2020 US Presidential Nominees

[happy_eagle]

Some people are very low IQ. I would assume to be a centrist Democrat supporter you have to be bordering mental incompetence. No one with critical thought faculties could support someone like Biden or Buttigieg.

Personal insults aside, you didn't address the point of discussion here

How is Bernie going to deliver the following
- Free Healthcare for all
- Free College for all
- 100% renewable energy by 2030
- Minimum wage to $15 nationwide

Do you genuinely believe he will walk into the WH and get all those policies through Congress and the Senate ?
Some background reading (hopefully its not too much)

Kids in the House - Grade School - How a Bill Becomes a Law

Kids in the House, Grade School - How a Bill Becomes a Law, A bill's journey from an idea to a law involves many steps and people. Just how many stops are there along the way? Come see.

kids-clerk.house.gov

 

[FredLeDeux]

Personal insults aside, you didn't address the point of discussion here

How is Bernie going to deliver the following
- Free Healthcare for all
- Free College for all
- 100% renewable energy by 2030
- Minimum wage to $15 nationwide

Do you genuinely believe he will walk into the WH and get all those policies through Congress and the Senate ?
Some background reading (hopefully its not too much)

Kids in the House - Grade School - How a Bill Becomes a Law

Kids in the House, Grade School - How a Bill Becomes a Law, A bill's journey from an idea to a law involves many steps and people. Just how many stops are there along the way? Come see.

kids-clerk.house.gov

That's not the point.

The question is; why would you even think about electing anyone who did not promise to do everything they absolutely could to get such simply basic requirements for any modern civilized country?

 

[Taylor]

That's not the point.

The question is; why would you even think about electing anyone who did not promise to do everything they absolutely could to get such simply basic requirements for any modern civilized country?

The Democrat candidate should be honest and say that "we are going to have medicare for all and we will be getting nations like Australia, South Korea and NATO to pay for it for us, since we are covering the cost of their national defense."

Because that's the reality of the situation. They spend their healthcare money on arming their people to be available to protect other nations.

If the USA rolled back it's military spending to fund health care then Australia and New Zealand will need to start thinking about how they will protect themselves and their interests with border protection frigates and a handful of special forces units.

Start learning mandarin. Getting cosy with China will be our best bet if the USA stepped back. Europe will find out if they should be afraid of Russia without the US NATO money.

Or the USA gets even further into debt and we brace for a global economic crash.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Do you genuinely believe he will walk into the WH and get all those policies through Congress and the Senate ?
Some background reading (hopefully its not too much)

I'm pretty certain you asked me this exact same question a few months ago and I answered it then.

 

[happy_eagle]

That's not the point.

The question is; why would you even think about electing anyone who did not promise to do everything they absolutely could to get such simply basic requirements for any modern civilized country?

Because to some, the concept of fulfilling a promise means a little more.

 

[Andrew Birch]

 

[Les Malone]

Jo jo at it again, Pelosi like.

 

[Andrew Birch]

Jo jo at it again, Pelosi like.

(ACTUAL Biden audio)

 

[Maggie5]

They spend their healthcare money on arming their people to be available to protect other nations.

What evidence do you have for the above statement?

 

[tandino]

What is she doing at a bowling alley ffs?

 

[pjcrows]

Watching the Dem establishment try to rally around a clearly incoherent Biden to stave off the progressives is going to be hilarious.

They're already going with the "Biden is a statesman" angle, linking him with Trudeau and Macron, and constantly tweeting photos of him and Obama. Could you be any more tone deaf?

"We're going to return to what it was like before Trump" is the single worst strategy they could run with. That's what RESULTED in Trump.

My belief that the Democratic Establishment would prefer Trump over a progressive continues to be reinforced.

 

[pjcrows]

I'm not criticising him for being pragmatic. I'm criticising him, and his supporters, for complaining about having to be pragmatic.

And absolutely, it is a less-than-satisfactory system. But I would say within the two-party system the positives outweigh the negatives.

How?

 

[Taylor]

What evidence do you have for the above statement?

Take a look at the contribution towards NATO. That's the biggest one, set up because they were worried about Russia but until Trump got verbal about them paying for their own defense they were very happy to spend their money on public services like healthcare and let the US handle the defense budget.

Check out the contribution to multinational military efforts around the world, most of them are built off the back of US strength.

They spend a fortune each year on bases outside the USA. They can afford better health care or they can pay for the defense of US allies.

Can Australia look after herself? No. Last check we had a few squadrons of aircraft up north, no means of deploying our aircraft from any mobile platforms.

One of the benefits of being in an alliance with the USA is that we get to spend tens of billions on Australians and the US spend hundreds of billions on the war machine protecting it.

 

[pjcrows]

Take a look at the contribution towards NATO. That's the biggest one, set up because they were worried about Russia but until Trump got verbal about them paying for their own defense they were very happy to spend their money on public services like healthcare and let the US handle the defense budget.

Check out the contribution to multinational military efforts around the world, most of them are built off the back of US strength.

They spend a fortune each year on bases outside the USA. They can afford better health care or they can pay for the defense of US allies.

Can Australia look after herself? No. Last check we had a few squadrons of aircraft up north, no means of deploying our aircraft from any mobile platforms.

One of the benefits of being in an alliance with the USA is that we get to spend tens of billions on Australians and the US spend hundreds of billions on the war machine protecting it.

Ultimately you're suggesting two preposterous things:

1. The world is better off for uncapped US interventionism.

2. The US citizens can either have basic health care like every other developed nation, OR, they can have the aforementioned military model.

What a crock of sh*t. They're one of the richest countries the world has ever seen.

 

[Taylor]

Ultimately you're suggesting two preposterous things:

1. The world is better off for uncapped US interventionism.

2. The US citizens can either have basic health care like every other developed nation, OR, they can have the aforementioned military model.

What a crock of sh*t. They're one of the richest countries the world has ever seen.

It's the rest of the western world that benefit from the US spending a huge chunk of that wealth each year on military spending.

They can dial it right back and spend it on healthcare, the rest of the western world has to pick up the tab for their own defense budgets.

This is why looking at nations, protected by the USA, spending very little on defense of their large land mass and very much on social services and health care isn't really fair to compare to the US on everything else.

It's literally like the girl who doesn't pay rent spending big on nights out and comparing her to the girl living by herself paying rent. The USA is our big daddy money with the big daddy stick keeping us safe.

 

[pjcrows]

It's the rest of the western world that benefit from the US spending a huge chunk of that wealth each year on military spending.

They can dial it right back and spend it on healthcare, the rest of the western world has to pick up the tab for their own defense budgets.

This is why looking at nations, protected by the USA, spending very little on defense of their large land mass and very much on social services and health care isn't really fair to compare to the US on everything else.

It's literally like the girl who doesn't pay rent spending big on nights out and comparing her to the girl living by herself paying rent. The USA is our big daddy money with the big daddy stick keeping us safe.

I disagree with this premise, but let's say they do need to maintain an astronomically high military budget.

Why can't they also have health care?

 

[RobbieK]

It's the rest of the western world that benefit from the US spending a huge chunk of that wealth each year on military spending.

They can dial it right back and spend it on healthcare, the rest of the western world has to pick up the tab for their own defense budgets.

This is why looking at nations, protected by the USA, spending very little on defense of their large land mass and very much on social services and health care isn't really fair to compare to the US on everything else.

It's literally like the girl who doesn't pay rent spending big on nights out and comparing her to the girl living by herself paying rent. The USA is our big daddy money with the big daddy stick keeping us safe.

Just ignoring the military spending, the US already spends significantly more per capita than any other country on health care, for worse results. The issue is not about the amount of money they spend, it is the system that is the problem.

 

[pjcrows]

Just ignoring the military spending, the US already spends more per capita than other countries on health care, for worse results. The issue is not about the amount of money they spend, it is the system that is the problem.

Absolutely. A system designed for health insurance and pharmaceutical company profit as priority.

 

[Taylor]

Absolutely. A system designed for health insurance and pharmaceutical company profit as priority.

We also benefit from the US pharmaceutical companies spending the money to invent new drugs and treatments.

By what measure is the US getting worse results for their health care? If you have cancer your best results would be to be treated there.

 

[Taylor]

Just ignoring the military spending, the US already spends significantly more per capita than any other country on health care, for worse results. The issue is not about the amount of money they spend, it is the system that is the problem.

They do have a massive problem with prices for services not being easily accessible.

When the eye surgery went free market the price plummeted, they could do with more of that, allowing the provider to set their prices and let the insurance companies cover as much of a gap as they like.

Part of that is decoupling insurance from employment

 

[RobbieK]

We also benefit from the US pharmaceutical companies spending the money to invent new drugs and treatments.

By what measure is the US getting worse results for their health care? If you have cancer your best results would be to be treated there.

... If you can afford to be treated.

On pretty much every measure of standard of care the US falls behind comparatively wealthy countries, while spending much more money.

How does the quality of the U.S. health system compare to other countries? - Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker

Despite spending more money per capita on healthcare than any similarly large and wealthy nation, the United States has a lower life expectancy than peer nations and has seen worsening health outcomes since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. This chart collection combines various measures of...

www.healthsystemtracker.org

 

[pjcrows]

By what measure is the US getting worse results

Numerous studies and common knowledge.

If you have cancer your best results would be to be treated there.

You're joking right? People face financial ruin if they get cancer over there. If you can afford it, you can do very well. To suggest that is most people is a lie.

 

[ep2018]

The bloke will win the dem nom in a landslide and will probably beat Trump and the GOP handily as well despite the dementia.

 

[ep2018]

Does anyone else think one of Warren or Sanders should step down early on? I can see them appealing to the same left leaning crowd which will split the vote as centre votes flow to Biden? Then the left can focus on one candidate earlier on without the delegates being split.

 

[its free real estate]

I disagree with this premise, but let's say they do need to maintain an astronomically high military budget.

Why can't they also have health care?

What if the inordinately high cost of health care in the world’s largest economy is what drives the technological innovation in medicine?

when people run out of options for cancer treatment on Medicare they tend to go to the US if they can.