Bernie Sanders already gearing up for 2020? [W:59]

[Hawkeye10]

I love Bernie, I do.
He is that kind of old lovable, endearing person that just sticks with you.

But no, or more like hell no.

If these last two years have shown us anything, its that Bernie not only gets walked over by his own party, but also by political & social movements alike. That day those BLM supporters completely hijacked his rally was one of the more sadder days of his candidacy that I can remember.

He just needs to go back, and retire from the political spotlight.

Goes hand in hand with how he does not believe in himself.....

 

[MTAtech]

They both want to stick it to the man, and they both roped us in with a high quality show.

For Starters.

The difference is that Trump is "the man -- he just pretends that he's a populist. Everything he's done has benefited the elite.

Bernie supports the opposite.

 

[MTAtech]

I don't care what Trump said about "terrific healthcare" because that's the duty of the legislature. I don't care about what any presidential candidate ever says when it comes to legislation. I'm sorry that you can't understand the functions of the three branches of government. You must be disappointed every election. sad.

But if you are going to pick and choose about candidates and assume that presidential candidates can magically enact legislation but let's not do that. Let's keep things from the perspective of the real world. Trump said he would bring in "the best people". Who is "the best"? Everyone knows "the best people" would never leave a six or seven figure salary to do government work unless they can enact some inside shady deals along the way. Anyone who believes otherwise is living in a fantasy.

Do you think Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, or Mark Zuckerburg would abandon their posts to do government work? C'mon man. And Trump is not personally responsible for the actions of every government employee and you're naive to think a Bernie Sanders presidency was gonna be pristine. He wanted big government everything. Even if he was personally well meaning, there would have been government corruption up the yin-yang with him in charge.

And again going back to taxes. Here's something to think about: OBAMA HAD A SUPERMAJORITY and is one of the smoothest talking politicians since Bill Clinton. He still didn't raise taxes because presidents don't enact legislation. You can piss and moan about presidents affect on legislation all you want but as long as you don't realize that the president has no bearing on legislation you will have no credibility.

Which brings us all back to EXECUTIVE POLICY. Trump and Sanders had plenty of similarities in the things that actually matter for a president: actions that can be performed by the executive. People who aren't so caught up in partisan politics can realize this truth but you cannot because you're too far down the rabbit hole.

You can't approach politics through the lens of a Pollyanna where everything looks like sunshine and lollipops. You keep trying to base things on some sort of personality. That's irrelevant. Stop focusing on things that are irrelevant or only exist in a fantasy. Or not. Keep it up though and you'll constantly be broken hearted.

The post above is based upon the absurd narrative that a president is a mere bystander to Congress passing legislation. When Obama ran for president, he promised certain things, like health care reform and did just that. Trump made promises too, so don't come back now and say Trump is powerless because Congress passes legislation.

The confusion that you and others have is not being able to recognize a real populist, like Bernie and distinguishing him from a phony populist, like Trump. Everything Trump believes is pure entitled elite -- but, he's a good used car salesman and convinced many that he's really on their side, when his actual actions and policy positions are just the opposite. Trump tries to tell people that his tax-cut is a "middle-class tax-cut" when independent analysis show that it showers the wealthy with 80% of the benefits. Some populism.

 

[joG]

Strikes me as nearly the same mistake they made with Hillary, trying to jam through someone because it's "their turn" rather than because they are electable.

Bernie's too old and at this stage he has too much baggage.

What they need is a relatively young up and comer with charisma, who is agreeable to the liberal vision, while accepting that much of it is not presently possible.

But they can't force it. It has to be a product the public picks up on it's own.

You are thinking of Gore!

 

[Winston]

While that is one issue, the other is the low reimbursement rate.

Before implementing Medicare for all it is imperative to make sure it works with the existing load, otherwise for someone in the middle class they will likely find that in order to keep the quality of care they receive currently will have to pay 2x. I can already imagine the laughter if Bernie were to come out and say "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"

I don't think anyone is naive enough to think that every, man, woman, and child is going to receive the exceeding level of care that the most deluxe plans deliver. However, I believe it is realistic to estimate that the average middle class family will save money and receive the same level of care they currently receive.

 

[MTAtech]

I don't care what Trump said about "terrific healthcare" because that's the duty of the legislature. I don't care about what any presidential candidate ever says when it comes to legislation. I'm sorry that you can't understand the functions of the three branches of government. You must be disappointed every election. sad.

But if you are going to pick and choose about candidates and assume that presidential candidates can magically enact legislation but let's not do that. Let's keep things from the perspective of the real world. Trump said he would bring in "the best people". Who is "the best"? Everyone knows "the best people" would never leave a six or seven figure salary to do government work unless they can enact some inside shady deals along the way. Anyone who believes otherwise is living in a fantasy.

Do you think Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, or Mark Zuckerburg would abandon their posts to do government work? C'mon man. And Trump is not personally responsible for the actions of every government employee and you're naive to think a Bernie Sanders presidency was gonna be pristine. He wanted big government everything. Even if he was personally well meaning, there would have been government corruption up the yin-yang with him in charge.

And again going back to taxes. Here's something to think about: OBAMA HAD A SUPERMAJORITY and is one of the smoothest talking politicians since Bill Clinton. He still didn't raise taxes because presidents don't enact legislation. You can piss and moan about presidents affect on legislation all you want but as long as you don't realize that the president has no bearing on legislation you will have no credibility.

Which brings us all back to EXECUTIVE POLICY. Trump and Sanders had plenty of similarities in the things that actually matter for a president: actions that can be performed by the executive. People who aren't so caught up in partisan politics can realize this truth but you cannot because you're too far down the rabbit hole.

You can't approach politics through the lens of a Pollyanna where everything looks like sunshine and lollipops. You keep trying to base things on some sort of personality. That's irrelevant. Stop focusing on things that are irrelevant or only exist in a fantasy. Or not. Keep it up though and you'll constantly be broken hearted.

I missed the bold portion when I replied in post #78. Obama did not have a "super-majority." In fact, the Dems didn't completely control the Senate. Al Franken was seated nearly eight months after winning his Senate seat. Even if the Senate was controlled by Democrats (e.g. 50 seats), the statement ignores two other facts. a) there were Democrats in the Senate that vote as if they were Republicans. b) Republicans liberally used the filibuster to block legislation.

The Dems never had 60 (e.g. super-majority) Senate seats post-2008. They had between 56 and 58 seats. For that very brief period they had 58 seats with consistent support from Bernie Sanders and inconsistent support from Joe Lieberman. The Democrats hardly had 60 Dem seats, and hardly 60 reliable Dem votes. Then in a special election the following January, Scott Brown won Teddy Kennedy’s old seat, and was sworn in on February 4th.
Democrats' 60-vote majority in Senate: So close and yet so far - latimes.com

While you say "He [Obama] still didn't raise taxes because presidents don't enact legislation." Well, Obama DID raise taxes -- and he did it will a hostile opposition Congress. In fact, in 2013 Obama signed a compromise bill making permanent the {lower end} tax cuts enacted by his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.

As of 2013, the Tax Policy Center found that, under Obama, the top 1% of earners paid an effective federal tax rate of roughly 32%, compared to about 27% under Bush. But middle earners paid roughly 12%, almost exactly the same as under the previous president, while low earners paid a bit less — about 2.3%, rather than 3.5%.

Thus, president who display leadership, as opposed to engaging in childish rants, are able to get Congress to enact legislation that they want. It was true for all modern presidents, from FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama. You can make excuses for Trump's ineptitude in getting any significant legislation passed with a Congress of his own party, but it is just that, excuses. Other modern presidents didn't seem to have that problem.

 

[Moderate Right]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

General Election: Trump vs. Sanders

RCP Average 5/6 - 6/5 -- -- 49.7 39.3 Sanders +10.4
IBD/TIPP 5/31 - 6/5 908 A 3.3 49 39 Sanders +10
Quinnipiac 5/24 - 5/30 1561 RV 2.5 48 39 Sanders +9
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 5/15 - 5/19 1000 RV 3.1 54 39 Sanders +15
CBS News/NY Times 5/13 - 5/17 1109 RV 3.0 51 38 Sanders +13
FOX News 5/14 - 5/17 1021 RV 3.0 46 42 Sanders +4
PPP (D) 5/6 - 5/9 1222 RV 3.2 50 39 Sanders +11

The polls showed Hillary beating Trump!

 

[Moderate Right]

It just kills me that the general public can't filter out the noise.

Like, does a candidate have to be a female minority now in order to be progressive? Obviously not. But, if they aren't, then we have to defend ourselves against outrageous claims by the DNC and their media toadies.

I don't care, you can call be Bernie Bro sexist, racist, commie all you want to, I don't care. As long as the general public can see what I really am. A left leaning person who wants what's best for the country.. someone who wants to move forward because that is our path into the future.

Like I said call me anything you want to, but, it just kills me that people eat the low hanging fruit.

The right wants the same thing. It is dishonest to label them otherwise. Both sides just have opposite ideas of how to get there.

 

[Moderate Right]

The more people hear from Sanders the more people like him. That's why the DNC wanted to seal the deal before his message could get out there.

And.. I dispute your statement. I understand it's necessary to believe that Democrats destroy the economy, in order to perpetuate tribalism in the modern era.. however, considering that a Republican handed Obama an economy that was hemorrhaging hundreds of thousands of jobs, he did pretty alright.

I like Bernie. I think it sucks that he got screwed out of the nomination. But, I don't like his policies and I would vote for Trump over him. Bernie's policies would destroy the country. But, if Bernie were elected president, he would be unable to accomplish anything he promised. There is this dysfunctional thing called Congress.

 

[Moderate Right]

I just disagree. From my point of view he explains his ideas well and they make a lot of sense to ordinary folk. For example, Medicare-for-all would save the middle class 2-3 thousand per year, but, they don't know that until Bernie explains it to them. He's also a compelling orator and you can feel the compassion in his voice. It's my estimation that if you were to give Bernie equal airtime as Trump and Clinton, he would be president right now, because he has that strong of a message and vision for the country.

Look at how popular he got without the mainstream media. His voice is like a magnet for the people.

Of course from your point of view he explains his ideas well - it is your point of view.

 

[Moderate Right]

what policy? he hasn't gotten a goddamn thing passed yet ................ just EOs ........................ yeah; that's policy ................ NOT .............

If Trump never accomplishes anything else, he has reversed Obama's EO's and put a conservative on the Supreme Court, making it 5-4 conservative vs Obama's or Hillary's 5-4 liberal. Trump doesn't have to do a damn thing and his presidency was already worth it. Even if he gets impeached and Hillary is anointed president she can't undo Gorsuch.

 

[Moderate Right]

The majority of the middle class get their healthcare through employment, how does Medicare for all save them 2-3k a year?

And how many people do you think would continue to be drawn to him once it is pointed out his policies would drastically increase their taxes on them?

Not to mention that in most cases the quality of healthcare provided by employers is far superior to what Medicare would be. So, the majority of people would be screwed in quality of care for sure.

 

[Moderate Right]

Well it would save employers and small business money as well.

The math works out. Sanders healthcare plan requires a 6.2% tax.

So, using median income of 50k

50,000X.062=$3,100

Then your insurance premiums go away. So, you save a few thousand per year from insurance going away.

So, instead of employers paying for the healthcare, you want employees to pay for it instead through higher government taxes?

 

[Moderate Right]

The issue with this is that more and more doctors are refusing Medicare and you would then be adding a dramatic increase in the amount of patients. How would he address those issues?

Yep. The left's idea of controlling healthcare costs is screwing the providers and then they don't even notice the fact that more and more doctors are refusing to take Medicare or Medicaid patients.

 

[Moderate Right]

If they are refusing Medicare because it's complicated, then single payer fixes that issue because one of its strong points is its simplicity.

They are also refusing Medicare because what Medicare pays is too low.

 

[Floridafan]

I like Bernie. I think it sucks that he got screwed out of the nomination. But, I don't like his policies and I would vote for Trump over him. Bernie's policies would destroy the country. But, if Bernie were elected president, he would be unable to accomplish anything he promised. There is this dysfunctional thing called Congress.

Has trump accomplished anything that he promised, yet you would vote for him again. Now, what specific policies of Bernie's didn't you like, what policies would destroy this country?

 

[Floridafan]

Yep. The left's idea of controlling healthcare costs is screwing the providers and then they don't even notice the fact that more and more doctors are refusing to take Medicare or Medicaid patients.

I have never found a single doctor who has refused to take my Medicare insurance. With an aging population, to do so, would probably put them out of business. Please have some idea of what you are talking about.

 

[Moderate Right]

The post above is based upon the absurd narrative that a president is a mere bystander to Congress passing legislation. When Obama ran for president, he promised certain things, like health care reform and did just that. Trump made promises too, so don't come back now and say Trump is powerless because Congress passes legislation.

The confusion that you and others have is not being able to recognize a real populist, like Bernie and distinguishing him from a phony populist, like Trump. Everything Trump believes is pure entitled elite -- but, he's a good used car salesman and convinced many that he's really on their side, when his actual actions and policy positions are just the opposite. Trump tries to tell people that his tax-cut is a "middle-class tax-cut" when independent analysis show that it showers the wealthy with 80% of the benefits. Some populism.

Obama just barely got healthcare passed and it has been unraveling ever since, even while he was president.

 

[Mach]

So, instead of employers paying for the healthcare, you want employees to pay for it instead through higher government taxes?

Why not?
Right now I have to manage, select, etc., and I have no real negotiating power whatsoever to drive my rates down.
As an employee, people are scared to get laid off because they will lose insurance, and they may have to pa cobra if they don't get a job immediately.

Does an employer ever advise an employee not to have coverage if they can get it? No. Parents to children give that advice? no. Everyone needs health insurance, especially since we'll already have to pay if they have an emergency anyway.

I'd rather pool everyone so we can get the lowest rates possible, and have a counter-balance/check on big health care providers, insurance, and pharma. A check/balance that currently doesn't exist, hence, skyrocketing rates...

 

[Floridafan]

Obama just barely got healthcare passed and it has been unraveling ever since, even while he was president.

Any issues with the ACa could have been corrected long ago, but Congress refused to do so. Trump has promised, even guaranteed so much, but delivered nothing. This man wa supposed to be the great CEO, the master negotiator. He has been at best, a failure and a divider.

 

[Moderate Right]

I don't think anyone is naive enough to think that every, man, woman, and child is going to receive the exceeding level of care that the most deluxe plans deliver. However, I believe it is realistic to estimate that the average middle class family will save money and receive the same level of care they currently receive.

That's not true. While you can argue about the cost, 80% Americans receive their health insurance through their employers, and the majority of them would receive less quality of care through Medicare than they would through their current health plans. So, I would estimate that AT LEAST 50% of Americans would receive worse quality of care while somewhat less than 50% of Americans would receive better quality care under Medicare than they do know. That's the problem with single payer. It screws 50% of Americans so that the other 50% will be better off. It's not a rich vs poor scenario. In fact, it would not effect the rich at all but the middle class are the ones who would get screwed to help the poor, just like all liberal policies do.

 

[Aristaeus]

How about Elizabeth Warren as the Dem Presidential candidate with Sanders as VP? Could be a hell of a strong team.

 

[GDViking]

If you call endorsing a corrupt, lying piece of turtle turd like Bill DeBlasio for a mayoralty rerun for NYC as "gearing up" then you don't know what senility is. Do you also believe a mayor hiring his wife for a $200k do nothing job good progressive governance? A man is known by who he chooses as his friends.

And what exactly are trumps kids doing for their pay?

 

[MTAtech]

Obama just barely got healthcare passed and it has been unraveling ever since, even while he was president.

Conservatives have been predicting Obamacare's demise since it started. It wasn't true then. The CBO just a few months ago reported that the ACA was stable and sustainable. It wasn't until Trump's deliberate sabotage of the ACA that the insurance markets are in jeopardy in certain markets.

 

[GDViking]

How about Elizabeth Warren as the Dem Presidential candidate with Sanders as VP? Could be a hell of a strong team.

I want McCain Warren...