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

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

4 hours 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.

 

 

Girl that was BAIT. You shouldn't have responded. Anything thing Benie Sanders supporters do. They bait you so they can give pre-planned responses. 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

1 hour ago, TheQueenLG said:

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?

It doesn’t work that way. If a public option is offered, it will allow private insurance more leverage to deny people coverage and it’ll push the sick people and those with pre-existing conditions onto Medicare and the healthy people on the private plans. Because all the healthy people will be on the private plan, the insurance companies will make profits whereas the public option will go bankrupt. 

 

In a single payer plan funded by taxes, everyone is contributing (the rich will pay more) and the plan will be solvent. In other words, the rich will be subsidizing healthcare for the poor and that in my view is a good way to redistribute wealth. 

[Nemo 4,410]

Personally, I've never encountered a "Bernie Bro", only people complaining about them.

[Ziggy 14,051]

55 minutes ago, Faysalaaa said:

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.
 

 

I mean saying “i want anything but Trump” isn’t exactly privileged. Plenty of people say that because he *does* directly impact their lives and given just how exceptionally corrupt he and his administration are (education, the environment, economy, etc.) it would actually be hard to get much worse. So saying anything but him is just about the lowest bar to hurdle lol

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

1 minute ago, HorusRa2 said:

It doesn’t work that way. If a public option is offered, it will allow private insurance more leverage to deny people coverage and it’ll push the sick people and those with pre-existing conditions onto Medicare and the healthy people on the private plans. Because all the healthy people will be on the private plan, the insurance companies will make profits whereas the public option will go bankrupt. 

 

In a single payer plan funded by taxes, everyone is contributing (the rich will pay more) and the plan will be solvent. In other words, the rich will be subsidizing healthcare for the poor and that in my view is a good way to redistribute wealth. 

As I was writing my post I was asking this question too... Would there be enough healthy citizens on the public plan to subsidize the costs for the poor?

I think, if the public option truly does provide the best care at the most affordable price as everyone suggests and I also agree, then there will be enough healthy people on the public plan to pay for everyone (including the sick). I would like to see this further explored with cold, hard statistical projections by the CBO to see if something like this is possible. If a public option was fiscally possible, and the CBO produced a study to prove it, would you approve? It seems if a public option is economically realistic (given the argument you proposed) it would be the most favorable option due to, one, added competition with the private sector, and two, the fact that people who like their current plan could keep it. Thoughts? 

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

26 minutes ago, derpmonster said:

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

True. But he is a democratic socialist (they support the eventual abolition of capitalism). 

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

7 minutes ago, TheQueenLG said:

True. But he is a democratic socialist (they support the eventual abolition of capitalism). 

But do they? I've always thought Bernie labels himself incorrectly. A social democrat would be a better label. 

Capitalism will never be abolished in the US. 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

14 minutes ago, TheQueenLG said:

As I was writing my post I was asking this question too... Would there be enough healthy citizens on the public plan to subsidize the costs for the poor?

I think, if the public option truly does provide the best care at the most affordable price as everyone suggests and I also agree, then there will be enough healthy people on the public plan to pay for everyone (including the sick). I would like to see this further explored with cold, hard statistical projections by the CBO to see if something like this is possible. If a public option was fiscally possible, and the CBO produced a study to prove it, would you approve? It seems if a public option is economically realistic (given the argument you proposed) it would be the most favorable option due to, one, added competition with the private sector, and two, the fact that people who like their current plan could keep it. Thoughts? 

I don’t think so. I highly dislike the idea that different people can pay different prices for healthcare. I believe people have a right to be taken care of when they are sick. I see Medicare for All mostly as a moral decision. I became more fervent in this when my mother died this year. She was diagnosed with colon cancer 2 years ago. She was only 45 when she died. She always chose work over her health because she didn’t make enough money—missing a day of work could mean a bill didn’t get paid. Much less if she went to the doctor and had to pay medical bills. While I cannot prove it, I believe there is still the chance it could have been found in time and she could be alive today if there was a single-payer Medicare for all system in place. Now I support it aggressively because I want as few people as possible losing their mother, father, best friend to a disease or sickness that could be identified. 

[Othon 34,299]

Just now, Morphine Prince said:

But do they? I've always thought Bernie labels himself incorrectly. A social democrat would be a better label. 

Capitalism will never be abolished in the US. 

Not with that attitude. 

Sanders is openly critical of capitalism and believes in worker representation in business ownership, which is more akin to democratic socialism to social democracy. But in practice, yes, he's more of an updated FDR (minus the anti-Japanese racism) than a Eugene Debs, as much as I wish he could be the latter.

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

3 minutes ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

Not with that attitude. 

Sanders is openly critical of capitalism and believes in worker representation in business ownership, which is more akin to democratic socialism to social democracy. But in practice, yes, he's more of an updated FDR (minus the anti-Japanese racism) than a Eugene Debs, as much as I wish he could be the latter.

Lmao I honestly do not see if happening. But he is very critical of capitalism. 

[Othon 34,299]

47 minutes ago, derpmonster said:

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

I don't know about that. 

If we're drawing distinctions between Sanders and Warren on domestic policy, Sanders tends to adhere to universal programs that directly attack the root cause of the problem they're designed to address while Warren's proposals offer short-term, more minor surface-level reforms to deal with institutional problems (e.g. Sanders' plan to abolish student debt with a tax on Wall Street vs. Warren's plan to cut roughly $50,000 for anyone making under $100,000 a year. Only one of those proposals does away with the crisis altogether). For that alone, I'd pick him.

But I think it's more important to focus on their respective organizing records and their foreign policy positions when distinguishing between the two. Sanders has actively tried to build an organizing base with the following accrued after 2015 and 2016, used his email list to alert supporters of workers' strikes and warn undocumented immigrants of ICE raids, and played an instrumental role in getting candidates that adhere to something resembling genuine leftism at every level of government (AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, etc.) whereas that doesn't seem to be a focus for Warren at all. If we want any leftist policy to pass, we have to build a leftist electoral force, and Sanders is the only candidate working to do that.

On foreign policy, Warren's votes to expand the military budget by hundreds of billions of dollars and her continued support for the right-wing Israeli government are disqualifying for me (unless she's who we end up with, obviously). The fact that she's much farther to the right that Sanders on foreign policy coupled with the notion that a sitting president has the most control over foreign affairs sort of makes their differences all the more important.

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

15 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

But do they? I've always thought Bernie labels himself incorrectly. A social democrat would be a better label. 

Capitalism will never be abolished in the US. 

Democratic socialists do, indeed, believe in the eventual abolition of capitalism. I think he knows the implications of what he labels himself as. 

I'm a social democrat. 

If we go out and elect a bunch of democratic socialists, eventually, yes, capitalism may be abolished. Nothing is impossible. Unlikely? Yes. Impossible? No. 

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

I mean saying “i want anything but Trump” isn’t exactly privileged. Plenty of people say that because he *does* directly impact their lives and given just how exceptionally corrupt he and his administration are (education, the environment, economy, etc.) it would actually be hard to get much worse. So saying anything but him is just about the lowest bar to hurdle lol

And the corporate democrats that work for the same system that brought us Trump will do the same. People suffering care about helping themselves, they dont care about having a low bar. Only privileged people will go for the low bar.

[derpmonster 22,412]

36 minutes ago, TheQueenLG said:

True. But he is a democratic socialist (they support the eventual abolition of capitalism). 

It's a semantic thing. He's a social Democrat at least in his public platform and agenda. As is Warren. Warren was the first to raise her hand when the moderators asked "would you abolish private health insurance in favor of Medicare for all?" She was very eager to, because it's a corrupt, greedy industry. And no, they're not abolishing capitalism, just changing it to work better for average people rather than companies. 

But Warren is more left than you realize. 

[RoverLoader 1,254]

Kathy Griffin is talentless, unfunny and a horrible hypocrite. Also, incredibly unattractive, which is probably the source of all her bitterness.