Kathy Griffin: Bernie bros are like Trumpers; wants a female president

[Eighteen 5,430]

56 minutes ago, derpmonster said:

I don't support bullying anyone but this generalization is such delulu.

Centrist Democrats would rather have another weak candidate like Hillary than give their voters what they actually want aka a real progressive platform. 

centrist democrats are centrist bc that's what their districts want? not everyone is a progressive

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

Warren, Harris, or Buttigieg are my picks as of now. I support Buttigieg's health care plan of "Medicare for all who want it" more than Warren or Harris' traditional "Medicare for all" which would abolish private and employer-based plans. If Biden is the nominee, I'm not certain that I'd vote for him (or Trump). Sanders shouts too much and is too far to the left, imo, though I would vote for him if I had to. Warren/Harris/Buttigieg aren't my picks because they're women or gay... They're my picks because I believe they're the most qualified to lead. Kathy is playing some serious identity politics. (eye roll)

In addition, I'm tempted to vote for whichever candidate Pelosi opposes -- that woman is betraying our constitution every day that she fails to provide the Trump admin with accountability. She, quite honestly, disgusts me. 

[Chic 20,830]

1 hour ago, Melech said:

He would be the first Jewish president. That would be something as well considering Jews are one of the most targeted minority group in the US. So take a seat, Kathy 

I’m curious, wouldn’t it not make too much of a difference? Seeing as anti-semites promote the stereotype that Jewish people are the ones with utmost power and riches in the world. You would know better than I, but I would assume it might make things worse considering the hatred each president faces and the fact that it reinforces a negative stereotype. Especially one that’s so interlocked with conspiracy theories, and the right certainly enjoys those.

[HorusRa2 5,005]

1 hour ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Warren has been openly and strongly anti wall street and corporate interest, what?

She has her issues such as on foreign policy,  but being tough on finance and the military industrial complex itself are not among them, she literally has unveiled plans attacking them as recently as of May. I know she has had a murky voting history on voting for/against small increases in budget at times, but i wouldn't say shes a faux progressive. Kamala is very opportunistic though.

 

 

I used “and” by which I mean both. Warren is EXCELLENT on domestic issues especially in relation to taxation. She is not a peace candidate and has routinely voted to increase military funding. A progressive, a real progressive does not believe in that. The media and everybody can call Liz a progressive but she’s a progressive in the blue dog democrat sense. I don’t *hate* Liz but she has let me down a lot (M4A, she’s wishy washy on it since campaign launch even if she said the right thing at the debate, standing rock, Bernie 2016, Israel, continued belief that you can bend the rules and make capitalism ok again, etc etc). That said, she’s the best candidate other than Bernie & Tulsi and I would support her if she became the nominee. Same with Kamala but I’d cringe even more when voting for her. 

[Ziggy 14,051]

She makes a lot of conflated points here. Bernie is not his base (just like Beyoncé is not the BeyHive, spiteful stans ). Bernie is fine, I imagine (I haven’t met him). The bulk of his supporters are probably fine as well. Bernie Bros. are the worst. If she made a more nuanced point I might be convinced or be inclined to provide leniency but as is...swing and a miss

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

30 minutes ago, TheQueenLG said:

Warren, Harris, or Buttigieg are my picks as of now. I support Buttigieg's health care plan of "Medicare for all who want it" more than Warren or Harris' traditional "Medicare for all" which would abolish private and employer-based plans. If Biden is the nominee, I'm not certain that I'd vote for him (or Trump). Sanders shouts too much and is too far to the left, imo, though I would vote for him if I had to. Warren/Harris/Buttigieg aren't my picks because they're women or gay... They're my picks because I believe they're the most qualified to lead. Kathy is playing some serious identity politics. (eye roll)

In addition, I'm tempted to vote for whichever candidate Pelosi opposes -- that woman is betraying our constitution every day that she fails to provide the Trump admin with accountability. She, quite honestly, disgusts me. 

Technically, Harris is not for "Medicare for All" - that would abolish private insurance. She believes an option where people are able to still get private insurance for the meantime but that phases the need for it out over time (a short period of time) is the right way to go.

So far only Sanders is at a 100% sticking with it - abolish private insurance position.

Ofc the aggressiveness of that term and the ambiguity it leads to is concocted by Establishment democrats and corporate interests who have no intention of letting Bernie win. They (including people like Joe Biden) are making people believe there will be Gaps between coverage, you wont have your doctors, somehow "Medicare for All" will end Medicare itself, that Medicare 4 all will have extensive amoutns of things that aren't covered, etc. When in reality there will be no gap in coverage, people will still be able to have their doctors/an expanded pool of potential doctors, and medicare for all actually extends its current application to cover many other types of care that aren't currently covered by medicare.

Private Insurance being abolished is quite literally for the median best for all people, the point being that Private Insurance is fundamentally not concerned with the well being of those who purchase it, only maximizing profits. They also have arguably much power in Washington to be simply negotiated with into become more productive, as long as it exists, people will be exploited. This is only controversial because people don't like change, even when it means the process would go from

Go to hospital

give your ID

 sign paper work

 risk being denied, etc

potentially receive medical care, having to weigh what is best for you with what is affordable and covered by insurance (this leaves many people with No options at this stage but to not seek treatment)

Pay deductibles/premiums/co-pays/etc. *This is often necessary before you receive high cost or high quality medical attention*

 to:

Give someone your medicare card/some identification

 get medical attention

Go back to living your life.

On top of that, people wont have to worry about things like being between healthcare coverage when they lose a job or change jobs, or when there job switches to a different health care coverage to save money but that covers less - potentially forcing them to switch jobs again. These inconveniences will not happen anymore.

I highly suggest reading this infographic article that explains the various plans Democrats have for versions of "Medicare for _" 

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/13/18103087/medicare-for-all-explained-single-payer-health-care-sanders-jayapal

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

11 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Technically, Harris is not for "Medicare for All" - that would abolish private insurance. She believes an option where people are able to still get private insurance for the meantime but that phases the need for it out over time (a short period of time) is the right way to go.

So far only Sanders is at a 100% sticking with it - abolish private insurance position.

Ofc the aggressiveness of that term and the ambiguity it leads to is concocted by Establishment democrats and corporate interests who have no intention of letting Bernie win. They (including people like Joe Biden) are making people believe there will be Gaps between coverage, you wont have your doctors, somehow "Medicare for All" will end Medicare itself, that Medicare 4 all will have extensive amoutns of things that aren't covered, etc. When in reality there will be no gap in coverage, people will still be able to have their doctors/an expanded pool of potential doctors, and medicare for all actually extends its current application to cover many other types of care that aren't currently covered by medicare.

Private Insurance being abolished is quite literally for the median best for all people, the point being that Private Insurance is fundamentally not concerned with the well being of those who purchase it, only maximizing profits. They also have arguably much power in Washington to be simply negotiated with into become more productive, as long as it exists, people will be exploited. This is only controversial because people don't like change, even when it means the process would go from

Go to hospital

give your ID

 sign paper work

 risk being denied, etc

potentially receive medical care, having to weigh what is best for you with what is affordable and covered by insurance (this leaves many people with No options at this stage but to not seek treatment)

Pay deductibles/premiums/co-pays/etc. *This is often necessary before you receive high cost or high quality medical attention*

 to:

Give someone your medicare card/some identification

 get medical attention

Go back to living your life.

On top of that, people wont have to worry about things like being between healthcare coverage when they lose a job or change jobs, or when their job switches to a different health care coverage to save money but that covers less - potentially forcing them to switch jobs again. These inconveniences will not happen anymore.

I highly suggest reading this infographic article that explains the various plans Democrats have for versions of "Medicare for _" 

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/13/18103087/medicare-for-all-explained-single-payer-health-care-sanders-jayapal

Trust me. I agree with you, mostly. Medicare and its services are better than private programs. However, many people are happy with their private or employer-based programs. That's just a fact. Medicare should be available to all who want it, and if the program is so great (I think it will be), then, naturally, everyone will migrate onto the program. I'm not arguing against the fact that Medicare for all would abolish the element of profit. I think, during the natural transition period to M4A, having private programs that are forced to compete would be interesting. If there is a private insurance company  that can compete with our M4A program in terms of affordability and quality of care, is that necessarily a bad thing? I would suggest not. 

As for individual candidates and their position on healthcare, all of them except for Bernie have been inconsistent and confusing. They need to do better on communication, I agree. 

I support a transition to Medicare for all who want it. Naturally, I believe everyone will want it, thereby making it Medicare for all. What's your opinion on something like this?

[Whispering 18,865]

I agree with her on the part about the Bros being aggressive, but I don’t care if the nominee is a male or female.

I’m voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is, it doesn’t matter what gender, race or religion they are! 

[Melech 9,900]

1 hour ago, Chic said:

I’m curious, wouldn’t it not make too much of a difference? Seeing as anti-semites promote the stereotype that Jewish people are the ones with utmost power and riches in the world. You would know better than I, but I would assume it might make things worse considering the hatred each president faces and the fact that it reinforces a negative stereotype. Especially one that’s so interlocked with conspiracy theories, and the right certainly enjoys those.

It would give antisemites a reason for sure! But I think it won’t get worse than it already is because he might be president 

[Guest]

People who are suffering and are poor dont care about a female president, they care about policies that can actually help them. People who say I want a female president or anything but Trump are privileged women who dont care about anyone but their feelings. Privileged women like Kathy wont be effected under Trump or anyones presidency yet shes shaming people who are actually effected and suffering.
 

 

[derpmonster 22,412]

3 hours ago, Eighteen said:

centrist democrats are centrist bc that's what their districts want? not everyone is a progressive

Most polls have shown people are more progressive than assumed. Even FOX News viewers supported a high marginal tax rate.

You have Nancy Pelosi from San Francisco where people are much more progressive than she is. We've tried centrist Dems and they fail to garner mass support because they don't stand for a real platform that would change anything. 

The real reason they're centrist is money and corporate power. Good thing people are holding Dems accountable now and basically all have been pushed left because of how popular Bernie and Warren became. 

[weed 78,959]

Disappointed in Kathy tbh... but good for her ig, she's a comedian 

[derpmonster 22,412]

2 hours ago, TheQueenLG said:

Sanders shouts too much and is too far to the left

He isn't much farther to the left than Warren is. 

[Lion Heart 15,041]

So tired of her.

[lairofhk 936]

👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎