[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[Shadowferal]

Hillary Clinton Takes a Step to the Left on Health Care

For months during the Democratic presidential nominating contest, Hillary Clinton has resisted calls from Senator Bernie Sanders to back a single-payer health system, arguing that the fight for government-run health care was a wrenching legislative battle that had already been lost.

But as she tries to clinch the nomination, Mrs. Clinton is moving to the left on health care and this week took a significant step in her opponent’s direction, suggesting she would like to give people the option to buy into Medicare.

She has called for a range of health policy overhauls to preserve and expand the Affordable Care Act. She has proposed expanding financial protections for people with high health care costs and expanding subsidies to help middle-income people buy their own insurance. She also has proposed a package of policies to lower the price of prescription drugs.

But more recently, she has moved further. In February, she began discussing the possibility of a “public option,” a government-run insurance plan available to people shopping on the existing marketplaces. That idea was considered when the Affordable Care Act was being debated in Congress, but it was ultimately removed from the law.

[Deleted]

I admire your spirit, but lets not psychoanalyze her. I mean I dislike her policy, but like the torrid love life of her "husband," is sort of her own problem.

Well, true. Her personal life would be her personal life, if it wouldn't so clearly seem to be the driving force behind why she wants to be president. Then it becomes relevant, and very important. There's a huge (yuge!) difference between wanting to help the country become a better place, and doing it all for some very personal gain.

I mean, you can say the very same about Dubya. He didn't run for office out of some sense of altruism or helping his fellow man.

But, you're right. We don't even need to do any psychoanalyzing of her, and wonder what her motivations are. We need only look at what kind of policies and ideals she'll be bringing to the table, and that's sufficient.

[mvaliz]

Hillary Clinton Takes a Step to the Left on Health Care

For months during the Democratic presidential nominating contest, Hillary Clinton has resisted calls from Senator Bernie Sanders to back a single-payer health system, arguing that the fight for government-run health care was a wrenching legislative battle that had already been lost.

But as she tries to clinch the nomination, Mrs. Clinton is moving to the left on health care and this week took a significant step in her opponent’s direction, suggesting she would like to give people the option to buy into Medicare.

She has called for a range of health policy overhauls to preserve and expand the Affordable Care Act. She has proposed expanding financial protections for people with high health care costs and expanding subsidies to help middle-income people buy their own insurance. She also has proposed a package of policies to lower the price of prescription drugs.

But more recently, she has moved further. In February, she began discussing the possibility of a “public option,” a government-run insurance plan available to people shopping on the existing marketplaces. That idea was considered when the Affordable Care Act was being debated in Congress, but it was ultimately removed from the law.

So... Basically putting the public option back into Obamacare like Obama, Clinton and the rest of the Dems had in the original first draft but was forced to cut out thanks to neoconservative congressional obstruction just so they can get something passed?

How do you move "more left" by trying to do what you originally wanted before?

[Theodarzna]

So... Basically putting the public option back into Obamacare like Obama, Clinton and the rest of the Dems had in the original first draft but was forced to cut out thanks to neoconservative congressional obstruction just so they can get something passed?

How do you move "more left" by trying to do what you originally wanted before?

And seemed unable to do with control of both chambers of congress and the white house.

[therayeffect]

Nice try. There is nothing inherently offensive or disparaging about a Senator's Patriot Act vote. Maybe if Sanders had won an award with "patriot" in the title, his search results would be different too. With all this Google searching you are doing, why don't you look up the word "apophenia."

Again, you're ignoring the argument. If it was solely the popularity of the terms, then the results wouldn't be the way they actually are. Her vote is a fact and should be displayed as such but it's been buried because they're fudging the results.

It doesn't. Google knows you even without cookies. It sees into your soul. It hears your thoughts.

It is right behind you. Do not move. Do not breathe.

BEHOLD, YOGG GOOGLE!

Haha, that's hilarious.

So, now Google is part of the shadow army that denied Sanders victory.

I wonder if they'll blame Twitter or Reddit next.

Google isn't responsible for Sanders losing. I didn't say anything about Sanders at all in my posts. Again, trying to put words in my mouth. I mean, go ahead and keep up with the ad hominem, it's not doing you any favors. As I and others have shown, Google is a private company and has their biases just the same as any other business.

- - - Updated - - -

(snipped image)

Trump is a robot, but not a racist according to Google.

Bottom-line, maybe there isn't some conspiracy going on here - maybe it's just a flawed search algorithm.

The auto-fill was equal-ish when searching for 'racist' for both candidates. I had it in to show that there is some equality going on, even if the first 4 results were all negative for Trump and half and half for Clinton. If there is an issue, then Google should've addressed it as such. Also, cookies will skew the results I believe, so having them in your browser could mess up what a regular newcomer might see.

[Theodarzna]

Neither Hillary nor Obama is trustworthy on TPP, what is Obama hiding for Hillary? What is with this bullshit from the Clinton camp?

[Matchles]

Again, you're ignoring the argument. If it was solely the popularity of the terms, then the results wouldn't be the way they actually are. Her vote is a fact and should be displayed as such but it's been buried because they're fudging the results.
.

I'm not ignoring the argument. There is nothing in your pictures that is inconsistent with Google's statements. They don't put disparaging information in an auto-complete with a person's name. Doesn't matter who it is. Go search "Charles Manson" and see what the auto complete says. "Charles Manson dead, Charles Manson children, Charles Manson 2016, Charles Manson wife." Hmm nothing in the autocomplete about murdering multiple people. Google must be in the sack for him too! Now try "Brock Turner." "Brock Turner letter, Brock Turner judge, Brock Turner statement." Hmm only things peripherally related to the ONLY thing he is publicly known for, RAPING AN UNCONSCIOUS WOMAN. Google must be on his side too... Or it is EXACTLY like they said, they don't put negative and disparaging information in autocomplete results that have a person's name.

Give it up. This was a manufactured conspiracy that you fell for. No shame in that. Just ask a few more questions next time before believing something just because you want it to be true.

[Wildtree]

That's an interesting aspect on Bernie's refusal to call it quits.

Bernie Sanders Still Has Expensive Secret Service Protection

This is somehow counterproductive to the general intend of his program.
Trying to stand up for the people, and then wasting tax money in the million dollars range.
Not sure if that makes a lot of sense.

[Deleted]

That's an interesting aspect on Bernie's refusal to call it quits.

Bernie Sanders Still Has Expensive Secret Service Protection

This is somehow counterproductive to the general intend of his program.
Trying to stand up for the people, and then wasting tax money in the million dollars range.
Not sure if that makes a lot of sense.

Whatever you people can grasp at.

[Wildtree]

Whatever you people can grasp at.

what "you people" are you referring to?

Sanders lost by all accounts.
He needs to quit the campaign, just like every other candidate did in due time.

"You people" would indicate that I have an affiliation with any other side.
I don't, since I'm not American, and with that cannot vote in the general election anyway.
From that angle, I couldn't give less than a flying fuck. If it wasn't for the minor detail of tax money wasted for nothing...
That does effect me too.

[Yvaelle]

That's an interesting aspect on Bernie's refusal to call it quits.

Bernie Sanders Still Has Expensive Secret Service Protection

This is somehow counterproductive to the general intend of his program.
Trying to stand up for the people, and then wasting tax money in the million dollars range.
Not sure if that makes a lot of sense.

Secret Service members aren't hourly contractors who are unpaid when they aren't assigned, or laid off between assignments, so even if they were not currently assigned to Bernie, they would still be presently employed (and on the payroll).

Also, ZOMG up to a meeeelllyonnn dollarz?! However will the united states bear this terrible expense!

If Hillary is elected we'll give another trillion or more to the next bank bailout. If Trump is elected he'll do many trillions in damage to foreign relations and trade.

[Wildtree]

Secret Service members aren't hourly contractors who are unpaid when they aren't assigned, or laid off between assignments, so even if they were not currently assigned to Bernie, they would still be presently employed (and on the payroll).

That is correct.
But their assignment might make more sense.
And in the end it is the whole message attached.
If I campaign on the mission to fight the establishment and stand up for the little guy, I wouldn't exactly want tax money used for myself if it isn't needed anymore.

I'm a bit startled now, how you as Canadian use word choices like "If Hillary is elected we'll give another trillion".
I believe the US govt. uses it's own money?

Trump isn't subject to this thread either.
His idiocies are redundant.
And aren't you drifting into fallacies by using the deflections on either Clinton and Trump?
I mean, it's not productive to defend something wrong with another wrong.

[Yvaelle]

That is correct.
But their assignment might make more sense.
And in the end it is the whole message attached.
If I campaign on the mission to fight the establishment and stand up for the little guy, I wouldn't exactly want tax money used for myself if it isn't needed anymore.

It's not even a rounding error of the money at stake here if Hillary gives taxpayer money to the banks, or Trump spends it on something ridiculous like putting his name in gold, in all caps, across the face of the moon.

I'm a bit startled now, how you as Canadian use word choices like "If Hillary is elected we'll give another trillion".
I believe the US govt. uses it's own money?

I'm a dual citizen. I was born in the US, my parents are Canadians, I live in Canada. I pay taxes to both governments. Additionally, what impacts the US economy impacts the Canadian economy - so even non-US Canadians have a real stake in the POTUS.

Arguably, because your POTUS's are so weird - the choice for US POTUS may matter more to Canadians, usually (lately not so much), than who our own PM is - because generally all Canadian PM's have fallen into a pretty narrow political spectrum, regardless of which party wins (centrist liberals). Harper and Trudeau have been pretty disparate lately - but they're more like an exception.

Trump isn't subject to this thread either.
His idiocies are redundant.
And aren't you drifting into fallacies by using the deflections on either Clinton and Trump?
I mean, it's not productive to defend something wrong with another wrong.

Sure it is, because your sense of which wrong is greater is so grossly out of whack it's comical.

As much as a million dollars for a secret service detail on a presidential candidate? You honestly think that bears mentioning when the stakes are this high? That's comparable to the financial risk of an unregulated FIRE sector collapse again, or the US becoming trade-isolationist?

[hrugner]

That's an interesting aspect on Bernie's refusal to call it quits.

Bernie Sanders Still Has Expensive Secret Service Protection

This is somehow counterproductive to the general intend of his program.
Trying to stand up for the people, and then wasting tax money in the million dollars range.
Not sure if that makes a lot of sense.

I realize this is inane trolling, but I'm feeling a bit hungry and some bait would really hit the spot right now.

He refused secret service protection till after his Arizona offices and apartments got shot up, and it makes sense for him to keep that protection now since he's the only one who has had a genuine threat to his safety.

[Matchles]

I realize this is inane trolling, but I'm feeling a bit hungry and some bait would really hit the spot right now.

He refused secret service protection till after his Arizona offices and apartments got shot up, and it makes sense for him to keep that protection now since he's the only one who has had a genuine threat to his safety.

Shot up is a bit of an exaggeration. They found a single hole in a window and never found a bullet. Also I can't find any evidence that they filed a report for the apartments that were supposedly ransacked. It was a carefully worded statement in which any apartment in the complex could have been broken into and still be a "true" statement.

With that said I don't care if he still has secret service protection. It was just an incredibly shitty way for him to respond to accusations that his supporters were making death threats.

[hrugner]

Shot up is a bit of an exaggeration. They found a single hole in a window and never found a bullet. Also I can't find any evidence that they filed a report for the apartments that were supposedly ransacked. It was a carefully worded statement in which any apartment in the complex could have been broken into and still be a "true" statement.

With that said I don't care if he still has secret service protection. It was just an incredibly shitty way for him to respond to accusations that his supporters were making death threats.

Fair enough, I apologize for the exaggeration.

But bringing up his being a target to violent real world actions is a pretty fair response to others receiving verbal threats. Had the shooting and ransacking been covered as well as the phone messages there wouldn't have been a need to bring it up.

[Matchles]

Fair enough, I apologize for the exaggeration.

But bringing up his being a target to violent real world actions is a pretty fair response to others receiving verbal threats. Had the shooting and ransacking been covered as well as the phone messages there wouldn't have been a need to bring it up.

I'm not blaming you. Sanders himself said the place was "shot up." Just saying that reading about the incident left me scratching my head. I still don't think it was a good response. First, we don't know if he or his campaign was targeted. If it was a bullet, it could easily be a stray. Second, the incident happened in a different state than where the threats and alleged chair throwing had occurred. Even if Sanders campaign was the target of violence, it wasn't those in the room in Nevada or those making the calls that were the target (nor did they probably know about the incident prior to Sanders' letter). Lastly, the incident happened in January. He mentioned it in response to the Nevada situation in May. Even temporally they don't seem at all connected. If it was such a disturbing occurrence, I'm not sure why he didn't bring it up earlier and instead sat on it until he had to deflect accusations.

[hrugner]

I'm not blaming you. Sanders himself said the place was "shot up." Just saying that reading about the incident left me scratching my head. I still don't think it was a good response. First, we don't know if he or his campaign was targeted. If it was a bullet, it could easily be a stray. Second, the incident happened in a different state than where the threats and alleged chair throwing had occurred. Even if Sanders campaign was the target of violence, it wasn't those in the room in Nevada or those making the calls that were the target (nor did they probably know about the incident prior to Sanders' letter). Lastly, the incident happened in January. He mentioned it in response to the Nevada situation in May. Even temporally they don't seem at all connected. If it was such a disturbing occurrence, I'm not sure why he didn't bring it up earlier and instead sat on it until he had to deflect accusations.

The topic of violence was brought up, and the shot/sacking hadn't gone beyond local news media when it happened, so I think filling in some blanks on the discussion of anonymous violence in this primary isn't too unreasonable. Now we get to stack some stage rushes on Trump and Sanders and an apparent assassination attempt on Trump. My memory isn't perfect, but this all seems pretty irregular. Leaving the level of violence in the discussion down around leaving mean voice messages wouldn't seem appropriate.

Did he not preface the comment by broadening the topic to violence in the campaign?

[Matchles]

The topic of violence was brought up, and the shot/sacking hadn't gone beyond local news media when it happened, so I think filling in some blanks on the discussion of anonymous violence in this primary isn't too unreasonable. Now we get to stack some stage rushes on Trump and Sanders and an apparent assassination attempt on Trump. My memory isn't perfect, but this all seems pretty irregular. Leaving the level of violence in the discussion down around leaving mean voice messages wouldn't seem appropriate.

Did he not preface the comment by broadening the topic to violence in the campaign?

I wouldn't say it is irregular. In '08 Obama had multiple campaign offices shot at or vandalized in some way. Outside of presidential elections this happens quite often for candidates for state-wide offices. And those voice mails were a little more than mean. Some of them were criminal acts. The most irregular part of this primary was Trump encouraging violence from his supporters. Most of the time it is what the nutjobs think up themselves.

[Theodarzna]

Dumbass motherfuckers. You mother fuckers let your grandparents give their sweat, blood, and even their lives to defend from socialism and now you're voting for some old fucking faggot offering free college? Get the fuck out of my fucking country you fucking pieces of shit you don't deserve to be here. You should be rotting in hell for disrespecting your family and country like that.

..... but what is your stance on Bernie Sanders? :3