View Full Version : If I get 1 email I'm good, anyone want to help Bernie win the nomination?
As the campaign starts asking for more & more participation across the nation to secure the nomination, I've decided to start a bi-weekly email letter for regular people that support Bernie Sanders but don’t typically get involved in politics. Whether you're not sure what you can actually do to help or you don’t have time to figure out how, I want to make it as easy as possible.
It’ll include local events, how to spread support, how to answer questions effectively, how to ask questions effectively, how and where to phone bank, how to register voters, how to get others to donate, how and where to canvass, current momentum/trends, why things are playing out the way they are, what needs to happen in order to win, etc.
We have a little over 5 months to make this happen. In Iowa specifically, Bernie is the ONLY candidate beating Trump, yet he's in 4th place in the Primary. This, to me, is the result of inner-party tactics and subtle propaganda. They really don't want Bernie to win because his changes will be big, and people in power know that likely means the end of their careers and the financial corruption that has served them so well. To me, that is all the more reason to give a helping hand.
But that's only going to happen if people who typically aren't involved start getting involved. Even just a little.
Message me directly or drop an email below.
Incredible
10-18-2019, 03:45 PM
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/TenderBriskArcticseal-size_restricted.gif
White LGI
10-18-2019, 03:47 PM
Why would you want a president that can't live through his first term
Why would you want a president that can't live through his first term
literally all 3 front runners and the president were born in the 1940's
Sharp
10-18-2019, 05:04 PM
gregorychrystal@gmail.com
uh-oh
10-18-2019, 05:51 PM
none of them stand a chance of beating the trump tho. you could direct this hard work in a direction that could actually benefit people?
tulsi 2024
none of them stand a chance of beating the trump tho. you could direct this hard work in a direction that could actually benefit people?
tulsi 2024
imo bernie has a huge chance of beating trump.
(edit; tbc i think warren & biden would get beat by a sizable margin)
supporting bernie does actually benefit people
i also do other things that directly benefit people, this is not hard work
i also help tulsi's campaign
Rawn MD
10-18-2019, 06:52 PM
gregorychrystal@gmail.com
Lol wtf and u did it wrong
Not to mention I’m not allowed to vote
Smh
uh-oh
10-18-2019, 07:33 PM
imo bernie has a huge chance of beating trump.
(edit; tbc i think warren & biden would get beat by a sizable margin)
supporting bernie does actually benefit people
i also do other things that directly benefit people, this is not hard work
i also help tulsi's campaign
word reading back my comment it sounded dickish but my keyboard is a piece of shit so i cut shit short after fighting with it
i think bernie has the best chance, but i mean i just dont see any of them winning. granted the left and alot of people didn't think trump had a chance so maybe im wrong. but the fact that everyone i come in contact with that were trump guys have all doubled down and have loved everything he's done its just like yea i dunno
he's been bodying it for his constituency
i also don't think it helps bernie had a heart attack the other day lol. the dems need to be done with this 78 person nonsense, and just support someone who is much more centrist.
bernie is way too left. but i can't understand why anyone likes warren or biden at all.
i disagree with a ton of tulsi's shit but she's easily the best candidate amongst the bunch. but again shes further to the center so that makes her more bearable to me
White LGI
10-18-2019, 08:03 PM
literally all 3 front runners and the president were born in the 1940's
All of them don't have hearts weaker than bags though
Dope girl
10-18-2019, 08:37 PM
BrenieSandres@hotmail.com
Mr.Sanders@hotmail.com
PresidentBernie@hotmail.com
PresidentSandres@hotmail.com
White LGI
10-18-2019, 09:53 PM
BrenieSandres@hotmail.com
Mr.Sanders@hotmail.com
PresidentBernie@hotmail.com
PresidentSandres@hotmail.com
Slut
Immolate
10-19-2019, 08:39 AM
imo bernie has a huge chance of beating trump.
how naive can you be. u sound like me & inverse when we were 15
my sweet summer child.
Destroyer
10-19-2019, 08:52 AM
These are the times when I happily reflect on the fact that NCs is not a true representation of voting America.
Destroyer
10-19-2019, 08:54 AM
word reading back my comment it sounded dickish but my keyboard is a piece of shit so i cut shit short after fighting with it
i think bernie has the best chance, but i mean i just dont see any of them winning. granted the left and alot of people didn't think trump had a chance so maybe im wrong. but the fact that everyone i come in contact with that were trump guys have all doubled down and have loved everything he's done its just like yea i dunno
he's been bodying it for his constituency
i also don't think it helps bernie had a heart attack the other day lol. the dems need to be done with this 78 person nonsense, and just support someone who is much more centrist.
bernie is way too left. but i can't understand why anyone likes warren or biden at all.
i disagree with a ton of tulsi's shit but she's easily the best candidate amongst the bunch. but again shes further to the center so that makes her more bearable to me
She’s also the Russian plant in this election, so yeah this makes sense
uh-oh
10-19-2019, 09:03 AM
i sincerely hope you are trolling. its hard to tell anymore
Destroyer
10-19-2019, 09:05 AM
you said you like tulsi Gabbard and I’m the one trolling?
Zaddy
10-19-2019, 09:50 AM
Tulsi is the only democrat running who isn’t completely insane
how naive can you be. u sound like me & inverse when we were 15
my sweet summer child.
bruh he does better vs trump than any other dem, he beats trump in almost every poll. i just saw a poll with 60,000 people, he won 51-49. he also has more voters that would choose trump 2nd than any other dem. he went on fox news ripped into trump and got a standing ovation.
don't pretend you know what you're talking about cuz you spent a few months in michigan or w/e
She’s also the Russian plant in this election, so yeah this makes sense
stop getting your info from media extensions of the dnc
i can't believe how effective their absolutely baseless narratives are on so many moderates, it's disheartening
Tulsi is the only democrat running who isn’t completely insane
you mean the tulsi that dropped her vice chair position at the dnc to endorse bernie?
the tulsi that's gunning for a bernie vp spot?
but bernie's insane right lol
and just support someone who is much more centrist.
a centrist won't win vs trump, people want change.
Destroyer lay out any evidence of Tulsi being a Russian asset, but you're not allowed to use msnbc or cnn articles
go
uh-oh
10-19-2019, 01:04 PM
a centrist won't win vs trump, people want change.
the people who are desperate for change are the far left. but there are plenty of people who would vote for trump over these far left politicians, that could be swayed to a more centrist candidate over trump. basically itd be easier to appeal to the other side if they didn't have such radical standpoints.
no conservative leaning person will ever vote against their leanings just to stick it to trump. at best they wont vote. the left needs to actually take votes from trump. the only hope at that is a centrist position
im also disappointed you put so much sway into these polls when they are consistently meaningless, espescially when one candidate is portrayed as a racist misogynist xenophobic incompetent buffoon, even if you do support him you won't do so openly for fear of being seen as what the media has consistently tried to portray them as. blind hateful dullards.
Destroyer
10-19-2019, 01:16 PM
There’s no news source that’s unbiased
It’s all bullshit
There’s no news source on cable television that’s unbiased
It’s all bullshit
fixed it
the people who are desperate for change are the far left. but there are plenty of people who would vote for trump over these far left politicians, that could be swayed to a more centrist candidate over trump. basically itd be easier to appeal to the other side if they didn't have such radical standpoints.
no conservative leaning person will ever vote against their leanings just to stick it to trump. at best they wont vote. the left needs to actually take votes from trump. the only hope at that is a centrist position
im also disappointed you put so much sway into these polls when they are consistently meaningless, espescially when one candidate is portrayed as a racist misogynist xenophobic incompetent buffoon, even if you do support him you won't do so openly for fear of being seen as what the media has consistently tried to portray them as. blind hateful dullards.
1 - people desperate for change are not confined to the far left. the "far left" are people that understand and support the policies on the table that actually help the desperation in this country. msm has told the middle and right these policies are radical and communist and blah blah because those are media companies owned by the industries that will lose profit if implemented. people are desperate for change on the left and the right(hence trump). the middle is fine with the status quo because they are typically middle class and don't understand what's happening because they are glued to msnbc. if what you're saying is true about trump vs. radical left, then biden would be smooth sailing, but he's not because his policy stances do not resonate. to be clear, no one running is radical left. bernie is the furthest, and he is just simply left. it only feels radical because the national spectrum has been pulled to the right over the last 20 years.
2 - i disagree centrism is the only way to take votes from the right. but truthfully the focus is probably more on the third of the electorate that didn't vote last time. the goal is more so to get those people involved. but like i said, bernie did a town hall on fox news, ripping into trump, announcing that he would take on big pharma, the military industrial complex, fight for medicare for all. he got a standing ovation. left & right agree on a lot of those issues.
3 - polls are polls. they are the opinions of people polled at that time. nobody is afraid to give support to trump in a poll lol, it's anonymous. but usually the polls are biased against young voters and independents. i look at the demographics of each poll carefully to see if they're worth a shit or not. some of them are. some are not. the ones on tv usually are manipulated or weighted in certain directions, usually old, likely voters.
uh-oh
10-19-2019, 02:31 PM
1 - people desperate for change are not confined to the far left. the "far left" are people that understand and support the policies on the table that actually help the desperation in this country. msm has told the middle and right these policies are radical and communist and blah blah because those are media companies owned by the industries that will lose profit if implemented. people are desperate for change on the left and the right(hence trump). the middle is fine with the status quo because they are typically middle class and don't understand what's happening because they are glued to msnbc. if what you're saying is true about trump vs. radical left, then biden would be smooth sailing, but he's not because his policy stances do not resonate. to be clear, no one running is radical left. bernie is the furthest, and he is just simply left. it only feels radical because the national spectrum has been pulled to the right over the last 20 years.
2 - i disagree centrism is the only way to take votes from the right. but truthfully the focus is probably more on the third of the electorate that didn't vote last time. the goal is more so to get those people involved. but like i said, bernie did a town hall on fox news, ripping into trump, announcing that he would take on big pharma, the military industrial complex, fight for medicare for all. he got a standing ovation. left & right agree on a lot of those issues.
3 - polls are polls. they are the opinions of people polled at that time. nobody is afraid to give support to trump in a poll lol, it's anonymous. but usually the polls are biased against young voters and independents. i look at the demographics of each poll carefully to see if they're worth a shit or not. some of them are. some are not. the ones on tv usually are manipulated or weighted in certain directions, usually old, likely voters.
i agree, polls are polls. complete and utter nonsense.
biden isn't the middle of the road guy, he is the establishment middle of the road guy. he's also a bumbling out of touch old perverted fool. no one likes him left right or center, other than heavily entrenched establishment dems.
the media isn't portraying the leftist candidates as radical, their policies are. they may not seem radical in another country, but in america, where there is supposed to be liberty and freedom, they are extremely radical.
there are radical viewpoints the right is for that i disagree with as well, im not attacking them like they are the only nutjobs, just pointing out your views are tinted by things you are for. you need to go after people who aren't for the things you are for. finding one thing you agree on means nothing when you are for 5 other things that they oppose more than anything.
i view myself as the center right leaning person who didn't vote, and has no interest to. the left should be catering to me. im a random middle class working stiff in a swing state. the dems are so far removed from me and others in my position it comes off like they are trying to lose on purpose
Destroyer
10-19-2019, 10:15 PM
Anyway, Boof, she’s an Islamophobe. Each stance she takes is usually one that involves making people more fearful of Muslims.
She also has ties to the RSS in India, a group founded based off of Nazi ideals. She is a wolf in sheeps clothing and she needs to exit the stage before she does more harm.
This is an excellent list of WHY people need to be afraid of Tulsi and her agenda:
Gabbard's failure to launch shows Democrats and information consumers are growing more sophisticated about subversive efforts.
Tulsi Gabbard comes from a family of conservative activists, most famous for their opposition to gay marriage in Hawaii: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/tulsi-gabbard-president-sanders-democratic-party
Tulsi Gabbard has said her personal views on LGBT equality haven't changed as recently as 2015: https://www.ozy.com/rising-stars/tulsi-gabbard-a-young-star-headed-for-the-cabinet/62604
Tulsi Gabbard is rated "F" by [Progressive Punch](https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?topic=&house=house&sort=district&order=down&party=) for voting with Republicans, despite the strong progressive lean of her district: https://imgur.com/wDhVNKq
Tulsi Gabbard was nearly a part of Trump's cabinet at Steve bannon's suggestion:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democratic-rep-tulsi-gabbard-consideration-trump-cabinet/story?id=43696303
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/307106-bannon-set-up-trump-gabbard-meeting
Tulsi Gabbard has also been praised multiple times by Steve Bannon, Trump's former strategist and prolific white nationalist propagandist: http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/36352314/bannon-name-drops-hawaii-congresswoman-in-national-interview/
Tulsi Gabbard declined to join 169 Democrats in condemning Trump for appointing Steve Bannon to his cabinet: https://mauitime.com/news/politics/why-didnt-rep-tulsi-gabbard-join-169-of-her-colleagues-in-denouncing-trump-appointee-stephen-bannon/
Tulsi Gabbard isn't anti-war. She's a self-described hawk against terrorists. Her narrow objections center around efforts to spread democracy:
"In short, when it comes to the war against terrorists, I'm a hawk," Gabbard said. "When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I'm a dove.": https://www.votetulsi.com/node/27796
Tulsi Gabbard copies the rhetoric of Republicans:
Gabbard voted against condemning Bashar al-Assad, president of Syria, and was praised by conservative media for publicly challenging President Barack Obama over his refusal to use the term "Islamic extremism" when discussing terrorism: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/tulsi-gabbard-slams-obamas-refusal-to-say-islamic-/
Tulsi Gabbard also copies the policy of Republicans, voting with them to block Syrian refugees: https://medium.com/@pplswar/tulsi-gabbard-voted-to-make-it-virtually-impossible-for-syrian-refugees-to-come-to-the-u-s-11463d0a7a5a
Tulsi Gabbard has multiple connections to Hindu nationalists:
https://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/curious-islamophobic-politics-dem-congressmember-tulsi-gabbard
Tulsi Gabbard frequently repeats Russian talking points and works to legitimize Assad:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/tulsi-gabbard-bashar-al-assad-syria-democrats
Tulsi Gabbard was one of only 3 representatives to not condemn Assad for gassing Syrian civilians and the only Democrat: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/121/text
Tulsi Gabbard has introduced legislation pushed by GOP-megadonor, Sheldon Adelson: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-adelson-idUSBREA2P0BJ20140326
Tulsi was later awarded a "Champions of Freedom" medal at Adelson's annual gala in 2016: https://www.thedailybeast.com/tulsi-gabbard-the-bernie-endorsing-congresswoman-who-trump-fans-can-love
~RustyGunZ~
10-19-2019, 11:00 PM
Gabbard conspiracy theorist are as big of retarded faggots as Trump supporters and lOcK hEr uP incels
Pharaohs Army
10-20-2019, 12:35 AM
Gabbard is simply wrong on Syria.
She criticizes our "policy of regime change" there.
Guess what? Assad's still there. So we obviously don't have a policy of regime change. If we did, he'd be gone.
We were intervening to prevent a genocide.
She doesn't have her facts straight.
i agree, polls are polls. complete and utter nonsense.
biden isn't the middle of the road guy, he is the establishment middle of the road guy. he's also a bumbling out of touch old perverted fool. no one likes him left right or center, other than heavily entrenched establishment dems.
the media isn't portraying the leftist candidates as radical, their policies are. they may not seem radical in another country, but in america, where there is supposed to be liberty and freedom, they are extremely radical.
there are radical viewpoints the right is for that i disagree with as well, im not attacking them like they are the only nutjobs, just pointing out your views are tinted by things you are for. you need to go after people who aren't for the things you are for. finding one thing you agree on means nothing when you are for 5 other things that they oppose more than anything.
i view myself as the center right leaning person who didn't vote, and has no interest to. the left should be catering to me. im a random middle class working stiff in a swing state. the dems are so far removed from me and others in my position it comes off like they are trying to lose on purpose
not sure what you mean bro. polls are exactly what it's data says. if you mean the select data they show on tv, sure.
being the middle of the road guy and the establishment middle of the road guy is the same thing. biden is still by far the front runner for people over 50. people over 50 are the most likely to vote. he has by far the most support from older african american communities, especially in southern states, including vs trump.
this just sounds like an opinion of yours. it's clear as day that fox news frames every basic social program and anything bernie & aoc say like communism. it's a fact that cnn and msnbc are sponsored by big pharma & health insurance companies and treat medicare for all like an impossibility. it's a fact that jeff bezos owns the washington post and would pay tens of billions of dollars in taxes under a Sanders presidency & they happen to frame his wealth tax as "just plain bad & unfair". there are an endless amount of examples i can recite here. choosing to make healthcare non-profit is not radical. choosing to make public universities less-profit driven is not radical. it's literally the way things were when our parents were kids, and also during our most prosperous middle class era of the last century. the rest of private industry that doesn't serve as a public utility is unaffected. like, you live in ohio bro. haven't you connected the dots that the corporate freedom and liberty of enacting bad trade policy is why youngstown, cleveland, etc look like shit and all the malls are gone and everyones a truck driver? don't you think it's fucked that families have to pay thousands of dollars a month for medication?
skipping this one
listen the policies of a Sanders platform are what they are. They stand for the right things. they've always aimed for the same principals. if they for some reason don't appeal to you, there's nothing anyone's going to do to coax you into it. the goal is to let everyone that would benefit know about it and let them choose. there's at least 100 million people who's lives are seriously saved or dramatically improved under these policies. that's why he has 1.4 million donations, $33 million on hand, $18 at a time from teachers, tradespeople, warehouse workers, truckdrivers, nurses, unions, etc. this is not meant to sound pitchy it's literally just who the majority of his support is from.
but just to see lets pick the last policy he released & u lmk why you don't want it
so say the auto body shop i assume you still work at starts crushing it or sells out to a big vendor and now they're worth 100 mill or decide to go public.... right now & under a trump admin they can and will keep paying you the same amount despite this surge. you might be way busier at work now, or might have added responsibilities for a dollar or two raise, maybe a $500 christmas bonus, obviously as little as they can get away with, that's about it. you have no say. under a sanders presidency the company you work for would give 45% of it's board of director seats to you and your co-workers, voted in by you and your co-workers. every year 2% of the total stock value of that company is given to you and your co-workers, until it hits 20%.
who you goin' with on this one
Destroyer I'm going to respond to every link you gave asap, but can I point out that it seems pretty clear even from the headlines that none of it proves anything about her being a russian asset? And also, what harm do you think she has done?
uh-oh
10-20-2019, 09:11 AM
this just sounds like an opinion of yours. it's clear as day that fox news frames every basic social program and anything bernie & aoc say like communism. it's a fact that cnn and msnbc are sponsored by big pharma & health insurance companies and treat medicare for all like an impossibility. it's a fact that jeff bezos owns the washington post and would pay tens of billions of dollars in taxes under a Sanders presidency & they happen to frame his wealth tax as "just plain bad & unfair". there are an endless amount of examples i can recite here. choosing to make healthcare non-profit is not radical. choosing to make public universities less-profit driven is not radical. it's literally the way things were when our parents were kids, and also during our most prosperous middle class era of the last century. the rest of private industry that doesn't serve as a public utility is unaffected. like, you live in ohio bro. haven't you connected the dots that the corporate freedom and liberty of enacting bad trade policy is why youngstown, cleveland, etc look like shit and all the malls are gone and everyones a truck driver? don't you think it's fucked that families have to pay thousands of dollars a month for medication?
skipping this one
listen the policies of a Sanders platform are what they are. They stand for the right things. they've always aimed for the same principals. if they for some reason don't appeal to you, there's nothing anyone's going to do to coax you into it. the goal is to let everyone that would benefit know about it and let them choose. there's at least 100 million people who's lives are seriously saved or dramatically improved under these policies. that's why he has 1.4 million donations, $33 million on hand, $18 at a time from teachers, tradespeople, warehouse workers, truckdrivers, nurses, unions, etc. this is not meant to sound pitchy it's literally just who the majority of his support is from.
but just to see lets pick the last policy he released & u lmk why you don't want it
so say the auto body shop i assume you still work at starts crushing it or sells out to a big vendor and now they're worth 100 mill or decide to go public.... right now & under a trump admin they can and will keep paying you the same amount despite this surge. you might be way busier at work now, or might have added responsibilities for a dollar or two raise, maybe a $500 christmas bonus, obviously as little as they can get away with, that's about it. you have no say. under a sanders presidency the company you work for would give 45% of it's board of director seats to you and your co-workers, voted in by you and your co-workers. every year 2% of the total stock value of that company is given to you and your co-workers, until it hits 20%.
who you goin' with on this one
a decent amount to unpack here.
but basically its like this, there are multiple ways to approach these issues. you want the government to handle these issues, by taxing, regulating and enforcing different measures. i vehemently disagree with letting the government have more power over individual people than they already do.
so basically everything you are pointing to as positives i view negatively from the jump. but im a gay libertarian minded dork. i honestly believe removing government and relying on the free market solves most of these issues, in relation to healthcare, college etc. if the government didn't already back health insurance companies, college loans etc. they would be forced to drop their prices anyways to compete.
so we can agree on there being problems with certain aspects of how things work, but at the end of the day we disagree completely on how to fix them.
i am against giving the state more power and money, because it removes power and money from the people, and theyve proven their incompetence time and time again.
im not for raising taxes on anyone. wealthy or poor. i'm not for expanding social programs. im not for government regulating private businesses and telling them what they should pay employees, etc etc
basically im anti government intervention into all things
i view that as extremely radical and over reaching and directly impacting everyones pursuits of freedoms and personal liberty.
White LGI
10-20-2019, 09:41 AM
President don't mean shit..
My life has been exactly the same from the Obama era through Trump's.....shit means nothing to everyday NIGGAZ life
a decent amount to unpack here.
but basically its like this, there are multiple ways to approach these issues. you want the government to handle these issues, by taxing, regulating and enforcing different measures. i vehemently disagree with letting the government have more power over individual people than they already do.
so basically everything you are pointing to as positives i view negatively from the jump. but im a gay libertarian minded dork. i honestly believe removing government and relying on the free market solves most of these issues, in relation to healthcare, college etc. if the government didn't already back health insurance companies, college loans etc. they would be forced to drop their prices anyways to compete.
so we can agree on there being problems with certain aspects of how things work, but at the end of the day we disagree completely on how to fix them.
i am against giving the state more power and money, because it removes power and money from the people, and theyve proven their incompetence time and time again.
im not for raising taxes on anyone. wealthy or poor. i'm not for expanding social programs. im not for government regulating private businesses and telling them what they should pay employees, etc etc
basically im anti government intervention into all things
i view that as extremely radical and over reaching and directly impacting everyones pursuits of freedoms and personal liberty.
i seriously don't get this type of disconnect. don't you understand that the free market bought the government and effectively dictate all industry related legislation? what we live in right now is the result of a poorly regulated corporate class, it is the result of enormous corporate power and greed, and your view on how to fix things is to regulate them less? don't you understand the disfunction of health care, pharmaceuticals is solely because of greed? in a completely free market pharma companies would do exactly what they're doing now. split the market share to not step on each others toes and in unison jack up prices for everyone, which already results in tens of thousands of deaths a year simply from having no regulation on how high prices can be. why do you think without any government interference that this would suddenly drive prices down? where are you getting the idea that they would decide to compete instead of doing what they're doing now? do you realize that these industries have literally never done better in the history of our country? and your solution is to let them do even better and hope they don't continue making everything more unaffordable? did martin shkreli teach you nothing? do you not have family on medication? like legit i don't understand this stance. we spend twice as much on healthcare as any developed nation, this is because of private industry. please make the case of how price gouging stops under less regulation. do you understand that as these industries continue to make trillions of dollars that all of that money goes to billionaires who hoard it in offshore accounts, stocks, assets, literally siphoning it out of the middle & lower class economy? meaning every year this continues, we have less to grab ourselves? this being why the middle class is shrinking and everyone lives paycheck to paycheck? you realize trickle down isn't a thing right?
let me reiterate. congress is made up almost entirely of politicians that do corporate bidding. how can you criticize the government's incompetence without recognizing their actions 100% reflect what the corporate class wants?
Gabbard is simply wrong on Syria.
She criticizes our "policy of regime change" there.
Guess what? Assad's still there. So we obviously don't have a policy of regime change. If we did, he'd be gone.
We were intervening to prevent a genocide.
She doesn't have her facts straight.
let's be clear.
our goal has been to overthrow assad for over a decade. that plan has been in action since 2011.
just because we failed, doesn't mean it wasn't the plan. we've failed in venezuela as well. doesn't mean it wasn't the OBVIOUS plan. maybe you don't understand how regime change works?
uh-oh
10-20-2019, 12:45 PM
its simple really
pharmaceutical companies are like all companies. they are in business to profit. they are jacking up prices because health insurance and the governnment pay those prices. if it costs 1 dollar to make a pill, but i can charge 10, and actually get it, why would i ever charge less?
if you remove the guarantee they are forced to compete. if no one is ensuring i get 10 dollars a pill, im dropping to 9. my competition drops to 8. i gotta drop to 7, etc. etc.
same with college, if the government isn't backing loans, colleges ain't getting money, tuition prices have to drop, everything drops.
you would rather have the government just say, you have to sell your 1 dollar pill for 5 dollars, and we're also gonna tax the fuck out of you because you are too successful.
so more money goes to this entity you view as corrupt, companies and people have less rights to do as they see fit, and the bloat of useless government grows as they have more of our money to misspend and throw down the drain in those same corporate interests you despise
its simple really
pharmaceutical companies are like all companies. they are in business to profit. they are jacking up prices because health insurance and the governnment pay those prices. if it costs 1 dollar to make a pill, but i can charge 10, and actually get it, why would i ever charge less?
if you remove the guarantee they are forced to compete. if no one is ensuring i get 10 dollars a pill, im dropping to 9. my competition drops to 8. i gotta drop to 7, etc. etc.
same with college, if the government isn't backing loans, colleges ain't getting money, tuition prices have to drop, everything drops.
you would rather have the government just say, you have to sell your 1 dollar pill for 5 dollars, and we're also gonna tax the fuck out of you because you are too successful.
so more money goes to this entity you view as corrupt, companies and people have less rights to do as they see fit, and the bloat of useless government grows as they have more of our money to misspend and throw down the drain in those same corporate interests you despise
the point is that we are saying there are industries' whose main function shouldn't be to profit like a business, such as ones that are the catalyst of our own people living or dying.
you are looking only at the business side and not at all at the actual intended function of healthcare. which is weird.
if you make this a nonprofit sector, the people who are in business solely to make money can go to a different sector where their product/service is not the determining factor of someone dying or not. the people who are in this sector to genuinely produce medicine & save lives will stay. you act like nobody is interested in actual healthcare, just the profit, when the industries have actually just been corrupted by people more interested in money than healthcare. again, like i said, it didn't used to be this way. and when it didnt, medicine was affordable. 300k people a year weren't going into medical bankruptcy. why are you so purposely dismissive of the dysfunctional and cruel results? you're supporting a system that bankrupts sick people for profit. why do you see healthcare as a money making business instead of a public utility? well, because that's all you know. but that's the result of political choices. but the alternative is beneficial for our entire countries' health, our livelihood, our stability, our quality of life. these things are more important than money.
please answer - where are you getting the idea that the government is the reason pharmaceuticals are guaranteed to receive the outrageous prices they arbitrarily decide upon? you realize 80million people are without insurance or underinsured, but still buy medication directly?
as far as 'you would rather have the government say' this entire section is inaccurate and misrepresented. medicare for all erases all out of pocket costs and pays for the entire system through a tax instead, which saves hundreds of billions of dollars a year for customers. the insurance companies become obsolete, and the money hungry go elsewhere to make their money. prescription costs are capped at $200 a month. whatever profit that results in for pharma companies is what they will make. if that's not enough for them, it's a free market, go to a different sector that doesn't play with peoples lives. that's pretty simple imo.
also you realize these pharma companies are guilty of overprescribing addictive opioids for profit, starting the opioid epidemic, killing millions of people? this is what an essentially free market health care sector turned into. i really dont get why this is something you think should be allowed to continue other than you value the ability to make money over people's lives.
you are essentially saying i would rather have 30k people die every year to allow the pharmaceutical industry the freedom to make 146 billion dollars a year instead of guaranteeing everyone the freedom of not dying and having the pharmaceutical industry make 30 billion a year.
uh-oh
10-20-2019, 01:59 PM
you view healthcare as a right. i don't. i view your views as infringing on peoples unalienable rights.
you view healthcare as a right. i don't. i view your views as infringing on peoples unalienable rights.
how is hoarding unlimited amounts of money from gaming the system an unalienable right and having access to medicine not?
do you have family that take medication?
and how is buying a patent for a drug you didn't create and jacking up it's price so people can't afford it not infringing on the rights of people to literally just live?
Witty
10-20-2019, 02:48 PM
Bernie wouldn't win...democrats really don't have a candidate who stands a chance of winning, unfortunately... trump wins 2020 imo.
He has the most donors of any candidate this year, including Trump. He raised the most money in this most recent quarter out of any Dem candidate. He has the most money on hand out of any Dem candidate. He has the most volunteers of any candidate, including Trump. This is while polling at 18% in the primary. Clearly if he won the nomination, these numbers would all go up. Half of the country wants to defeat Trump, all blue support would have to go to him. He's beating Trump in almost every head to head poll, he outperforms every other dem candidate vs Trump. He's gone on fox news and ripped into Trump personally, talked about fighting the military industrial complex and big pharma, and received a standing ovation. He even beats Trump in right-wing polls, including fox news. He's still a registered independent, so clearly he can pull independent voters. Trump literally has no dirt on him as opposed to everyone else because Bernie doesn't lie about shit. He's corruption free. I think he has by far the best shot to win, and I think it's a pretty good one. People in the rust belt who expected manufacturing jobs to come back and got jack squat are going to be open to an alternative. Farmers who have experienced Trumps terrible trade policy(& immigration policy) will be open to an alternative.
But I definitely think Trump has a good chance of winning because he's created such a clusterfuck of scandals and the Dem establishment is so terrible at handling it that nobody really understands what's going on.
from right-leaning source RealClearPolitics
https://imgur.com/WFrNHbI.jpg
uh-oh
10-20-2019, 03:44 PM
how is hoarding unlimited amounts of money from gaming the system an unalienable right and having access to medicine not?
do you have family that take medication?
and how is buying a patent for a drug you didn't create and jacking up it's price so people can't afford it not infringing on the rights of people to literally just live?
i have family that take medication, its even medicare/medicaid? not sure which but my pops is on it. blood pressure/cholesterol etc
my sisters a goofball and on all the make believe anxiety/depression meds. she has top tier health insurance through her medical field job (that she's ridiculously overpaid for) though.
but yea you aren't viewing what i'm saying correctly. im not worried about the rights of pharmaceutical companies, i'm worried about the rights of the individual. i am against taxing YOU to pay for my dads pills. it infringes on your rights, it is basically theft under the threat of violence.
uh-oh
10-20-2019, 03:49 PM
from right-leaning source RealClearPolitics
https://imgur.com/WFrNHbI.jpg
from right leaning source RealClearPolitics
https://i.ibb.co/vzy88zp/Untitled-1.jpg
polls are nonsense.
bro, she won the popular vote by 3 mill. i know you understand that.
Pharaohs Army
10-20-2019, 05:19 PM
let's be clear.
our goal has been to overthrow assad for over a decade. that plan has been in action since 2011.
just because we failed, doesn't mean it wasn't the plan. we've failed in venezuela as well. doesn't mean it wasn't the OBVIOUS plan. maybe you don't understand how regime change works?
If we really wanted Assad out, he'd have been out long ago. The U.S. has two problems though. 1)The alternative is backing Muslim terrorists. 2) We don't want to start a hot war with Russia by taking out their guy.
Bladed Thesis
10-22-2019, 11:15 AM
"The government and all our politicians are bought and they run government for their own interests so I say we give them more of our money via taxes and more control over daily life via corporate regulations"
That's gonna be a yikes from me
"The government and all our politicians are bought and they run government for their own interests so I say we give them more of our money via taxes and more control over daily life via corporate regulations"
That's gonna be a yikes from me
not sure where you're getting that second half, i don't support any new corporate regulations, i support less corporate influence & regulations that help people.
the only new tax would be on healthcare which replaces the current, much more costly out of pocket system.
also i obviously support the one guy that's not bought
If we really wanted Assad out, he'd have been out long ago. The U.S. has two problems though. 1)The alternative is backing Muslim terrorists. 2) We don't want to start a hot war with Russia by taking out their guy.
tbc that first sentence still doesn't mean anything. we tried, we failed. 2012's timber sycamore operation's entire objective was to arm rebel groups to overthrow assad. tbc there was no genocide perpetrated by assad. there were protests against a police state. we took that social momentum and instead filled the country with foreign rebel groups. for a few months syrians welcomed them thinking they were there to help, but soon after they murdered(with our weapons), raped, kidnapped, looted, sold food back to locals at elevated prices, and that's been the story for 7 years. locals are more afraid of the groups we back than the actual syrian army. we(u.s., saudi, u.k, qatar, turkey, etc) made life hell for syrians. we've been backing jihadist extremists this entire time. we faked two chemical attacks to try and overthrow assad. russia's known this the entire time, as has the rest of the world(which was our actual problem with overthrowing assad). the situation is 1,000x more complex than what you just surmised. cia trained rebel groups, we gave arms to groups we knew had connections to al qaeda, the free syrian army are actual extremists, we funded/branded/armed them, bunch of our weapons ended up sold on the black market directly to groups like isis & isil, who have been funded by our ally saudi arabia. it's a proxy war to destabilize syria to overthrow assad that failed. american troops have been illegally occupying syrian oil fields making it impossible for the rest of the country to obtain oil. we've imposed some of the strictest sanctions in the world on syria, and the effects have only hurt syrian people, not assad or his administration at all. it's a failed regime change, to a t.
Bladed Thesis
10-22-2019, 12:21 PM
not sure where you're getting that second half, i don't support any new corporate regulations, i support less corporate influence & regulations that help people.
the only new tax would be on healthcare which replaces the current, much more costly out of pocket system.
also i obviously support the one guy that's not bought
So much to unpack here and in your other comments but I don't think you're interested in having a discussion where your opinion can be changed so I'll just say you said the "poorly regulated corporate class" meaning you want them regulated and, by association, their corporations regulated. You want more regulations. "Regulations that help people" is such a general statement, it's almost a non-statement. It means nothing. And you harped on uh-oh for wanting less regulation, I inferred that would mean you prefer more regulations.
Imagine thinking Bernie Sanders is not bought. He made 400k in book royalties in 2018 alone. I think by definition that means bought. "Everybody else's person is bought except my guy." 600k summer home to go along with his other two properties. That's gonna be a yikes from me.
Live heat
10-22-2019, 12:29 PM
Fucc with bladed thesis...
NYCSPITZ
10-22-2019, 12:32 PM
With Bernie we gon get free college fam. Go back and steal the 23 y/o hotties from college noobs. Only competition would be sports players and the 1%-5% with lotta swag. Light workkk go sanders imo. He accelerates our only life prerogative which is procreation however with LEV we may live to see 500 years old imho (offhand chance)
So much to unpack here and in your other comments but I don't think you're interested in having a discussion where your opinion can be changed so I'll just say you said the "poorly regulated corporate class" meaning you want them regulated and, by association, their corporations regulated. You want more regulations. "Regulations that help people" is such a general statement, it's almost a non-statement. It means nothing. And you harped on uh-oh for wanting less regulation, I inferred that would mean you prefer more regulations.
Imagine thinking Bernie Sanders is not bought. He made 400k in book royalties in 2018 alone. I think by definition that means bought. "Everybody else's person is bought except my guy." 600k summer home to go along with his other two properties. That's gonna be a yikes from me.
I'm open to whatever you wanna talk about. I was being vague because uh-oh oversimplifies everything. In general, yeah corporations that make tens of billions of dollars a year without paying taxes, I would like regulations that ensure they pay their taxes for as long as the rest of us are paying taxes. That is a regulation that would help people as tens of billions of dollars in extra tax revenue can easily pay for things that help general society, under the right leadership of course. I support regulations that prevent the corporate class from destroying the planet from an environmental standpoint, and regulations that keep them from exploiting the working class, in general. If you want to get more specific, let's do it.
But imagine thinking a guy that made 400k off of a best-selling book is "bought". By who? His publisher lol? Do you not know how much the rest of Congress takes from outside influence? How familiar are you with how this works? Because it seems like very little from that statement.
It's so crazy to me that people still don't understand the outrageous difference between Bernie and the rest. Like, that's WHY he has the most donations. We know his track record. The receipts all exist.
Bernie's been in elected office for 30 years. His tax returns show before his best-selling book, his family was consistently bringing in under 300k. Bernie's salary is 175k, they also receive social security.
175k x 30 years = $5.25M in salary alone. It wasn't always 175k, but the point is his total networth after 30 years is 2.5 million. Including recent best sellers.
If you don't know Bernie is as financially modest as a congressperson gets, and all of congress knows that, you're a goofball. He shops at Kohls, almost always flies coach, he drives a prius, like bro the proof is in the pudding. Go look at his "properties". One is the one he's had for 30 years, one is the one he has in D.C. because when you work in D.C. you work there a lot. Obviously. 99% of congress has a second home in D.C.
Then they recently sold an old family property and used the money to buy a new family property. That's the whole story.
Most congress members take in millions of dollars a year from corporations, superpac's and lobbyists. At the very least hundreds of thousands of dollars.
If you didn't know, Bernie doesn't take Superpac or Corporate donations. This is the only thing that really matters in regards to succumbing to outside influence. This is why we know he has the best chance of actually getting things done.
If you didn't know, some other congresspeople that have been around as long as Bernie are worth 25M, 45M, etc.
You can look at opensecrets.org for information on who takes money from where.
But ultimately, even as a 1%'er now, we support Bernie because of his long consistent track record of fighting for the right shit no matter what. It's clear as day. If you aren't convinced, literally just go watch a few videos of him from any decade on youtube. There is no other candidate like Bernie. Again, that's why we support him.
It's not 'everybody is bad but my guy' its 'everybody is bad but this guy so that's why he's my guy'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU3NKvvxcSshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZhkKATtqtU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg9ZTwZCOCk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_om-x323Em0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP8S-ChZELQ
a few good ones
Bladed Thesis
10-22-2019, 04:05 PM
Man, you hate to do it but...
1 - people desperate for change are not confined to the far left.
True.
the "far left" are people that understand and support the policies on the table that actually help the desperation in this country.
Generalizing the far left as the only ones that care doesn’t get you very far. Far left isn’t the people who care, everybody cares, to varying degrees. Also, if you think there is desperation in the country, you should go to a third world country. Sometimes, gaining perspective can be a good thing
msm has told the middle and right these policies are radical and communist and blah blah because those are media companies owned by the industries that will lose profit if implemented.
I think our definitions of mainstream media are very different if you think the mainstream media has been against these policies. Also, I think a common mistake when representing these policies is the assertion that they’re socialist (you said communist but that’s not the critique but I’ll allow it)
people are desperate for change on the left and the right(hence trump). the middle is fine with the status quo because they are typically middle class and don't understand what's happening because they are glued to msnbc.
Nobody is glued to MSNBC, hate to tell you. The numbers don’t lie. But I do agree, most sides of the country aren’t happy where they’re at and the middle tends to lean where they think there is a benefit to them. That’s part of humanity.
if what you're saying is true about trump vs. radical left, then biden would be smooth sailing, but he's not because his policy stances do not resonate.
No, Biden doesn’t resonate because he makes mistakes in speeches constantly, has questionable ties to multiple issues, and doesn’t have the support of his running mate who was a successfully elected president twice and hasn’t endorsed him yet. Also, he’s a career politician who hasn’t accomplished much and comes off as a creepy grandpa to a lot of the electorate.
to be clear, no one running is radical left. bernie is the furthest, and he is just simply left. it only feels radical because the national spectrum has been pulled to the right over the last 20 years.
Incorrect. Sanders is considered radical left because he steps away from the standard liberal progressive policies that are capitalistic in their nature and has moved the base of the party towards socialism (for good or for bad, that’s up to you). You are correct is stating that radical left in the US is not radical left when taking into consideration international politics but we’re not talking international politics, we’re talking domestic. Also, if you think the national political spectrum has pulled right the last 20 years, you’re living in a bubble and I don’t know if we can save you. The amount of social policies in the last 20 years that fly in the face of your logic is astounding. Gay marriage, LGBTQ+ rights, social welfare programs, healthcare through the PPACA to just name a few.
2 - i disagree centrism is the only way to take votes from the right. but truthfully the focus is probably more on the third of the electorate that didn't vote last time. the goal is more so to get those people involved.
Then you haven’t been paying attention to politics long enough to form an opinion that one could considered educated enough to then give people advice or have discussions. The middle has always been where elections are won or lost. Trump won because the middle didn’t find Clinton appealing. Most polls had Clinton’s electability near the 30s for moderates. Obama won because the middle found his promises and charisma appealing and he was the first African American with a chance. Polling data showed that.
but like i said, bernie did a town hall on fox news, ripping into trump, announcing that he would take on big pharma, the military industrial complex, fight for medicare for all. he got a standing ovation. left & right agree on a lot of those issues.
This isn’t a logical statement. Are we assigning value to events that occur on Fox News? If it’s an event you reference here, should we reference other events on Fox News that get applause for policies that counter Bernie’s? Or are we cherrypicking to prove a point? I think there’s a logical fallacy about that.
3 - polls are polls. they are the opinions of people polled at that time. nobody is afraid to give support to trump in a poll lol
2016 says hello and later surveys found that peoples’ political opinions DID play a role in the pre-election polls. Do you follow the election cycle at all or just your candidate. These things were widely discussed across the political spectrum. The silent voter is a real thing that has been observed and quantified in numerous elections.
but usually the polls are biased against young voters and independents. i look at the demographics of each poll carefully to see if they're worth a shit or not. some of them are. some are not. the ones on tv usually are manipulated or weighted in certain directions, usually old, likely voters.
All polls are biased but usually NOT because of demographics. Usually it is due to sample size and the polls line of questioning. A poll can be designed, implemented and published showing any number of things, even among the same demographic showing the exact opposite thing from another poll done to the exact same demographic.
this just sounds like an opinion of yours. it's clear as day that fox news frames every basic social program and anything bernie & aoc say like communism.
Socialism, my dude. You need to learn your own phrases if you want to discuss things from even a slightly open minded position. They are framed as socialism because they are socialism. Good or bad, that an entirely different discussion but they are socialism.
it's a fact that cnn and msnbc are sponsored by big pharma & health insurance companies and treat medicare for all like an impossibility. it's a fact that jeff bezos owns the washington post
Now this is some conspiracy theory level thought analysis.
and would pay tens of billions of dollars in taxes under a Sanders presidency & they happen to frame his wealth tax as "just plain bad & unfair". there are an endless amount of examples i can recite here.
choosing to make healthcare non-profit is not radical. choosing to make public universities less-profit driven is not radical.
it's literally the way things were when our parents were kids, and also during our most prosperous middle class era of the last century.
Except it literally isn’t the way they were before. Thinking that isolationist American of the 60s was actually a socialist paradise is truly astounding. It was the exact opposite of what you’re calling for when it comes down to politic policies. When there was less social welfare, everybody worked 60 hours a week and the world was a different place internationally? You cannot compare the two and harken back to the good ole days based solely on Sanders’ policies.
the rest of private industry that doesn't serve as a public utility is unaffected. like, you live in ohio bro. haven't you connected the dots that the corporate freedom and liberty of enacting bad trade policy is why youngstown, cleveland, etc look like shit and all the malls are gone and everyones a truck driver?
Do you live under a rock? Corporate freedom and liberty of bad trade policies caused the collapse of malls and truck drivers while also destroying the appearance of cities? Do you live in youngstown or cleveland? What’s your point of reference for their appearance and livability? Globalization caused the trade policies and that also happens to be a progressive policy at that. And if the free market caused the unsustainability of Cleveland or Youngstown, so? That’s the whole point. If we start caring for the environment and eliminate coal plants across the country, those towns and cities built around those coal plants will also look like shit and disappear and die. So are you saying that’s bad? That’s how it works when it comes to the free market. People are free to move or stay where they live. Do you understand how an economy works at all? What is your background in economic theory?
don't you think it's fucked that families have to pay thousands of dollars a month for medication?
Placate to emotions. This statement has no bearing on our discussion.
skipping this one
Yeah, dodge that one.
listen the policies of a Sanders platform are what they are. They stand for the right things.
In your opinion, from your current economical position. The majority of the country seemingly disagrees.
they've always aimed for the same principals. if they for some reason don't appeal to you, there's nothing anyone's going to do to coax you into it. the goal is to let everyone that would benefit know about it and let them choose.
That’s gonna be a yikes from me.
there's at least 100 million people who's lives are seriously saved or dramatically improved under these policies.
Can I get a source on that 100 million people please?
that's why he has 1.4 million donations, $33 million on hand, $18 at a time from teachers, tradespeople, warehouse workers, truckdrivers, nurses, unions, etc.
And PACs. Don’t forget those. In fact, of his top 10 donators the majority is PAC money. Top 20 has 16 PACs. These aren’t $18 at a time from teachers, tradespeople, warehouse works, nurses...
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cid=N00000528&cycle=2020&type=C
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cid=N00000528&cycle=2020&recs=100&type=I
this is not meant to sound pitchy it's literally just who the majority of his support is from.
Okay.
but just to see lets pick the last policy he released & u lmk why you don't want it
Go for it.
so say the auto body shop i assume you still work at
Oh this is going to be good. Placate to emotions incoming. starts crushing it or sells out to a big vendor and now they're worth 100 mill or decide to go public
Privately owned body shop so they are not beholden to their employees
.... right now & under a trump admin they can and will keep paying you the same amount despite this surge.
That was the contractual agreement made when hired at the job unless the contract stipulated that the sale of the business would pay dividends to employees.
you might be way busier at work now
That was the job applied for, being busier or slower effects nothing in terms of the employee.
or might have added responsibilities for a dollar or two raise
If that comes with an alteration to the contract that was agreed with the employee, okay. The dollar amount changes nothing. Don’t like the job, you can go get employed elsewhere
maybe a $500 christmas bonus
How nice.
obviously as little as they can get away with
Well, that’s a bias on your part. Also, if the bonus was stipulated in the contract, it was agreed upon by the employee. I give my employees great Christmas bonuses with no contractual obligation because I enjoy giving gifts. And it’s a gift so I dictate the amount, not the employee.
that's about it
Wait, you’re done? I thought you had a point.
you have no say.
You’re an employee. Why would you have a say in a company who’s start up capital you did not provide, who’s risk you didn’t not take on your shoulders, in which you had no vested interest. If the reverse happens and the business dies out and goes bankrupt, would the employee have to pay to keep the business afloat out of their own pockets? Would the employee be at risk of going bankrupt strictly due to that specific business closing? The answer is no. The employee has no risk or vested interest in the business. They have a contractual agreement for employment. Have you ever started a business or run a business?
under a sanders presidency the company you work for would give 45% of it's board of director seats to you and your co-workers
Y
voted in by you and your co-workers
I
every year 2% of the total stock value of that company is given to you and your co-workers
K
until it hits 20%.
E
who you goin' with on this one
S
Classically placating to emotions with little understanding of how a business actually runs or works. I’m going with the one that supports the economic theory that has created some of the greatest wealth the world has ever seen and created an affluent middle class that is rich in 99% of the rest of the world.
This is not how you grow wealth as a country or planet. This is not how you innovate the technology that gave us the internet, phones, smart cars, holograms, space technology, solar energy. This is how you kill small and medium size business. This is how you shutdown mom and pop shops and create a world where only massive corporations can compete. This is how you gatekeep a market. This isn’t the way to win and you’re so clearly out of your depth when it comes to economic theory I cannot even put it into words.
Yeah, that’s gonna be a yikes from me.
i seriously don't get this type of disconnect. don't you understand that the free market bought the government and effectively dictate all industry related legislation?
This is a bias and assumption with some basis in reality but not entirely.
what we live in right now is the result of a poorly regulated corporate class
By “what we live in now” I’m going to assume you aren’t referring to the largest creation of wealth and affluence bottom to top in the history of the world and the largest leaps in technological advancement across all fields ever seen in our history along with the greatest raising of global population quality of life the world has ever seen and it’s only getting faster and better? Are you not talking about that?
it is the result of enormous corporate power and greed
Probably.
and your view on how to fix things is to regulate them less?
It’s a theory.
don't you understand the disfunction of health care, pharmaceuticals is solely because of greed?
There are many doctoral papers and essays that go at this from both sides but it certainly was not solely due to greed. Also, are we going to completely discount the massive innovation in medical technology, pharmaceuticals, medicine, hospitals, patient care that this greed created? In the span of a few hundred years, we’ve almost doubled life expectancy, eliminate vast numbers of diseases and plagues that once crippled the world, broken open DNA, thought then designed then created artificial organs, invented something so simple yet amazing as the digestible pill to transfer medicine into the body, PENICILLIN, ANTIBODIES, recombinant dna, Prozac. I could go on. All created by greed. I think we did okay.
in a completely free market pharma companies would do exactly what they're doing now
Spending their money to make new drugs and new cures to sell and make more money, all the while curing diseases, saving lives and extending our life expectancy as a species beyond what was thought possible only a few hundred years ago
split the market share to not step on each others toes
We need all kinds of drugs for all kinds of sicknesses, illness, birth defects and mysteries of the human body will still don’t understand. And?
and in unison jack up prices for everyone
Possibly. Cancer won’t cure itself.
which already results in tens of thousands of deaths a year
Citation.
simply from having no regulation on how high prices can be
There is but I won’t spoil that one for you.
why do you think without any government interference that this would suddenly drive prices down?
Suddenly? No. That’s wishful thinking. But prices do go down? How do I know? Um, history? Like when tylenol went cost an inflation adjusted price of $40 a pill when created. Or Lasik. Or MRIs. Or braces. Or heart surgery. Or EVERYTHING ever. Do you understand economies and how they work? Do you understand supply and demand? Is this a troll?
Or where are you getting the idea that they would decide to compete instead of doing what they're doing now?
What they’re doing now? Like competing?
do you realize that these industries have literally never done better in the history of our country?
Because our country has never done better in the history of our country? And?
and your solution is to let them do even better
So they can cure cancer? Yeah, I’ll have some of that with a side order of alzheimers cure please.
and hope they don't continue making everything more unaffordable?
History is your friend.
did martin shkreli teach you nothing?
I already knew assholes existed. Did you just figure this out?
do you not have family on medication?
Placate to emotions.
like legit i don't understand this stance.
Or economics. Or supply and demand. I’m noticing there’s a lot you don’t understand. Doesn’t stop you from googling a phrase and thinking your twenty minutes internet research means you’re knowledgeable on the subject. I guess we all have our blindspots.
we spend twice as much on healthcare as any developed nation
Yeah, things aren’t perfect. Nobody said they were.
this is because of private industry.
The many reasons I’ve already listed show this statement is in fact not objective.
please make the case of how price gouging stops under less regulation.
History has already established the laws of supply and demand.
do you understand that as these industries continue to make trillions of dollars
Come on, cure that cancer, boys.
that all of that money goes to billionaires
Who spend upwards of $200m of their own money to finance the research and development of the drugs we hope cure cancer. And?
who hoard it in offshore accounts
Our tax laws suck and there are loopholes that need to be plugged.
stocks
It’s their company, they can’t even own stock? Damn, you are a hard one.
assets
Now they can’t buy anything either? Shit, bruh.
literally siphoning it out of the middle & lower class economy?
Haha, there middle class and lower class economy? You don’t know what the words you’re putting together mean, do you? Jesus christ.
meaning every year this continues
Come on, cure cancer, boys!
we have less to grab ourselves
This is incorrect.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-average-income-in-usa-family-household-history-3306189?
this being why the middle class is shrinking
For what reason? Hint:
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/yes-the-us-middle-class-is-shrinking-but-its-because-americans-are-moving-up-and-no-americans-are-not-struggling-to-afford-a-home/
and everyone lives paycheck to paycheck?
Everyone? Generalizations are not your friend. Also, some people might live paycheck to paycheck for different reasons. Some people have bad financial habits. Some people buy fast food instead of cooking at home. Some people want design brands while I couldn’t care less. Some people rent instead of buy homes. Some people get into credit card debt early. Some people are just dumb.
you realize trickle down isn't a thing right?
This guy.
let me reiterate. congress is made up almost entirely
Entirely? Bernie gets included in that.
of politicians that do corporate bidding.
Cue the x-files theme.
how can you criticize the government's incompetence without recognizing their actions 100% reflect what the corporate class wants?
The circular logic is astounding. Bravo.
the point is that we are saying there are industries' whose main function shouldn't be to profit like a business
You don’t understand economics.
such as ones that are the catalyst of our own people living or dying
Placate to emotions from a state of misunderstanding. Tickle me surprised.
you are looking only at the business side and not at all at the actual intended function of healthcare. which is weird.
Why not both? I love umbrella terms like healthcare when you’re referring to massive industries, business, various areas of research and development, etc.
if you make this a nonprofit sector, the people who are in business solely to make money can go to a different sector
Guess we’re not curing cancer, guys.
where their product/service is not the determining factor of someone dying or not.
What? Please read what you wrote and slap yourself. This is the dumbest thing I’ve read yet and you’ve been pretty ignorant so far.
the people who are in this sector to genuinely produce medicine
You just said get them out. They’re the same people. This is your Ahha moment. Oprah would be so proud.
& save lives will stay.
They’re the same people.
you act like nobody is interested in actual healthcare
Wow, it’s like you have no idea what you’re talking about. Where have I seen that before?
just the profit
Shh, he’s becoming self aware and doesn’t see it.
when the industries have actually just been corrupted by people more interested in money than healthcare.
Irony.
again, like i said, it didn't used to be this way.
Oh, buddy, I’m going to need the citations on this one.
and when it didnt, medicine was affordable.
Citations please.
300k people a year weren't going into medical bankruptcy
They weren’t getting any care at all and dying. Do you even read history? What are you talking about?
why are you so purposely dismissive of the dysfunctional and cruel results?
It’s a matter of perspective. And history. You don’t seem to understand either.
you're supporting a system that bankrupts sick people for profit.
That’s one way to look at it. Definitely not a subjective statement.
why do you see healthcare as a money making business
Oh deary me.
instead of a public utility?
:whynotbothgifhere:
well, because that's all you know
Mirror. Look in it.
but that's the result of political choices.
An assumption. Placate to my emotions please.
but the alternative is beneficial for our entire countries' health,
Y
our livelihood
I
our stability
K
our quality of life
E
these things are more important than money.
S
please answer - where are you getting the idea that the government is the reason pharmaceuticals are guaranteed to receive the outrageous prices they arbitrarily decide upon?
Supply and demand.
you realize 80million people are without insurance or underinsured, but still buy medication directly?
Citation needed but also I’ll comment. As somebody who owns and operates an insurance company, underinsured is a buzzword with very little meaning and allows for misleading statements like yours in an attempt to placate to somebody's emotions by referencing a large number using an ambiguous term like "underinsured." There are a lot of people on the roads with 100/300 liability coverage or even state minimum liability coverage and by definition that is actually considered underinsured by the NAIC. Guess what, that's their choice. So you referencing that a portion of 80m people are underinsured for health insurance, well, some people did/do that on purpose and it wasn't necessarily a problem.
as far as 'you would rather have the government say' this entire section is inaccurate and misrepresented.
Irony.
medicare for all erases all out of pocket costs
No it doesn’t. Do you understand how taxes work and that they come out of the pocket?
and pays for the entire system through a tax instead
Haha, this statement after the last statement is funny. Do you see why?
which saves hundreds of billions of dollars a year for customers.
Citation.
the insurance companies become obsolete
That’s not what the plan calls for. Have you read it? Jesus.
and the money hungry
Cancel the We Cured Cancer party.
go elsewhere to make their money.
NASA rejoices.
prescription costs are capped at $200 a month.
Yikes.
whatever profit that results in for pharma companies is what they will make.
True.
if that's not enough for them, it's a free market
The irony. Oh dear god.
go to a different sector that doesn't play with peoples lives.
Subjective opinion. Not really worth responding to.
that's pretty simple imo.
Irony.
also you realize these pharma companies are guilty of overprescribing addictive opioids for profit
Tickle me surprised. You also don’t understand how prescriptions are processed and written. No way.
starting the opioid epidemic
Think about what you said here. Can you see the problem?
killing millions of people?
Placate to emotions. Consider that maybe the reason some people “can’t see it” is because the way you see it and are presenting it might not be factual. Maybe?
this is what an essentially free market health care sector turned into.
Matter of opinion, not fact.
i really dont get why this is something you think should be allowed to continue other than you value the ability to make money over people's lives.
Again, matter of opinion and placate to emotions saying, “how can you be this evil?” I will reiterate that perhaps the way you see it isn’t reality and thus you don’t understand how somebody could let it continue because your starting point is wrong. Having seen the economic misunderstandings you’ve made but tried to state as fact, I’m going to hedge my bets and go with you’re not seeing things clearly.
you are essentially saying i would rather have 30k people die every year
Placate to emotions. Also, your paraphrasing of “essentially” what he’s saying isn’t what he was saying at all. So, again, you’re coming from a factually incorrect starting point and then basing your statement on words you’re putting into his mouth and then placating to his emotions by saying “how can you say these words you didn’t say.” Don’t respond. Self reflect on this. This is a horrible discussion and conversation technique.
to allow the pharmaceutical industry the freedom to make 146 billion dollars a year
Curing cancer is back on, boys!
instead of guaranteeing everyone the freedom of not dying
Freedom of not dying? Freedom? Jesus.
and having the pharmaceutical industry make 30 billion a year.
Wait, what happened to the other 116 billion? It’s almost like these numbers are being pulled out of your ass from dramatic effect. Think on that. Don’t respond. Self reflect. If you need to lean on dramatic effect to get your point across and pull numbers out of your ass to discuss a topic as sensitive as this, maybe you’re not cut out for the discussion because you cannot separate yourself from your emotions to discuss the topic at hand.
how is hoarding unlimited amounts of money from gaming the system an unalienable right
Actually a lot to unpack in these few words. I’ll be quick. First off, hording money is somebody’s right too. Hello. If I choose to save my money. That’s my right. It doesn’t matter if it $100 or $100 billion. If it’s somebody’s money, they can do with it as they see fit. It’s their goddamn money… what the fuck. As far as gaming the system, realize that any “loophole” or game they use to “horde” their own fucking money is literally built into the tax code and thus supposed to be used. If its not supposed to be used, remove the loophole. That’s literally up to legislature. If you have the ability to claim deductions on your travel expenses and you don’t that’s on you. I’m claiming those deductions and saving myself some money. Don’t like it? Change the tax code. Don’t blame corporations for using the means available to them to protect assets from taxes. Change the tax code. And I AGREE with you. The shit is stupid and should be changed.
and having access to medicine not?
The two aren’t mutually exclusive. This is a false equivalence.
do you have family that take medication?
“Do you have personal emotion I can placate to?” Dear god.
and how is buying a patent for a drug you didn't create and jacking up it's price so people can't afford it not infringing on the rights of people to literally just live?
I mean technically it’s not infringing on their rights. It is shitty, scummy and should be prevented but it’s not illegal. Don’t like it? Let’s change the laws. I agree, it’s not a practice that should be allowed. It’s also not illegal. Immoral. Not illegal.
He has the most donors of any candidate this year, including Trump.
But far less money. FAR less donations raised.
He raised the most money in this most recent quarter out of any Dem candidate.
Democrat candidate. Not Trump. Far less. Again, this was about him having no chance against Trump. Comparing his donation amount against Democrats is irrelevant.
He has the most money on hand out of any Dem candidate.
Again, irrelevant in a discussion of him having a chance against Trump.
He has the most volunteers of any candidate, including Trump.
Again, irrelevant.
This is while polling at 18% in the primary.
Again, irrelevent against Trump almost a year from the election when he hasn’t even won the nomination yet.
Clearly if he won the nomination, these numbers would all go up.
“Clearly” is a generalization and assumption. Both not good when making an authoritative statement.
Half of the country wants to defeat Trump,
Assumption. If that was true, he wouldn’t be president.
all blue support would have to go to him.
Assumption.
He's beating Trump in almost every head to head poll
Your previous statement concerning polls makes this assertion ironic but it’s also irrelevant. The nomination isn’t his yet so to assume the polls remain the same is not how this works.
he outperforms every other dem candidate vs Trump
Irrelevant to him beating Trump, comparing him to other candidates.
He's gone on fox news and ripped into Trump personally, talked about fighting the military industrial complex and big pharma, and received a standing ovation.
First, are we thus saying what occurs on Fox News is important? If so, and they talk about his policies and people clap are we saying his policies are bad? Carry the logic forward and you’ll get your answer. This is a statement to lend credibility to him having pull in conservative bases. If you think that, you’ve got problems.
He even beats Trump in right-wing polls, including fox news.
Polls are polls, you said.
He's still a registered independent, so clearly he can pull independent voters.
Citation? He pulled near 50/50 independents when he ran in Virginia against the Republican he ran against.
Trump literally has no dirt on him as opposed to everyone else
Dirt, true. Trump has Bernie’s voting record and own policies to reference. Do you understand how this works?
because Bernie doesn't lie about shit.
You don’t know this. It is literally impossible to know this. Again, think on this. Don’t respond. Self reflect. How can you possibly making such a sweeping statement about somebody’s character that is literally impossible to know? This is bias. That’s okay. We’re all biased. This is bias.
He's corruption free.
You don’t know this. It is literally impossible to know this. Again, this on this. Don’t respond. Self reflect. How can you make such a sweeping statement about something you have no clue about? You aren’t in all his meetings, you aren’t in all his phone calls. There is no way for you to know this.
I think he has by far the best shot to win
Personal assumption. And that’s okay.
and I think it's a pretty good one.
Personal belief. You’re free to share. And you’re in his campaign so of course you think he’s got a good shot. I would hope so. Who enjoys wasting their time?
People in the rust belt who expected manufacturing jobs to come back and got jack squat
Citation? Wait, I’ll do it and boy do I got news for you on that one.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/manufacturing-jobs-3000-august-498000-under-trump
are going to be open to an alternative.
Assumption. Also, I can see it now. “Trump increased manufacturing by 500k jobs and I want to close plants across the country as part of the Green New Deal.” Yep, you’re right. They’ll be flocking to him.
Farmers who have experienced Trumps terrible trade policy
Citation? Nah, fam, I got you. Uh oh.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-farmers/many-u-s-farmers-fume-at-washington-not-trump-over-biofuel-trade-policies-idUSKCN1VV11U
(& immigration policy) will be open to an alternative.
Wow, that’s racist. And incorrect. And unrelated. Like what?
But I definitely think Trump has a good chance of winning
Probably. Second term presidents and all.
because he's created such a clusterfuck of scandals
Wait, what? Do you understand politics. This doesn’t make logical sense. He’s going to win because his administration is full of scandals? Do you understand politics at all?
and the Dem establishment is so terrible
They are pretty inept, no doubt.
at handling it that nobody really understands what's going on.
Nobody understands what’s going on is correct. You included.
bro, she won the popular vote by 3 mill. i know you understand that.
Representative republic. Not democracy. And that’s a good thing. Go ahead, ask me why. I’d be amazed and venmo you $50 if you explain the historical and sociopolitical standpoint of why a representative republic is more ideal than a democracy. I know, I know. It hurts to see the team that scores more points lose and it’s hard to wrap your head around it but it exists for a very important reason. At least we know you have no educational background in political science. And if you do, that’s an even bigger yikes from me.
Bladed Thesis
10-22-2019, 04:31 PM
Also, no, I don't want Bernie to win the nomination so I cannot provide you with my email.
Ghost1
10-22-2019, 04:38 PM
That's got to be the longest tldr post on nc....ever
An there have been some doosies
i said the far left is comprised of people that understand the policies on the table would help lots of people. you decided to interpret it as me saying they're the only ones that care? terrible way to start and i almost stopped there.
using third world desperation to normalize our own is something that gave away your financial status quickly. the idea of this in general is disgusting to me.
i used the term communism instead of socialism because i was talking to uh-oh, and lots of people in uh-oh's area of the spectrum do in fact conflate socialism with communism, all the time. in fact, a lot of the approaches i took were specifically because i was talking to uh-oh. it's honestly weird af to me that you broke all this down like it was meant for you.
your section about elections being won with centrists is not inaccurate, i was stating simply that the biggest goal of bernie's campaign is a political revolution by getting those not currently involved into the process, as opposed to pushing centrists to the left.
I don't disagree with anything you said about Biden.
thought it was pretty well known that the established left here is dead center, and in issues of war leaning right. bernie's platform is where the left is supposed to be. as you pointed out on an international scale he is not radical. i was speaking from an international perspective. to uh-oh. as far as being pulled to the right, i would have more accurately conveyed what i meant by saying the national dialogue, not spectrum, and over the last few years, not 20. i wrote that in a hurry, as i will this.
bernie on fox was meant only to give an example of bernie doing well with a right leaning audience.
your shit about cleveland and youngstown was silly. i am from that area. so is uh-oh. this is why i brought it up. they are places that lost millions of manufacturing jobs due to trade policy. you can call it progressive policy if you want, but it was bad policy for american jobs, obviously.
it seems like you don't understand how PAC's work. bringing them up as if it means the working class isn't responsible for those donations? did you not see the names of the PAC's? do you think the working class are not involved in those PAC's? do you think PAC means SuperPAC?
the majority of the country supports taxing the wealthy, medicare for all, raising the minimum wage, etc.
after that all i remember is you started breaking down fragments of sentences before the point was made and it was really goofy.
all i can say is i'm not surprised to find out you own an insurance company, or that you don't want 45% of your board to be filled with employees or to give them 20% of your stock value, or that you don't know medicare for all aims to make private health insurance companies obsolete, or that you don't know it will save hundreds of billions of dollars a year over the current system.
i am surprised you tried to conflate out of pocket health expenses with a flat tax rate. i am also surprised that you're not aware of the pharmaceutical company tactic of re-patenting similar drugs over and over and over solely for sales reasons and not at all for genuine development of medicine. i'm also surprised you don't know about how dysfunctional the medical device approval process is.
i am astonished that your answer for pharmaceutical companies jacking up prices in unison is because they're trying to cure cancer. as well as insinuating the healthcare industry is this expensive.... to help cure cancer. and that billionaires spend their hard earned money to try and.... cure cancer.
it's insane to hear you talk about how to actually grow wealth as a country when my obvious concern is the working class who's wealth has been stagnant for 40 years. it's also insane to hear you talk about killing mom & pops shops and small business' while defending a system that allows giant corporations to do just that, all across the country. as well as online.
you're clearly not familiar with the conspiring amongst pharma giants.
i become uninterested in your lecture when you talk about how you agree with me concerning changes to the law when that is literally the whole point i'm making here, supporting someone that will fight to change those laws, pointing out their deep flaws and how they came to be.
as far as hillary winning by 3 mill, uh-oh argued that because the polls are similar for hillary in 2016 vs. bernie in 2019 that it's a bad way to make the case that he can beat trump. i was saying, if that's what the polls translated to, that's a good case for bernie. not a bad one.
and you're crazy if you think i'm going to read an article that starts with 'americans aren't struggling to buy a home' . you desperately need on the ground experience with working class communities across the country.
not sure what you meant by bernie and independents in virginia. sounds like an error on your part.
as far as not knowing if bernie is capable of lying or being corrupt, to be completely honest i have dozens of friends and associates that have worked closely with bernie including in the 90's, in early 2000's, in the last election cycle, and right now. but even if i didn't, i'm a good judge of character, and he has a long list of credentials proving his intentions. if you don't understand that, that's fine. don't ask me to self-reflect though, it might actually do you more good to think about why you aren't sure of his intentions after 40 years of consistent action and fighting, regardless of who's watching, while your only leg to stand on to say otherwise is his 3 homes with a total worth of ~2 million lol.
hopefully you understand 400k jobs is not a lot compared to the 7 million lost.
as far as the big pharma numbers being pulled out of my ass, it was the amount they made last year compared to a rough estimate of what they would make under medicare for all. correct me if you'd like, i'm all ears.
and listen i know they don't teach this in school but if you're going to call something as mild as 'msm rhetoric is impacted by the entities that own them' conspiratorial... you're going to have a tough time understanding much of my perspective.
[img]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMewtlmkV6c[/url]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMewtlmkV6c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMewtlmkV6c
a working class hero is sometrhing to be
im not going to read that, thats awesome im sure.. I just looked at the white stripes do some stuff on bernie sanders stuff... and bernie sanbders telel them to f off of... just tonightr
i'm going to whichta far... from this opera forever morever more, im going the work the straw
\
Ghost1
10-30-2019, 05:33 AM
and listen i know they don't teach this in school but if you're going to call something as mild as 'msm rhetoric is impacted by the entities that own them' conspiratorial... you're going to have a tough time understanding much of my perspective.
Manufacturing consent by Noam Chomsky is pretty standard reading in poli science classes as far as I know lol
Bladed theses is unwell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj5EZ0Aggtk
As far as the health care issue goes, that I barely skimmed across uh-oh and boof talking about... I've never had a doctor in my life, ever. When I was a real real little kid maybe like 8-10 I can remember having one kind of. After that no.
My dad ended up being the sole care provider for myself and my siblings at a young age. He was a Vietnam combat veteran, drafted not volunteer. He'll be 70 next month, still alive... hates the VA, hates the government etc. My dad used his 'service' for one thing though, and that was to go to college, he went to college on the GI bill. He graduated from a D1 university and was a public school teacher for 30 years.
I can remember being younger, and actually not giving a fuck at the time.. like early teens siblings were roughly the same age... and my dad busted out pay stubs, and busted out documentation for the HMO or whatever its called that was offered. He busted out the calculator and wrote it down put it all in kids terms simplified, and just said I'm sorry but you see it in black and white this is why you can't have health care.
And so unless me and my sibliings broke bones and went to the ER we didn't see doctors. Other than paying $15 in the gym to get cleared for a physical to play sports high school that was it.
And I'm sorry, but based on those circumstances... us being in the wealthiest country in the world... and of course LOVING our veterans... and not only a vet but a combat vet, and LOVING our prized school teachers even more we price families like mine be priced out of even having the most basic shitty medical care? Please tell me how that is right? Thats a fact that's how I grew up.
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.