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

[Hybrid AT 78]

Well, generalization is always wrong.

I'm not sure exactly what fraction of his supporters are these aggressive "Bernie Bros". But for some, I repeat, "some" supporters the statement holds true. Probably the most radical group of supporters out there and quite frankly just next to MAGA maniacs (except MAGA maniacs have no brains). And this is true for some people who I've had interactions with on this site as well as on Twitter. They just don't know how to take criticism well, be extremely defensive even when he gets called out for valid reasons and try to tear other candidates down for no reason constantly.

As an example? I've seen people here on GGD passive-aggresively reacting "sad" to posts when presented with facts and evidence which sometimes prove why other candidates might just make a better nominee than him. It's just childish. Seriously? Grow up.

[Lilmonzter 2,864]

Everyone's hating on Bernie and I don't like it 

So Sexist of kathy! Wish for someone qualified not for their gender! What's wrong with people they never learn!

Is there anybody else who is not taking super pac or wall street money?! 

[Marilyn MonHoe 11,011]

21 minutes ago, imnotyourbabe10 said:

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."

 

 

So it’s an arbitrary insult that is used to demean Bernie supporters when people can’t argue against them with facts. Haha got it.

[Marilyn MonHoe 11,011]

20 minutes ago, Lilmonzter said:

Everyone's hating on Bernie and I don't like it 

So Sexist of kathy! Wish for someone qualified not for their gender! What's wrong with people they never learn!

Is there anybody else who is not taking super pac or wall street money?! 

Warren, Tulsi and Yang are not taking corporate or Wall Street money either. Although Warren has stated in the past that she will accept that money if she wins the nomination.

[Hybrid AT 78]

33 minutes ago, Lilmonzter said:

Everyone's hating on Bernie and I don't like it 

So Sexist of kathy! Wish for someone qualified not for their gender! What's wrong with people they never learn!

Is there anybody else who is not taking super pac or wall street money?! 

So Bernie is in fact, taking lobbyist money huh 

[Didymus 34,380]

I love Kathy and I actually think her statements about Bernie are interesting and mostly valid, but I still think it's sad she supported Hillary and is addicted to that whole "I want a female president" shtick. I get it but... don't say it like it's a pov worth taking seriously

[HorusRa2 5,005]

9 hours ago, TheQueenLG said:

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.

Just a few problems with what you said from my perspective. 

 

1. If your employer offers you your healthcare plan, that’s all you got unless you’re going to go to the market place to purchase on your own. 

 

2. Smaller companies aren’t given better plans by insurance companies and so if you’re getting healthcare from a non-multinational company, you’re premiums are going to be higher. 

 

3. Just addressing the cost of healthcare premiums does not take into consideration deductibles and out of pocket expenses.

Im trying not to be condescending but I really do not understand people like you who hold the view point that HEALTHCARE s/b managed the way it is today. We have roads, police departments, fire departments, public education (K-12). Those programs are funded by the collective. I strongly believe that healthcare and college education s/b free to those who need it and paid by either tax payers or funded through Wall Street speculation tax. This isn’t the 1800s or pre-civil rights era. It’s a question of morality courage in my view. Not to mention that this is already done in many, many other countries around the world that are not authoritarian countries with collapsed economies. 

 

Its not not that I don’t believe in markets. I do. A single-payer program does not privatize the hospitals and doctors you go to. It just makes the government the single payer for all healthcare services. 

[Lilmonzter 2,864]

33 minutes ago, HybridAT said:

So Bernie is in fact, taking lobbyist money huh 

Not true his not taking any major super pac money nor wall street money 

https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/candidate?id=N00000528

The link shows all the current money recieved by Bernie campaign till date 

 

"Sanders has also disavowed any high-dollar private events and any donor perks."~from the vox article you listed read more carefully honey! 

[Ziggy 14,051]

10 hours ago, Faysalaaa said:

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.

What? It’s not like America is some expansive refugee camp. Yes, people are in hard times, yes some are suffering, but even still it’s not like they’re in the most desperate and dire of straits, at least not most people. They voted for Trump thinking he would help, in voting anyone but Trump that isn’t necessarily an exercise of privilege if they hate him for doing nothing and making things worse off. It could quite literally just mean, “we know Trump hasn’t helped us, so we’d vote for just about anyone else who might.”

[Andy McQueen 4,484]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jill Stein, Elizabeth Warren... Vote for them.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

What? It’s not like America is some expansive refugee camp. Yes, people are in hard times, yes some are suffering, but even still it’s not like they’re in the most desperate and dire of straits, at least not most people. They voted for Trump thinking he would help, in voting anyone but Trump that isn’t necessarily an exercise of privilege if they hate him for doing nothing and making things worse off. It could quite literally just mean, “we know Trump hasn’t helped us, so we’d vote for just about anyone else who might.”

I did not say being anti Trump is privilege, but saying anyone but Trump is. Voting for anyone but Trump wont help improve the life of these people. How can someone like Joe Biden for example help these people? all you will get is less racist tweets. People effected by Trump and suffering in America want better policy that can help improve their life, not anyone but Trump, only people capable of thinking that way are privileged people. 

I did not say America is a like a refugee camp, I said that people are suffering because the political system that supports democrats and republicans do not support improving the life of Americans citizens. People live pay check to pay check, have multiple jobs, very high debt, no health care, homeless crisis, American soldiers death in illegal wars, institutional racism that still effect black people, and much more. Anyone but Trump wont help fix these problems.

[Petie Estie 5,707]

I love Kathy. That's how a lot of people feel. Warren is progressive as hell, y'all Bernie supporters can keep lying about her while she takes over the primary.

Also funny how this doesn't mention that she said she can't stand Tulsi & that she wants a woman president but not her. 

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

11 hours ago, HorusRa2 said:

Just a few problems with what you said from my perspective. 

 

1. If your employer offers you your healthcare plan, that’s all you got unless you’re going to go to the market place to purchase on your own. 

 

2. Smaller companies aren’t given better plans by insurance companies and so if you’re getting healthcare from a non-multinational company, you’re premiums are going to be higher. 

 

3. Just addressing the cost of healthcare premiums does not take into consideration deductibles and out of pocket expenses.

Im trying not to be condescending but I really do not understand people like you who hold the view point that HEALTHCARE s/b managed the way it is today. We have roads, police departments, fire departments, public education (K-12). Those programs are funded by the collective. I strongly believe that healthcare and college education s/b free to those who need it and paid by either tax payers or funded through Wall Street speculation tax. This isn’t the 1800s or pre-civil rights era. It’s a question of morality courage in my view. Not to mention that this is already done in many, many other countries around the world that are not authoritarian countries with collapsed economies. 

 

Its not not that I don’t believe in markets. I do. A single-payer program does not privatize the hospitals and doctors you go to. It just makes the government the single payer for all healthcare services. 

You're obviously very informed on this subject and probably understand the nuances a bit better than I do. I don't take you comments as condescending at all. In fact, I think we have both moved to advance the discussion respectfully. One correction: I'm proposing a substantial change to the way in which health care works today: the addition of a public option available to everyone. 

Again, as a whole, I agree with you that America would be better off with a single-payer system. But I'm of the opinion of opening up an option that would allow us to transition to this single-payer system over time. I believe this because there are people in this country that enjoy and don't want to be kicked off their employer plans. Yes, lots of employer plans are inadequate. But some are not. I just think people should have the option, while you believe that we should just force people to be on the public plan that we perceive would be best for them. I'm not arguing that a single-payer public plan wouldn't be best, I just think that we should give people the option, so long as a public option is possible given the open question of whether there would be enough healthy to compensate for the sick. The CBO needs to study this if they haven't already. 

We both have the same goal: Universal, quality coverage. 

I believe we should get there in a way that doesn't step on people's toes and gives them the option to keep their existing care if they want. I realize this demographic of people (people satisfied with their health care) may be a minority, but that doesn't make their interests unimportant. 

You believe that we should get there in the most expeditious way and go straight to single-payer, even though there are many people (even if it's a minority) that are not supportive. I don't believe in this method as it feels like we are shoving a more socialized form of health care down peoples throats. I don't think this method is malicious, and I could support a candidate in 2020 who supports single-payer, tbh. I just don't think it's the best possible option. 

That's okay. 

I could support your option, though it's not my first choice. 

Would you possibly support my option, even if it's not your first choice? (My option being, following a report by CBO confirming it's fiscally possible, a public option that forces the private sector to compete/innovate or go out of business.)

Since we've invested a lot into this discussion, I would like to reach some middle-ground, especially seeing that we have the same goal!

[Hybrid AT 78]

12 hours ago, Lilmonzter said:

Not true his not taking any major super pac money nor wall street money 

https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/candidate?id=N00000528

The link shows all the current money recieved by Bernie campaign till date 

 

"Sanders has also disavowed any high-dollar private events and any donor perks."~from the vox article you listed read more carefully honey! 

I never said he's taking PAC money, did I?

Also, high dollar fundraisers ≠ lobbyist money. That Vox article shows he is in fact, taking money from lobbyists.

Another article that talks about it:

Sanders won’t take money from “corporate lobbyists” but hasn’t disavowed all lobbyist contributions, according to a campaign spokeswoman. 

It's grey area, but he hasn't completely sworn off.

https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/07/19/democratic-candidates-lobbyists-2020-1422349

 

[Lilmonzter 2,864]

3 hours ago, HybridAT said:

I never said he's taking PAC money, did I?

Also, high dollar fundraisers ≠ lobbyist money. That Vox article shows he is in fact, taking money from lobbyists.

Another article that talks about it:

Sanders won’t take money from “corporate lobbyists” but hasn’t disavowed all lobbyist contributions, according to a campaign spokeswoman. 

It's grey area, but he hasn't completely sworn off.

https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/07/19/democratic-candidates-lobbyists-2020-1422349

 

Well that's true! Just I don't want to infringe on anyone's right to choose who their candidate should be! Just make good choices please!