'What Happened' Is A Slap In America's Face

Post Reply New Topic

Warning: This video contains swearing. It's understandable because well-intentioned liberals are being led astray.

Did I mention that 'What Happened' is a tidal wave of unadulterated filth? Well ... I did ... but I will just keep saying this until my fellow liberals listen to me.

If you are just going to say "But Clinton isn't as bad as Trump." then don't bother posting in this thread. Clinton has slandered Bernie Sanders multiple times. This is inexcusable behavior.

Grief bro, you're taking Bernie broing too far

I got six minutes in and all this guy had talked about was the number of debates in the primaries so I stopped listening.

If he had a decent point near the end then either post it yourself or choose a video that doesn't make you sit through six minutes of hot air before it says anything substantial.

I can understand that, if you're an anticapitalist, then hearing what the centre-left thinks of anticapitalism is going to be hard, but that doesn't mean that they're wrong to criticise you.

Clinton isn't as bad as Sanders.

Clinton probably would have had her share of scandals---like Trump might have his share of scandals.

But at least she knows what's she doing; whereas Trump is "learning on the job."

She does seem to have a "getting up on the wrong side of the bed" quality to her, though......

Explain.

Sanders wants to introduce universal health care to the United States. Clinton sees this as unrealistic.

That alone makes Sanders better.

Two things.

1. There is no such thing as a Bernie Bro. "Bernie Bro" is an idiotic term that Clinton supporters use to describe Bernie supporters. They are essentially claiming that Bernie Supporters are MRAs ... even though that makes no sense whatsoever. I could just as easily call Clinton a Nazi since she has fought against a black man and a Jew.
2. It's impossible to support Bernie too much! He's a hero!

The problem is centrism lacks enthusiasm and trust. Despite what out-of-touch retirees and upper middle class boomers think, the US still hasn't recovered from the 2008 recession. People not living in a privileged bubble can sense that things have changed. Despite low unemployment statistics, employment is more insecure than ever. Politicians ignore these things and pat themselves on the back at their own risk. Politicians make money giving secret talks to wealthy donors at their own risk. They need to learn that these things make them look very untrustworthy.

Truth be told, I would say to any liberal that even if you believe some proposals look unrealistic to you, it is still better to support a candidate who can actually win than throw every election over to the Republicans by only putting up a weak "centrist" opposition. That someone like Trump can win despite being unpopular with a majority of Americans says something is very wrong with our political system.

I also fail to see how it universal healthcare is such a radical idea when not even the most far right parties in developed countries with government managed healthcare want to take away their citizens rights and go back to an American style for-profit industry with no assurance to the ill and vulnerable members of society. I just fail to see how propping up the status-quo so as not to upset the health insurance and big pharma lobby is "centrist".

I recognize the term Bernie Bro as a purist Bernie Sanders supporter that can see no wrong or faults in the work of Bernie Sanders. I don't admire Clinton either but Sanders faults and specifically the faults of his hardcore supporters are evident

Sanders is finished. He'll be lucky to be alive next election.

He can't beat the 535 super-delegate advantage that the winner will have.

He won't attract the donors.

He tells Democrats, "I am not a Democrat" to Democrats.

His "brilliant" idea is to raise taxes on people.

Most Americans have employer provided, retiree provided, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare ... low cost or mostly free health care, and he thinks there is a "problem", and the "solution" to that problem is to create a new health tax, so they end up paying hundreds, or thousands of dollars more for health care. Huh?

In my state, the Republican governor tried to raise the gas tax a few pennies for the schools, and the public voted it down. The idea that Sanders thinks he can stroll in and take a huge portion of a person's paycheck is nuts.

He wants to steal 8.8% of your entire income (2.2% new health tax, .4% new family leave tax, 6.2% new health tax paid by employer for worker). Huh?

That's why Clinton would of been better.

Sanders didn't have a prayer of getting these taxes passed.

Sanders appears so uncompromising that I think Clinton could of got more done.

Heck, even Trump can't get anything done.

And this is why our system is a slap in the face to democracy. Running for political office shouldn't require the approval of rich donors.


Privileged selfish people whine about taxes interfering with their ability to buy a second yacht while others can't afford health treatment needed just to alleviate suffering or stay alive. Eventually the rich will choke on their own greed.


Your Republican friends want to gut these systems and throw sick people and poor people under the bus.


Well, the public didn't trust Clinton due to her past neocon tendencies and overall shadiness. If the plutocrat owned DNC refuses to give the people a candidate who can actually win a general election, I will just assume the plutocrat owned DNC is working for the Republican pigs. People are getting really tired of the corruption. Really, really tired. They are tired of plutocrats accepting radical right-wing extremist while actively sabotaging anyone remotely left of center. They are tired of Washington politics being defined by compromises between centrist Democrats and right-wing extremists Republicans. If nothing changes I expect bombs will be going off in Goldman Sacks headquarters. People will eventually decide to drag the bastards into the streets. People don't want to live in a country where wealthy elites get to decide who is or is-not allowed to run for office, regardless of popularity.

This book indicates that Clinton is going to run again. She probably won't win the nomination but she has more than enough remaining support to divide and distract the Democrats enough to hurt the party's chances in 2020.

It's the working poor and middle class that will stand up to his tax increases.

Like union members who get "cadillac health plans" through their employer. They will say, "hey I get this benefit in lieu of pay". "I shouldn't have to give my money to someone else who chooses pay over benefits".

It probably is unrealistic. Certainly Sanders' recent proposals on how you could fund "Medicare for all" were unrealistic. Even his own best-case estimates only provided 50% of the money necessary. There are better options out there, such as offering a public option under Obamacare. The current American system is bad, but Sanders' proposals went beyond even our NHS which we're struggling to afford and will probably have to radically reform in my lifetime.

Sanders' views on trade and taxation were the worst things about him. His opposition to free trade, uncritically repeating lies about it being bad for the American economy, helped to kill TPP, harming ordinary Americans and forcing millions to continue living in poverty with poor working conditions. His taxation policies, particularly a huge rise in capital gains tax (from 20% top rate to 54.2%!), would do severe damage to the American economy and lead to millions losing their jobs.

On top of that, there's this comparison of their actual voting records. Chances are, looking at that, there are one or two things where you think Bernie got it right and Hillary got it wrong. But equally, chances are you look at that and think Hillary got it right more often than not.

I'd agree that there's a messaging problem with a lot of centrist stuff. I don't think it's inherently uninspirational. Remember 2008? Obama ran on a centrist platform and won easily. That was a time when America inspired the world's respect. 2012, too, Obama's victory was in little doubt.

Clinton's policies, as they were, were pretty inspirational, although she was forced to concede many of her most radical ideas because Sanders opposed them (I'm thinking of liberal immigration reform and trade in particular). One issue was that her policies barely got any attention. People were too busy laughing at Trump's ridiculous proposals, and there was an assumption that Hillary's personality would win like Obama's did. Despite having the best policy platform an American president has ever run on, Clinton's team didn't emphasise it enough.

A left-wing candidate would be much less likely to win than a centrist. You know as well as I do that if Bernie had won the nomination (which he couldn't even manage) he would have been slaughtered by independents and wouldn't have won the Republican crossover votes that Hillary managed. Thanks to the cold war, lots of Americans offhandedly reject anything left of Clinton. Bernie called himself a socialist, which for most people is a huge negative. The Republicans would have called him a communist and united behind Trump or perhaps a new moderate like McMullin.

There are more ways to make sure that the poor have quality, affordable healthcare than getting the government to provide everyone with glasses and dentist appointments. I think I would favour widening free access to basic care, heavily subsidising it for the lower middle-class who just miss out, and gradually withdrawing that subsidy as people get richer and more able to pay. Most people would pay little or nothing to see a GP, but may be expected to contribute towards things like prescription drugs.

Not true. For God's sake, Obama was left of Clinton. I have yet to see evidence that Bernie would have been a worse candidate than Clinton against Trump. You have no idea how unpopular both candidates were.

You should also note that Bernie lost the nomination due to undemocratic DNC rules. The majority of people on the left are not registered Democrats. They are restricted from voting in democratic primaries in most states.


I'm open to people not as far left as Bernie, but the problem was Clinton had no message at all. In order to deal with the problem of healthcare, the government needs to seriously look at ways to stop the ridiculous rising costs. I don't see how subsidies with no strings-attached is going to help anything. We already have this with the ACA and it hasn't helped. The Republicans have done everything they can to sabotage the program at the state level.

Seriously, what's really going on is a war. "costs" don't just disappear into a hole like in a video game economy. There are people benefiting from the skyrocketing costs of healthcare. There are people getting rich, and they want to keep it that way. They don't care if that means more sick people and more people dying.

2008 Obama was left of 2008 Clinton. 2016 Clinton was left of 2008 Obama and also more socially liberal.


They were the two least popular candidates of all time. And yet Bernie lost to Clinton. Go figure.


That isn't undemocratic, it's how pretty much every political party and organisation works. If you aren't part of a political party then why should you get a say in how it runs itself? And given that it's really easy to register as a Democrat (no membership fees afaik) there's really no excuse.


Almost - the problem was that Clinton's message got drowned out. If you actually look at her campaign material then there's a strong and clear message, but you shouldn't have to do that in order to hear it.


This is simplistic. A large portion of the costs go to ordinary people: doctors, nurses, hospital staff, paramedics, care workers, opticians, dentists, scientists, transport staff, manufacturers, etc. Yes, there are people at the top of some large companies who are making a lot of money, often unethically, but even if you eliminated that you'd still see health costs rising due to increased demand, an ageing population with complex needs, higher minimum wages, and so forth.

There are lots of fairly straightforward changes which would make significant savings: better bulk-buying, greater use of off-patent drugs. But healthcare costs are still going to rise.

That brings to mind this; note that the original 2009 USN&WP article appears to be off the web. Which given the probable price of bandwith for almost a decade's worth of news magazine content is not an astonishing thing.
I did read it back then and used it as a reference in a number of discussions on Facebook. Both my Facebook account, and the computer I 'save page as' on are now gone for a couple years though the article may be on a CD or one of the dozen USB drive loose around here: I am not going to spend the time to look for it.

http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2009/08/who-is-making-the-biggest-profits-from-us-healthcare-you-might-be-surprised/