Yeah, sure I understand that he was impeached by the House, but the fact that he was then acquitted in the Senate even after the most blatant and unarguable evidence from a number of impeccable witnesses, means that he has succeeded in establishing the fundamental tenet of the Trump presidency: that there are no facts, that there is no 'truth', there is only My Will, and those who oppose it are bound for perdition.We're literally seeing a dictatorship in the making, the abandonment of the rule of Law, and open contempt for the constitution by the ruling constituency. That's why I say it's a coronation, not an impeachment. And I'm sorry, I will not believe that Bernie Sanders will ever become president until I see it. The American political system will never let that happen, not in a million years. If I do see it I'll gladly eat my words.

And I'm sorry, I will not believe that Bernie Sanders will ever become president until I see it. The American political system will never let that happen, not in a million years. If I do see it I'll gladly eat my words. — Wayfarer

Except that he polled better than Clinton did in 2016 and continues to beat Trump in polls today and in key states in particular.

Your "gut" is truly irrelevant. Spread your apathy and hopelessness elsewhere -- those of us that still fight will do everything we can to get Sanders nominated and elected. Feel free to sit there and say how none of it can be done -- you have plenty of company.

Bernie getting the nomination is the only hope the Democrats ever really had for beating Trump. Winning elections is not about convincing people to change their minds -- that almost never works -- but about exciting people enough to actually go out and vote. The left half of America have been sorely disappointed with the Democratic party for a long time, and Bernie's loss in 2016 encouraged a bunch of them to vote 3rd party (which is fine in some cases, problematic in others), stay home, or worse, "burn it all down" and vote Trump in protest (which... what, I don't fucking understand that). Mainstream party-line Democrats will still vote for Bernie anyway, mainstream Republicans won't no matter what, there are apparently those wtf voters who prefer Bernie over Trump but Trump over anyone else, and most importantly, the many discouraged progressive youths will actually get excited enough to show up on election day. — Pfhorrest

Exactly right.

I really, really, really hope, with every fibre, that you're right. I just can't bring myself to believe it.

those of us that still fight will do everything we can to get Sanders nominated and elected. Feel — Xtrix

What are you doing? Helping people who arent registered to get that status? Reaching out to people who don't have cars and facilitating early voting for the general election? Are you going to travel to Durham, NC on November 3rd and volunteer to go out and drive carless people to the voting stations?

Or what?

Yes, here in NH.

No, I won't be traveling to NC unfortunately. If I could I would.

Well fine, but with enough people like you it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. You must see that.

Yes, here in NH. — Xtrix

Cool.

Were Bernie the Democratic candidate, surely the young and energetic of that party would turn out in droves to vote for him. Well, maybe not if they are hungover from the Monday night party. But then, surely the older and wiser Democrats will pour forth for a New Page in American History! Well, maybe not if they want to keep their Medicare intact.

And then there is Sleepy Joe. Hope he stays healthy enough for the ordeal, should he be selected. The excitement he arouses is palpable.

Why would older Democrats’ Medicare be threatened by Bernie?

Question: Why make counting votes so hard?

While there’s no evidence that the tallies were tampered with or intentionally altered, the issues are likely to fuel skepticism in the caucus results and provide fodder for the campaigns to question its final outcome.

One instance of an apparent error in Indianola’s second precinct in Warren County, first noted by The New York Times, shows that billionaire philanthropist Tom Steyer and former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick received 50 and 41 votes, respectively, in the first round of caucusing on Monday.

But on the second alignment, both candidates received zero support, a result that flies in the face of caucus rules mandating that a candidate considered viable after the first round of voting — usually by notching at least 15 percent support — cannot lose support in the second round.

Conversely, in the same precinct, Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) were recorded as receiving zero votes in the first alignment and then picking up 44 and 51 votes in the second, a result that would also violate caucus rules, because candidates that do not have sufficient support in the first round of caucusing are knocked out and cannot win support in the second alignment.

In several precincts, there are cases in which the candidate who got the most votes didn’t end up with the most state delegate equivalents.

A Finnish newspaper had their journalists report on the Iowa caucus. They found the whole process confusing and quite strange, but ended just by saying "Well, This is America".

And what are SDE's?

Here's how the State Delegate Equivalents, or SDEs, are broken down.:

564.012 for Mayor Pete Buttigieg
562.497 for Sen. Bernie Sanders
387.069 for Sen. Elizabeth Warren
341.172 for Former Vice President Joe Biden
264.204 for Sen. Amy Klobuchar
22.223 for Andrew Yang

Except that he polled better than Clinton did in 2016 and continues to beat Trump in polls today and in key states in particular. — Xtrix

Sanders is doing better than I expected, but it looks to me like Biden is still the current best hope to beat Trump. Here's latest polling data for battleground states (each state name is a link to the poll):

Florida - Trump beats everybody, but Biden is closest.

Colorado - Trump losing to everybody, but Biden and Sanders are tied for size of lead. (poll was from August, 2019)

Iowa - Trump beats everybody, but lead is narrowest for Buttigieg (Biden a close second)

Michigan - Everybody beats Trump, but Bloomberg has the biggest margin

Minnesota - Everybody beats Trump, but favorite daughter (is that a thing?) Klobuchar trounces him bigly. Biden is #2

Ohio - 3 candidates ahead of Trump, others behind. Biden#1, Sanders#2

Nevada - Everyone beats Trump, but Biden is tops.

New Hampshire - Most recent poll has Trump beating everyone, but prior poll (Jan 25) has Trump losing to everyone, with Buttegieg tops.

North Carolina - Only Biden and Sanders beat Trump, with the edge going to Sanders.

Pennsylvania - Trump beats everybody, but Biden and Bloomberg are closest.

Virginia - Trump beats everyone except Biden.

Wisconsin -Only Sanders and Biden can beat Trump, with Biden having the bigger margin.

I've seen most of these. I don't buy Virginia and Penn especially, too early and all indications for Virginia is that it's basically blue now. Pennsylvania is trickier -- maybe it's purple now, maybe not. I don't know what poll is showing Trump beating everyone there, but from what I saw last time I checked Biden has the edge.

Regardless, even with these polls it's still pretty close. We tried running the "guaranteed" nominee in 2016 and narrowly failed. Let's do something different this time -- no more establishment, no more vague promises and wishy-washy stances. If the country isn't ready for it, fine. At least we tried. But if they ARE...watch out, because that changes politics completely. Sanders has already reshaped the Democratic party, and for the better. Trump didn't reshape the Republican party -- they're still the party of corporations -- but he DID get them all to kiss his ass. If he could get elected without the establishment helping, so can Sanders -- who people actually like and who has popular New Deal-style ideas.

Why would older Democrats’ Medicare be threatened by Bernie? — Pfhorrest

The entire system would be watered down if everyone had it.

If the country isn't ready for it, fine. At least we tried. — Xtrix

But If the country isn't ready for it, is it fine to have another 4 years of Trump? Does the self-satisfaction of having tried make that OK? Our only real difference seems to be one of priorities. My top priority is to get rid of Trump, and that leads me to choose the person who seems most electable.

It's possible that Bernie or Warren will be that person, or close enough to it. But it's up to them to convince swing voters, especially in swing states, to make that so. If they don't succeed, I have to support whomever has the best chance.

Medicare will fall short on funds in 2026, earlier than previously forecast due to the recent Republican tax cut.

The damage is already done. But a lot of the people who will suffer from this voted Republican, so they'll get what they asked for.

Watered down how?

My question exactly.

Medicare will fall short on funds in 2026, earlier than previously forecast due to the recent Republican tax cut. — frank

Don't forget social security.

Social Security and Medicare together accounted for 45 percent of Federal program expenditures (excluding net interest on the debt) in fiscal year 2018. - Both Social Security and Medicare will experience cost growth substantially in excess of GDP growth through the mid-2030s due to rapid population aging caused by the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and lower-birth-rate generations entering employment. For Medicare, it is also the case that growth in expenditures per beneficiary exceeds growth in per capita GDP over this time period. Social Security’s total cost is projected to exceed its total income (including interest) in 2020 for the first time since 1982. The Trustees project that the combined trust funds will be depleted in 2035, one year later than projected in last year’s report.

Notice how people aren't talking about this anymore? Especially those tea party people? Because they follow Trump now. And Trump has said about social security: "“I have totally left it alone, as promised, and will save it!” Well, I guess that tweet takes care of it.

The entire system would be watered down if everyone had it. — jgill

Sorry, but this is total nonsense.

We have universal health care and it costs half of what you are paying for your present system. So have others. So I guess the US with far higher GDP per capita could easily afford it, if it would change things. But Americans simply want to pay a lot for their health care and give the money to corporation profits. And without a functioning system you pay the most with then people that haven't had adequate health care turning up to be treated in the emergency ward.

It's really simple: the companies, especially the insurance companies make a big buck from the system. They have their own lobbyists taken care of the system. Hence no wonder that it is so expensive. But I guess you just love rackets!

Question: Why is it so hard to understand the underlying graph?


(Btw, as one smart commentator put it: Obama shouldn't have called it Health Care reform, it should have been called Health Insurance reform.)

Excuse my confusion, but doesn’t that graph indicate a higher spending by government on people than other countries? I don’t see what’s so bad about this graph.

Excuse my confusion, but doesn’t that graph indicate a higher spending by government on people than other countries? I don’t see what’s so bad about this graph. — Brett

You think it isn't bad???

Ok. The graph tells you just how much countries spend on health care per on citizen. The US spends the MOST money on it's citizens.

Then you can look at the outcomes on that spending:



Or how about a classic indicator, the infant mortality rate:



And I could go on and on with statistics that all show how bad your system is. By OECD standards, the US performance is utterly dismal. But these two above should make the point: Would you assume that the US puts THE MOST money on healthcare, looking at the two charts above? You spend far more than anybody else, so the natural reasoning would be then that the Americans would then be better of or at least close to the top by health indicators. No. Not so. Not with a long shot.

And why? Because of your health care system.

Sometimes a cartoon makes makes the point well:

You think it isn't bad??? — ssu

No, I couldn’t understand the context. Now I do.

Edit: by the way why do you think I’m American?

Edit: by the way why do you think I’m American? — Brett

I believe in probability calculus. And "Brett" sounds Anglo-American. :wink:

Sorry if I offended you.

Non taken.

Don't forget social security. — ssu

Last I looked Social Security is ok for now, but thanks for worrying about your dear friends over here.

Because of your health care system. — ssu

Actually, US healthcare is among the best in the world. It's just unaffordable because their insurance system is insanely expensive. The litigation culture also means insurance premiums for hospitals against liability is through the roof as well.

Actually, US healthcare is among the best in the world. — Benkei

For those who can pay, definitely.

Unfortunately the stats don't take into account only the affluent in America, but include all people.

The difference in life expectancy of a white woman (81 years) and a African-American male (72 years) is quite big. So perhaps the answer would be in the case of the US, just to look at how the health stats are for the Americans with median income. Or simply don't take into account minorities. (That's a bit racist, I know.)

Or I know: just like they don't count those who have been unemployed for too long to be "unemployed" in the official unemployment figures (U3) and refer to these people of having opted not to go to work (U6), perhaps with the same kind of reasoning official stats could simply write off people that are alcoholics, smoke or have used drugs, because obviously their living habits show that they don't want to live, so we can exclude them from the ordinary stats! That would surely make the statistic concerning health better! Life expectancy figures as other health stats then would refer to group/class P1 of the population and the classic "population" could be referred to be P4 or something and never be spoken in the official stats.

I'll bet non-smoking teetotalers who haven't ever used drugs will have better health stats. Would be a great way for Trump to show how much Americans are winning!

Bear in mind that depleting the trusts for Medicare or SS doesn’t mean that there is no more money to fund them. Both are meant to be funded on an ongoing basis by payments from working people. The trusts were set up because of the Baby Boom and the expectation that there would be fewer working people than retired people when the Boomers retired, so money would have to be set aside in advance. The trusts are supposed to run out of money as the Boomers die off and the number of working and retired people equalizes again.

I'm starting to like Bloomberg. Anyone else? And there are a lot of folks who would make a great running mate for him. (That is, Biden and Bernie, no - too old - too bad we can't put Bernie in a way-back machine.)

I'm starting to like Bloomberg. Anyone else? And there are a lot of folks who would make a great running mate for him. (That is, Biden and Bernie, no - too old - too bad we can't put Bernie in a way-back machine.) — tim wood

Yang perhaps, but he's too unknown. I think looking at the times we live in, at least one candidate, either the the presidential candidate or the vice-presidential candidate has to be a woman. Even with Bernie (which would silence a lot of leftists), having two old white males on the DNC ticket would itself get a lot of flak. Which two old white males are you going to vote, the Republican or Democrat option?

Yet one party having candidates as different as Bloomberg and Sanders shows the inherent problem in the US system: the two are so different from Bernie, that in any other country you would have different political parties. Does Bloomberg fit into the mold of Democratic Socialism? No. Does Bernie fit in a Centrist party? No, or he's being hypocritical.

Political parties are formed around and ideology and an agenda. That is their core. Political parties cannot be totally open vessels that then one side or another hope to conquer and take it somewhere totally else than the other side of the party. This just creates genuine emptiness in the party, it is just a mere shell.

Yet many Americans pin their hopes on this. They pin their hopes on getting the perfect candidate nominated as the candidate of the two parties and then become President... as if that would change things. And one part thinks or hopes that they have gotten this with Trump. Trump WAS the outsider of the GOP, the GOP leadership was against him. And he got to be nominated and got elected. Hooray! NOS4A2 is ecstatic. Yet when look at Trump's actual performance, when the Republicans had both houses. And then what? It's the tax cuts. Something very much the same for all Republican administrations. But Trump tweets! Trump gets Democrats angry! Might be happy with that, because not much has changed.