[boof]

i said the far left is comprised of people that understand the policies on the table would help lots of people. you decided to interpret it as me saying they're the only ones that care? terrible way to start and i almost stopped there.

using third world desperation to normalize our own is something that gave away your financial status quickly. the idea of this in general is disgusting to me.

i used the term communism instead of socialism because i was talking to uh-oh, and lots of people in uh-oh's area of the spectrum do in fact conflate socialism with communism, all the time. in fact, a lot of the approaches i took were specifically because i was talking to uh-oh. it's honestly weird af to me that you broke all this down like it was meant for you.

your section about elections being won with centrists is not inaccurate, i was stating simply that the biggest goal of bernie's campaign is a political revolution by getting those not currently involved into the process, as opposed to pushing centrists to the left.


I don't disagree with anything you said about Biden.
thought it was pretty well known that the established left here is dead center, and in issues of war leaning right. bernie's platform is where the left is supposed to be. as you pointed out on an international scale he is not radical. i was speaking from an international perspective. to uh-oh. as far as being pulled to the right, i would have more accurately conveyed what i meant by saying the national dialogue, not spectrum, and over the last few years, not 20. i wrote that in a hurry, as i will this.

bernie on fox was meant only to give an example of bernie doing well with a right leaning audience.

your shit about cleveland and youngstown was silly. i am from that area. so is uh-oh. this is why i brought it up. they are places that lost millions of manufacturing jobs due to trade policy. you can call it progressive policy if you want, but it was bad policy for american jobs, obviously.

it seems like you don't understand how PAC's work. bringing them up as if it means the working class isn't responsible for those donations? did you not see the names of the PAC's? do you think the working class are not involved in those PAC's? do you think PAC means SuperPAC?

the majority of the country supports taxing the wealthy, medicare for all, raising the minimum wage, etc.


after that all i remember is you started breaking down fragments of sentences before the point was made and it was really goofy.

all i can say is i'm not surprised to find out you own an insurance company, or that you don't want 45% of your board to be filled with employees or to give them 20% of your stock value, or that you don't know medicare for all aims to make private health insurance companies obsolete, or that you don't know it will save hundreds of billions of dollars a year over the current system.

i am surprised you tried to conflate out of pocket health expenses with a flat tax rate. i am also surprised that you're not aware of the pharmaceutical company tactic of re-patenting similar drugs over and over and over solely for sales reasons and not at all for genuine development of medicine. i'm also surprised you don't know about how dysfunctional the medical device approval process is.

i am astonished that your answer for pharmaceutical companies jacking up prices in unison is because they're trying to cure cancer. as well as insinuating the healthcare industry is this expensive.... to help cure cancer. and that billionaires spend their hard earned money to try and.... cure cancer.

it's insane to hear you talk about how to actually grow wealth as a country when my obvious concern is the working class who's wealth has been stagnant for 40 years. it's also insane to hear you talk about killing mom & pops shops and small business' while defending a system that allows giant corporations to do just that, all across the country. as well as online.

you're clearly not familiar with the conspiring amongst pharma giants.

i become uninterested in your lecture when you talk about how you agree with me concerning changes to the law when that is literally the whole point i'm making here, supporting someone that will fight to change those laws, pointing out their deep flaws and how they came to be.

as far as hillary winning by 3 mill, uh-oh argued that because the polls are similar for hillary in 2016 vs. bernie in 2019 that it's a bad way to make the case that he can beat trump. i was saying, if that's what the polls translated to, that's a good case for bernie. not a bad one.

and you're crazy if you think i'm going to read an article that starts with 'americans aren't struggling to buy a home' . you desperately need on the ground experience with working class communities across the country.

not sure what you meant by bernie and independents in virginia. sounds like an error on your part.

as far as not knowing if bernie is capable of lying or being corrupt, to be completely honest i have dozens of friends and associates that have worked closely with bernie including in the 90's, in early 2000's, in the last election cycle, and right now. but even if i didn't, i'm a good judge of character, and he has a long list of credentials proving his intentions. if you don't understand that, that's fine. don't ask me to self-reflect though, it might actually do you more good to think about why you aren't sure of his intentions after 40 years of consistent action and fighting, regardless of who's watching, while your only leg to stand on to say otherwise is his 3 homes with a total worth of ~2 million lol.

hopefully you understand 400k jobs is not a lot compared to the 7 million lost.

as far as the big pharma numbers being pulled out of my ass, it was the amount they made last year compared to a rough estimate of what they would make under medicare for all. correct me if you'd like, i'm all ears.