@Varn @LiterateHiker. Sigh These stories scaring people away from Bernie are transparently from the corporate wing of the Democratic Party. You can pat each other on the back all the way to a Trump re-election for backing the corporatist Democrat—be it Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, Klobuchar, et.al.—over the corporate Republican.

@Robecology Wanna bet...

@Bobbyzen No, the ugly reality of national politics is brought to you by the balanced, moderate… been doing this shit for a long long time ..center of the Democratic party..

Republicans have made the corporate rules by which serious contenders are now forced to play - not their opponents. Funding a campaign with found couch change may work in a primary that still allows it’s Extremist’s a voice … but it’s not gonna cut it in the General..

PS Our LitterateHiker walks the walk & talks the talk. I’d be impressed to find you in agreement with the same ~

@Varn See my response to you in the thread below this one. Anyone who sees Dems and Republicans as opposites, good vs. bad, etc. is not seeing the poverty and pain and despair that 10’s of millions of Americans, and 100’s of millions globally, suffering under the weight of policies and systems supported by both parties.

@Bobbyzen Democrats are not and have not been the dominant party of this nation for decades; our Supreme Court is tragic evidence. Purists aren’t cool, though they love to think so… ‘Fighting for purity’ then giving up when it doesn't work is weak.

The Strong fight with the tools available and follow the battle wherever it leads. They could flee to the sidelines and denounce both sides, but that’s cowardice. As is, Purists choose an obscure candidate from a no-chance ‘party’ and toss their vote. They figure it’s safe.. assuming one of the major party candidates will win - and by not helping - they get to proclaim their assumed brilliance of not having voted for either!

Leaving it up to those who’ve worked the streets of an enemy camp to do the dirty work … smiling purists make me sick But they’ve ‘all the answers’ - just ask! And if everyone thought like them ...all would be well. Isn’t that special..

@Varn I want the sick to be able to see a doctor. The homeless to have shelter. The wrongly incarcerated to be free. Workers to earn a living wage. Why doesn’t everyone think that way? Why don’t you?

@Bobbyzen I've noticed that about Varn...very negative, very down on Sanders and Democrats. I suspect he's a moderate Trump Republican looking for debates. You are responding well to him...I'm not.

@Robecology Thanks. I struggle to find the words but it really is so simple—it’s about our humanity and wanting all people to have access to very basic human needs. It hurts to see people struggle when we are indeed the wealthiest nation in human history.

@Bobbyzen My previous post likely summed it up too well; kinda hated to be so blunt, but (both) you asked for it.. I’ve met, even had a brother sadly marry a rose-colored-glasses gal (I’d set him up with). They become very angry people as reality continues to set in ... and fortunately she’s out of his life.

Pretending you’re doing something by jumping on a popular bandwagon is far from doing anything of substance, especially when such a mindset excludes you from reality. ...OK, you’ve spent enough of mine

@Varn The only reason it is unrealistic to be an optimist is because good people, people who call themselves Democrats or liberals, fail to rally for just causes. It saddens me deeply.

Hey Smiley Democrats did “nominate a champion of the people—workers, the poor, the poverty stricken, the sick who have no healthcare but the ER, immigrants, our military-coups-and-wars victims, Palestinians, etc.” George McGovern was blown away… The college-vote wasn’t enough.. Sure, Nixon was more popular than trump at the time, but the R’s would love an out-right ‘Socialist’ to blast, again ~

@Varn There have been one or 10 major changes since then: Establishment of HMO’s by Nixon and the decades-long downward spiral of our health care system; Dems begin taking corporate donations in ‘79; decimation of unions; electorate polarization beginning with Gingrich’s Contract With America, and Bill Clinton’s wholesale usurpation of Gingrich’s plan, including the demonization of poor and black people (decimate welfare, implement prison privatization and mass incarceration); multiple wars costing trillions; unleashing of oil & gas extraction & exports under Obama, wealth & income disparity—to name a few tectonic shifts since McGovern. The comparison doesn’t hold water.

@Bobbyzen Yup, things have gotten even worse with Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Jr Bush … and trump.. As well as the increasingly intransigent scorched-earth Republican control in Congress - with the Republican Supreme Court decisions having further unbalanced the playing field.

But the mentality of our youth, apparently including those of McGovern’s era ..has not changed. The bad guys continue to win, but tossing a ‘Hail Mary’ pass to Bernie is not a risk I’m ready to take. Our selection is dismal, but I’ve the feeling any Democrat will win it, if barely. So my choice is the one who won’t jerk us to the opposite extreme … and fail..

@Varn Interesting that you ignore Clinton and Obama in your list of presidents under which things have gotten worse. I just hope you'll vote for Bernie if he gets the nomination...

@Bobbyzen And, another Pursuit If you can’t tell the difference between Democrats & Republicans … maybe shouldn’t be voting at all

@Varn I know it’s not as simple as Democrats, good. Republicans, bad.

@Bobbyzen It’s become that simple … so for the meantime.. those who care for this nation’s best interests are encouraged to treat it that way.

@Varn It seems you’re implying I don’t “care for this nation’s best interests” because I don’t slice the world into “Democrats are good, Republicans are bad” logic. I care about the living beings who cannot afford housing and live on the streets or in compromised situations. I care about a lot of uninsured friends and family who go without health, dental or vision care. And if I thought for a minute any damn Democrat would help fix this bloody nightmare of a country, I would vote for any Democrat. But guess what? MY damn Democratic congresswoman voted to give Trump $4.6 billion for ICE, HHS, CBP and the military to expand our immigrant concentration camp system, where we are literally killing and inflicting harm, pain, torture on children and families, daily, as we sit here...it is disgusting. And we CONDONE it when we fail to call it out and to demand better of our elected Dems. We gave them the House, they give Trump trillions in military funding. Who needs Republicans when Democrats are just as capable of destroying lives for profits? It’s the war and prison rackets that Ds and Rs relish. Their donor base.

Except of course Bernie. I just gave another few bucks. And that’s another thing. Was it you who wrote he’s running on couch change? Better look again. He outraises all Dems by far. Without war and weapons manufacturers’ money, unlike the rest of ‘em, R & D alike.....

@Bobbyzen Don’t feel bad … not even the little r republicans understand how it works.. But they block-vote, for Republican candidates. Of course they’re voting against their best interests - and to increase corporate power, but those candidates win.

I live in VA, our state legislature just turned Democrat, as was our Governor - and they are going to town! It is spectacular!! There’s such a backlog from decades of Republican intransigence … it’s like a whole new world ..have you been watching? Voting makes a difference - Voting Democrat makes a good one.

Politics 101: once an established party becomes dominant, it’s members/ voters can tweak to what degree their representative votes either progressive or conservative. But that party first needs the majority within it’s respective institution to count.

The world is not perfect, if you can’t accept that ..you’d best stay home. But if your opinion comes only from home, not having met the enemy in multiple venues, your perspective is likely skewed.. The education and income level of a district usually dictates the social advances it’s voters are willing to make. If yours is ‘borderline’ conservative, or regressive, a candidate is not as free to be as progressive.

Our nation works much the same. Assuming all America is going to understand the direction we need to go, because you do, does not work.

...really, I’m envisioning someone looking more for excuses than practical, lasting solutions.. Someone to blame. It’s familiar, we’ve ‘berners’ over here, too. Actually - they’re the Democrat’s version of the Tea Party. Problem is, they’re not backed by the wealth and power it now takes to run a never-ending campaign.

As I continue to fall back on my experiences of fighting & losing political battles ..for decades.. my irritation grows with those assuming it’s as simple as electing one person. But, as they continue to pollute the pool of those willing to make a difference ..we’ll all continue to lose…

How do we pay for Medicare for All? I notice that question is never asked about other things such as the increase of the already bloated military budget by tens of billions. How did we pay for that? Of course the answer is taxes. the way to provide healthcare for all is to reduce the enormous military budget and increase taxes on corporations and the very wealthy. A universal system is much more efficient than what we are doing now and it will be cheaper overall while actually covering everyone fully.

Why would you want to keep your employer paid healthcare when you could have universal healthcare that cost you nothing but a slight tax increase? Your union can go back to your employer and negotiate to have the funds that were being used to provide employees with health insurance to instead be provided to them in the form of higher wages or some other benefit. Nothing will change in respect to the actual healthcare you receive. The difference will be how it is paid for and this will be to your advantage.

I've heard Bernie give some pretty straight forward answers. If you are truly curious about his positions and what he plans to do, check out his interview on the Joe Rogan podcast. In that more conversational format, politicians are able to speak more freely and you can learn more about them.

@RoboGraham Of course I asked how we would pay for the military budget, and the tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy. And the answer was, "Tax cuts will pay for themselves!" Which was complete bullshit, of course.

"Why would you want to keep your employer paid healthcare when you could have universal healthcare that cost you nothing but a slight tax increase?" Because I want the choice. I don't have faith that a Medicare program would cover everything my BCBS does; or that it would cover it to the same level. I've read his website, but I don't see any numbers. I don't see details. I see a sweeping vision that will stumble over details when it comes to the actual law. Sanders is a Senator: he should know the devil's in the details.

Someone's answers shouldn't depend on what forum they're on. NPR is about as friendly a format as you can get for Bernie Sanders, and I listened to him give about 8 minutes of Q&A one morning without actually Aing a single Q.

@Aurora62 Wow, it's Archer. I'm convinced.

I only heard one point that could conceivably be about paying for Medicare For All, and that was taxing the wealthy (which I support anyway). Everything else was about cutting costs by reducing paperwork and cutting drug costs, which I also support because those would save me money in a private health plan too. So- taxing the wealthy is going to fully fund Medicare For All? Or the hidden message is that I'm going to be better able to afford the Medicare tax because I won't have all these other costs? In that case, I could better afford my private insurance, too.

Here's my thing.

I have nothing against a Medicare option. If I could sign up for a plan that provides everything Blue Cross does, but costs, say, 30% less, because it's the Medicare option, I'd take it! (That's provided the eventual program does what Bernie and Liz are promising.) And if it were mandatory for all employers to offer it, I dare say everyone would take it (if their employers previously offered nothing at all). But I think a lot of people have a rooted opposition to being told it's mandatory to be in a government-run program.

And I think that after a few years where, for example, my friends saw me paying 30% less for the Medicare program and driving a new car as a consequence of having all this extra money, they'd want to get them some of that. And that would spread, and eventually private programs would wither on the vine; which is why private industry is afraid of the option to begin with.

BUT - please don't cram it down people's throats. People are stubborn. If they already want something, that's fine... the way a lot of progressives want Medicare For All. But if they aren't convinced, you can't convince them. They have to persuade themselves.

@Paul4747 That is a fair concern. I'd like to see more details as well. I do believe however, that if other countries are able to provide a rational system which covers everyone for everything, the wealthiest nation the world has ever known can do it also. It can be done. I don't expect that it will be perfect but it will certainty be a lot better than the for profit system we have now.

If it's choice you want, a single payer system is best. As it is now, we are limited by our insurance company's decision to keep us within network. We can only go where they want us to go unless we pay out of pocket which is impossible for most because our healthcare is so extremely expensive.A single payer system puts all healthcare services within a single network so we will be able to go wherever we choose. We also won't be reliant on our employers for our healthcare so we will be free to change jobs without being worried about how healthcare costs will be covered.

I think the ideal system will be one in which, there is a universal system which covers everyone for everything as Bernie is advocating for. But on top of that, people will be free to purchase extra health insurance to cover whatever gaps there may be in the universal system. Hopefully, there will be no gaps, but even if it's just so people feel a bit safer, I think it would be a good idea to allow this extra coverage to go on top of the universal coverage.

Both Sanders and Warren will claim they’ll tax the wealthy and corporations to pay for health care… No, they’ll propose we tax the wealthy... and if they’ve not won a majority in both the House & Senate … they’ll be viewed to have lied to yet another generation of naive voters when nothing happens on healthcare

The ACA is what we need; as it’s use increases, coming into balance with most employer health care packages, it would/ will eventually become a single-payer system -- but having allowed a slow, orderly transition, one in which all healthcare industry interests could adapt.

But no … impatient youth and aging hippies want it all - instantly. Yah.. me, too … but it don’t work that way..

@RoboGraham "If it's choice you want, a single payer system is best" is a contradiction in terms. Although I see what you're trying to say.

A single-payer system is the ideal. But I'm not an idealist any more. I'm a cynic.

Why not offer a Medicare option, and let it compete in the free market? After all, we're capitalists!! Except for Bernie. Oh, yeah. That's why not.

If the Medicare option is really better and cheaper, let it compete in the wild and it will win. If the only way for it to win is to mandate all others out of existence, then it's not really the best.

@Varn My man.
Biden is, to my knowledge, the only one to take this approach on health care. Makes sense, since he's still riding Obama's coattails. I think he's got my vote in the primary, unless he screws up between now and then.

@Aurora62 Good point... but I'm still bitter that in 2016 (and 2000) people didn't think strategically. It's US against THEM, and THEY are never going to vote for a third party. Why divide ourselves this way when the crunch comes? It's true, "I don't belong to an organized political party... I'm a Democrat."

And we're agreed that the system needs repair. Please don't think that I'm in a place where I'm saying "I've got mine, screw everyone else".... I'm asking, "Why must I (and everyone who likes their health care) have it taken away?" That's why I favor expanding the ACA with a full public option, and if that's good enough, I might choose to take it- choice being the operative word. I like Biden's approach. I also very much doubt that Sanders or Warren could get Medicare For All passed in any case. Look how hard it was to get Obamacare done, and they're still trying to repeal it. Do we really want another generational fight about health care, or do we want to rationally expand the good thing we've got?

@RoboGraham The deficit was/ is driven up to pay for increased military spending.

The ACA is designed to lead us to Universal Coverage.

Both unions (the few left) and the healthcare industry are given time to adjust under the ACA.

We’ve backslid on the ACA thanks to the ..appointment of trump - and his then Republican cohorts in the House & Senate. It needs saving, not trashing, or ‘starting over’

Bernie is abrasive, and does not appear to work well with others… Warren could be a better choice, though not mine.

@Paul4747 I can certainly understand your cynicism. With the way things are now, I sometimes feel that way too. And we definitely have to be aware and prepare for the fact that whatever we do, it will be far from perfect.

Here is the issue I have with a public option rather than full on medicare for all. People who are already happy with their insurance such as yourself, people who are wealthy, people who are healthy, will all avoid the public option and stick with the private system. This will leave everyone else, those who are poor, those who are sick, the elderly, the unemployed and under employed, to flock to the public system. Private insurers will be able to offer their healthy, wealthy patrons very good coverage for very reasonable rates because there is little risk in insuring people like that. This will cause the public system to be over burdened and under funded.

The whole point of medicare for all is to spread the risk over a large pool of all sorts of people but allowing private insurance to continue will pull many of those who are a boost rather than a burden to the system away from the public option. It will inevitably be dysfunctional and all those who are already opposed to a universal system can then point to the public systems failings and say "see socialized medicine is terrible." In addition, it will be mostly marginalized people who end up on the public option and those people have very little influence so there will not be much pressure to fund it properly. If everyone is on the public system, eve wealthy and influential people, it will be more likely to get funded properly because those influential people will see to it for their own sake. People will strive to get off of the public option because it will develop a bad reputation and because there will be a perception that being on the public option makes you lower class or less than. It will crumble and the for profit insurers will be even more wealthy and powerful than before.

I think offering supplemental private insurance is fine. If worried that med4all may not cover or offer everything people might need, they should feel free to buy some extra insurance if they can afford it. Say professional athletes for example. They need to operate on a physical level far above the norm and I can image that a universal system wouldn't offer them everything needed to keep their health in such amazing shape. So they and anyone else who want it and can afford it should be allowed extra coverage to cover things that aren't necessary for most of us.

I certainly think that providing a public option would be a step in the right direction and would help a lot of people and I hope that if we end up with that system, it will be able to compete with the private system successfully as you described but I just don't see it happening. i think it will become overloaded with people who have less to offer than what they need to take from the system so it will fail.

@Varn I think Obama care is a very good thing. It did a lot of people a lot of good, including myself, but it was a half measure. I don't think healthcare in this country is going to truly improve and become affordable until we get rid of the middle man, the private insurers.

IMHO, we should switch to a single payer system which covers everyone while saving money. Of course the conservatives will try to attack it and repeal it but if done right, it will become so popular that it would become political suicide to attempt to get rid of it.

@RoboGraham Single Payer is where the ACA was/ is headed … that’s why, after the dust settled.. The Republican puppeteers attempted to kill it. It remains the best this nation can do, and we can barely do that ~

@Varn I don't believe that. This is America, the wealthiest country on earth. If other nations can do it, we can too.

@RoboGraham Well, the Republicans believe it! And for the most part, they’re in charge..

Yes, and we can do it, even FDR knew it.. Remember “Hillarycare?” Obama did… ‘Single-payer for all American’s’ The R’s took it out with a mere ad campaign.. Remember Romneycare? They left that alone… The winner? … and our only current, if realistic hope? ‘Obama Care’ (the Affordable Care Act).

He lost Congress over Healthcare! So what convinces you we’ll have Congress, and continue to have it long enough to establish a European Healthcare system? Never confuse those stopping short of ‘what they want’ in order to achieve what they can. Those who know this nation best ..also know it’s limits.

@Varn What convinces me is the idea that, once people experience democratic socialism for a few years and they see how it benefits them, their families, and their neighbors, they will continue to vote for candidates who support it. FDR was the most popular president since Washington. He was the only person to be elected 4 times thanks to his popular socialistic policies. He fell short on healthcare but now single payer is more popular than ever.

This is the opportunity to finally get it done and settled. Of course there will be a backlash. We will have to weather that storm and trust that people, once having a good thing, won't want that good thing taken away. Just as the republicans have failed to repeal Obamacare fully because people understand that it is positive for them, they will defend a single payer system which improves their lives.

@RoboGraham Again, the Affordable Healthcare Act is a path to single-payer. Actually, I hate to have to point that out publicly … as it wasn’t even touted as such when enacted. But those paying close attention figured it out..

Do you remember how close it was? How close it was to repeal in the Supreme Court? Obama’s loss of Congress because of it’s enactment? How close it was to repeal in the US Senate with trump…? We’ve fought that fight -- it’s now time to build on that victory!

..but you think a Bernie win would have coattails long & strong enough to bring about Democratic dominance of the US Senate? ...let alone hold on the The House? Then enact - with the numbers necessary to implement - an entirely new Socialistic Healthcare Plan … brought to us by an avowed Socialist….? I don’t - thus plan to vote accordingly..

@Varn I've never heard of this idea that the ACA is meant to be a path to single payer. My understanding of it was that it was a mediocre half measure. It not only preserved the for profit insurance system, it forced people to buy the for profit insurance. Obama lost Congress because the ACA forced them to buy insurance or pay a fine and it didn't do much to actually make healthcare more affordable. Don't get me wrong, the ACA was a very good thing but it was very flawed so it left the democrats open to republican attacks.

How do propose we build on the victory? If improving the ACA is the best we can do, I'm all for it but I see Med4All as the better solution.

@RoboGraham The ACA was never touted as a path to single payer health care, because its opponents were so opposed to the government being in any way involved in health care. As a matter of their philosophy, the Republicans want to repeal Medicare for anybody, much less see it expand to Medicare for all. (They also want to do away with Social Security, but that's another discussion.)

But even the most conservative voters tended to like the constituent pieces of the ACA (coverage for kids and young adult children, coverage for pre-existing conditions, etc.) until they heard it called "Obamacare". It's the name Obama they despised. And that still holds true. The majority of those who say they're against Obamacare don't actually realize what they're against.

But as much as they're against Obamacare, it would be an enormous blunder to set up the straw man of "Socialized Medicine" for the Republicans to shoot at.

Progressives aren't afraid of democratic socialism. Many liberals aren't afraid of democratic socialism. But the large mass of Middle America, out here where I live- including the Rust Belt and the Farm Belt (in other words, the part of the nation that has mainly voted Republican since Reagan)- is still terrified of anything with the word "socialism" in it. Outside the big cities, where the universities are, a large majority still associate "Socialism" with the letter "S" in "USSR".

It's simply smart politics to sell single-payer health care as just one option on the market. And if it's really the most effective and cheapest for the consumer, it will eat up the rest of the market until private health care is obsolete.

Why would I give up my private insurance for a government program? I already answered this- if it provided the same benefits, and yet was less expensive, due to all the savings Bernie talks about (because of less paperwork, less overhead, cheaper prescription drugs, no co-pays, no deductibles, no hidden costs, no networks...) and if it were guaranteed that it covered everything my current insurance does. Ideally even more. (Example- come October, my plan is going to cover massage therapy through a chiropracter's office treatment plan. What does Bernie's plan say? I don't know- I can't find the details of his proposed coverage ideas.) I would even pay the same premiums, if I had no copays, no deductibles, and no limit on coverage. Think what I could have saved on dental work alone. (Root canals aren't cheap, you know.)

My friend has twins. They were premature. They're older now, but still have plenty of doctor's visits. I'm sure he would take that kind of coverage. It's not just old and sick folks who would sign up for the government option. It's all working folks- at least, those who can add 2+2. As long as it has the right salesmanship behind it and can deliver as advertised.

But I have to reiterate- I believe strongly that it has to be a choice for Middle America to support it. You already support it. I do too (if it works as advertised). @Varn, I believe, thinks as I do. But it has to be sold to probably 85% of the country, and it has to be sold like any product. You have to make the people want it.

Politics has been aptly compared to a hog-calling contest. "You must have persuasion, as well as power, in your voice. The swine must believe you have something for them."

@RoboGraham The ACA was, and obviously remains the best this Nation can do, in that, there are still too many who equate a single-payer plan with ...Communism.. Not me, but enough of our Red-state brethren to have killed various plans for ..ever...

I paid very close attention to it, as did the Republicans. Both understood it’s long term goal and eventuality. Hardcore R’s used it to attack Obama and Democrats, while their ‘regulars’ made a career attempting to ‘repeal it’ in Congress. The Republicans - pawns of extreme wealth & corporate power - seen it for what it was - eventual death to their Medical Industry and eventual Healthcare for All!

The problem remains ..as it likely gets worse daily.. the Industrialists and their Republican pawns have far Far more money to spend, are far better organized, have more think-tanks & focus-groups, less scruples, and a military mindset focused on winning the long game. In too many ways, they have. If they can rile their own, confuse & split their ‘enemy’ - they win.

Singular focused gangs backed by billions are hard to beat. Our nation is more focused on Entertainment than it is on Healthcare. We can either vote Democrat for a Decade and let them set things right … or continue our typical method of ..waking up to a crisis (lack of healthcare), finally doing the right thing (voting Democrat across the board), then quickly falling back to sleep. Republicans don’t sleep.

As far as our crop of candidates, to me.. Bernie fucked us again. Assuming HRC’s majority win and mechanical loss meant she wasn’t far enough Left, our solid Moderate candidates have stood back while our extreme Leftists piled in. We're thin in the middle & top heavy with ..Purist preachers. Sure, with trump’s numbers, one of our Lefty’s could squeak through - but without the Senate, and perhaps not even the House..

We need to go with a candidate that will pull enough votes from states in need of replacing their US Senators to get back the Senate. An old ranting Independent Socialist from Vermont ..one heartbeat away from gone is not. We need Blacks to turn out - not sit it out ..as they did with HRC ..because she wasn’t their color.. And we need ‘the berners’ to grow up, admit there’s a chasm of difference between D’s & R’s - and vote accordingly.

I’ve low expectations

@Varn I think that everything you have said is sensible.I disagree, I think we can do better but I understand you line of reasoning. Except for the art about Bernie Fucking us. The way I see it, there is over representation of centrists and only a hand full of true progressives.

I'd like to lay out another argument in favor of Med4All for your consideration. Lets say that you are correct, that the best we can do is a public option or slow incremental improvements of the ACA. Assuming a democrat wins in November, we will have a very hard fight to improve the healthcare system regardless of which one we choose to go for. If we go for Med4All, we will have quite a lot of room to compromise and still end with something decent. We can give ground and perhaps get a public option when it's all said and done. If we start from a weaker negotiating position, when we inevitably are forced to make concessions, the end result will be less desirable than what we could have achieved.

One more thing, you are totally correct that we need the black vote to be strong. Sanders has a very diverse coalition. The more time goes by, the more of the black vote he gets. He also is strong with Hispanics and he has the youth vote on lock down. The vote blue no matter who folks will turn out for him because their main concern is voting against Trump so he will have them in addition to an energized youth vote as well as many traditionally non-voters who had been disenchanted with the two party status quo but have been motivated by Bernie's message. He is much more electable than people think. A centrist lost last time and I believe we need a new approach rather than repeating the failed strategy of 2016.

@RoboGraham Another issue is that Sanders' numbers are dubious. He likes the studies that say M4all will cost many trillions less. The Post fact-checker, though, says "It turned out that all but one of five major studies, from the left to the right, predict the Sanders plan would increase health spending, not reduce it. The author of the fifth predicts a decline but said Sanders’s statement is exaggerated." [washingtonpost.com]

Paying more to get more is one thing. But unless Sanders has long, long coattails, I foresee a difficult road for his plan getting through the legislature.

@Paul4747 As far as the ACA being expanded and eventually becoming single payer, how would that work? I've never really considered it because it wasn't said to be the plan so I'm in the dark about how the transformation would occur and how long it would take. As a side not- it's not just republicans who are pushing to do away with social security, Joe Biden is in that camp as well.

Yes there is some really desirable stuff in Obamacare which even conservatives can get behind. Republicans did a great job of demonizing it and calling it Obamacare was part of that. Which is why I think Medicare for All is a great name. People love their Medicare so I don't think it's too far of a jump to say- hey, we already have Medicare, it works well, lets extend it for everyone. Branding is important.

No matter what we do, the conservatives will straw man the idea. They have no integrity, they will play dirty as always. The way to combat that straw manning is to point out that socialized healthcare already exists. All we are talking about is expanding upon it. It is a very unpopular stance to argue against socialized medicine (Medicare) because people love their Medicare.

It is very painfully true that many Americans fear socialism in any form. For decades, we have been led to believe that socialism is the system of the enemy and it inevitably leads to tyranny and a loss of freedom. It has been demonized so much for so long that people assume socialism and communism are two interchangeable words for the same concept. I think the best way to challenge this erroneous idea and set people straight is to show them that socialism improves their lives. We can break the spell putting a democratic socialist in charge and enacting policies that improve lives. We should challenge this idea that socialism is inherently bad by showing people first hand what it really is. And I think we are already part of the way there, especially with the younger generations.

I hope that a public option can compete and win against the private insurers. I think there are problems with that as I have already gone over. I hope you are right about it.

I don't think I again asked you about giving up your employer provided insurance. I too would like to see more details. I think he is being vague about it to give himself room to compromise later. And because that's what politicians do. He is saying that it will cover everything, including dental, vision, and hearing aids, for everyone. That would be ideal but we don't live in an ideal world so we will have to wait and see.

I think your argument about choice is a good one. People are certainly more likely to get onboard with things if they can freely choose to do so. certainly am like that. As I said before, Med4All actually gives you more choice and more freedom but people are accustomed to choosing between many for profit insurance middlemen so perhaps we will have to start with adding the choice of a public option to the choices that are already there. This is by far not the better option but if it's all we can get I'll take it.

I'd like to lay out another argument in favor of Med4All for your consideration. I brought this up with Varn also. Lets say that you are correct, that the best we can do is a public option or slow incremental improvements of the ACA. Assuming a democrat wins in November, we will have a very hard fight to improve the healthcare system regardless of which one we choose to go for. If we go for Med4All, we will have quite a lot of room to compromise and still end with something decent. We can give ground and perhaps get a public option when it's all said and done. If we start from a weaker negotiating position, when we inevitably are forced to make concessions, the end result will be less desirable than what we could have achieved.

@Paul4747 I wasn't able to view the video you sent me. It requires that i subscribe. I'm not going to pay money to read a paper owned by Bezos.

I don't see how Med4All wouldn't be more efficient and cost effective. It will cut out the for profit middle men allowing more of the funds to be used for actual healthcare. It will eliminate a ton of bureaucracy because there will be a single payer and everyone will be in the same plan. An enormous chunk of the costs administrative and is eaten up by payment specialists that healthcare providers must employ to argue with the insurance companies because their main concern is profit and they will try to get out of paying by any means necessary. It will reduce the actual amount of healthcare needed because, with everyone being fully insured, more people will actually get their proper check ups rather than waiting until an issue becomes a major problem to go to a doctor because it's just so damn expensive. In the same vein, the country will be healthier and therefor more productive. The benefits of a single payer universal system are massive.

If a single payer system would actually increase costs, why are all the other countries who have implemented a single payer system paying less than us per capita?

@RoboGraham The link was just to the fact checking source. What's wrong with the Post, now?

Cost per capita would obviously be different than total cost, since we have a much larger population. That's not to say that cost per capita might not be lower, it very well may; and as I said, we might get a much better system. But these studies suggest we would pay for it. Now, the money going to actual health care rather than profits, is something I would be okay with- but it's one more reason the enemies of M4all would fight that much harder against it. And that money has to come from somewhere. "Taxing the rich" is a simplistic suggestion. There's moneys to be had there, yes: but not enough to fully fund the health care system. Will premiums be fixed, on an income-based system, a new payroll tax, what? I would support expanding the cap on payroll taxes (I've supported it for decades, actually)- in fact, we could remove it altogether. It could be graduated so that after a certain income level it goes back down, but there's always a minimum going to the social security/ medicare system (1.5%, let's say). That could solve a lot of the funding problems for both Social Security and Medicaid.

Starting big and negotiating down is one strategy; but it also makes it much easier for your foes to portray you as an extremist and hang that label on you for the rest of the debate. "The great mass of people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one." We can see by Trump's career that this is as true today as it was in 1925. I want my party, for once, to clearly be the moderates and carry the day, and show up the Republicans as the reactionaries who are against any reform whatsoever.

@Paul4747 The rich should certainly pay their fair share. As far as how we adjust taxation to pull this off, that is way above my pay grade. Your suggestion of expanding the cap on payroll tax sounds good to me. I'd also like to see the threshold for the estate tax lowered so that very wealthy people aren't passing on enormous fortunes to their heirs.

I think that if we don't start from a very strong negotiating position, we will not succeed in getting a healthcare system that is much better than what we have now. And I think Medicare for All may actually be more popular than you are thinking.- [cnbc.com]

I think last time around, we clearly were the moderates. Hillary Clinton cannot be accused of being anything like progressive. And it was a colossal failure. Perhaps we need a bolder approach to energize people. If we offer potential voters something that will be a big positive change for their everyday lives, they will be more motivated to vote. This is why Sanders has so much momentum currently. People are fed up with the establishment and want an outsider who is promising to make substantial reforms. Trump won by being a populist who challenged the republican establishment. We need a candidate who is clearly opposed to the status quo.

@RoboGraham Theoretically, we can always ‘do better.’

The reason you see the majority of representation coming from ‘Centerests’ is because they’re the vast majority… Every cycle, at least with the Dems, someone purposely runs to the far left in order to ‘get their message heard’ (which is well known by any centerest who’d be quietly advocating the same), invigorate ‘the youth’ vote ..and in Bernard’s case, lavish in the attention they lack otherwise.. But unlike our previous and most popular presidential candidate, Bernie’s at it again, like a one-trick pony..

Hey -- I can hardly make it any clearer - I - and every Democrat I know are for ‘Single-payer’ Healthcare(!). Not sure how that’s slippin through the cracks here… And - the Affordable Healthcare Act would/ will/ and was meant to take us there - at a pace designed to allow providers and insurers to adjust. We won!

The only way to assure a ‘public option’ is to bring on board enough of Congress and a Supreme Court to allow our current ACA plan to be repaired and bolstered … as it was meant to.. Electing someone like Sanders or Warren will not magically bring about Healthcare for all. They’ll of course continue to sell it that way … the kind of lies by omission that allow politicians to win - then give all a bad name when Congress (the Republicans) ignore them.

Hispanics are not strong voters, catering to them links the party with Illegals and sends votes to the R’s.. Bill Clinton did loads for Blacks ...yet they ignored his wife and his legacy; no excuse. There’s apparently no courting them; so they either vote for their lives & best interests (Democrat), or end up with a racist Republican … again..

That ‘Centerest’ who supposedly lost in 16 garnered more votes than any presidential candidate. She lost due to the voting blocks mentioned, and how ‘our progressives’ were/ are not aware of how messed up this ‘entire nation’ is. Bernie operates within the Democratic Party for good reason, they allow it. But he does not represent the bulk of the party, realistic common folks who’ve been around long enough to have seen their ‘progressive votes’ wasted … as the lock-step-Republican/s won..

Mr. Sanders, the Independent from Vermont, could win the Democratic primary, but the backers who hand him that win would then be going up against the reality of this nation … and not it’s best & brightest.. I say we skip the loss and seek a solid win; make no promises we can’t keep; remove the R’s ability to freak out ‘the nation’s center’ - take back the Senate, maintain the House - and move ahead for at least eight years ~

@Varn

I understand that you are for single payer, eventually. What we are discussing here is how we get there. Yes we did win on the ACA but it was a pyrrhic victory. Democrats had a super majority in the Senate, control over the House, and Obama in the White House and the best they were able to do was Mitt Romney's plan. A system that forced people to buy insurance from for profit companies. There was some good stuff in the ACA but it was a small win, the war is still on.

Bernie's Med4All plan has been legitimately criticized for lacking details. Well, this expansion of the ACA into single payer is lacking details as well. How will it work? I've never had anyone tell me how the transformation will take place. I've hardly even heard that single payer is the ultimate goal of the expansion. The way I see it is that the ACA is very favorable to the for profit health insurance middle men so expanding it will probably be even better for them unless it truly can be expanded to the point that it is single payer, which I don't understand how that will come to be. On the other hand, we already have a very popular and effective not for profit healthcare system in the form of Medicare. Why is expanding Med4All seen as more difficult or unobtainable while the idea of expanding the ACA is seen as the practical solution? Even conservatives like their Medicare, there is a strong case to be made in favor of Med4All and it is a very popular plan.

" But unlike our previous and most popular presidential candidate, Bernie’s at it again, like a one-trick pony.. " I'm unsure what you mean by that, what is he at again?

"The only way to assure a ‘public option’ is to bring on board enough of Congress and a Supreme Court to allow our current ACA plan to be repaired and bolstered" Not true. We already have a Medicare system and if we have Congress and the Supreme court enough on our side to allow the expansion of the ACA, the same can be true of expanding Medicare. Your solution is not the only solution. It's not even necessarily the best solution.

Bill Clinton did loads for Blacks? Bill Clinton signed the Crime Bill which caused mass incarceration, disproportionately effecting black people. Thousands of black families were torn apart because of his policy. What was it that he did which was good for black folks? So we shouldn't go after Hispanic votes? They make up 12% of eligible voters. That's a significant chunk of the electorate and if bringing them into the fold causes people to jump ship, well those aren't exactly the sort of people we want and I would bet that there are far fewer of them than there are actual Hispanic voters.

"That ‘Centerest’ who supposedly lost in 16 garnered more votes than any presidential candidate." Not true, she got 65,527,625, in 08, Obama got 69,297,997. She didn't supposedly lose she did lose. Trump is president because of her failure. Perhaps if, for once, the democrats would get behind a populist progressive lock step, we can win. If we try the same failed strategy of running a corporatist centrist again, we will have the same result, more Trump.

@RoboGraham
I think what Varn meant was, Clinton 2016 won more votes than any other candidate in that election. She won the popular vote. It was a fluke of the Electoral College that gave us Trump.

"Perhaps if, for once, the democrats would get behind a populist progressive lock step, we can win. If we try the same failed strategy of running a corporatist centrist again, we will have the same result, more Trump." Or, here's another thought, if those whose candidate doesn't win the primaries just suck it up and vote Democrat. Centrists will vote for Sanders, if he gets the nod, because the goal here is to get a Democrat in the White House. But will progressives do the same for Biden, or will they let their "consciences" stand in the way of reality again?

I've lost count of how many liberals (as they claim) have said they voted for a third party, or stayed home, because they despised Hilary. I still can't work out how they're not kicking themselves. And yet they seem to feel justified in this... that it's the party's fault for not nominating someone more cuddly and progressive (whatever the hell that even means) rather than their own fault for not seeing that a vote for anyone other than Clinton was effectively a vote for Trump. Electoral politics is a zero-sum game. Votes don't magically appear from nowhere. If Democrats don't vote Democrat, we get a Republican. That's it. That's the lesson of history. We didn't learn it from Florida 2000 when 97,000 people decided to vote Nader and we lost the state by 537 votes; you would have thought we'd learn from 8 years of G. W. Bush never to do anything like that again. Apparently not. Progressive Democrats are so damn principled that they'd rather lose an election than vote for a Democrat they "despise", and win. Republicans have no such qualms. They're unprincipled bastards, apparently. So let's take a page from their book and win an election.

The problem with progressive politics is that the best becomes the enemy of the good. Yes, a single payer system is ideal. But taking baby steps toward that system is good, and much better than nothing. Especially, it's better than the chimp we have now trying to repeal what we do have, which is the ACA.

@Paul4747 Your point that centrists will vote blue no matter who even if Bernie wins the nomination is all the more reason to vote for him in the primary. He will get those moderates who just want to vote against Trump regardless of who it is and he will get all the progressives, a strong youth turnout, as well as many people who usually don't vote but this time there is something to actually motivate them to get involved.

I doubt that progressives will vote for Biden, many of them anyway. I voted for Hillary last time but it is very difficult to vote for someone who you see as corrupt and not actually representing you and your people. This is why I would love to see us implement ranked choice so that people can vote their conscience without fear that their vote is a throw away. Biden is a liar, a plagiarizer, and is so centrist that he is pretty much republican lite. I will find it very difficult to award him my vote. Votes must be earned and the democratic party establishment ought to have learned that after 2016. If the party doesn't change, it will continue to fail. The establishment has gone way too far right, it has abandoned the working class and has little to offer other than being slightly better than the republicans. That does not inspire people to get off their asses and vote.

You are right. Baby steps are better than nothing. Which is why we should shoot for what is best and settle for what is good if we can't get what is best. Let's start from a strong negotiating position.

@RoboGraham Democrats are not a monolithic voting block - Republicans are. Obama & the Democratic Party lost dominance of Congress after enacting the ACA - That’s how serious it was! Again - The ACA was - and remains a path to a single payer system - period

…not sure why or where you're getting lost … other than the total adherence to a hypothetical socialist candidate’s ‘Proposal?’ Had Obama and the one-time Democratic majority proposed a ‘Single-payer Plan’ - such as “Hillarycare” had proposed a decade prior - it would have been blasted as quickly as the Clinton’s. “Romneycare” was allowed through due to it’s allowance of the insurance industry to remain viable as we transitioned (with estimates of around a decade) into a single-payer European-like Government sponsored healthcare for-all system

And it passed - barely! The Republicans continue/d to denounced - but have come up with nothing better. What makes you think they’d not do the same to Bernies Proposal..? What makes you think anything that comprehensive would pass a Republican held Senate - and be upheld when challenges made their way to our Republican Supreme Court? Where’s the ‘Democratic Super-majority’ in the US Senate to get this enacted to begin with? Which Republican Senators have signed on…?

And yes - your Bernie paints a glorious picture - and by all rights, this fucked up nation should be there - but it takes more than a ranting old man, our screaming youth and aging hippies to ‘make it happen’ - and though polls may show most ‘Americans’ understand the need - that, and sending the legislators to Washington willing to enact something ‘new’ is not what our nation does best...

I don’t think you’re learning, know I’m not, and am ready to move on ~

@RoboGraham But centrists outside the Democratic party will be alienated by someone who seems too far out of the mainstream. And depend upon it; the Republican party will make it their business to point out everything that Sanders has ever said, done, or voted for that paints him in any way as a "Far Left Socialist". Turning out the Democrat vote is only half the battle. We have to win the independents and mobilize the uninterested, without giving the the other side something to demonize us with at the same time.

Democrats will vote against Trump this cycle. We need to be sure not to give independents someone to fear and vote against.

@Paul4747 I think that some of those centrist outsiders will actually be happy that Sanders is out of the mainstream. The independents Aren't in the democratic party because they don't like the democratic party so an outsider, former independent such as Sanders will be appealing to at least some of them. Last time we ran a centrist to appeal to centrists and it didn't work. Those centrists in the republican party are probably TFG and I think going after them rather than embracing populist policies that actually excite people will be a mistake. Last time, Trump was the outsider, opposed to the establishment and he won because people are fed up with the status quo. This time it will be Sanders.

Trump is going to hammer his opponent who ever that opponent is. If it's Sanders, he will paint him as a far left socialist. Socialism isn't as scary as it used to be and in these economic times, when people are swimming in debt, can't afford healthcare, wages are way too low while rents are way too high, the quality of life and life expectancy are declining, and half a million people are homeless while the ultra wealthy continue to get even more obscenely rich and wealth inequality is ballooning, socialism may actually be more appealing than it is scary.

Trump will also go after Biden on whatever he can and there is much more to go on with him. Trump can point out his corruption, his history of lying and plagiarism, his cognitive decline, his support for the Iraq war, his support for trade deals that sent jobs over seas, his support of credit card companies over consumers, his support for making it impossible to file for bankruptcy with student debt, and the list goes on. At least with Bernie, the only criticism that can be leveled is related to his democratic socialist policies which are actually quite popular. And again, this time Bernie will be the outsider fighting for the working class While Trump will be the guy who didn't keep his promises and got impeached.

Hillary lost because she lost the rust belt. Bernie's support is the highest in the rust belt. He is literally the best candidate that the democrats have to win back that critical part of the country that lost us the last election. There were loads of people in those states who voted for Obama then switched to Trump or didn't vote. Why? Because their economic prospects had been ruined and Trump promised to bring the jobs back. They are hurting and will vote for the candidate who will put forward policies that will help them. They can see that Trump is failing. They will switch to Sanders. They most definitely will not switch to the guy who was in favor of NAFTA and the TPP. If it's Biden Against Trump, they will stick it out with Trump because Biden is no different from the rest of the democratic establishment which has been failing them for years.

@RoboGraham I'm just about done with this, but for the last time: Trump did not "win people" in the last election. Trump lost the popular vote. Come on!! He lost the popular vote. He also won by a smaller margin in the electoral college in my lifetime than anyone except Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, and (surprise) G. W. Bush.

How has the Democratic Party been "failing people for years"? Bill Clinton: the longest sustained economic expansion in world history. A balanced budget and a surplus, for crying out loud. (Which the Republicans gave away with tax cuts to the rich.) Barack Obama: lead us out of the worst recession since the 1930s, nearly a depression. Gets no credit for it.

Trump may have promised to bring jobs back, but the first 2 years were still Obama's recovery. The economy has been on autopilot. It was Trump's to ride out. And in fact, he didn't keep his promises. He promised 4% growth every year and it hasn't even been close. The new NAFTA won't bring a single job back; it's an illusion. Ask an economist. Just as the trade war with China isn't going to make a dime for us.

The problem is, as I quoted before, that people believe the lies of the Republicans repeated loud and long on their pet network Faux News, and don't research it for themselves. The other problem is that it takes longer to build than to destroy. 8 years of Democratic administrations (with Republicans fighting tooth and nail against us) can't build up as fast as the Reagan, Bush (twice) and now Trump administrations tear down. It's easy to concentrate money and power at the top. It's hard to build up the middle class again after 50 years of decline. We need to have patience and faith and support our party.

@Paul4747 I don't think we are done, it sounds like there is more to discuss.

Of course Trump won people, he won 63 million people. 13% of those 63 million had voted for Obama the last time. Obama ran as a progressive, remember Hope and Change? That message earned him the largest popular vote win in history, nearly 70 million. He did not bring us hope and change but it was a very successful campaign which bodes well for Bernie who is not just running on hope and change but a working class populist political revolution. Trump is an incumbent now so he will be even more difficult to beat. Another centrist will fail. There is actually audio of Trump himself boasting and laughing about how easy it would be to beat Biden and expressing apprehension about going up against Sanders because he understands that Bernie is a true populist who the working class and the youth and the minorities will flock to.

The democratic party failed working people by supporting NAFTA and TPP. By not standing up for unions. By taking the same corporate money and big money donations that the republicans are. By enacting the crime bill which created mass incarceration affecting minority families disproportionately. By failing to deliver on a rational healthcare system, minimum wage increase, and debt relief. By standing shoulder to shoulder with war mongering republicans as they sent our military into unnecessary foreign wars. By supporting special interests and the military industrial complex rather than their own constituents. By failing to protect the environment as the climate crisis looms. By being just as dedicated to the disastrous war on drugs as the republicans have been. By putting on an impeachment charade to make it seem as though they are resisting Trump fiercely while behind the scenes, giving him his expanded military budget, his space force and renewing the patriot act for him. I find it pretty irrational of them to impeach a president for abusing his powers while simultaneously awarding him more power in the form of an expanded military and a renewed patriot act. It's almost like they are two sides of the same coin. It's really no wonder why people refuse to vote for establishment democrats. They aren't much different from republicans.

Obama led us out of the recession but how did he do it? He gave the bankers who's reckless economic actions caused the recession a massive bailout of tax payer money and the people who got screwed got nothing. None of them received any significant punishment and very little regulation was put in place to prevent them from doing it again. Obama was in the pocket of wall street and the big banks. And when there was a left wing backlash in the form of occupy wall street, what did Obama do? He broke it up rather than support the people who he had promised hope and change.

Your third paragraph I agree with. Trumps economic policies are not helping working people. His trade war is hurting them so they, some of them anyway, will turn on him and support Sanders because of his long and consistent record of advocating for policies that benefit the working class.

Your forth paragraph I agree with also. That's a great point you made about how it takes longer to build than destroy. So while we have power, we have to do as much building as we possibly can. Do you truly think a Biden administration will do much building? He has no vision. He is a representative of the status quo. His only accomplishment I think would be to slow down the republican destruction for a while. If he can even win which is highly unlikely.

Look man, we need to support our party but we also need to recognize that the establishment wing of the party is not our friend. They, like the republicans, are catering to the needs of their donors, and the special interests not their constituents. Bernie is the only one fully funded by we the people and he will lead for us. If anything can build up the middle class, it will be his policies. The middle class was strong when taxes were higher for the wealthy, education was heavily subsidized, the real minimum wage was higher, consumer protection was stronger, regulations were tighter. This is the kind of stuff that is in his agenda.

@Varn Agreed. This is not productive, we are not hearing each other and we should move on.

I will say one other thing. No one is expecting Med4All to get enacted in the current political landscape. The idea is that a true populist running on very popular policies will destroy the faux-populist who has been failing to deliver for the last four years. The plan is to use the ever increasing momentum of this movement into a full on political revolution consisting of a diverse coalition of fed up unsatisfied people who believe that the wealthiest country on earth actually can provide living standards on par with the rest of the 1st world for it's people.

The strategy is to aim for extremely high turnout which will help down ballot races be won by democrats. If it works, Congress will be much bluer and many of the newly elected representatives will have the president to thank for their victories and will therefor be willing to cooperate with him on policy. There is still the problem of the conservative supreme court. I suspect that if the people get a taste of single payer healthcare and then it is taken away by the court, the backlash will be so great that it will get through one way or another.

You seem to be on board with us on policy. If we win, I hope you can put aside your reservations and join the movement.

@RoboGraham You’ve a strategic plan, I only hope the bulk of this nation understands it…

@Varn Thanks for hearing me out. I hope that, if it doesn't work, we can work on expanding the ACA as you described.

@SanDiegoAirport The same can be said for any Democrat, though. Sanders may appeal to the Democrat left, but I have grave doubts about his appeal to the wider center and thus his chances of actually making it into the position to do anything.

@Paul4747

Well said. I agree.

Bernie won Iowa 4 years ago but idiots left early and many delegates were converted to alternates so BILLARY stole the whole show by 50 so called votes.....it is a face to face party building exercise NOTHING resembling a secret ballot....nonetheless Sanders cowardly betrayed us all in Philadelphia so Monday caucus goers are new or stupid true believers...Warren was endorsed by the fake newspaper owned by Gannett's owned REGISTER....this may cause Pocahontas to slide to 4th ....Amy BidenS & Gay Pete will all bunch together in the top 6 Monday after the SuperBowl

@David1955 In addition, Biden has a troubled relationship with the truth, which provides his opponents, including Trump, with an endless fund of ways to attack him. Read, and weep, for example, about his claims of "being trained in the civil rights movement": [shaunking.substack.com]

These are clumsy, obvious, easily debunked lies ... and don't forget, similar issues took down his previous failed presidential campaigns (overt plagarism).

Zero human beings should love zionist Pocahontas....she is equal to TrumpOLINI in corruption and genocidal zeal...can you spell Goldman Sachs ? She is Barney Frank without a 17 yr old boyfriend

@Larry68Feminist those are the kinds of lies I'm talking about. It's OK to worship your candidate, but spreading lies about his opponents is a signature tactic of republicons and bernie-bros.

@BitFlipper Pocahontas is a zionist and proudly defends the murder of Palestinians....she said nothing yesterday about Netanyahu and TrumpOLINI meeting in the White House especially Jared Kushner promoting the idea Palestinians should accept the deal offered of losing 84 % of their land since 1946 when zionists stopped buying land and started murdering locals and taking the land....all these facts makes her a genocidal gangster deserving life in prison ineligible for any public office

@Larry68Feminist I don't know where all this hate speech comes from but I'm not motivated to argue with you.

@BitFlipper facts about Senator Warren are famously being spread by BernieBots....they might deserve the hate speech canard but I tell the truth about all 537 incumbents murdering people globally in 160 countries at taxpayers expense.....would you really ignore the deaths of Palestinians and Pocahontas silence = agreement with Jared Kushner victim blaming yesterday ???

Why is it that that people who support a candidate are bots?

@RoboGraham not all are, just the ones that develope candidate myopia.

@1of5 But see, the term implies that they are not people eligible to vote in the election but rather that they are paid stooges spreading misinformation. Just because a person developed a blind loyalty to a candidate doesn't mean he/she is a bot. It means that they have fallen victim to a cult of personality.

“Bernie bot” is a Hillary construct to name & blame one of the many scapegoats for her losing a winnable election. It’s an insult to the millions who just want the government to set its priorities straight: Pay for health care and college and affordable housing and daycare and such, before paying for war and weapons and destruction of the environment and humanity. It’s really not that hard to understand why Bernie supporters love him. If you can see past the establishment Democratic Party propaganda...

@RoboGraham funny, you're the second person here to incorrectly translate that into "paid stooge".

Yeah, cults of personality are never dangerous. No sirreee, never been a problem with them ever.

@Bobbyzen Oh yeah, a Hillary excuse. Nicely done. No one else wants those things besides...oh fuck it, this won't be worth it.

@Aurora62 Obama boy? Nice word choice.

@Aurora62 least mine isn't racial

@Aurora62 I'm just so sorry you can't see the different levels of offense. A black and white world is just so much easier to understand, isn't it?

Like I said to begin with...

@1of5 Yes cults of personalities are bad. There are a lot of maga people who have fallen into the Trump cult of personally. The difference between then and Bernie supporters is that they support him for his personality while we support Bernie for his policy. If Bernie were to change and abandon his policies, we would abandon him. Maga people will stay with Trump no matter what he does.

What do you consider a bot to be?

@1of5 Look. All I want is for everyone to be treated like they're a worthy human being. Bernie has put himself on the line since college, fighting for civil rights, union rights, healthcare rights, housing rights - the list goes on. Really it's all I want. So I push back when Democrats, Republicans, the so-called liberal media et. al. bash Bernie, because those who push back are interested in maintaining the status quo, which as we all know has led to the demise of America's health care system, mass incarceration of more people than any other country on the face of the earth, and I could go on. I just want a better world for us all.

@1of5 Why are you bringing race into this?

@RoboGraham What do you consider a bot to be?

Excately what you said, someone in the cult of personality.

Why are you bringing race into this?

I didnt, Aurora62 choose "boy" instead of "bot" to let me know she's insulted by the term, and couldn't think of a way to do it by improving the discourse.

@Aurora62 oh, it's "I asked sarcastically". Suuuurrrre.

You missed my point entirely. They do exist - for every canidate - and are useless to the actual disscussion. But for a good laugh, can't be beat.

@Bobbyzen well yippie skippy.

...because those who push back are interested in maintaining the status quo...

See it's blanket statements like that that show canidate myopia. People can want the same things but have different methods of achieveing them or different policy directions to get there. Theres more than one route around the egg, more than one way to skin a cat and all.

Everything you describe you want fixed can be laid at the feet of capitalism run amok, and keeping it from running amok is Warren's platform. So why is Bernie a better choice to fix those things than Warren?

@Aurora62 Are you an Obama boy?

Yeah, that just screams sarcasm. Maybe work on your sarcastic delivery skills in text a bit before blaming others for not "getting" what you intend?

@1of5 why is Bernie better than Warren to fix capitalism run amok, you ask. Bernie has a lifetime of activist, executive, and legislative experience fighting and working for racial, social and economic justice using many different tools. Whereas Warren, a former Republican, still believes in market-based solutions vs solutions that are human-outcome based. But you’re fixated in scoring points in a debate so what I say won’t matter. Just stop beating up on Bernie and his supporters. I don’t bash Warren and her supporters. But I do push back on articles like Saleton’s and Chait’s when they offer their “expert opinion” which is really just their bias.

@1of5 In that case, using the term Bernie bot is incorrect because Bernie has no cult of personality. People support him for his policy, not his personality. He is not a particularly karsmatic or likable person but his vision does inspire a lot of people to support him enthusiastically.

She used the Obama boy term to show you how it is wrong to label all of the supporters of a candidate in such a way. My mind didn't immediately jump to racism when I saw the word "boy" and I highly doubt that she meant it that way.