And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[71 dB]

     It's not radical any more. How did that happen?

It has never been "radical". Corporate media has smeared it. Progressives have finally gotten their message out.

     Only some countries have single payer universal systems. As far as I'm concerned much of the ferocious argument about howyougonna is not what people think it's about. People think it's about the one true path under which we can afford health care versus other paths where we can't. I think this is nonsensical, counties can get there in a variety of ways and be rich and get good outcomes. The choice for good outcomes is the important choice, the howyougonna is how it can be done consistent with the political environment, a factor which is subject to change itself. What looks like a "nothing ever" change now may look very different in 5 years.

Healthcare becomes affordable when mafia-like middle men (insurance companies) go away and rich pay more for healthcare than poor. That's when it's affordable for everyone. There is perhaps many ways to do it, but getting rid of private healthcare insurance (other than for supplemental care) is the thing that makes it work. You remove profit incentive to deny care and you maximize the risk pool. How healthcare providers are done is another issue. Many option. For the US public funding of private healthcare providers is probably the way to go. Canada and France has that.

The US is lucky to have public option in the future if a corporate Dem gets elected. The Republicans have gone totally insane and will fight to stop ANY improvement on the healthcare system. They want to repeal ObamaCare (their OWN plan from the 80's!) and make healthcare 100 % free market based no matter how many millions lose healthcare. For them healthcare is a priviledge for the rich and the poor can die away!

[dissily Mordentroge]

Duplicate post deleted.

[dissily Mordentroge]

Mayor Pete is one of the few candidates who radiates normalcy and wholesomeness, and therefore probably doesn't stand a chance.

That thought has crossed my mind but in an effort not to surrender to political cynicism I've suppressed it. Given when Obama was standing I thought he had no chance for similar reasons I'm ( unrealistically?) hoping for another miracle. Not that I think Obama was perfect.
I haven't however failed to notice the particular form of homophobic loathing directed at Buttigieg nor have I repressed my doubts about his dismissal of the South Bend police chief. I'm also taking into account the amoral tactics Trump's people will unleash against Mayor Pete given Trump's nasty little Ukrainian plot.
Then there's the religious so called right to contend with but that's a can of worms I'd rather not discuss at the risk of unleashing a discussion of the last two hundred years of biblical studies. Anyone wanting to wander down that path could start with an open minded reading ( I am expecting miracles this time) of John Shelby Spong's 'The Sins of Scripture:Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love' (Publ' Harper Collins)

As to Republican allergy to medical care for all (who want it in Pete's case) the discussion never takes account of the economic costs of a high percentage of the population not being able to afford adequate medical care. In Australia the economic benefits of having a working population able to access subsidised medicine have been calculated in the billions. The kind of maths that would have Ayn Rand rolling in her grave if it ever crossed her mind.

[dissily Mordentroge]

English please. That's such mumbo jambo I don't have a clue what you are trying to say.

English please. The correct expression is mumbo jumbo

[SimonNZ]

I don't watch TV.

The only fox news clip I've seen about climate change (on youtube) was when they had on Bill Nye, and they didn't doubt that climate change was real. Instead, he was asked if it was man-made, and all he did was look at him with contempt and didn't answer the question.

Already many on the liberal side that reject science with the whole gender issue. And also reject race-related statistics. They even reject words in the dictionary, because it was probably written by a white man who is part of the "patriarchy."

Seriously, people should stop being so attached to one side, it completely blinds them to its flaws. Each side has many, many people that will reject what is true in favor of their rigid ideology. Tribalism is just retarded.

This is just nonsense. If its not Fox then where are you getting this from? What source is telling you this is how "liberals" think and behave?

[dissily Mordentroge]

I don't watch TV.

Nowadays that is no guarantee of respectability.

Seriously, people should stop being so attached to one side, it completely blinds them to its flaws. Each side has many, many people that will reject what is true in favor of their rigid ideology. Tribalism is just retarded.

No, tribalism is far far worse than retarded. It's a deep seated part of human nature and shows every sign of triggering the extinction of our species. But yes, being attached to one side, in an ideological sense, is as absurd as barracking for a football team. No single ideology is going to extract our species from the mess it has created. Add to this the aggressive core of human psychology as delineated ( and as yet not refuted) by Arthur Koestler in his now ignored "The Ghost in the Machine" and we are in real trouble.

[greg]

This is just nonsense. If its not Fox then where are you getting this from? What source is telling you this is how "liberals" think and behave?

Um, there is thing called youtube. There are thousands and thousands of videos commenting on articles written from a liberal perspective. From there you can learn about how that side thinks. And also you can question whether the commentary is valid so that you don't just blindly agree with the commentator. Either that, or just read the articles directly online that have a liberal perspective, which I do on occasion.

Nowadays that is no guarantee of respectability.

Of course.

[SimonNZ]

Ah, YT political commentary...

[Todd]

Ah, YT political commentary...

A self-unaware post from someone who links to Huffington Post articles.

[SimonNZ]

A self-unaware post from someone who links to Huffington Post articles.

Couldn't remember which Huffington Post article I linked to recently so went and checked. You mean this one:?

Trump Grants Pardons To Army Officers Charged With War Crimes
President Donald Trump called Major Matthew Golsteyn, who was accused of murder, a "hero"

I'm not seeing the relevance or the point you're trying to make. (What with my being "self-unaware"etc.)

[Todd]

Couldn't remember which Huffington Post article I linked to recently so went and checked. You mean this one:?

Trump Grants Pardons To Army Officers Charged With War Crimes
President Donald Trump called Major Matthew Golsteyn, who was accused of murder, a "hero"[/img]

I'm not seeing the relevance or the point you're trying to make. (What with my being "self-unaware"etc.)

First, of course you can't see the point.  That reinforces my prior post.  Second, you were so excited in your initial response that you forgot how to quote and respond properly.  (Who knows if you clean up your post?  Who cares?)  You're a veritable wellspring of amusement.

[SimonNZ]

First, of course you can't see the point.  That reinforces my prior post. 

By all means enlighten me then.

And yes, I'edit posts when I see I haven't formatted them properly. Shameful.

[Todd]

And yes, I'edit posts when I see I haven't formatted them properly.

You keep yourself busy.

[SimonNZ]

If there's a point you wanted to make in comparing YT commentary to Huffington Post then make it.

[Todd]

If there's a point you wanted to make in comparing YT commentary to Huffington Post then make it.

You are making it for me.

[SimonNZ]

Right. "Good talk".

[schnittkease]

There was a study conducted on MSNBC and its coverage of Bernie Sanders. Predictable results.

[http://inthesetimes.com/features/msnbc-bernie-sanders-coverage-democratic-primary-media-analysis.html]

[JBS]

     
     Ideological normalcy changes over time. Not all voters subscribe to "pundit determinism". Voters will choose the candidate that will get them more of what they want, partly based on a candidates programs and partly on the candidates chances of getting elected. A more flexible understanding of normalcy will include how voters will modify it.

     Voters elected a Kenyan Socialist President who created a new normal with OCare, which was unpopular enough that Repubs took control of Congress and dedicated their sacred honor to destroying it. Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act.

     What will normal be next? I figure it will be redefined repeatedly the way it has been. The future is not fixed, the past is.

When I talked about Buttigieg's normalcy, I wasn't talking about that.
By normalcy I meant a decent human being who, if he were your neighbor,  you'd gladly ask to watch your kids while you ran an emergency, and who would gladly watch your kids for you.

[Madiel]

You are making it for me.

Pathetic. Truly.

[greg]

Ah, YT political commentary...

Right, all political commenters on youtube aren't good and should be ignored.

I don't know (shrugging). Maybe I should just only pay attention to the same news sources that as you.