He seems pretty sharp to me. Blew up the Republican party then blew up the Democratic party, confounding the experts and beating the "inevitable" Hillary. Survived three years of everything the "#resistance" could throw against him. Unleashed the most vibrant economy in the world. Stood up to China. Didn't start any new wars.

You call that senile. That makes you look like you have your hands over your eyes while you shout insults at a guy you don't like and whose achievements you won't recognize. Or as it's called, Trump Derangement Syndrome. You got it bad. — fishfry

I don't see how any of that requires a sharp mind. Beating an incredibly unpopular politician, having a cult following and a congress that's willing to put party over country to protect your ass, and inheriting a great economy that's already been growing for years doesn't require a very stable genius.

It shouldn't be controversial to say this: Trump is a f***in corrupt moron.

:up:

But getting to the fine print... Ok, fair enough. You either don’t think Bernie can win, or if the unthinkable happened, it would be like having a former Hippie as president, throwing dollar bills and big doobies (marijuana) out of the Federal Reserve window to his crazed, brainwashed snowflaky fans. With Bob Dylan and the remnants of the Grateful Dead (including some holy relics from Jerry Garcia), Snoop Dogg with a reformed Public Enemy, performing a free concert on the White House lawn in some bizarre combination of Woodstock and the March on Washington. Bernie is inaugurated wearing a tie-dyed shirt, with Noam Chomsky standing next to him. (Ok, maybe that is going too far for a joke, lol. Anyway...)
— 0 thru 9

Ok no totally I would love that. It's his Marxism not his hippiedom. I wasn't an official hipped but I certainly identified with them. And we were all against the war. I marched on Washington. I loved the hell out of this paragraph. You reached right into my forgotten past and hit the nail on just about every point. I saw Chomsky speak against the war. I love the crazed hippie president image. I'm imagining Bernie as Fat Freddy from the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers. I was so into those comics. If Bernie was promising an actual return to the hippie ethos I'd put on my tie-tie and beads and sign up for the whole program. — fishfry

:lol: Thanks for the response. Much appreciated, and funny. (But maybe don’t put the tie-dye shirts and love beads into the closet with mothballs quite yet, lol. Bernie still has a pulse, and perhaps his handlers will give him a syringe full of a mix of adrenaline, caffeine, and testosterone before the next debate with Joe Biden. If so, he will be frothing at the mouth. And make John the Baptist’s rant against King Herod sound like a “Tonight Show” monologue.)

Bernie must take Joe “off-script”. Biden has a hard enough time sounding coherent even when he is reading his lines correctly. In an impromptu and free-flowing argument, if Bernie were relentless, he could provoke Joe into saying some wild and outlandish quotes. Quotes that would be extremely memorable and damage Biden’s chances. Bernie has to transform the debate from a stately waltz into a mosh pit, basically. If Joe survives, well then it’s good practice for the next round...

On that we agree wholeheartedly. I hate partisanship. I believe the worst the Dems say about the GOPs and the worst the GOPs say about the Dems. I hate both parties. They both deserve to die.

In fact that's why we had a Trumpian populist insurgency in 2016 and now a Bernie populist insurgency in 2020. The centrist consensus isn't working and people are starting to notice.

And this week we see the establishment fighting back ... with Joe Biden? This senile and corrupt warmongering, civil-liberties-hating, tool of the banking industry? Do people even know who Joe Biden is? You can be sure Trump will remind us. — fishfry

Yep, agree with that. I could totally see Trump trying to weasel out of a possible Presidential debate with Bernie with some dismissive handwaving and excuses. For “Clueless Joe” on the other hand, he would clear his busy Tweeting schedule, and start licking his chops like a hungry dog.

Yikes... did CNN commentator Hilary Rosen stand on the railroad tracks and cause a train wreck, with her comments to Bernie Sanders supporter Nina Turner, and the “non-apology” that followed.

I don’t think that Rosen is officially connected (or is / was she?) to Biden’s campaign. But still, she did Joe no favors with such a tone deaf and haughty attitude. Being “political” doesn’t necessarily mean being “polite” or “politically correct”. But a little diplomacy goes a long way...

But to answer your question directly, as to why I'd feel that way, I instinctively distrust any humongous one-size-fits-all government program. I do like Mayor Pete's idea of Medicare for all who want it; that is, a public option. But giving people choices is not what leftists are about. It's their way or the highway, and that's the kind of authoritarianism I oppose. Not to mention the competence issue. The government could never pull it off, even with the best of intentions. — fishfry

If you think a democratic process resulting in a medicare for all solution is authoritarian then the problem is you don't understand the different political modes of government.

No, they don't. Not if you make an attempt at understanding Bernie, of course. If you're not willing to understand his position, fine. In that case, refrain from "translating" until you do or simply don't talk about it.
— Xtrix

I've noted several times that I perused his latest plan on his website and consulted several sources who analyzed the probable costs, the spending ramifications, and the dubiosity of his revenue projections. — fishfry

Great, then let's have a discussion about those plans and numbers. I'd be happy to. Simply waving your hand and dismissing it all as USSR-style "socialism," however, is a bore to me. It's something your average YouTube commenter would say. Be better than that.

I've made these points several times. If you want to claim, after the posts I've written recently, that I make no attempt to understand Bernie, I'm not interested in further conversation. — fishfry

Fine with me.

She's a Dem by the way so I'm just stooping to the latest socially acceptable parlance used by your side. — fishfry

And this is exactly why you're a waste of time. I'm not a Democrat and never once claimed to be. Never. Not once. Exactly like Bernie never claimed he admired or wanted to implement Soviet policies, which you've also stated and, when pointed out by me, ignored. If you stopped your own childish projections and stopped trying to force-fit everything you read into your silly boxes, you'll learn something new. I, for example, am not a Democrat nor a socialist. Yet I argue for Bernie Sanders' policies and have voted Democratic for years. If you struggle with these facts, that's your problem.

I guess it's all a matter of you being too "clear and consistent" for me.

Bottom line is I've made substantive posts repeatedly recently on this subject and all you've got is a totally unfounded and untrue personal attack. Have a nice day. — fishfry

Ok, bye....

Oh wait, he's back:

Oh and also when it comes to Bernie, I'm not your enemy. I like him a lot better than I like Biden. Your beef is with the DNC and the media, with Obama working in the background, who just knifed Bernie in the back. You did notice that I hope. Liz stayed in long enough to hurt Bernie on Super Tuesday then dropped out without endorsing anyone. — fishfry

I never once said you're my "enemy." Not once, not ever. I'm sure you're a good person. I wish you no harm. I am frustrated and repulsed by your argumentation. Again, if it's a struggle to square these two things, then I can't help that. I make the assumption that people who show up on a philosophy forum are fairly resilient, educated adults.

If you think a democratic process resulting in a medicare for all solution is authoritarian — Benkei

Two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. I prefer liberty. The left has a tremendous authoritarian streak. See Mao, Stalin, Castro, etc. The US is not a democracy, by the way. It's a Constitutional republic.

I never once said you're my "enemy." Not once, not ever. I'm sure you're a good person. I wish you no harm. I am frustrated and repulsed by your argumentation. Again, if it's a struggle to square these two things, then I can't help that. I make the assumption that people who show up on a philosophy forum are fairly resilient, educated adults. — Xtrix

You're overreacting to a figure of speech. Let me rephrase.

I am not the person you need to be arguing with. It's your fellow Democrats who soundly rejected Bernie on Super Tuesday. Your political argument is with them, not me.

Is that a more clear representation of what I'm saying?

Let me put it another way. I feel for you Bernie supporters. You must be in pain right now. If it makes you feel better to think that convincing me of the error of my ways would help your cause, feel free. In that way I'm performing a public service.

So it's ok. You think I'm wrong to want to make my own health care decisions; and that I must not be allowed to do so? I assume you wouldn't normally be so uncharitable except for your political grief. It's going to get worse. The NYT is smearing Bernie as a tool of Putin as we speak. That's your enemy, and now I do use the word literally. The New York Times is the enemy of us all. It represents the forces that Trump and Bernie alike are fighting.

But when you presume to tell me that you demand and insist to make my health care decisions for me. I will always push back on authoritarianism.

Choice, remember? I thought your side was all into Choice. Free markets give consumers choices. I stand with free markets as the most effective means of delivering goods and services to the greatest number of people. If you don't believe me, drop in to your local grocery store.

Great, then let's have a discussion about those plans and numbers. I'd be happy to. — Xtrix

I'm politicked out for the moment. Health care policy is very wonky, I only get into it to a certain level. In general I favor liberty and individual choice, so instinctively I push back on any kind of one-size-fits-all system imposed from the top down by a government that does not exactly have a good track record for competence.

That's a set of sensibilities that inform the way I process the evidence. So you and I could well look at the same numbers and statistics and come away with different conclusions. You prefer collective solutions and I prefer individual ones. We're not going to resolve that difference by looking at data.

I am a little burnt out on politics. If I allowed myself to care I'd be pretty pissed today that my candidate Tulsi Gabbard was just excluded from the Dem debates. Can you imagine that brilliant, beautiful, strong, vibrant, accomplished 38 year old woman on the stage with those two fossilized relics? The American people might start listening to Tulsi's powerful anti-war message and we can't have that. So they change the rules to exclude Tulsi, just as they changed the rules to allow in Bloomie. Who ironically would have been far better off if he'd stayed out!

If there's a less democratic institution in the country than the Democratic National Committee I don't know what it would be.

And those liberal women crying sexism about Liz? Think they'll stand up for Tulsi? Me either.

I'm just going to sit back and see how this goes. It's all theater at this point. Arguing the fine points of health care policy isn't something I want to do right now. But like I say. It's not me you need to convince. It's all those suburbanites who just came out for Joe; and the youngsters who didn't come out for Bernie. That's the story this week. As somebody wrote, maybe Bernie picked a bad week to double down on Cuba.

Prediction:

If Sanders doesn't get the nomination (if Biden is shoe-horned in), then Trump will win a second term.

This is arguably what happened in 2016...

Not unless the Coronavirus crashes the economy first. 2020 is gonna be a crazy year.

If Sanders doesn't get the nomina+tion (if Biden is shoe-horned in), then Trump will win a second term. — VagabondSpectre

That much is obvious, isnt it? The swamp clearly does not want Sanders.

Scott Adams predicts the swamp candiate combination will be: Biden+Harris. Scott Adams has a good record of predicting these things, I would bet on him.

Anyway, US elections are always entertaining. I keep the popcorn ready to watch the fury of the Bernie fans when he gets shut down...

Two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. I prefer liberty. The left has a tremendous authoritarian streak. See Mao, Stalin, Castro, etc. The US is not a democracy, by the way. It's a Constitutional republic. — fishfry

This is just lazy reasoning. The "left" like the right is on a spectrum. Equating it with the worst we've seen is just silly. Most western countries are more "left" (eg progressive) than the USA and they're better places to live.

Also, democracy and republicanism aren't mutually exclusive. "Greatest democracy on earth" was coined and used by Americans.

:up:

@fishfry suffers from a particularly virulent form of LDS (left derangement syndrome). Red man = bad. Reading his posts at least gives an insight into how the powered and privileged have convinced much of the country that everything not in the interests of a tiny wealthy elite is "socialism" Mao! Stalin! Castro! :scream: There is no vaccine for that except the ability to think.

I'm politicked out for the moment. Health care policy is very wonky, I only get into it to a certain level. In general I favor liberty and individual choice, so instinctively I push back on any kind of one-size-fits-all system imposed from the top down by a government that does not exactly have a good track record for competence. — fishfry

All I can say to that is that with the present system, you pay far, far more in health care costs, than anybody else in the whole World and have a truly dismal health statistics starting with lower average life expectancy than other rich countries. I'd say that is a sign of a huge racket. Why? Because in any case all those countries that do have universal health care and a public sector lead health care system aren't phenomenally efficient, but just moderately good. But your system is even more inefficient! But hey, large pharma gets it's profits and doctors can get to be millionaires, so I guess that makes it good.

Is change possible in your corrupt political system? That is a good question.

We've seen again and again how the Democrats have failed in the health care reform or how watered down it has been in the end.

Prediction:

If Sanders doesn't get the nomination (if Biden is shoe-horned in), then Trump will win a second term. — VagabondSpectre

I think we are all now familiar with this train-wreck of a disaster President Trumpov. Wonder how Democrats will feel then in 2024.

Not unless the Coronavirus crashes the economy first. 2020 is gonna be a crazy year. — Mr Bee

Or more likely said, if the responses to corona-virus crash the Global economy.

Already China's exports have dramatically decreased. Yet if the corona-hysteria dies down (just like SARS, swine-flu or ebola-hysteria died down too), the markets can rebound. After all, the only true deadly pandemic we have seen in our life time is the HIV pandemic.

A constitutional republic is a type of democracy I can't believe this needs to be explained

You're overreacting to a figure of speech. Let me rephrase.

I am not the person you need to be arguing with. It's your fellow Democrats who soundly rejected Bernie on Super Tuesday. Your political argument is with them, not me.

Is that a more clear representation of what I'm saying? — fishfry

Yes. But since I don't have Tom Perez in front of me, you'll have to do.

(That was a joke.)

So it's ok. You think I'm wrong to want to make my own health care decisions; and that I must not be allowed to do so? — fishfry

Of course not.

The New York Times is the enemy of us all. It represents the forces that Trump and Bernie alike are fighting. — fishfry

You have to read the NYT with a critical and skeptical eye, yes. To say it's an enemy is too dramatic. It's very important to have newspapers and journalism in this country. the NYT still have many good journalists doing very good work.

To say Trump is fighting the forces like Sanders is a joke. Trump attacks the NYT whenever there's something he doesn't like or when he perceives it makes him look bad (maybe a redundancy). He's not interested in whether they're telling the truth or not.

But when you presume to tell me that you demand and insist to make my health care decisions for me. I will always push back on authoritarianism. — fishfry

You're welcome to keep fighting the good fight against a scarecrow. I want no part in it.

Choice, remember? I thought your side was all into Choice. Free markets give consumers choices. I stand with free markets as the most effective means of delivering goods and services to the greatest number of people. If you don't believe me, drop in to your local grocery store. — fishfry

Yes, the magical free markets. If you're open to changing your positions, read the following with an open mind. If not, ignore it. But it's a very good analysis.

https://chomsky.info/19960413/

I'm politicked out for the moment. Health care policy is very wonky, I only get into it to a certain level. — fishfry

No kidding.

In general I favor liberty and individual choice, so instinctively I push back on any kind of one-size-fits-all system imposed from the top down by a government that does not exactly have a good track record for competence. — fishfry

People overwhelmingly like medicare, actually. This belief that everything the government does is terrible or incompetent is old and boring.

I'm in favor of choices too. If given the choice between giving my money to private corporate tyrannies whose ultimate purpose is to turn a profit, or a system run by my tax dollars, I'm ready to give the latter a chance. But suit yourself.

You prefer collective solutions and I prefer individual ones. We're not going to resolve that difference by looking at data. — fishfry

How else do we have conversations and solve problems? Our feelings?

Creationists use this argument a lot, actually. They claim the geologic data can be interpreted as evidence for Noah's flood. Just a different scientific model from "evolutionism." So they deserve equal time in schools. Do you accept this?

If not, why take that very same attitude towards healthcare or anything else? It's citizens identifying and discussing problems, and generating sensible solutions, that move this country forward. Not by throwing up their hands and saying "Well it's all a matter of opinion anyway, so why bother?"

This attitude is very revealing and exposes a general lack of knowledge and lack of effort to gain knowledge. It's at the heart of these arguments from anti-vaxers, climate "skeptics," 9/11 truthers, etc. They don't believe there's such a thing as expertise. Or they do, but just not in this particular domain. Why? Because it's either been politicized (deliberately, in the media) and so they've been essentially brainwashed through misinformation, or because they've taken a few minutes to read something on the Internet about it and bam, they know just as much as anyone else and their position is just as valid.

It's nonsense. I suspect you wouldn't accept those positions. So why do it here?

Should we get Obamacare back on track? Or reach further?[/quote]

Every American deserves to have the very best healthcare available. There is no excuse for a representative republican government to not place the overall well being, general happiness, and livelihoods of all Americans on the top of the priority list. That is one of the guiding principles of any and all representative governments. The American government has been erring on the side of faceless corporate entities when it comes to a conflict of interest between their profit and the lives of everyday Americans... including healthcare 'concerns'.

When the overwhelming majority of Americans want the best healthcare coverage for all Americans at a significantly lower individual cost than the current average, and that goal is an attainable one, as all of the rest of the major industrialized nations show, yet all the major media news outlets make a concerted attempt to push the idea that it cannot happen...

When huge American and multinational corporations have been using the enormous power of their own free speech to influence all those citizens that the corporations themselves take advantage of...

There's a big problem in the system... monetary corruption of politicians and tremendous corporate influence on public policy. Joe Biden and Obama and Hillary and all the rest of the 'establishment' people on both sides -republican and democrat - have and will continue to err on the side of the huge corporate profits. The only 'difference' between the two is talk... the actual policies that have been disastrous for so many Americans could have been put in place from either side... and were often put in place from both during the transfer of power or just prior to.

If Joe wins it will be more of the same. If Trump wins it will be more of the same.

Joe's a bit more palatable in general.

Or more likely said, if the responses to corona-virus crash the Global economy. — ssu

Yep. But it seems as though world leaders are caught between a rock and a hard place here in responding to the epidemic. On the one hand you have China and now Italy quarantining entire cities which is obviously gonna cause damage to their economies, and then you have Trump downplaying and lying about the situation to save his reelection bid, leading people to distrust their leaders to do anything and causing widespread panic, which is also bad for the markets. And I imagine that panic and distrust will only get worse once the actual testing kits gets put in place and people in the US realize that there are far more cases than they were able to find before.

The threat of the virus itself on actual people is overblown as far as we're concerned, but the threat to the economy is very real.

Mainstream political thinking here is obvious.

As I've said in the other thread dedicated to this, when you have even just the potential of a truly deadly pandemic, you take drastic measures. It is a political suicide to dismiss the pandemic at first and downsize the response if the epidemic later causes then lots of deaths. However, if it goes on to be like, well, all the previous pandemics one's like Ebola or SARS or Swineflu, you are not going to be challenged because you took drastic measures that were felt economically. You can always say that the drastic measures were needed and they were successful. Nobody will dare to complain that you wrecked economic growth for a while, just to save some people. It ought to be a no-brainer.

Yet Trump has chosen as he is Trump, a different narrative. At least for now. And if you really listen to everything he says, not just the picks the Trump-hating media says, he is quite normal also and admits that there is a possibility of the situation to become dire.

And with Trump, of course, he can say just about whatever he wants and can easily backtrack what he has said.

People overwhelmingly like medicare, actually. — Xtrix

A deeply disingenuous point, which you'd understand if you knew the first thing about Medicare.

Medicare is a public/private partnership. Private insurance companies offer Medicare drug programs, Medicare supplemental insurance, and Medicare advantage. Those programs add flexibility and individual choice to Medicare.

M4A as envisioned by Bernie (and Liz before she abandoned it) eliminates the private component and forces everyone into a one-size-fits-all program.

To have written what you wrote, that people overwhelmingly like Medicare, you must either be ignorant or disingenuous. People love Medicare as it currently is implemented: as a public/private partnership. When you take all the flexibility and choice out of it, people will hate it.

Yes. But since I don't have Tom Perez in front of me, you'll have to do. — Xtrix

My point exactly. But I'm a poor proxy for the DNC. I'm a disinterested spectator of the ongoing Democratic train wreck. Thus my remark. Why vent your frustration with me? It's the establishment Dems sticking the knife into your guy Bernie. And I detest the establishment Dems. You and I have the same enemy.

We've seen again and again how the Democrats have failed in the health care reform or how watered down it has been in the end. — ssu

Yes that is part of my point. Forget the right and wrong or comparisons with other countries. There's a pure competence argument to be made. The rollout of Obamacare was a disaster of epic proportions. It utterly failed to bring down costs and sent premiums skyrocketing for self-employed people and small business owners.

Even if one believed in universal, mandatory, government-run health care -- is the US government the government you want in charge of your health care? I say no, and I'd point to the ongoing scandal of the VA as evidence.

I see.

For the matter I am furious over the lack of coverage on pretty much every major news outlet over the astonishing success of Bernie's campaign.

The rollout of Obamacare was a disaster of epic proportions. It utterly failed to bring down costs and sent premiums skyrocketing for self-employed people and small business owners. — fishfry

Do you have evidence to support this?

fishfry suffers from a particularly virulent form of LDS (left derangement syndrome). Red man = bad. Reading his posts at least gives an insight into how the powered and privileged have convinced much of the country that everything not in the interests of a tiny wealthy elite is "socialism" Mao! Stalin! Castro! :scream: There is no vaccine for that except the ability to think. — Baden

Completely false. I'm a lifelong social liberal and registered Democrat (still am, voted for Tulsi in California) who is utterly appalled at what's become of the left and the Democrats. And I'm not the only one. Trump could not have won with only the support of the deplorables. He won when tens of millions of people who voted for Obamain 2008 and 2012 either stayed home or voted for Trump in 2016. I'm one of them. I didn't leave the Democrats. The Democrats left me. Just ask the Democratic voters in Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania who Hillary ignored at the cost of her presidency.

Yes, the magical free markets. If you're open to changing your positions, read the following with an open mind. If not, ignore it. But it's a very good analysis. — Xtrix

I'm a big fan of Chomsky. Many of his positions I disagree with. On foreign policy I'm a Chomskyite all the way. And when it comes to knocking the New York Times, Chomsky is the one who's spent decades meticulously documenting their ruling class, warmongering soul.

Do you have evidence to support this? — Shawn

You joking? It's perfectly well known. Do your own research. No Democrats are even bothering to defend Obamacare anymore.

ps ok I did a quick search. Second time in the last five minutes I did someone's Google research for them. Why? You don't know how to use Google?

It's perfectly obvious what happened. Obamacare hugely raised premiums, that's well known. The poor got subsidies. The self-employed got absolutely destroyed. You could look it up.

https://www.google.com/search?q=obamacare+raised+premiums&oq=obamacare+raised+p&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l2.3120j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/07/28/overwhelming-evidence-that-obamacare-caused-premiums-to-increase-substantially/#58bd168715be

https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/how-obamacare-raised-premiums

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/071415/did-obamacare-make-premiums-go.asp

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/08/obamacare-premiums-democrats-donald-trump-insurance-aca-coverage-mandate-column/1444804002/

https://www.cms.gov/blog/thank-obamacare-rise-uninsured

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/health-care-premiums-rising-obamacare/story?id=43047190