And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[JBS]

Try telling that to anyone who lives in the rest of the developed world.

Do you think all these countries are idiots for adopting Medicare for All?

Most of them don't have an actual single payer system, which is what Medicare for All is (or at least it's what I mean when I use the term.) And most Americans would be worse off with a single payer plan. Countries that have an actual single payer plan are actually no better off, and sometimes worse off, than the US.

Something like what Biden proposes, a public option available to people who can't otherwise get health insurance, is I think the best idea.

[JBS]

If this doesn't change your mind, I don't know what will.

https://www.youtube.com/v/2gP35_JqKVc

Thank you for posting that, but it doesn't change the central fact that, while a single payer plan would make things better for some people, it would leave most people worse off than now.

[71 dB]

How old are you?

48

[71 dB]

Most of them don't have an actual single payer system, which is what Medicare for All is (or at least it's what I mean when I use the term.) And most Americans would be worse off with a single payer plan. Countries that have an actual single payer plan are actually no better off, and sometimes worse off, than the US.

Something like what Biden proposes, a public option available to people who can't otherwise get health insurance, is I think the best idea.

Biden protects insurance companies and Big Pharma. If you think these profits are more important than healthcare then Biden's ideas are ok.
Can you mantion single payer countries that are worse off than US?

https://fr.april-international.com/en/healthcare-expatriates/which-countries-have-best-healthcare-systems

Anyway, you are just a stupid hack defending the status quo because you have been brainwashed to do so. SAD

[71 dB]

You can not get money out of politics. Politics is about power, and that means whoever has money will become involved in politics. A person who advocates getting money out of politics is either ignorant or a con artist.

You may think progressive policies help the 99%, but there are plenty of reasons to say they don't, and that would be true no matter who funds the objectors. Stop assuming people advocate conservative positions because of brainwashing or corruption.  There are real reasons not to adopt Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, and most of them revolve around the fact that they would make things worse for most, if not all, of the 99%.

You don't have a clue about what democracy means. There is no democracy if the rich uses their money to influence politics. What a sad case you are, amazingly stupid! In real democracy it's a competition of ideas, not money.

[JBS]

Biden protects insurance companies and Big Pharma. If you think these profits are more important than healthcare then Biden's ideas are ok.
Can you mantion single payer countries that are worse off than US?

https://fr.april-international.com/en/healthcare-expatriates/which-countries-have-best-healthcare-systems

Anyway, you are just a stupid hack defending the status quo because you have been brainwashed to do so. SAD

You seem to equate the idea of profits with bad health care. Which means it is useless to talk with you, because you don't want to discuss actual facts.  The facts are that in a true single payer system most Americans would be worse off than they are now.  What profits the insurance companies make is beside the point.

Let me adapt your last line

Anyway, you are just a stupid leftist defending leftist proposals because you have been brainwashed to do so. SAD.

[JBS]

You don't have a clue about what democracy means. There is no democracy if the rich uses their money to influence politics. What a sad case you are, amazingly stupid! In real democracy it's a competition of ideas, not money.

If democracy can exist only where money is not involved, then democracy never has existed, does not now exist, will never exist.

[71 dB]

You seem to equate the idea of profits with bad health care. Which means it is useless to talk with you, because you don't want to discuss actual facts.  The facts are that in a true single payer system most Americans would be worse off than they are now.  What profits the insurance companies make is beside the point.

Let me adapt your last line

Anyway, you are just a stupid leftist defending leftist proposals because you have been brainwashed to do so. SAD.

Those profits don't come from nothing. They drive people into medical bankruptcies. People are BETTER OFF when they are not bankrupt or not covered.

[71 dB]

If democracy can exist only where money is not involved, then democracy never has existed, does not now exist, will never exist.

Of course there is some money, but who's money and how much? Koch brothers, Soros, Big Pharma, etc. have had too much influence.  The less money the better

Majority of americans want stricter gun laws. In democracy you should have them, right? Especially as the gun violence in the US is at insane level.

[greg]

Jesus you are naive. How can you people on this board be this dumb? What is this? People on pop music forum understands more about politics than a lot of people here! Of course it corrupts! Jesus Christ! Those billionaires want return for their investment. Donate 1 million to get 10 million worth of tax cuts and so on. Why else donate? Giving large donations to politicians is one of the most profitable things in the US. Republicans are bought. Corporate Dems are bought. Progressive Dems and third parties aren't and that's why they can propose things that would help REGULAR people instead of the top 1 %. The owner class needs to brainwash people to vote against their own interest so that's why they finance people like Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owns etc. to do that for them.
Depends how you define wrong. Are you on the side of the 1 % or the 99 % ? Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Steven Crowder deny climate change?

Well yeah, I like third parties for this reason.

My first question wasn't really a question to be answered, but more of a setup. All I'm trying to ask is- is his assessment of reality wrong just because money is involved? Or is he just wrong?

Being correct about things doesn't necessarily mean you have good or bad intentions...

I don't know if Crowder is for/against climate change since I don't really care about that topic.

Not true at all. A lot of people want to make the world as good as possible for themselves and couldn't care less about other people. Again you demonstrate appalling naivity.

Most people couldn't care less if it inconveniences them. Which is a reasonable position (though obviously not good for a leadership position).
I thought this would have been obviously implied- maybe not.

I mean, sure, I guess there are some sadists who would wish the worst on people they don't even know, but I think most people would wish the best for everyone they don't know as long as they aren't doing something they disagree with or inconveniences them.

Of course there is some money, but who's money and how much? Koch brothers, Soros, Big Pharma, etc. have had too much influence.  The less money the better

Majority of americans want stricter gun laws. In democracy you should have them, right? Especially as the gun violence in the US is at insane level.

Less money is better. But literally no one is going to set limits on that. Why? Because all of life is only governed by power, nothing else. And money is the most influential form of power in the world. So the people who have the most money aren't going to try to get people who make laws to change this, which would be against their own interests. It's completely hopeless.

[Muzio]

71db: "Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Steven Crowder deny climate change?"

No one that I know denies climate change.  The climate has always changed and will continue to change...forever.  What is being pushed is the political religion of man-made climate change, for which there is no real data, just correlations of...correlations of...correlations of...conjectures. It is simply a man-made globalist income redistrbution scheme.

The Left:
"PEOPLE!!  We only have a few years to implement the Green New Deal!  The Seas are rising!!  OMG!!

Also The Left just recently:
"Experts have predicted up to 1,500 individual private jets flights will be made in and out of this year's Davos summit, despite hosting a series of talks on the dangers of man-made climate change."  (This is not even counting the record number of luxury yachts...) 

"Eco-lecturers Meghan Markle and Prince Harry board their private jet with baby Archie for fourth gas-guzzling flight in just 11 days as they leave the south of France 'after visiting Elton John's $18m mansion' on three-day jaunt." 

"Former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle are reportedly planning to purchase a multimillion dollar mansion in Martha's Vineyard off the coast of Cape Cod in Massachusetts.  TMZ reported Thursday that the Obamas are purchasing the property, which contains 29 beachfront acres and seven bedrooms, for a discounted price of $14,850,000." 

The ghastly hypocritical left!  By their works shall ye know them. 

[amw]

Davos, the British royal family and the US ruling class all represent the ultra rich who will be fine no matter what, probably surviving the coming social collapse in purpose built bunkers in New Zealand or something. If you want to meet the actual left, try talking to the indigenous tribes of the Brazilian Amazon whose ancestral lands are being burned to make room for oil wells and soybean plantations, which will likely result in the desertification of most of South America if the rainforest reaches a sufficient level of biomass loss.

Only an extremely stupid or extremely wealthy person can afford to deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change at this point. The evidence suggests that human activity has warmed the earth since the start of high density agriculture; the holocene era was on a long term trend of global cooling until about 5000 years ago and all climate models predict that without human intervention (ie clearcutting and burning forests, grasslands and peatland in order to grow monocultures and cash crops) we would currently be in a fairly significant ice age, with glaciers down as far as upstate new york etc. Interested parties should consult, e.g. http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Ruddiman2003.pdf

I also want to point out that the "Green New Deal" is not a leftist policy, it is a rightist one meant to preserve capitalism through a crisis of climate disruption. The promotion of green energy, beloved of ExxonMobil etc because of the use of fossil fuels and heavy metals involved in constructing wind turbines and solar panels, and extremely environmentally damaging in itself (especially in the form of hydroelectric dams), is a pretty obvious giveaway. The leftist "solution" to climate change is managed degrowth under a system of central planning, coupled with expropriation of the First World's stolen wealth to rebuild the Third World. I put solution in quotes because this is impossible under the american empire, but who knows, maybe Xi Jinping will eventually get his act together and bring about socialism with chinese characteristics, and successfully economically dominate the USA, I'm not holding my breath though.

[Muzio]

AMW: "Davos, the British royal family and the US ruling class all represent the ultra rich who will be fine no matter what, probably surviving the coming social collapse in purpose built bunkers in New Zealand or something..." 

You are welcome to your conspiracy theories, of course... 

AMW: "Only an extremely stupid or extremely wealthy person can afford to deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change at this point..."

Well, I'm not 'extremely wealthy,' so I must be...Hey!  Wait a second!! 

AMW: "...stephenschneider.stanford.edu..." 

Do you mean Stephen Schneider, the global cooling guy?  Or Stephen Schneider, the global warming guy?

In 1971, Schneider co-authored a paper warning of a man-made "ice age." See: Rasool S., & Schneider S."Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141 – Excerpt: 'The rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age." Schneider was still promoting the coming "ice age" in 1978. (See: Unearthed 1970's video: Global warming activist Stephen Schneider caught on 1978 TV show 'In Search Of...The Coming Ice Age' – September 20, 2009) By the 1980's, Schneider reversed himself and began touting man-made global warming. See: "The rate of [global warming] change is so fast that I don't hesitate to call it potentially catastrophic for ecosystems," Schneider said on UK TV in 1990.

AMW: "I also want to point out that the "Green New Deal" is not a leftist policy, it is a rightist one meant to preserve capitalism through a crisis of climate disruption..."

Bernie is not going to be happy when he finds out... 

[drogulus]

What is being pushed is the political religion of man-made climate change, for which there is no real data, just correlations of...correlations of...correlations of...conjectures. It is simply a man-made globalist income redistrbution scheme.

     The cooling effect hypothesis was disconfirmed, the warming hypothesis has been confirmed, and a scientist changed his mind.

     Will the response to the crisis be a "globalist income redistrbution scheme"? Inevitably it will, as the scale will be global and income will be redistributed, mostly upward since it will force governments out of a world wide spending slump. The world will be forced to grow against its shrinky inclinations.

     Keep in mind that climate change damages incomes all over the world, millions of people have already been displaced by it, and it's looking like the worst case scenario of only a few years ago is the real case now.

[Florestan]

democracy never has existed, does not now exist, will never exist.

That is actually true. 

[71 dB]

71db: "Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Steven Crowder deny climate change?"

No one that I know denies climate change.  The climate has always changed and will continue to change...forever.  What is being pushed is the political religion of man-made climate change, for which there is no real data, just correlations of...correlations of...correlations of...conjectures. It is simply a man-made globalist income redistrbution scheme.

So are you saying the it's pure coincidence that for thousands of years CO2 concentration was around 260 ppm to around 280 ppm - since the Industrial Revolution it has risen to over 400 ppm. Sorry, but I don't believe in coincidences like that especially when there is almost 100 % consensus among climate scientist it is not a coincidence. It's also curious why the "research" for opposing claims is financed by fossil fuel industry. How stupid are you? Jesus. I am so done with idiots like you! You fucking morrons are so dangeorus to this planet. Fuck you"!

need to calm down! I am so angry! I'll watch 007 - Dr. No for some entertainment...

[71 dB]

This is not true. 94 % of Americans will have more disposable income under a single-payer plan.

Thanks for this information. I haven't seen such a precise estimate. Looks totally believable.

[Muzio]

So are you saying the it's pure coincidence that for thousands of years CO2 concentration was around 260 ppm to around 280 ppm - since the Industrial Revolution it has risen to over 400 ppm. Sorry, but I don't believe in coincidences like that especially when there is almost 100 % consensus among climate scientist it is not a coincidence. It's also curious why the "research" for opposing claims is financed by fossil fuel industry. How stupid are you? Jesus. I am so done with idiots like you! You fucking morrons are so dangeorus to this planet. Fuck you"!

I see I'm rising in your esteem, though I have yet to rise to the "asshole" ranking that you bestowed upon Todd.  Something to aim for.

But seriously, do you know who said the following?

"No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent."

"The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking."

"[W]e'll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods."

Why, it was Barry Obama, the same guy who just bought a 7000 SF coastal mansion on Martha's Vineyard.

The Obamas are literally investing $15 million in the fact that Global Warming is a hoax.

[SimonNZ]

Davos, the British royal family and the US ruling class all represent the ultra rich who will be fine no matter what, probably surviving the coming social collapse in purpose built bunkers in New Zealand or something.

I've heard it rumored that some Ayn Rand types are looking to NZ as their new Galts Gulch come whatever disaster.

Putting aside the fact that any global disaster will hurt NZ right along with everywhere else, I'm letting it be known that  my first priority come that day will be to concrete over the bunkers of those who helped cause it and think they can now hide - so they had better be part of the solution instead.

[amw]

Do you mean Stephen Schneider, the global cooling guy?  Or Stephen Schneider, the global warming guy?

If you read the paper, you'll understand why he was predicting a coming ice age in the 1970s—failure to take into account the effects of CO2 and CH4 emissions—because it pretty clearly indicates the world would be cooling if not for human activity.

Bernie is not going to be happy when he finds out... 

Or maybe Bernie isn't quite as "left" as you all seem to think he is. Being a lifelong supporter of Israel, not to mention the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Libya, is significantly more diagnostic of one's true political leanings than what party one identifies with.

I've heard it rumored that some Ayn Rand types are looking to NZ as their new Galts Gulch come whatever disaster.

Putting aside the fact that any global disaster will hurt NZ right along with everywhere else, I'm letting it be known that  my first priority come that day will be to concrete over the bunkers of those who helped cause it and think they can now hide - so they had better be part of the solution instead.

This is a noble endeavour and one I will fully support. Perhaps the bunkers could also be used as a new habitat for the invasive Avondale huntsman spider.