I will say again: I categorically reject the premise that presidential nominees must be chosen based on who has the best ideology or set of policy proposals. Presidents are policymakers, but they are also spokesmodels, and there’s no sense pretending otherwise.
I don’t dismiss criticisms of bernie, I disagree with his position on decriminalizing hard drugs, I think they should be legalized.
If someone brings up “hes an old white man” that kind of thing is just identity politics, racism, and ageism, and has no merit. Often centrists on these boards resort to such low brow attacks of Bernie because they know they cannot refute how much of an incredible legislator the guy is.
No one on these boards has definitively proven that our current healthcare system is better than M4A. No one has proven why we should allow BPMs to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers while the government puts regulations on manufactures to increase cost of production allowing them to monopolize and inflate prices along with the insurance BPMs who are happy to so they can charge americans more. No one has shown why Bernies SS expansion bill would be bad in any capacity.
What most of these guys in this thread have been doing is the same shit Republicans do to their beloved centrist candidates for years. It’s odd how opposed most of straightdope is to republicans yet they use the same tactics when they’re forced into a corner and cannot rely on facts or reasoning, instead their assert their own truths as facts and convince themselves running a centrist against trump will be any different from 2016 when a large portion of votes went to independents and some even to trump.
Appealing to people with the argument Bernie is old white male so we need a slightly less old less white female.
(btw im pretty sure u know what that means, you just want to be combative as most people in this thread and avoid the substance)
Ok, one thing that is pissing me off about Bernie. His UHC plan.
He is calling it “Medicare for all” but it doesnt have anything to do with Medicare. It’s a pure socialized medicine plan.
That’s fine, but others want a true Medicare for all plan, and he has deliberately poisoned the well.
I agree with this. And they are also executives. They have to get stuff done. They also end up being faced with moral decisions that affect the nation, but that may not have been on anyone’s radar duing the election.
So I do care about their ideology, and what their moral instincts are. But I also care that they are good managers and charismatic. That’s why, if all else were equal, I’d vote for the governor over the senator. And I think Obama’s prior job as “community organizer” was an important credential.
I don’t care that he’s white and male, but I do think he’s too old. It takes a huge amount of physical energy to be the president, and while he has that now, the odds are that he won’t be able to keep it up through his term.
Of course, we have a vice president for a reason. And if I really liked him for other reasons, I would overlook his age. But I don’t.
Speaking of which, please fight my ignorance. You say he is an incredible legislator. Can you tell me what he has accomplished as a legislator? Because I have the impression that he’s been an unusually ineffective legislator who has accomplished very little. Especially given how long he’s held his current job.
Serious question: What is the difference between medicare and socialized medicine, other than the age limits on medicare?
Medicare is a specific program, “socialized medicine” is just a very general descriptor. The thrust of the criticism is that the “Medicare for all” legislation bears little resemblance to current Medicare.
Politifact: Medicare for All: What it is, what it isn’t
Medicare consists of 4 parts: A Hospital Insurance, which is “free”. B medical, like walk in visits to MD- a modest monthly charge, say $150. C Medicare advantage or supplemental- offered by most health plans, it covers what Parts A&B dont, with maybe a small co-pay. Costs vary
D= drugs.
Medicare operates just fine with private insurance. Part C *is *Private insurance. Or maybe you want cadillac care or no waiting time, - some people just buy private insurance. That’s Ok.
A true Medicare for all plan would be covered easily by charging companies a tax about equal to what they pay now to cover their employees health plans. You’d have small premiums, but your company may well pay them too.
Sanders plan has none of that. Everyone is totally covered, no premiums, and all private insurance companies are outlawed. It is NOT, *in any way shape or form “Medicare”.
JFTR, Trom joined the thread on October 11. Not sure if I’ve joined it before this post. I’ll go check.
ETA: Nope, this is my first post. Normally I’d be reluctant to bother reading an entire thread by starting when it’s fourteen pages long, but I just found out that my state is going to be part of Super Tuesday, so I thought maybe I’d better bring myself up to speed.
If they’re in prison for voting fraud, should they STILL keep the franchise?
IYHO.
Excuse me? WTF is a NON-appointed delegate? Do NON-appointed delegates include delegates awarded to Hillary on the basis that she won the primaries from the states represented by those delegates?
Yes, I am proud to call myself a centrist. But I take issue with any assertion that I pretend to be a leftist (however much the radical reactionaries of the extreme Right insist that I actually am one).
There are also unexcluded middles. And any position founded on the notion that there AREN’T, or that I don’t recognize when an issue ONLY has two sides (of which MINE is the objectively correct one :p) is hardly worth my time.
Sorry, I acknowledge that you said you wouldn’t accept it as an answer, but if Sanders wants to be the face of the Democratic Party, he really ought to become a member. As for AOC, I like her and generally support what she wants to do. And as for Ro Khanna; WHO?
Pretty sure they would, because AOC. Unless you think AOC wouldn’t have brought those up without Bernie’s imprimatur. Do you think that?
Why are you colorizing everything, kaylasdad99? And is it considered ok to colorize things in quotes that the original poster did not color?
I colored each paragraph with the same color of the OP’s comment that it was responding to.
And I’m pretty sure it’s kosher.
When I look at the OP’s comment you quoted, I see no colors at all.
I am not who you asked, but yes, I think people in prison should keep the franchise, even people convicted of voting fraud. Why not?
In a properly run state, there won’t be enough people in prison to make a significant impact. And in an improperly run state, I don’t want the state to easily ALSO disenfranchise people be stripping them of their voting rights.
That being said, I feel much more strongly that felons who have served their time be able to vote. And a persuasive argument against prisoners voting is that they are more vulnerable to being pressured to vote in a way that pleases their jailors than any other group is vulnerable to such coercion.
He did it so you can see which part of the post she is answering with each part of his response. I thought it was very clever, and might copy it.
Ro Khanna is a representative for California’s 17th congressional district. He is also a national co-chair of Bernie Sanders’ 2020 Presidential campaign.
I’m a fairly old white guy and I don’t see anything wrong with preferring someone other than an old white guy as our nominee. All things being otherwise equal. That’s not my main objection to Bernie. But I don’t see it as “Identity Politics” (which I view as a meaningless term in all situations)
Really?
Are you using Sultantheme?
I mean, if my method doesn’t show up for certain posters, I guess I’ll have to break up the quotes I’m responding to.
It’s pure bullshit. It’s false information designed to imply that the DNC literally cheated its members of out the democratic (small d) choice of nominee. It ignores that Clinton (D) got more votes than Sanders (I), won more states, won more delegates even before “superdelegates”, and that Sanders’ campaign repeatedly advocated for those same “superdelegates” to vote AGAINST the democratic (small d) choice of Clinton when it became the only way he could win.
That alone is why I refuse to support Sanders against literally any Democratic party member, and why I contend he’s more of a parasite on the party than the “face” of it.
*As usual *the super delegates mostly voted for the winning candidate- which was Hillary by a large margin. However, 45 of the superdelegates did express support for Bernie before the election was overwhelmingly decided at the polls - the VOTERs voting about 17Million for Clinton but only 13m for Sanders.
And the super delegates made no difference what-so-ever. The vote was 2842 to 1865 with 571 supers for Hillary and 45 for bernie. **She won without the support of the Superdelegates. **
And if every “non appointed delegate (had) voted Sanders” he would have won 4091 to 615.
You post displays a profound ignorance of how superdelegates work and the actual results of the primary.
This is anyone reason why many of us dont like Bernie- his supporters and their “we wuz robbed” ideas. He lost- fair and square.
Sanders actually only did well in the highly UN-democratic caucus primaries.