Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[szechuan]

Not a Sanders fan, but I mean.. at least they're being realistic.

The fight for medicare for all and and Free College won't end with Sanders winning the election.

[starlord]

The normalisation of bloomberg is still pretty disturbing.

after trump "normal" is really a non issue at this point. not a fan of bloomberg but its hard to get worked up about it. at least he has more political experience to his name than playing a businessman on a reality show.

[Elegiac]

hm well based on their reaction to warren about her saying M4A should have a private option i doubt that's the case.

I mean they ain’t wrong.

If Warren drops out I’ll be backing Klobuchar or Biden. Bernie is my absolute last choice over Bloomberg.

Yes, I would rather have a McKinsey consultant over a person who is likely to pack his administration with crazy people, even if said crazy people are “progressive”.

[Drutt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePp9Ds8JFY4&t=6m

"The people do have the right to know about the health of a Senator, and somebody who is running for President of the United States - full, full disclosure. And we will make, at the appropriate time, all of our medical records public, for you or for anyone else who wants to see them.

That's the clip in question. Explicitly states "all of our medical records". And "full disclosure". I'll assume you were watching a different clip, or something.

Indeed I was; all the articles reference a Meet the Press interview from September, where such words were not used.

Regardless, I stand by my earlier comments: that no one would ever intend to release explicit photos or videos when talking about the release of all their medical records, so there's no reasonable interpretation of the statement that would lead us to expect that sort of detail to be released.

[Shadowferal]

The normalisation of bloomberg is still pretty disturbing.

Even more disturbing is the time spent deriding Sanders when Bloomberg should be the target.

[Elegiac]

Regardless, I stand by my earlier comments: that no one would ever intend to release explicit photos or videos when talking about the release of all their medical records, so there's no reasonable interpretation of the statement that would lead us to expect that sort of detail to be released.

Cool. Now here's the punchline.

We get that it's unreasonable: the point is that unreasonable standard was set by Bernie himself to talk big game about his transparency. It was a stupid and unnecessary gamble that he lost now that the media is calling his bluff.

Y'all literally don't get how debating what constitutes a reasonable ROI is completely irrelevant, lol.

[Endus]

Indeed I was; all the articles reference a Meet the Press interview from September, where such words were not used.

Regardless, I stand by my earlier comments: that no one would ever intend to release explicit photos or videos when talking about the release of all their medical records, so there's no reasonable interpretation of the statement that would lead us to expect that sort of detail to be released.

So, a "what he meant was" argument.

We didn't accept that when it was Sarah Huckabee Sanders pulling it on behalf of Trump. It doesn't work any better when it's used on behalf of Bernie Sanders.

Yes, that kind of transparency doesn't make sense. He still openly promised it, to the media. And then walked it back. Was it a bad idea? Probably! But the person to criticize for that is Bernie Sanders, not those of us pointing it out.

[starlord]

Even more disturbing is the time spent deriding Sanders when Bloomberg should be the target.

well if any bloomberg fans want to talk about how all other candidates & their voters are corrupt shills who lie about everything i'm sure they'll be called out on it.

[beanman12345]

Not a Sanders fan, but I mean.. at least they've started being somewhat realistic. Should Bernie win, he's not going to institute Medicare for All or free college. But I think at some level they know that. Most aren't being as delusional as say Trump supporter who actually thought Mexico was going to pay for a wall or that he was going to jail Hillary Clinton.

We aren't gonna get hardly any of the shit any of these candidates are promising because we won't have a super majority in the senate, even if we win the majority the republicans are just gonna abuse the filibuster and nothing will continue to get done.

edit - but maybe we will be able to get some stuff passed like lower drug prescriptions and such.

[Drutt]

Not a Sanders fan, but I mean.. at least they've started being somewhat realistic. Should Bernie win, he's not going to institute Medicare for All or free college. But I think at some level they know that. Most aren't being as delusional as say Trump supporter who actually thought Mexico was going to pay for a wall or that he was going to jail Hillary Clinton.

There's clearly no way Mitch and friends will vote for M4A. I doubt anyone outside of the most delusional of people would believe that.

I feel the point is to move the needle of public opinion and create pressure. In comes a President who pushes a M4A bill as a signature piece. It gets voted down. People see the President trying to change something and look at why it isn't happening. Voters campaign to remove those blocking it.

If voters want something and those desires are thwarted by other branches of government, pressure builds against the individuals blocking it. But there needs to be a catalyst for that pressure, because it's hard to build a case for removing someone in Congress who hasn't voted against something but might. There's a good story to tell for House/Senate elections if you're a President who can say something akin to "I'm trying to implement something that public opinion is in favour of, and these specific elected officials are blocking it. Vote them out if you want to see this go through."

[mvaliz]

Not a Sanders fan, but I mean.. at least they've started being somewhat realistic. Should Bernie win, he's not going to institute Medicare for All or free college. But I think at some level they know that. Most aren't being as delusional as say Trump supporter who actually thought Mexico was going to pay for a wall or that he was going to jail Hillary Clinton.

I imagine many woman heard the same/similar from men about Women's Suffrage. Likewise southerners saying that a President wouldn't realistically abolish slavery...

Weither its true or not, shit - man - lets at least give a fucking try to get it for once! A step forward in a journey of a thousand steps is still a step forward, not a step backwards. >_<

[starlord]

I imagine many woman heard the same/similar from men about Women's Suffrage. Likewise southerners saying that a President wouldn't realistically abolish slavery...

Weither its true or not, shit - man - lets at least give a fucking try to get it for once! A step forward in a journey of a thousand steps is still a step forward, not a step backwards. >_<

so if you admit M4A is unfeasible, why the hate for warren?
and what alternatives has bernie put forth?

[Elegiac]

so if you admit M4A is unfeasible, why the hate for warren?
and what alternatives has bernie put forth?

She "waffled" (re: presented a different version than Bernie) on a plan that wasn't likely to get passed anyway so she's literally Hitler. Duh. /s

[eschatological]

A small reminder that worrying about a candidate's health is a weird american phenomenon. It almost seems a bit trollish and petty, more something I'd expect from Republican tactics.

In many strong societies people respect their elders and their wisdom and nobody concern-worries about their health to try discredit them.

I don't think anyone really gave a shit about Bernie's health UNTIL HE HAD A HEART ATTACK LAST OCTOBER AT THE AGE OF 78.

[Edge-]

Even then it seems petty and pointless to me. I don't know, maybe I'm used to a bit more civility than trying to attack someone over their health (unless they're a crook like Trump).

It's not an "attack", it's a valid concern. He's an old guy and he recently had heart attack, even if it was mild.

[eschatological]

I worked in health insurance for half a decade. EVEN IN THAT CONTEXT a request for full medical records would not include surgery reports. We would literally tell people to *stop* if they sent us surgery reports. You people are utterly deranged out of your minds.

I don't think people are asking that. I think it would be valid, however, to ask if Bernie has had a full angio workup, and what the results of that workup were.

[Elegiac]

Even then it seems petty and pointless to me. I don't know, maybe I'm used to a bit more civility than trying to attack someone over their health (unless they're a crook like Trump).

Someone dying while in office is an entirely valid concern and bringing it up is not an "attack", lol.

[Drutt]

So, a "what he meant was" argument.

We didn't accept that when it was Sarah Huckabee Sanders pulling it on behalf of Trump. It doesn't work any better when it's used on behalf of Bernie Sanders.

Yes, that kind of transparency doesn't make sense. He still openly promised it, to the media. And then walked it back. Was it a bad idea? Probably! But the person to criticize for that is Bernie Sanders, not those of us pointing it out.

No, it's a "use your common sense" argument. All words and sentences require a degree of interpretation; that's how language works. In any given situation, there are reasonable interpretations and there are unreasonable interpretations. Literal interpretations in the face of obvious logic as to why it can't be interpreted literally are inherently unreasonable.

Do you honestly think that when someone talks about releasing "all their medical records" they really mean to include graphic photographs of injuries or surgeries? Do you think they're going to release data of that time they had a nasty cold at 5.5 years of age multiple decades ago? Do you think any politician in history, or alive today, or who will exist in the future would EVER do either of those things?

The answer is obviously "no". You can expand that from politicians to any other niche or population group, and the answer is still "no". That, in turn, means you clearly can't interpret the words to that effect if you want the sentence to be hold any meaning whatsoever.

But hey, continue to expect unreasonable or non-relevant disclosures if you want. That is, of course, your right.

[shimerra]

Even then it seems petty and pointless to me. I don't know, maybe I'm used to a bit more civility than trying to attack someone over their health (unless they're a crook like Trump).

Your posts indicate otherwise. You also don't seem to fathom why a heart attack at 78 is a legitimate concern to bring up for some. So not sure we should go with your judgement on civility or his health on this one. I personally don't care, seems like he took care of it and if he's back campaigning he's probably fine as long as he follows docs orders and makes a few lifestyle changes, and even if I did a solid VP pick should be enough. But let's not pretend it isn't something a voter could have a legitimate concern about.

[Edge-]

No, it's a "use your common sense" argument. All words and sentences require a degree of interpretation; that's how language works. In any given situation, there are reasonable interpretations and there are unreasonable interpretations. Literal interpretations in the face of obvious logic as to why it can't be interpreted literally are inherently unreasonable.

Do you honestly think that when someone talks about releasing "all their medical records" they really mean to include graphic photographs of injuries or surgeries? Do you think they're going to release data of that time they had a nasty cold at 5.5 years of age multiple decades ago? Do you think any politician in history, or alive today, or who will exist in the future would EVER do either of those things?

The answer is obviously "no". You can expand that from politicians to any other niche or population group, and the answer is still "no". That, in turn, means you clearly can't interpret the words to that effect if you want the sentence to be hold any meaning whatsoever.

But hey, continue to expect unreasonable or non-relevant disclosures if you want. That is, of course, your right.

Question: Why doesn't Sanders confirm that he's released everything as promised, short of pictures of his dick, then? If he's living up to his word, why is he openly stating that he is not living up to his word, and if he's wrong about his own statements, why not clean it up with an easy correct?

"My records have been released, excluding graphic images that are immaterial to the overall results. I have held up to my commitment to be transparent."

Easy. Peasy.