facebook groups that make your grandma racist to understand?
I'm of the mind that will not happen any time in the next decade.
It's pretty easy to understand. Joe "The Establishment" Biden has dementia. Plus, Bernie "loses to Biden in basically every poll but the actual elections are RIGGED" Sanders was (pretend) endorsed by Obama in campaign ads but THAT establishment is okay (although actually Obama was a neoliberal "better things aren't possible" centrist, but not for this ad because we need to pander to voters).
Considering how long it took for them to come around on the public option, i think 10 years is a pretty reasonable expectation.
The question should be why are you posting that if you don't have a problem with it which you claimed you don't since they are just constituents. Seems like you are arguing in bad faith.
no I don't believe either is corruption. There's fair amounts of hunting done in Vermont.
It does not have the votes in the House or Senate. Non-M4A UHC is possible, and it's got greater support because it's a smoother transition, instead of being the option for UHC furthest away from the existing HC infrastructure in the US.
Twitter released 9 million tweets from one Russian troll farm. Here’s what we learned.
The massive data dump reveals how trolls disrupt and destabilize local and global politics.
www.vox.com
Russia's manipulation of Twitter was far vaster than believed
A cybersecurity firm analyzed a massive data set Twitter released in October 2018 on nearly 3,900 accounts and 10 million tweets.
www.politico.com
How Russian Trolls Used Meme Warfare to Divide America
A new report for the Senate exposes how the IRA used every major social media platform to target voters before and after the 2016 election.
A Former Russian Troll Explains How to Spread Fake News
In a video interview, Vitaly Bespalov explains to TIME how they did it
No, I spent a few seconds on the Sanders4President subreddit.
This pales in comparison with the consent that the media has been manufacturing against sandersTwitter released 9 million tweets from one Russian troll farm. Here’s what we learned.
The massive data dump reveals how trolls disrupt and destabilize local and global politics.
Russia's manipulation of Twitter was far vaster than believed
A cybersecurity firm analyzed a massive data set Twitter released in October 2018 on nearly 3,900 accounts and 10 million tweets.
How Russian Trolls Used Meme Warfare to Divide America
A new report for the Senate exposes how the IRA used every major social media platform to target voters before and after the 2016 election.www.wired.com
A Former Russian Troll Explains How to Spread Fake News
In a video interview, Vitaly Bespalov explains to TIME how they did ittime.com
I don't know how they're framing the question, but their constituents may think it's a good idea (it is), but when you tell them the cost, they'll look at things different. For example, millions of people who work in the industry will lose their jobs (and the small businesses like restaurants that thrive on those employees will be impacted as well). How they feel about that isn't asked. Also, taxes for everyone will go up noticeably. Since they have no way of knowing how much theirs will go up, they likely won't consider it until they do. Until there are plans in place for the actual fallout for something as lifechanging as M4A, I wouldn't get my hopes up. And people don't vote because it's a goddamn hassle that most people can't be bothered with. Let people vote from their phones and watch it hit like 70-80%.
So you admit your arguing in bad faith then. You don't actually care that either takes money so your comment about Sanders is nothing more than a gotcha. Why should we believe anything you have to post in this thread when its likely to a bad faith argument?
The article is how Joe Biden accepting money from lobbyists is corruption. The article was written by a Bernie surrogate then promoted by Bernie's speech writer David Sirota. However, that article basically ignores that by the articles own metrics Bernie's corrupt.
the argument is the article and it's subsequent promotion was done in bad faith.
There's a reason Bernie sanders apologized for it. He did not want the same scrutiny for himself, and he himself does not believe it to be corruption inherently.
No one was manufacturing Sanders' massive chunk of missing 2016 voters that's been showing up in polling since early 2019.
Because us pesky POC in Chicago aren't smart enough to use guns responsibly and are ruining it for their Vermonters!
Just from this one thread, here's some choice comments. You may see similarities between what I posted and what people are posting in the thread that you are so proud of.Reddit - Dive into anything
www.reddit.com
The horror
Sure, but if you also explain things even further than what you stated, things will swing back. You can't just say "well if you explain this, it will lose popularity" as if that's the end of the conversation when that's something pro-medicare for all side can do as well.
If you explain the cost that taxes don't necessarily mean it will cost them more, or that at the end of the day it's substantially cheaper for the vast majority of people, will things change? If this picture below was shown to people when questioned about it, will they be opposed to it?
Why is Biden never questioned about how are we going to pay for the public option? Taxes will go up.
User Banned (1 Week): Ignoring Staff Post Regarding Accusations of Disingenuousness
David Sirota's job is make Bernie look good and Biden look bad. Its not his job to be fair and I'm sure you know that. And since you really do not care about this issue, it really begs the question as to why you feel the need to argue like this. It makes it difficult to believe anything you say. I have assume when you post something, you are engaging in bad faith and then investigate and see if you are actually making a fair argument when it should be the other around.
So in response to everyone saying how corrupt Biden is because he accepts money from lobbyists, nobody's allowed to question why Sanders can accept money from the NRA and not be corrupt? That doesn't seem like arguing in bad faith to me.
Sure, but if you also explain things even further than what you stated, things will swing back. You can't just say "well if you explain this, it will lose popularity" as if that's the end of the conversation when that's something pro-medicare for all side can do as well.
If you explain the cost that taxes don't necessarily mean it will cost them more, or that at the end of the day it's substantially cheaper for the vast majority of people, will things change? If this picture below was shown to people when questioned about it, will they be opposed to it?
Why is Biden never questioned about how are we going to pay for the public option? Taxes will go up.
What a ridiculous image, how does it compare to other western countries?
Like i dunno, this looks insanely unfeasible.
I still believe in Warren, her stuff is more detailed and realist. Ugh, she could be President, but she would not be a good VP.
Exactly. They're either both corrupt or neither are corrupt. To argue one is and the other isn't, that's an argument in bad faith because you have to default to "because reasons".
Absolutely no one thats paying attention at all.
Like, literally no one familiar with things would expect this in even the next 10 years. What would really shock people is getting some seriously reliable votes on just how many people would support it in this country. Folks seem to think its a slam dunk in popularity. I think thats bullshit. I think as soon as you start talking about the details of the tax increase its going to take, and the changes it will make in the country in regards to some jobs disappearing while others are created that people will swing harder against it than many think.
Its something that needs to happen, but like most things in this country it isn't going to happen overnight; even if it would benefit us overall, its still going to be a long path to it, like all the other progress that gets made on anything in the U.S.
How is unfeasible? Other countries have systems where they pay half of what we pay (per capita) while providing coverage to all. Studies have been done that show it will save money. There's a 7% tax on companies who make over $1m. If you have a progressive tax system, you can make up for that money lost from the lower income population, with a bigger share from the rich.
What about the public option? Why wouldn't it be more expensive than the current system? If you have a reason for it being cheaper than the current system, then apply that towards medicare for all. Same logic will hold.
Displacing millions of people isn't something to just gloss over. You don't say, "Yeah, we're going to displace millions of workers, some small businesses will close, and your taxes will go up (how much we're not sure yet), but your medical costs will go down at some point in the future." There are just way too many unknowns at this point. Are there even enough doctors, nurses, and hospitals to support M4A? Last I heard we weren't anywhere near close enough. Like I said, there are just way too many variable and Bernie's plan doesn't address any of them in a substantial way.Sure, but if you also explain things even further than what you stated, things will swing back. You can't just say "well if you explain this, it will lose popularity" as if that's the end of the conversation when that's something pro-medicare for all side can do as well.
If you explain the cost that taxes don't necessarily mean it will cost them more, or that at the end of the day it's substantially cheaper for the vast majority of people, will things change? If this picture below was shown to people when questioned about it, will they be opposed to it?
Why is Biden never questioned about how are we going to pay for the public option? Taxes will go up.
Edit: I was right. There aren't enough doctors right now.
That's included in the cost and there is a plan for that. It's not just them losing their job and the story is over. Again, if you just stop at "we'll displace workers" then of course you'll have people have a bad view of it. If you include the full story, will people still have that reaction?
The actual bill is > Insurance industry Transition = 1.8 million people
1. Freeze pension funds
2. Older people near retirement get guaranteed pension, 2 years full pay if they want to retire
3. Younger people have 100% wages insured for 1 year, retraining support and relocation support
4. Transition doesn't just happen to displace all workers as soon as the bill is signed. It will likely take 5-6 years for the displacement to happen. There is a 4 year transition for everyone to be covered by medicare, some of the employees can transition to working for government and finally there is 1 year pay for employees hence 5-6 years (2 years pay if you're near retirement). Insurance will still exist, but it will be supplemental, so some small small number of employees will not be displaced.
Will people react negatively if you explain this to them? Most of the cost saving happens from no longer supporting the insurance industry. I think there will be less money for doctors, but you can make this same argument for the public option if your goal is to save money in the end. Small businesses would save money, as would the vast majority of the population which is healthy for our society. There
Last edited:
We're going back to 2016 and trying to claim getting huge amounts of money from corporations doesn't actually influence your policy
Yeah, this is why I'm skeptical that Medicare for All will pass anytime soon and keep asking Bernie supporters to explain the strategy of how it's going to get passed. Do people realize that universal healthcare has been proposed for over 100 years in the USA? America has heard plenty of visions for universal healthcare and single-payer systems before. It sounds great in theory, but it's like universal background checks for gun control - just because a majority of the country supports it doesn't mean it'll pass because there are a lot of stakeholders in this country (insurance companies, the AMA, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, various middlemen such as pharmacy benefit managers, everyone on Medicare) that will stand to lose out or perceive that they will from any sort of meaningful healthcare reform and will fight tooth and nail to prevent it from occurring. The track record suggests that just 'making the case to the American people', as Bernie says he'll do, is unlikely to succeed given the intense level of opposition and fear-mongering from the healthcare industry and Republicans that is bound to occur. So I need a reason to be convinced that a single payer system has any chance of getting through Congress anytime soon. Until then I'm a broken cynic from the Obamacare wars who would be happy with just the incremental progress in the short term that a strong public option would bring.
1912: U.S. efforts to achieve universal coverage began with progressive health care reformers who supported Theodore Roosevelt for President in 1912, though he was defeated.[9] The American Medical Association (AMA) was also deeply and vocally opposed to the idea,[10] which it labeled "socialized medicine".
1933: In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt asked Isidore Falk and Edgar Sydenstricter to help draft provisions to Roosevelt's pending Social Security legislation to include publicly funded health care programs. These reforms were attacked by the American Medical Association as well as state and local affiliates of the AMA as "compulsory health insurance." Roosevelt ended up removing the health care provisions from the bill in 1935. Fear of organized medicine's opposition to universal health care became standard for decades after the 1930s.[13]
1949: Following the world war, President Harry Truman called for universal health care as a part of his Fair Deal in 1949 but strong opposition stopped that part of the Fair Deal.[16][17]
1965: After Lyndon B. Johnson was elected president in 1964, the stage was set for the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.[18] Johnson's plan was not without opposition, however. "Opponents, especially the AMA and insurance companies, opposed the Johnson administration's proposal on the grounds that it was compulsory, it represented socialized medicine, it would reduce the quality of care, and it was 'un-American.'"[8]
1979: In June 1979, Carter proposed more limited health insurance reform—an employer mandate to provide catastrophic private health insurance plus coverage without cost sharing for pregnant women and infants, federalization of Medicaid with extension to the very poor without dependent minor children, and enhancement of Medicare by adding catastrophic coverage.[41] In November 1979, Long led a bipartisan conservative majority of his Senate Finance Committee to support an employer mandate to provide catastrophic-only private health insurance and enhancement of Medicare by adding catastrophic coverage, but abandoned efforts in May 1980 due to budget constraints in the face of a deteriorating economy.[39][41][43][44]
1993: The 1993 Clinton health care plan included mandatory enrollment in a health insurance plan, subsidies to guarantee affordability across all income ranges, and the establishment of health alliances in each state. Every citizen or permanent resident would thus be guaranteed medical care. The bill faced withering criticism by Republicans, led by William Kristol, who communicated his concern that a Democratic health care bill would "revive the reputation of... Democrats as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government." [45] The bill was not enacted into law.
2009: The ACA passed.
Biden got endorsed by the largest union in the country, NEA:
thehill.com
Nation’s largest union, NEA, endorses Biden for president
The National Education Association (NEA), the nation’s largest union, announced Saturday night it is endorsing Joe Biden for president, a major boost for the former vice president as he battles wit…
thehill.com
The point he's making is that despite Sanders making it core to his platform, he never outlined a clear vision for how to accomplish it. Additionally, the Sanders M4A plan has a lot of issues baked into it. Healthcare reform is incredibly difficult, and the Public Option now has pretty broad support which is in no small part because of Sanders efforts.
Genius idea here. What if we compromise before we get to the negotiating table
The weirdest thing is that when he was questioned on it, he said that he would get it done by going around America and with the people, try to persuade politicians to make changes that would benefit the people.
All in all, it would only work if he had the backbone of other politicians, the democrat party and the media. Things that are rather hopes and dreams.
r/SandersForPresident, r/WayOfTheBern and r/politics are beyond fucking worthless, and as full with conspiracy theories as any alt-right subreddit. Unusubscribe if you haven't. Reading these subs makes you dumber and less informed. Out of all the conspiracy theories I've read in the past couple of weeks (99% by Bernie Bros), the only one I'm willing to not dismiss outright is that these three subs are being mass manipulated by Russians to radicalize young men lmao. Frankly, it's probably not Russians or anything, but the circle-jerky nature of subreddits just always seems to lead to these insane echo chambers, as dissenting voices are increasingly downvoted.
The reason the Sanders subs are full of "mean people" is because they are so much more popular than any of the other candidate's subs. Like the top post on r/JoeBiden has 1.4K upvotes (I mean that makes sense, imagine being tha much of a loser you sub to r/joebiden)
- Status