If I get 1 email I'm good, anyone want to help Bernie win the nomination?

[uh-oh]

you view healthcare as a right. i don't. i view your views as infringing on peoples unalienable rights.

[boof]

Originally Posted by uh-oh

you view healthcare as a right. i don't. i view your views as infringing on peoples unalienable rights.

how is hoarding unlimited amounts of money from gaming the system an unalienable right and having access to medicine not?

do you have family that take medication?

[boof]

and how is buying a patent for a drug you didn't create and jacking up it's price so people can't afford it not infringing on the rights of people to literally just live?

[Witty]

Bernie wouldn't win...democrats really don't have a candidate who stands a chance of winning, unfortunately... trump wins 2020 imo.

[boof]

He has the most donors of any candidate this year, including Trump. He raised the most money in this most recent quarter out of any Dem candidate. He has the most money on hand out of any Dem candidate. He has the most volunteers of any candidate, including Trump. This is while polling at 18% in the primary. Clearly if he won the nomination, these numbers would all go up. Half of the country wants to defeat Trump, all blue support would have to go to him. He's beating Trump in almost every head to head poll, he outperforms every other dem candidate vs Trump. He's gone on fox news and ripped into Trump personally, talked about fighting the military industrial complex and big pharma, and received a standing ovation. He even beats Trump in right-wing polls, including fox news. He's still a registered independent, so clearly he can pull independent voters. Trump literally has no dirt on him as opposed to everyone else because Bernie doesn't lie about shit. He's corruption free. I think he has by far the best shot to win, and I think it's a pretty good one. People in the rust belt who expected manufacturing jobs to come back and got jack squat are going to be open to an alternative. Farmers who have experienced Trumps terrible trade policy(& immigration policy) will be open to an alternative.

But I definitely think Trump has a good chance of winning because he's created such a clusterfuck of scandals and the Dem establishment is so terrible at handling it that nobody really understands what's going on.

[boof]

from right-leaning source RealClearPolitics

[uh-oh]

Originally Posted by boof

how is hoarding unlimited amounts of money from gaming the system an unalienable right and having access to medicine not?

do you have family that take medication?

and how is buying a patent for a drug you didn't create and jacking up it's price so people can't afford it not infringing on the rights of people to literally just live?

i have family that take medication, its even medicare/medicaid? not sure which but my pops is on it. blood pressure/cholesterol etc

my sisters a goofball and on all the make believe anxiety/depression meds. she has top tier health insurance through her medical field job (that she's ridiculously overpaid for) though.

but yea you aren't viewing what i'm saying correctly. im not worried about the rights of pharmaceutical companies, i'm worried about the rights of the individual. i am against taxing YOU to pay for my dads pills. it infringes on your rights, it is basically theft under the threat of violence.

[uh-oh]

Originally Posted by boof

from right-leaning source RealClearPolitics

from right leaning source RealClearPolitics



polls are nonsense.

[boof]

bro, she won the popular vote by 3 mill. i know you understand that.

[Pharaohs Army]

Originally Posted by boof

let's be clear.

our goal has been to overthrow assad for over a decade. that plan has been in action since 2011.

just because we failed, doesn't mean it wasn't the plan. we've failed in venezuela as well. doesn't mean it wasn't the OBVIOUS plan. maybe you don't understand how regime change works?

If we really wanted Assad out, he'd have been out long ago. The U.S. has two problems though. 1)The alternative is backing Muslim terrorists. 2) We don't want to start a hot war with Russia by taking out their guy.

[Bladed Thesis]

"The government and all our politicians are bought and they run government for their own interests so I say we give them more of our money via taxes and more control over daily life via corporate regulations"

That's gonna be a yikes from me

[boof]

Originally Posted by Bladed Thesis

"The government and all our politicians are bought and they run government for their own interests so I say we give them more of our money via taxes and more control over daily life via corporate regulations"

That's gonna be a yikes from me

not sure where you're getting that second half, i don't support any new corporate regulations, i support less corporate influence & regulations that help people.

the only new tax would be on healthcare which replaces the current, much more costly out of pocket system.

also i obviously support the one guy that's not bought

[boof]

Originally Posted by Pharaohs Army

If we really wanted Assad out, he'd have been out long ago. The U.S. has two problems though. 1)The alternative is backing Muslim terrorists. 2) We don't want to start a hot war with Russia by taking out their guy.

tbc that first sentence still doesn't mean anything. we tried, we failed. 2012's timber sycamore operation's entire objective was to arm rebel groups to overthrow assad. tbc there was no genocide perpetrated by assad. there were protests against a police state. we took that social momentum and instead filled the country with foreign rebel groups. for a few months syrians welcomed them thinking they were there to help, but soon after they murdered(with our weapons), raped, kidnapped, looted, sold food back to locals at elevated prices, and that's been the story for 7 years. locals are more afraid of the groups we back than the actual syrian army. we(u.s., saudi, u.k, qatar, turkey, etc) made life hell for syrians. we've been backing jihadist extremists this entire time. we faked two chemical attacks to try and overthrow assad. russia's known this the entire time, as has the rest of the world(which was our actual problem with overthrowing assad). the situation is 1,000x more complex than what you just surmised. cia trained rebel groups, we gave arms to groups we knew had connections to al qaeda, the free syrian army are actual extremists, we funded/branded/armed them, bunch of our weapons ended up sold on the black market directly to groups like isis & isil, who have been funded by our ally saudi arabia. it's a proxy war to destabilize syria to overthrow assad that failed. american troops have been illegally occupying syrian oil fields making it impossible for the rest of the country to obtain oil. we've imposed some of the strictest sanctions in the world on syria, and the effects have only hurt syrian people, not assad or his administration at all. it's a failed regime change, to a t.

[Bladed Thesis]

Originally Posted by boof

not sure where you're getting that second half, i don't support any new corporate regulations, i support less corporate influence & regulations that help people.

the only new tax would be on healthcare which replaces the current, much more costly out of pocket system.

also i obviously support the one guy that's not bought

So much to unpack here and in your other comments but I don't think you're interested in having a discussion where your opinion can be changed so I'll just say you said the "poorly regulated corporate class" meaning you want them regulated and, by association, their corporations regulated. You want more regulations. "Regulations that help people" is such a general statement, it's almost a non-statement. It means nothing. And you harped on uh-oh for wanting less regulation, I inferred that would mean you prefer more regulations.

Imagine thinking Bernie Sanders is not bought. He made 400k in book royalties in 2018 alone. I think by definition that means bought. "Everybody else's person is bought except my guy." 600k summer home to go along with his other two properties. That's gonna be a yikes from me.

[Live heat]

Fucc with bladed thesis...

[NYCSPITZ]

With Bernie we gon get free college fam. Go back and steal the 23 y/o hotties from college noobs. Only competition would be sports players and the 1%-5% with lotta swag. Light workkk go sanders imo. He accelerates our only life prerogative which is procreation however with LEV we may live to see 500 years old imho (offhand chance)

[boof]

Originally Posted by Bladed Thesis

So much to unpack here and in your other comments but I don't think you're interested in having a discussion where your opinion can be changed so I'll just say you said the "poorly regulated corporate class" meaning you want them regulated and, by association, their corporations regulated. You want more regulations. "Regulations that help people" is such a general statement, it's almost a non-statement. It means nothing. And you harped on uh-oh for wanting less regulation, I inferred that would mean you prefer more regulations.

Imagine thinking Bernie Sanders is not bought. He made 400k in book royalties in 2018 alone. I think by definition that means bought. "Everybody else's person is bought except my guy." 600k summer home to go along with his other two properties. That's gonna be a yikes from me.

I'm open to whatever you wanna talk about. I was being vague because uh-oh oversimplifies everything. In general, yeah corporations that make tens of billions of dollars a year without paying taxes, I would like regulations that ensure they pay their taxes for as long as the rest of us are paying taxes. That is a regulation that would help people as tens of billions of dollars in extra tax revenue can easily pay for things that help general society, under the right leadership of course. I support regulations that prevent the corporate class from destroying the planet from an environmental standpoint, and regulations that keep them from exploiting the working class, in general. If you want to get more specific, let's do it.

But imagine thinking a guy that made 400k off of a best-selling book is "bought". By who? His publisher lol? Do you not know how much the rest of Congress takes from outside influence? How familiar are you with how this works? Because it seems like very little from that statement.

It's so crazy to me that people still don't understand the outrageous difference between Bernie and the rest. Like, that's WHY he has the most donations. We know his track record. The receipts all exist.

Bernie's been in elected office for 30 years. His tax returns show before his best-selling book, his family was consistently bringing in under 300k. Bernie's salary is 175k, they also receive social security.

175k x 30 years = $5.25M in salary alone. It wasn't always 175k, but the point is his total networth after 30 years is 2.5 million. Including recent best sellers.

If you don't know Bernie is as financially modest as a congressperson gets, and all of congress knows that, you're a goofball. He shops at Kohls, almost always flies coach, he drives a prius, like bro the proof is in the pudding. Go look at his "properties". One is the one he's had for 30 years, one is the one he has in D.C. because when you work in D.C. you work there a lot. Obviously. 99% of congress has a second home in D.C.

Then they recently sold an old family property and used the money to buy a new family property. That's the whole story.

Most congress members take in millions of dollars a year from corporations, superpac's and lobbyists. At the very least hundreds of thousands of dollars.

If you didn't know, Bernie doesn't take Superpac or Corporate donations. This is the only thing that really matters in regards to succumbing to outside influence. This is why we know he has the best chance of actually getting things done.

If you didn't know, some other congresspeople that have been around as long as Bernie are worth 25M, 45M, etc.

You can look at opensecrets.org for information on who takes money from where.


But ultimately, even as a 1%'er now, we support Bernie because of his long consistent track record of fighting for the right shit no matter what. It's clear as day. If you aren't convinced, literally just go watch a few videos of him from any decade on youtube. There is no other candidate like Bernie. Again, that's why we support him.

[boof]

It's not 'everybody is bad but my guy' its 'everybody is bad but this guy so that's why he's my guy'

[boof]

a few good ones

[Bladed Thesis]

Man, you hate to do it but...

Originally Posted by boof

1 - people desperate for change are not confined to the far left.

True.

Originally Posted by boof

the "far left" are people that understand and support the policies on the table that actually help the desperation in this country.

Generalizing the far left as the only ones that care doesn’t get you very far. Far left isn’t the people who care, everybody cares, to varying degrees. Also, if you think there is desperation in the country, you should go to a third world country. Sometimes, gaining perspective can be a good thing

Originally Posted by boof

msm has told the middle and right these policies are radical and communist and blah blah because those are media companies owned by the industries that will lose profit if implemented.

I think our definitions of mainstream media are very different if you think the mainstream media has been against these policies. Also, I think a common mistake when representing these policies is the assertion that they’re socialist (you said communist but that’s not the critique but I’ll allow it)

Originally Posted by boof

people are desperate for change on the left and the right(hence trump). the middle is fine with the status quo because they are typically middle class and don't understand what's happening because they are glued to msnbc.

Nobody is glued to MSNBC, hate to tell you. The numbers don’t lie. But I do agree, most sides of the country aren’t happy where they’re at and the middle tends to lean where they think there is a benefit to them. That’s part of humanity.

Originally Posted by boof

if what you're saying is true about trump vs. radical left, then biden would be smooth sailing, but he's not because his policy stances do not resonate.

No, Biden doesn’t resonate because he makes mistakes in speeches constantly, has questionable ties to multiple issues, and doesn’t have the support of his running mate who was a successfully elected president twice and hasn’t endorsed him yet. Also, he’s a career politician who hasn’t accomplished much and comes off as a creepy grandpa to a lot of the electorate.

Originally Posted by boof

to be clear, no one running is radical left. bernie is the furthest, and he is just simply left. it only feels radical because the national spectrum has been pulled to the right over the last 20 years.

Incorrect. Sanders is considered radical left because he steps away from the standard liberal progressive policies that are capitalistic in their nature and has moved the base of the party towards socialism (for good or for bad, that’s up to you). You are correct is stating that radical left in the US is not radical left when taking into consideration international politics but we’re not talking international politics, we’re talking domestic. Also, if you think the national political spectrum has pulled right the last 20 years, you’re living in a bubble and I don’t know if we can save you. The amount of social policies in the last 20 years that fly in the face of your logic is astounding. Gay marriage, LGBTQ+ rights, social welfare programs, healthcare through the PPACA to just name a few.

Originally Posted by boof

2 - i disagree centrism is the only way to take votes from the right. but truthfully the focus is probably more on the third of the electorate that didn't vote last time. the goal is more so to get those people involved.

Then you haven’t been paying attention to politics long enough to form an opinion that one could considered educated enough to then give people advice or have discussions. The middle has always been where elections are won or lost. Trump won because the middle didn’t find Clinton appealing. Most polls had Clinton’s electability near the 30s for moderates. Obama won because the middle found his promises and charisma appealing and he was the first African American with a chance. Polling data showed that.

Originally Posted by boof

but like i said, bernie did a town hall on fox news, ripping into trump, announcing that he would take on big pharma, the military industrial complex, fight for medicare for all. he got a standing ovation. left & right agree on a lot of those issues.

This isn’t a logical statement. Are we assigning value to events that occur on Fox News? If it’s an event you reference here, should we reference other events on Fox News that get applause for policies that counter Bernie’s? Or are we cherrypicking to prove a point? I think there’s a logical fallacy about that.

Originally Posted by boof

3 - polls are polls. they are the opinions of people polled at that time. nobody is afraid to give support to trump in a poll lol

2016 says hello and later surveys found that peoples’ political opinions DID play a role in the pre-election polls. Do you follow the election cycle at all or just your candidate. These things were widely discussed across the political spectrum. The silent voter is a real thing that has been observed and quantified in numerous elections.

Originally Posted by boof

but usually the polls are biased against young voters and independents. i look at the demographics of each poll carefully to see if they're worth a shit or not. some of them are. some are not. the ones on tv usually are manipulated or weighted in certain directions, usually old, likely voters.

All polls are biased but usually NOT because of demographics. Usually it is due to sample size and the polls line of questioning. A poll can be designed, implemented and published showing any number of things, even among the same demographic showing the exact opposite thing from another poll done to the exact same demographic.

Originally Posted by boof

this just sounds like an opinion of yours. it's clear as day that fox news frames every basic social program and anything bernie & aoc say like communism.

Socialism, my dude. You need to learn your own phrases if you want to discuss things from even a slightly open minded position. They are framed as socialism because they are socialism. Good or bad, that an entirely different discussion but they are socialism.

Originally Posted by boof

it's a fact that cnn and msnbc are sponsored by big pharma & health insurance companies and treat medicare for all like an impossibility. it's a fact that jeff bezos owns the washington post

Now this is some conspiracy theory level thought analysis.

Originally Posted by boof

and would pay tens of billions of dollars in taxes under a Sanders presidency & they happen to frame his wealth tax as "just plain bad & unfair". there are an endless amount of examples i can recite here.

Originally Posted by boof

choosing to make healthcare non-profit is not radical. choosing to make public universities less-profit driven is not radical.

Originally Posted by boof

it's literally the way things were when our parents were kids, and also during our most prosperous middle class era of the last century.

Except it literally isn’t the way they were before. Thinking that isolationist American of the 60s was actually a socialist paradise is truly astounding. It was the exact opposite of what you’re calling for when it comes down to politic policies. When there was less social welfare, everybody worked 60 hours a week and the world was a different place internationally? You cannot compare the two and harken back to the good ole days based solely on Sanders’ policies.

Originally Posted by boof

the rest of private industry that doesn't serve as a public utility is unaffected. like, you live in ohio bro. haven't you connected the dots that the corporate freedom and liberty of enacting bad trade policy is why youngstown, cleveland, etc look like shit and all the malls are gone and everyones a truck driver?

Do you live under a rock? Corporate freedom and liberty of bad trade policies caused the collapse of malls and truck drivers while also destroying the appearance of cities? Do you live in youngstown or cleveland? What’s your point of reference for their appearance and livability? Globalization caused the trade policies and that also happens to be a progressive policy at that. And if the free market caused the unsustainability of Cleveland or Youngstown, so? That’s the whole point. If we start caring for the environment and eliminate coal plants across the country, those towns and cities built around those coal plants will also look like shit and disappear and die. So are you saying that’s bad? That’s how it works when it comes to the free market. People are free to move or stay where they live. Do you understand how an economy works at all? What is your background in economic theory?

Originally Posted by boof

don't you think it's fucked that families have to pay thousands of dollars a month for medication?

Placate to emotions. This statement has no bearing on our discussion.

Originally Posted by boof

skipping this one

Yeah, dodge that one.

Originally Posted by boof

listen the policies of a Sanders platform are what they are. They stand for the right things.

In your opinion, from your current economical position. The majority of the country seemingly disagrees.

Originally Posted by boof

they've always aimed for the same principals. if they for some reason don't appeal to you, there's nothing anyone's going to do to coax you into it. the goal is to let everyone that would benefit know about it and let them choose.

That’s gonna be a yikes from me.

Originally Posted by boof

there's at least 100 million people who's lives are seriously saved or dramatically improved under these policies.

Can I get a source on that 100 million people please?

Originally Posted by boof

that's why he has 1.4 million donations, $33 million on hand, $18 at a time from teachers, tradespeople, warehouse workers, truckdrivers, nurses, unions, etc.

And PACs. Don’t forget those. In fact, of his top 10 donators the majority is PAC money. Top 20 has 16 PACs. These aren’t $18 at a time from teachers, tradespeople, warehouse works, nurses...

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-...le=2020&type=C
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-...ecs=100&type=I

Originally Posted by boof

this is not meant to sound pitchy it's literally just who the majority of his support is from.

Okay.

Originally Posted by boof

but just to see lets pick the last policy he released & u lmk why you don't want it

Go for it.

Originally Posted by boof

so say the auto body shop i assume you still work at

Oh this is going to be good. Placate to emotions incoming.

Originally Posted by boof

starts crushing it or sells out to a big vendor and now they're worth 100 mill or decide to go public

Privately owned body shop so they are not beholden to their employees

Originally Posted by boof

.... right now & under a trump admin they can and will keep paying you the same amount despite this surge.

That was the contractual agreement made when hired at the job unless the contract stipulated that the sale of the business would pay dividends to employees.

Originally Posted by boof

you might be way busier at work now

That was the job applied for, being busier or slower effects nothing in terms of the employee.

Originally Posted by boof

or might have added responsibilities for a dollar or two raise

If that comes with an alteration to the contract that was agreed with the employee, okay. The dollar amount changes nothing. Don’t like the job, you can go get employed elsewhere

Originally Posted by boof

maybe a $500 christmas bonus

How nice.

Originally Posted by boof

obviously as little as they can get away with

Well, that’s a bias on your part. Also, if the bonus was stipulated in the contract, it was agreed upon by the employee. I give my employees great Christmas bonuses with no contractual obligation because I enjoy giving gifts. And it’s a gift so I dictate the amount, not the employee.

Originally Posted by boof

that's about it

Wait, you’re done? I thought you had a point.

Originally Posted by boof

you have no say.

You’re an employee. Why would you have a say in a company who’s start up capital you did not provide, who’s risk you didn’t not take on your shoulders, in which you had no vested interest. If the reverse happens and the business dies out and goes bankrupt, would the employee have to pay to keep the business afloat out of their own pockets? Would the employee be at risk of going bankrupt strictly due to that specific business closing? The answer is no. The employee has no risk or vested interest in the business. They have a contractual agreement for employment. Have you ever started a business or run a business?

Originally Posted by boof

under a sanders presidency the company you work for would give 45% of it's board of director seats to you and your co-workers

Y

Originally Posted by boof

voted in by you and your co-workers

I

Originally Posted by boof

every year 2% of the total stock value of that company is given to you and your co-workers

K

Originally Posted by boof

until it hits 20%.

E

Originally Posted by boof

who you goin' with on this one

S

Classically placating to emotions with little understanding of how a business actually runs or works. I’m going with the one that supports the economic theory that has created some of the greatest wealth the world has ever seen and created an affluent middle class that is rich in 99% of the rest of the world.

This is not how you grow wealth as a country or planet. This is not how you innovate the technology that gave us the internet, phones, smart cars, holograms, space technology, solar energy. This is how you kill small and medium size business. This is how you shutdown mom and pop shops and create a world where only massive corporations can compete. This is how you gatekeep a market. This isn’t the way to win and you’re so clearly out of your depth when it comes to economic theory I cannot even put it into words.

Yeah, that’s gonna be a yikes from me.

Originally Posted by boof

i seriously don't get this type of disconnect. don't you understand that the free market bought the government and effectively dictate all industry related legislation?

This is a bias and assumption with some basis in reality but not entirely.

Originally Posted by boof

what we live in right now is the result of a poorly regulated corporate class

By “what we live in now” I’m going to assume you aren’t referring to the largest creation of wealth and affluence bottom to top in the history of the world and the largest leaps in technological advancement across all fields ever seen in our history along with the greatest raising of global population quality of life the world has ever seen and it’s only getting faster and better? Are you not talking about that?

Originally Posted by boof

it is the result of enormous corporate power and greed

Probably.

Originally Posted by boof

and your view on how to fix things is to regulate them less?

It’s a theory.

Originally Posted by boof

don't you understand the disfunction of health care, pharmaceuticals is solely because of greed?

There are many doctoral papers and essays that go at this from both sides but it certainly was not solely due to greed. Also, are we going to completely discount the massive innovation in medical technology, pharmaceuticals, medicine, hospitals, patient care that this greed created? In the span of a few hundred years, we’ve almost doubled life expectancy, eliminate vast numbers of diseases and plagues that once crippled the world, broken open DNA, thought then designed then created artificial organs, invented something so simple yet amazing as the digestible pill to transfer medicine into the body, PENICILLIN, ANTIBODIES, recombinant dna, Prozac. I could go on. All created by greed. I think we did okay.

Originally Posted by boof

in a completely free market pharma companies would do exactly what they're doing now

Spending their money to make new drugs and new cures to sell and make more money, all the while curing diseases, saving lives and extending our life expectancy as a species beyond what was thought possible only a few hundred years ago

Originally Posted by boof

split the market share to not step on each others toes

We need all kinds of drugs for all kinds of sicknesses, illness, birth defects and mysteries of the human body will still don’t understand. And?

Originally Posted by boof

and in unison jack up prices for everyone

Possibly. Cancer won’t cure itself.

Originally Posted by boof

which already results in tens of thousands of deaths a year

Citation.

Originally Posted by boof

simply from having no regulation on how high prices can be

There is but I won’t spoil that one for you.

Originally Posted by boof

why do you think without any government interference that this would suddenly drive prices down?

Suddenly? No. That’s wishful thinking. But prices do go down? How do I know? Um, history? Like when tylenol went cost an inflation adjusted price of $40 a pill when created. Or Lasik. Or MRIs. Or braces. Or heart surgery. Or EVERYTHING ever. Do you understand economies and how they work? Do you understand supply and demand? Is this a troll?

Originally Posted by boof

Or where are you getting the idea that they would decide to compete instead of doing what they're doing now?

What they’re doing now? Like competing?

Originally Posted by boof

do you realize that these industries have literally never done better in the history of our country?

Because our country has never done better in the history of our country? And?

Originally Posted by boof

and your solution is to let them do even better

So they can cure cancer? Yeah, I’ll have some of that with a side order of alzheimers cure please.

Originally Posted by boof

and hope they don't continue making everything more unaffordable?

History is your friend.

Originally Posted by boof

did martin shkreli teach you nothing?

I already knew assholes existed. Did you just figure this out?

Originally Posted by boof

do you not have family on medication?

Placate to emotions.

Originally Posted by boof

like legit i don't understand this stance.

Or economics. Or supply and demand. I’m noticing there’s a lot you don’t understand. Doesn’t stop you from googling a phrase and thinking your twenty minutes internet research means you’re knowledgeable on the subject. I guess we all have our blindspots.

Originally Posted by boof

we spend twice as much on healthcare as any developed nation

Yeah, things aren’t perfect. Nobody said they were.

Originally Posted by boof

this is because of private industry.

The many reasons I’ve already listed show this statement is in fact not objective.

Originally Posted by boof

please make the case of how price gouging stops under less regulation.

History has already established the laws of supply and demand.

Originally Posted by boof

do you understand that as these industries continue to make trillions of dollars

Come on, cure that cancer, boys.

Originally Posted by boof

that all of that money goes to billionaires

Who spend upwards of $200m of their own money to finance the research and development of the drugs we hope cure cancer. And?

Originally Posted by boof

who hoard it in offshore accounts

Our tax laws suck and there are loopholes that need to be plugged.

Originally Posted by boof

stocks

It’s their company, they can’t even own stock? Damn, you are a hard one.

Originally Posted by boof

assets

Now they can’t buy anything either? Shit, bruh.

Originally Posted by boof

literally siphoning it out of the middle & lower class economy?

Haha, there middle class and lower class economy? You don’t know what the words you’re putting together mean, do you? Jesus christ.

Originally Posted by boof

meaning every year this continues

Come on, cure cancer, boys!

Originally Posted by boof

we have less to grab ourselves

This is incorrect.

https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-a...story-3306189?

Originally Posted by boof

this being why the middle class is shrinking

For what reason? Hint:

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/yes-t...afford-a-home/

Originally Posted by boof

and everyone lives paycheck to paycheck?

Everyone? Generalizations are not your friend. Also, some people might live paycheck to paycheck for different reasons. Some people have bad financial habits. Some people buy fast food instead of cooking at home. Some people want design brands while I couldn’t care less. Some people rent instead of buy homes. Some people get into credit card debt early. Some people are just dumb.

Originally Posted by boof

you realize trickle down isn't a thing right?

This guy.

Originally Posted by boof

let me reiterate. congress is made up almost entirely

Entirely? Bernie gets included in that.

Originally Posted by boof

of politicians that do corporate bidding.

Cue the x-files theme.

Originally Posted by boof

how can you criticize the government's incompetence without recognizing their actions 100% reflect what the corporate class wants?

The circular logic is astounding. Bravo.

Originally Posted by boof

the point is that we are saying there are industries' whose main function shouldn't be to profit like a business

You don’t understand economics.

Originally Posted by boof

such as ones that are the catalyst of our own people living or dying

Placate to emotions from a state of misunderstanding. Tickle me surprised.

Originally Posted by boof

you are looking only at the business side and not at all at the actual intended function of healthcare. which is weird.

Why not both? I love umbrella terms like healthcare when you’re referring to massive industries, business, various areas of research and development, etc.

Originally Posted by boof

if you make this a nonprofit sector, the people who are in business solely to make money can go to a different sector

Guess we’re not curing cancer, guys.

Originally Posted by boof

where their product/service is not the determining factor of someone dying or not.

What? Please read what you wrote and slap yourself. This is the dumbest thing I’ve read yet and you’ve been pretty ignorant so far.

Originally Posted by boof

the people who are in this sector to genuinely produce medicine

You just said get them out. They’re the same people. This is your Ahha moment. Oprah would be so proud.

Originally Posted by boof

& save lives will stay.

They’re the same people.

Originally Posted by boof

you act like nobody is interested in actual healthcare

Wow, it’s like you have no idea what you’re talking about. Where have I seen that before?

Originally Posted by boof

just the profit

Shh, he’s becoming self aware and doesn’t see it.

Originally Posted by boof

when the industries have actually just been corrupted by people more interested in money than healthcare.

Irony.

Originally Posted by boof

again, like i said, it didn't used to be this way.

Oh, buddy, I’m going to need the citations on this one.

Originally Posted by boof

and when it didnt, medicine was affordable.

Citations please.

Originally Posted by boof

300k people a year weren't going into medical bankruptcy

They weren’t getting any care at all and dying. Do you even read history? What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by boof

why are you so purposely dismissive of the dysfunctional and cruel results?

It’s a matter of perspective. And history. You don’t seem to understand either.

Originally Posted by boof

you're supporting a system that bankrupts sick people for profit.

That’s one way to look at it. Definitely not a subjective statement.

Originally Posted by boof

why do you see healthcare as a money making business

Oh deary me.

Originally Posted by boof

instead of a public utility?

:whynotbothgifhere:

Originally Posted by boof

well, because that's all you know

Mirror. Look in it.

Originally Posted by boof

but that's the result of political choices.

An assumption. Placate to my emotions please.

Originally Posted by boof

but the alternative is beneficial for our entire countries' health,

Y

Originally Posted by boof

our livelihood

I

Originally Posted by boof

our stability

K

Originally Posted by boof

our quality of life

E

Originally Posted by boof

these things are more important than money.

S

Originally Posted by boof

please answer - where are you getting the idea that the government is the reason pharmaceuticals are guaranteed to receive the outrageous prices they arbitrarily decide upon?

Supply and demand.

Originally Posted by boof

you realize 80million people are without insurance or underinsured, but still buy medication directly?

Citation needed but also I’ll comment. As somebody who owns and operates an insurance company, underinsured is a buzzword with very little meaning and allows for misleading statements like yours in an attempt to placate to somebody's emotions by referencing a large number using an ambiguous term like "underinsured." There are a lot of people on the roads with 100/300 liability coverage or even state minimum liability coverage and by definition that is actually considered underinsured by the NAIC. Guess what, that's their choice. So you referencing that a portion of 80m people are underinsured for health insurance, well, some people did/do that on purpose and it wasn't necessarily a problem.

Originally Posted by boof

as far as 'you would rather have the government say' this entire section is inaccurate and misrepresented.

Irony.

Originally Posted by boof

medicare for all erases all out of pocket costs

No it doesn’t. Do you understand how taxes work and that they come out of the pocket?

Originally Posted by boof

and pays for the entire system through a tax instead

Haha, this statement after the last statement is funny. Do you see why?

Originally Posted by boof

which saves hundreds of billions of dollars a year for customers.

Citation.

Originally Posted by boof

the insurance companies become obsolete

That’s not what the plan calls for. Have you read it? Jesus.

Originally Posted by boof

and the money hungry

Cancel the We Cured Cancer party.

Originally Posted by boof

go elsewhere to make their money.

NASA rejoices.

Originally Posted by boof

prescription costs are capped at $200 a month.

Yikes.

Originally Posted by boof

whatever profit that results in for pharma companies is what they will make.

True.

Originally Posted by boof

if that's not enough for them, it's a free market

The irony. Oh dear god.

Originally Posted by boof

go to a different sector that doesn't play with peoples lives.

Subjective opinion. Not really worth responding to.

Originally Posted by boof

that's pretty simple imo.

Irony.

Originally Posted by boof

also you realize these pharma companies are guilty of overprescribing addictive opioids for profit

Tickle me surprised. You also don’t understand how prescriptions are processed and written. No way.

Originally Posted by boof

starting the opioid epidemic

Think about what you said here. Can you see the problem?

Originally Posted by boof

killing millions of people?

Placate to emotions. Consider that maybe the reason some people “can’t see it” is because the way you see it and are presenting it might not be factual. Maybe?

Originally Posted by boof

this is what an essentially free market health care sector turned into.

Matter of opinion, not fact.

Originally Posted by boof

i really dont get why this is something you think should be allowed to continue other than you value the ability to make money over people's lives.

Again, matter of opinion and placate to emotions saying, “how can you be this evil?” I will reiterate that perhaps the way you see it isn’t reality and thus you don’t understand how somebody could let it continue because your starting point is wrong. Having seen the economic misunderstandings you’ve made but tried to state as fact, I’m going to hedge my bets and go with you’re not seeing things clearly.

Originally Posted by boof

you are essentially saying i would rather have 30k people die every year

Placate to emotions. Also, your paraphrasing of “essentially” what he’s saying isn’t what he was saying at all. So, again, you’re coming from a factually incorrect starting point and then basing your statement on words you’re putting into his mouth and then placating to his emotions by saying “how can you say these words you didn’t say.” Don’t respond. Self reflect on this. This is a horrible discussion and conversation technique.

Originally Posted by boof

to allow the pharmaceutical industry the freedom to make 146 billion dollars a year

Curing cancer is back on, boys!

Originally Posted by boof

instead of guaranteeing everyone the freedom of not dying

Freedom of not dying? Freedom? Jesus.

Originally Posted by boof

and having the pharmaceutical industry make 30 billion a year.

Wait, what happened to the other 116 billion? It’s almost like these numbers are being pulled out of your ass from dramatic effect. Think on that. Don’t respond. Self reflect. If you need to lean on dramatic effect to get your point across and pull numbers out of your ass to discuss a topic as sensitive as this, maybe you’re not cut out for the discussion because you cannot separate yourself from your emotions to discuss the topic at hand.

Originally Posted by boof

how is hoarding unlimited amounts of money from gaming the system an unalienable right

Actually a lot to unpack in these few words. I’ll be quick. First off, hording money is somebody’s right too. Hello. If I choose to save my money. That’s my right. It doesn’t matter if it $100 or $100 billion. If it’s somebody’s money, they can do with it as they see fit. It’s their goddamn money… what the fuck. As far as gaming the system, realize that any “loophole” or game they use to “horde” their own fucking money is literally built into the tax code and thus supposed to be used. If its not supposed to be used, remove the loophole. That’s literally up to legislature. If you have the ability to claim deductions on your travel expenses and you don’t that’s on you. I’m claiming those deductions and saving myself some money. Don’t like it? Change the tax code. Don’t blame corporations for using the means available to them to protect assets from taxes. Change the tax code. And I AGREE with you. The shit is stupid and should be changed.

Originally Posted by boof

and having access to medicine not?

The two aren’t mutually exclusive. This is a false equivalence.

Originally Posted by boof

do you have family that take medication?

“Do you have personal emotion I can placate to?” Dear god.

Originally Posted by boof

and how is buying a patent for a drug you didn't create and jacking up it's price so people can't afford it not infringing on the rights of people to literally just live?

I mean technically it’s not infringing on their rights. It is shitty, scummy and should be prevented but it’s not illegal. Don’t like it? Let’s change the laws. I agree, it’s not a practice that should be allowed. It’s also not illegal. Immoral. Not illegal.

Originally Posted by boof

He has the most donors of any candidate this year, including Trump.

But far less money. FAR less donations raised.

Originally Posted by boof

He raised the most money in this most recent quarter out of any Dem candidate.

Democrat candidate. Not Trump. Far less. Again, this was about him having no chance against Trump. Comparing his donation amount against Democrats is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by boof

He has the most money on hand out of any Dem candidate.

Again, irrelevant in a discussion of him having a chance against Trump.

Originally Posted by boof

He has the most volunteers of any candidate, including Trump.

Again, irrelevant.

Originally Posted by boof

This is while polling at 18% in the primary.

Again, irrelevent against Trump almost a year from the election when he hasn’t even won the nomination yet.

Originally Posted by boof

Clearly if he won the nomination, these numbers would all go up.

“Clearly” is a generalization and assumption. Both not good when making an authoritative statement.

Originally Posted by boof

Half of the country wants to defeat Trump,

Assumption. If that was true, he wouldn’t be president.

Originally Posted by boof

all blue support would have to go to him.

Assumption.

Originally Posted by boof

He's beating Trump in almost every head to head poll

Your previous statement concerning polls makes this assertion ironic but it’s also irrelevant. The nomination isn’t his yet so to assume the polls remain the same is not how this works.

Originally Posted by boof

he outperforms every other dem candidate vs Trump

Irrelevant to him beating Trump, comparing him to other candidates.

Originally Posted by boof

He's gone on fox news and ripped into Trump personally, talked about fighting the military industrial complex and big pharma, and received a standing ovation.

First, are we thus saying what occurs on Fox News is important? If so, and they talk about his policies and people clap are we saying his policies are bad? Carry the logic forward and you’ll get your answer. This is a statement to lend credibility to him having pull in conservative bases. If you think that, you’ve got problems.

Originally Posted by boof

He even beats Trump in right-wing polls, including fox news.

Polls are polls, you said.

Originally Posted by boof

He's still a registered independent, so clearly he can pull independent voters.

Citation? He pulled near 50/50 independents when he ran in Virginia against the Republican he ran against.

Originally Posted by boof

Trump literally has no dirt on him as opposed to everyone else

Dirt, true. Trump has Bernie’s voting record and own policies to reference. Do you understand how this works?

Originally Posted by boof

because Bernie doesn't lie about shit.

You don’t know this. It is literally impossible to know this. Again, think on this. Don’t respond. Self reflect. How can you possibly making such a sweeping statement about somebody’s character that is literally impossible to know? This is bias. That’s okay. We’re all biased. This is bias.

Originally Posted by boof

He's corruption free.

You don’t know this. It is literally impossible to know this. Again, this on this. Don’t respond. Self reflect. How can you make such a sweeping statement about something you have no clue about? You aren’t in all his meetings, you aren’t in all his phone calls. There is no way for you to know this.

Originally Posted by boof

I think he has by far the best shot to win

Personal assumption. And that’s okay.

Originally Posted by boof

and I think it's a pretty good one.

Personal belief. You’re free to share. And you’re in his campaign so of course you think he’s got a good shot. I would hope so. Who enjoys wasting their time?

Originally Posted by boof

People in the rust belt who expected manufacturing jobs to come back and got jack squat

Citation? Wait, I’ll do it and boy do I got news for you on that one.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...00-under-trump

Originally Posted by boof

are going to be open to an alternative.

Assumption. Also, I can see it now. “Trump increased manufacturing by 500k jobs and I want to close plants across the country as part of the Green New Deal.” Yep, you’re right. They’ll be flocking to him.

Originally Posted by boof

Farmers who have experienced Trumps terrible trade policy

Citation? Nah, fam, I got you. Uh oh.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1VV11U

Originally Posted by boof

(& immigration policy) will be open to an alternative.

Wow, that’s racist. And incorrect. And unrelated. Like what?

Originally Posted by boof

But I definitely think Trump has a good chance of winning

Probably. Second term presidents and all.

Originally Posted by boof

because he's created such a clusterfuck of scandals

Wait, what? Do you understand politics. This doesn’t make logical sense. He’s going to win because his administration is full of scandals? Do you understand politics at all?

Originally Posted by boof

and the Dem establishment is so terrible

They are pretty inept, no doubt.

Originally Posted by boof

at handling it that nobody really understands what's going on.

Nobody understands what’s going on is correct. You included.

Originally Posted by boof

bro, she won the popular vote by 3 mill. i know you understand that.

Representative republic. Not democracy. And that’s a good thing. Go ahead, ask me why. I’d be amazed and venmo you $50 if you explain the historical and sociopolitical standpoint of why a representative republic is more ideal than a democracy. I know, I know. It hurts to see the team that scores more points lose and it’s hard to wrap your head around it but it exists for a very important reason. At least we know you have no educational background in political science. And if you do, that’s an even bigger yikes from me.