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

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

3 hours ago, HorusRa2 said:

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. 

I'm just not of the opinion that we shouldn't give Americans the choice. Every American should have the choice of whether or not they want to be on the government plan at first. If the private insurance industry cannot compete (spoiler: it cannot), then everyone will naturally transition to the government plan. This is what most likely will happen. However, if some private health care provider is offering something that the government cannot, in terms of affordability, quality of care, innovation, etc., then it would be in our best interests to let that private provider do their work. 

This idea, if possible, of having a mixed health care market, eliminates the types of situations in which people are dying from a lack of health care... This is ideal. If the public option is so great that no provider in the private industry can compete, great. If there is a private provider that can provide something that the government cannot, great. That's the beauty of having a mixed market system that combines the power of the free market with regulations.

In response to your disapproval of the idea of different people paying different prices, that's on the individual person. If people are so ignorant to stay on a private plan that is more expensive than the public option, that's on them. You cannot worry about these folks, so long as there is a clear, easy path to get onto the public plan. 

But again, this boils down to the discussion we were having of whether a public option would be fiscally viable, given the potential issue of there not being enough healthy individuals to make up for the sick. This needs to be studied by a independent third-party, like the CBO, if it hasn't been already. Point me to the study if I'm mistaken.

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

3 minutes ago, derpmonster said:

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. 

It's really not. A social democrat believes in a mixed economy, while a democratic socialist believes in the eventual transition to a pure socialist (although democratic) system. 

Warren clearly identifies as a capitalist with rules. That's different than a democratic socialist. 

Bernie's ideology does suggest he'd like to abolish capitalism... Warren's ideology, as she has described it, does not. 

I'm pretty far left, but in relation to health care, I think a public option would be most ideal (if fiscally possible). That's where I clash with all of the dem candidates (well, those that have a chance, anyway). 

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, TheQueenLG said:

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

That is not true, social democrats want something like Canada and some European countries. None of these countries support or want a full socialist country. I dont know any social democrat that supports that.

America is not even a capitalist country, they have alot of socialist programs but mostly to support the rich. What social democrats want is removing social programs that caters to the rich and give these social programs to the poor. Im mostly Libertarian so against social programs for the rich and poor but id rather social programs to the poor instead of the rich. Id rather live in a socialist country than what everyone has today which is not capitalism, its crony capitalism, which is basically socialism for the rich.

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

2 minutes ago, Faysalaaa said:

I dont think that is true, social democrats and Bernie want something like Canada and some European countries. None of these countries want a full socialist country. I dont know any social democrat that supports that!

America is not even a capitalist country, they have alot of socialist social programs but mostly to support the rich. What social democrats want is removing social programs that caters to the rich and give these social programs to the poor. Im mostly Libertarian so against social programs for the rich and poor but id rather social programs to the poor instead of the rich. Id rather live in a socialist country than what everyone has today which is not capitalism, its crony capitalism, which is basically socialist but for the rich.

Democratic socialism and social democracy are two different things. Democratic socialism calls for the eventual abolition of capitalism. Social democracy calls for strong social programs (think Europe) in a capitalist economy. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Democratic socialism and social democracy are two different things. Democratic socialism calls for the eventual abolition of capitalism. Social democracy calls for strong social programs (think Europe) in a capitalist economy. 

But no progressive candidate in America is a Democratic socialist right? they are all social democrats including Bernie. Correct me if im wrong.

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

3 minutes ago, Faysalaaa said:

But no progressive candidate in America is a Democratic socialist right? they are all social democrats including Bernie. Correct me if im wrong.

Bernie calls himself a democratic socialist. So does AOC. 

But their policy proposals align with social democracy. The “abolishing capitalism” is something that is yet to be seen. No one has said that publicly as far as I know. 

[Married the Night 3,955]

I see where she is coming from. 🤷🏼‍♂️ 

[Shaney 5,515]

5 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.

 

 

Wall Street execs are starting to endorse Warren. That's a huge no-no.

[Maleficent 6]

a candidates gender no longer matters, as evidenced by HC. She won the popular vote; most of America was on-board for a female commander in chief. it just comes down to optics and campaigning style. 

[Maleficent 6]

40 minutes ago, Bae said:

Wall Street execs are starting to endorse Warren. That's a huge no-no.

lol they’re probably doing that to **** w her and turn her supporters against her. genius move 

[Shaney 5,515]

2 minutes ago, Maleficent said:

lol they’re probably doing that to **** w her and turn her supporters against her. genius move 

That doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't they be doing it to other candidates who are against Wall-Street (Bernie and Tulsi)?

[Guillaume Hamon 6,992]

5 hours ago, Bae said:

That doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't they be doing it to other candidates who are against Wall-Street (Bernie and Tulsi)?

They know well these two are the only ones who will actually limit them.  

[imnotyourbabe10 6,120]

Kathy...

 

OT: Bernie has passed bills and his supporters are not all Bernie bros.  And Bernie has had one of the more consistent voting records and has been in the fight for decades.  These narratives and stereotypes are getting old.

 

[Marilyn MonHoe 11,011]

9 hours ago, Nemo said:

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

 

16 minutes ago, imnotyourbabe10 said:

Kathy...

 

OT: Bernie has passed bills and his supporters are not all Bernie bros.  And Bernie has had one of the more consistent voting records and has been in the fight for decades.  These narratives and stereotypes are getting old.

 

I’m a Bernie supporter but I don’t know what a Bernie Bro is. Are Bernie Bros the extreme versions of his support?

[imnotyourbabe10 6,120]

1 minute ago, Marilyn MonHoe said:

 

I’m a Bernie supporter but I don’t know what a Bernie Bro is. Are Bernie Bros the extreme versions of his support?

Here are a few definitions from Urban Dictionary...take them with a grain of salt...I guess one could call them "progressive frat boys?"  I personally loathe the divisive term (I'm a leftist, radical queer dude who is a Bernie and Warren supporter so all the hate from neoliberals is so frustrating).

"An insufferable, self-righteous, left wing activist, who refers to everyone who doesn't share his narrow political views (a.k.a. anyone who doesn't feel the Bern) as a corporate puppet/media *****."

"A colloquial term used to describe volatile, unstable, angry Bernie Sanders supporters. These supporters tend to unleash attacks on facts as being from "the establishment" and proceed to fight back with red herrings. The most annoying people you will come across online, as they typically dominate r/politics with barrages of down votes if you undermine their God.
Note: Contrary to what their screaming supporters claim, this term is gender neutral. Any Bernie supporter can be a Bernie Bro."

"A derogatory term coined by the Clinton machine to generalize Bernie supporters as sexist, white young men. The idea was to get Clinton elected simply because she was a female.
In reality, 58% of women and 55% of men approve of Sanders, according to a Harvard poll. Sanders supporters overwhelmingly support Elizabeth Warren - who is also female.
Then again, facts meant nothing back in 2016."