Bernie Sanders under fire
 

Kind of interesting. It looks like mystery democrats have raised 1 million specifically to go after Bernie Sanders. The "Big Tent Project Fund," which so far is seeding two videos all over the place (I found out about this because one appeared to me on FB):

https://www.bigtentprojectfund.com/
(you can also see the videos there)

I have no idea the validity of the "Sanders wanted to dump nuclear waste on the Latino communities!" but it sure sounds like fake, even desperate scare tactics. Why does everything have to be scare tactics?

The democratic party is no longer debating policy or promising leadership to the U.S, and instead is a group of miscreants playing with Survivor-Style reality T.V. tactics, vying for position. It's tragic for the U.S. and honestly it's tragic how far that party has fallen.

The entirety of the joke of a first debate.
The recent debate gang-up against Bloomberg.
Warren's intentionally set-up sabotage of Sander's by using allegedly accidentally caught CNN recording.
How about the exchange between Buttiegieg and Klobuchar? HHAHAH Oh my God. "We all can't be as perfect as you Pete". My God that's a politician! A Politician! That's the kind of reply you get from an embarrassed teenager who has nothing of merit to say when they are pressured for God's sake.

There are so many more examples I haven't even touched on...

Isn't there some great irony in the Democrats using that name? If I'm not mistaken, Democrats don't vote for a candidate, the top of the party just picks whoever they think will work out? Or am I mistaken?

That's kind of what I've always thought?

Elites must be very scared of the prospect of grandpa Bernie going after them.

At this point, it would be a fan move for Trump to endorse Bernie, just so accumulated power of hatred and confusion in democRATic party would destroy it.

Trump has always endorsed Bernie. At every turn. Mostly just in terms of him getting screwed by Hillary in the last election (which is true), but still.

I fail to see how this is news.

This has been going on since day one. He's an independent, and taking the Democratic nomination from Democratic contenders is humiliating. I side with Andrew in that Sanders is the Democrat Trump, based on this alone.

But Sumac makes a good point, too. The "elites" must scared by the reported momentum the Sanders campaign has picked up.

Though I saw some reports today that there's Russian money going into the Sanders campaign as well. So who knows if this is really some homegrown political movement or just more discord sown by international interests.

Either way, putting "Sanders Under Fire" as a headline is the same as announcing "'Water Wet' Announce Shocked Scientists". Tomorrow's top headline will be "Warren Not a Native American!" or "Pete Buttigieg: Gay?"

As for the videos: more crap.

1. Sanders did co-sponsor the bill. But it wasn't his idea. It seems to be the brainchild of Texas legislators who let Maine and Vermont in on the deal. Sanders worked on it because interstate agreements have to go through Congress. Sanders argued that the waste needed to be put somewhere, and that the arid climate and deep water tables of West Texas was shown by scientists to be a safer storage site than the much more humid areas of Maine and Vermont.

More, Sanders has never tried to hide this. He's always been very open about the deal and surprisingly standoffish with environmentalist protesters who sought to shut him down. The man's convictions are his selling point. Love him or hate him: respect to a man who sticks by his guns and doesn't cower in the face of unpopular decisions.

2. There is no way that a budget will get to $60 trillion because a POTUS suggested it. The stonewalling of the GOP alone would wreck almost (if not all) of Bernie's plans. Not to mention the hate he's been getting from the Democrats isn't going to make for smooth sailing, either. I'd warrant that any litigation he passes is going to be hard fought and muddied by partisan fighting, considering he would have two parties to contend with.

CNN going after Bernie's plan:

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020...all-annotated/

The article brings up legitimate points, of course.

the fact that these people tried to derail him, not once, but twice, yet he seems their best chance to win, makes me start to wonder why.

I hear socialism and communism being bandied about..but the news media is so damn slanted now, you don't know what to believe anymore.

I don't think he's their best chance and never was, but I tend to think he's like the socialist version of Trump. The democrats can't control him and he won't play by their rules or play party politics and they don't like that. The only ones that ever had a shot are Biden and now Bloomberg, so the longer Bernie hangs in there the more votes that takes away from either of them.

At the current trajectory, it seems like it'll probably come down to Biden and Trump.

It's going to have to be Biden, which is nuts because the best chance they had at appealing to, or swaying the true middle vote or just-right-of-center vote were either Gabbard or Buttigieg. Seriously. I'm not saying that either of those two would've won. But if anyone thinks that putting babbling Joe into the race is going to save their party is as out of their minds as Biden himself.

I honestly think Bernie would get more votes than Biden in a race. But that's because every kid who doesn't know better or hasn't grown out of the "simplistic feels' in exchange for reality would vote for Sanders. Again not saying that he would win. Honestly I could see the culture war erupting into a straight up physical civil war if somehow a socialist was put into office.

I don't know, I don't see it. Only about 50% of democratic voters appear to actually want socialism but I'm sure about 100% of them want to see a democrat take over (of course)... but he's not even really a democrat. I could see a ton of democrat voters just not voting at all if the choice is Sanders or Trump (Socialism vs. Man who Says Mean Things).

This other article on CNN is hysterical:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/29/polit...-28/index.html

"CNN does not endorse candidates. We strive for impartiality. It's not my role to tell you what to believe, or what to do with your ballot."

Yet it goes on to basically explain piece by piece why you shouldn't vote for Sanders.

:lol::lol::lol::lol: So says the declining news agency with lost viewership and the most biased programming I've ever seen. This must've been another Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper "bombshell" report. LMAO!

Such as?

Because the more I read, the more I'm convinced people wouldn't be opposed to this. The biggest hurdles would be financing such a large endeavor and easing the transition into the new system.

I'm not fond of the $200 copay for top earners. I'd much rather this be the same for everyone.

If this thing was to go through, I don't think 4 years is long enough to adequately shift from one system to another.


This one is much more critical. Media is owned by billionaires. Who would want FDR Jr. to win?

If I'm remembering correctly I've heard that Bernie himself has even said that his plan would take 10 years to implement which means it would take his term has president plus two years if he happens to win re-election.

Interesting Fact the U.S has the worse rated healthcare system of any first world country.

The US is also the only country with Private Healthcare system of any first world country. Germany is Number #1 with its universal healthcare program.

Another interesting fact. U.S infant the death rate is significantly higher than any other first world country.

The Coronavirus seems to reinforcing the idea that Universal healthcare is better and more productive than private healthcare.

South Korea one of the first countries struck with this pandemic has a far lower death rate than the US. at .2% while the US death rate for the virus is at 6%.

The most interesting fact is that a Universal healthcare system would actually be cheaper and less expensive than the current system.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/4055597002/

That fact that we still use this healthcare system is borderline insane and frankly barbaric.

* In Sanders’ proposal, everyone who is a US resident, including undocumented immigrants, gets coverage.

Yikes!

* Sanders would make it illegal to sell private health insurance that covers the benefits offered by Medicare for All. This provision would certainly be subject to lawsuits. A subsequent section says additional benefits not covered by Medicare for All (cosmetic surgery, for instance) could be covered by a supplemental insurance plan. This is the nationalization of an industry in an unprecedented way. It’s important to note here that about one-third of the American seniors who currently get Medicare get it through private Medicare Advantage plans offered by health insurance companies. Those plans would go away.

* Sanders promises Americans access to the doctors they currently see and more. But his system assumes that doctors will take part. Just as many doctors do not take part in the current Medicare and insurance systems, some would likely sidestep the government program and seek payment on a fee-for-service basis outside Medicare for All.

Which would be two chances (2024 or 2028) for a republican president to come in and dismantle whatever he starts to put into play.

You know how better it would be for doctors????? Half of the problems for Doctors is that they have fight and negotiate certain rates with the private insurance industry so essentially the revenue for their service fluctuates. The other problem is that when insurance is denied by the private insurance company any reason the doctor/hospital practice is footed the bill if the patient cannot pay which is extremely common.
If medicare for all would pass there would be set rates for services rendered, no more extremes or variable payments. One set payment and rate would expedite the process of services. Also if a patient needs a procedure that is non-life threatening the patient must wait for approval from insurance before a procedure can be done.

The medicare for all would stream line the process.

At what cost? And not just financially? Serious question. I mean if you've made your decision to support these tenets and social structure then you've surely balanced out all of the information rather than just finding talking points to fight for it.

And so take that how you will, but if you choose to take it as a segway into displaying the information, and how you came to this conclusion, then I'd like to hear it.

But if you can't back that up? Ehhhhh.... your argument here, not so much. But Id be interested in reading it if you've got the intel....

I can see it being abused, sure. And should it be, then let's make a push to close that loophole. But throwing everything out because there's a couple parts that aren't up to snuff seems pessimistic at best and spiteful at worst.

These two, not so much. There's a couple problems:

1. The second point dismantles the first.

2. If everyone is covered for everything, that means Medicare would shift from a private insurer to a government one.

In addition. . .

This section seems to ok private dealings between parties. So if you can find a doctor willing to go in on this, there's a work-around to the issue.

If we're going to throw out every course of action because of problems, then there's no point in doing anything at all. The initial implementation is obviously going to have issues. The idea is that, should we work at it, we can fix those issues as they arise.

No one is claiming this is going to be perfect. The plan is that it's better. No one should be going without access to medical services.

And before someone says "but anyone can go to the hospital!" Know that I mean going to a hospital, doctor, whatever without the fear of going into debt or bankrupt.

That's just not fair. We deserve better.