Is Bernie Sanders's message more popular than Ron Paul's?

[The Gold Standard]

I pay roughly $33,000/year in taxes between Federal, State, Medicare, and Social Security. Know what I get out of it? Some crumbling infrastructure. Know what I'd like to get out of it? Free college and healthcare would be a nice start.

You know what I would like to get out of it? My money back. How the fuck did you ever support Ron Paul? Bernie Sanders is the anti-Ron Paul.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

You know what I would like to get out of it? My money back. How the fuck did you ever support Ron Paul? Bernie Sanders is the anti-Ron Paul.

Ron Paul's economic message wasn't what resonated with me. He brought in a lot of people from a lot of places.

 

[Working Poor]

Bernie doewsn't have the media saying he is unelectable every time he is on the news like Ron did.

 

[Working Poor]

Bernie doesn't have the media saying he is unelectable every time he is on the news like Ron did.

 

[The Gold Standard]

Ron Paul's economic message wasn't what resonated with me. He brought in a lot of people from a lot of people.

Whatever message resonated, Bernie doesn't have it. But whatever floats your boat. At least you gave up with this nonsense about getting bribes out of politics.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Whatever message resonated, Bernie doesn't have it. But whatever floats your boat. At least you gave up with this nonsense about getting bribes out of politics.

Remember when there were ten million threads when someone dropped out of the 2012 race about how everyone should be nice so people would come here and see how nice and hunky doory it was? These kinds of comments was why those threads needed to be created.

Some of the people on this site can't even fathom that opinions or leanings or candidates other than their own could be right or worthy. Then they write off everyone else as statists.

Bernie is all about campaign finance reform, and that's a big issue with me. Healthcare and college are also important, as is raising the minimum wage. I know many of you have differing opinions on those topics, but being in the hive mind of this forum doesn't elevate your opinion to fact. It's okay to have a difference of opinion, and having that difference doesn't mean that you can't respect the opinion of others.

 

[The Gold Standard]

Remember when there were ten million threads when someone dropped out of the 2012 race about how everyone should be nice so people would come here and see how nice and hunky doory it was? These kinds of comments was why those threads needed to be created.

Some of the people on this site can't even fathom that opinions or leanings or candidates other than their own could be right or worthy. Then they write off everyone else as statists.

Bernie is all about campaign finance reform, and that's a big issue with me. Healthcare and college are also important, as is raising the minimum wage. I know many of you have differing opinions on those topics, but being in the hive mind of this forum doesn't elevate your opinion to fact. It's okay to have a difference of opinion, and having that difference doesn't mean that you can't respect the opinion of others.

Well, you came here, and learned nothing, and aren't going to, so why keep being nice? I didn't even think I was being that bad. Maybe you need to go back to your Bernouts with your safe spaces and all of that shit.

That's fine if campaign finance reform is important to you. It means nothing to me, and it certainly does nothing to "get bribes out of politics", but if you like it, have at it. The rest of your views are shared by many who have no regard for the rights of others. Being robbed and robbing others does not appeal to me. Again, have at it if it appeals to you. The "hive mind" of this forum these days is all about protectionism and hating foreigners, so the rights of others seems to mean little to them too.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Well, you came here, and learned nothing, and aren't going to, so why keep being nice? I didn't even think I was being that bad. Maybe you need to go back to your Bernouts with your safe spaces and all of that shit.

That's fine if campaign finance reform is important to you. It means nothing to me, and it certainly does nothing to "get bribes out of politics", but if you like it, have at it. The rest of your views are shared by many who have no regard for the rights of others. Being robbed and robbing others does not appeal to me. Again, have at it if it appeals to you. The "hive mind" of this forum these days is all about protectionism and hating foreigners, so the rights of others seems to mean little to them too.

Taxation isn't robbery. It's the price of civilization. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a country on this planet that has even half of the standard of living that we have that doesn't have taxes. I guess you could go down and live in the Bahamas, but unless you're a banker or some kind of tour guide, you're probably going to end up pretty poor.

 

[idiom]

That's it? You're not interested in getting huge amounts of private money (read: bribes) out of politics? Even right-wing folks should be able to get behind that.

That's not a policy. That's a before-the-policy policy.

You know what the problem is? The people to whom the bribes are going. Sanders most popular "policies" are actually just huge fucking bribes.

Expanding Medicare? Medicare is a huge fucking money shovel to vested interests.

Actual socialized medicine would mean expanding the VA system to cover every American. Bernie did a bang up job running that mess.

His general problem is that he actually identifies issues (no gold star for that) but then comes up with ideas that make them way worse.

Also "getting the money out of politics" is like "taxing the rich". The people doing the taxing and the campaign reform simply aren't as good at it as the people they are fighting, or they would be wealthy too.

The rich work day and night to avoid taxation and to accumulate wealth and power. It wasn't handed to them, they acquire it with immense discipline and effort. The major "bribes" don't go anywhere near campaigns.

Are you going to make it illegal to work on Wall street before or after working at the SEC? Going to cut defense spending? Going to repeal Obamacare? End Medicare? End Ethanol and agricultural subsidies? These are the real bribes.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

That's not a policy. That's a before-the-policy policy.

You know what the problem is? The people to whom the bribes are going. Sanders most popular "policies" are actually just huge fucking bribes.

Expanding Medicare? Medicare is a huge fucking money shovel to vested interests.

Actual socialized medicine would mean expanding the VA system to cover every American. Bernie did a bang up job running that mess.

His general problem is that he actually identifies issues (no gold star for that) but then comes up with ideas that make them way worse.

It's not even medicare that he's proposing. Medicare has premiums. His plan wouldn't, as it's fully funded through taxation. It's a single payer plan. As far as the VA, it had problems long before Sanders was on the Veteran's Affairs Committee. When the whole scandal went down, he and McCain passed a bipartisan Veterans Choice Act which helped a ton. It hired more doctors and nurses and created more hospitals to help drive down the wait times and help vets get the services that they needed in a timely manner.

 

[TheTexan]

I pay roughly $33,000/year in taxes between Federal, State, Medicare, and Social Security. Know what I get out of it? Some crumbling infrastructure. Know what I'd like to get out of it? Free college and healthcare would be a nice start.

Bernie can help you out with that.

For a 2.2% nominal fee

 

[TheTexan]

Bernie doewsn't have the media saying he is unelectable every time he is on the news like Ron did.

Well, Bernie isn't unelectable.

Because I've never heard the news say that

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Well, Bernie isn't unelectable.

Because I've never heard the news say that

You've never heard the news say that there was no way that Bernie could ever win? If not, I can definitely grab you a few dozen clips for you to watch.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

"Single-Payer" is a misnomer. What you advocate for is Government monopolization and nationalization of healthcare. Nothing less, nothing more. Couching it in endearing terms doesn't make it any less disastrous. Government incompetence and malfeasance is so plain as day all around us, but you have a bunch of people wanting to give more power and authority to that same institution. How can people be so blindly retarded?

If you want to reduce healthcare costs how about abolishing IP/Patents, AMA licensing, increasing competition across state borders, expanding HSA's, abolishing the idiotic idea of tying healthcare insurance to employment and the idea that "insurance" isn't exclusively meant for life-altering and extreme circumstance (which is what insurance is in any other realm of life). That's just a start - but, no, your idea is to nationalize the healthcare industry. Your views are more apropos to countries like Argentina or some Central African socialist dictatorship.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Your views are more apropos to countries like Argentina or some Central African socialist dictatorship.

Or, you know, every other first world country on the planet except ours for whatever reason. But whatever.

"Single-Payer" is a misnomer. What you advocate for is Government monopolization and nationalization of healthcare. Nothing less, nothing more. Couching it in endearing terms doesn't make it any less disastrous. Government incompetence and malfeasance is so plain as day all around us, but you have a bunch of people wanting to give more power and authority to that same institution. How can people be so blindly retarded?

It's not a misnomer. Single payer is exactly what it is. Yes it's paid by the government through taxes, but it's still single payer since it's one entity paying instead of a crap-load of third party insurance companies. As far as "government monopolization and nationalization", absolutely. Healthcare is too important to be fucked around with by corporations more worried about their bottom line than the actual healthcare of patients. That's the entire reason that we're in this mess.

If you want to reduce healthcare costs how about abolishing IP/Patents, AMA licensing, increasing competition across state borders, expanding HSA's, abolishing the idiotic idea of tying healthcare insurance to employment and the idea that "insurance" isn't exclusively meant for life-altering and extreme circumstance (which is what insurance is in any other realm of life). That's just a start - but, no, your idea is to nationalize the healthcare industry.

We actually agree quite a bit here. I wouldn't go as far as abolishing patents, but I think they should be reduced down to maybe 2 or 3 years so pharmaceutical companies can recoup their research costs. I believe that there should also be some regulation on their advertising, since they spend about $5 BILLION annually on it. I'm also all for getting rid of AMA licensing.

Increasing competition across state borders is a tricky one, because we can see that this sometimes backfires when we look at cable companies. The top 3 basically gobbled up all the competition by agreeing among themselves not to go into each other's territory. This allowed them to skirt around monopoly laws very effectively.

I'm all for unlinking healthcare to employment. It's an absolutely absurd idea.

And I'd be absolutely fine carrying a very low premium insurance for emergency room visits and things like that, as long as they didn't have co-pays or deductibles since you don't have those in other types of insurance.

So I definitely think there's a lot of middle ground here for a lot of people on both sides of the aisle.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

You've never heard the news say that there was no way that Bernie could ever win? If not, I can definitely grab you a few dozen clips for you to watch.

He is a hard headed one. I can vouch he'll need proof for any disagreement.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

Or, you know, every other first world country on the planet except ours for whatever reason. But whatever.



It's not a misnomer. Single payer is exactly what it is. Yes it's paid by the government through taxes, but it's still single payer since it's one entity paying instead of a crap-load of third party insurance companies. As far as "government monopolization and nationalization", absolutely. Healthcare is too important to be fucked around with by corporations more worried about their bottom line than the actual healthcare of patients. That's the entire reason that we're in this mess.



We actually agree quite a bit here. I wouldn't go as far as abolishing patents, but I think they should be reduced down to maybe 2 or 3 years so pharmaceutical companies can recoup their research costs. I believe that there should also be some regulation on their advertising, since they spend about $5 BILLION annually on it. I'm also all for getting rid of AMA licensing.

Increasing competition across state borders is a tricky one, because we can see that this sometimes backfires when we look at cable companies. The top 3 basically gobbled up all the competition by agreeing among themselves not to go into each other's territory. This allowed them to skirt around monopoly laws very effectively.

I'm all for unlinking healthcare to employment. It's an absolutely absurd idea.

And I'd be absolutely fine carrying a very low premium insurance for emergency room visits and things like that, as long as they didn't have co-pays or deductibles since you don't have those in other types of insurance.

So I definitely think there's a lot of middle ground here for a lot of people on both sides of the aisle.

Brother it starts and ends with voluntary interactions. I have to imagine many Bernie supporters are not authoritarians. That if they thought about it, they would think that it is wrong that *everyone* must participate with their government. It is just that what Bernie advocates for is the form of government that they do want, in a voluntary society. That it just my impression. Do you reside in this camp? Are a large amount of Bernie supporters potential anarchist? If we frame it right?

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Brother it starts and ends with voluntary interactions. I have to imagine many Bernie supporters are not authoritarians. That if they thought about it, they would think that it is wrong that *everyone* must participate with their government. It is just that what Bernie advocates for is the form of government that they do want, in a voluntary society. That it just my impression. Do you reside in this camp? Are a large amount of Bernie supporters potential anarchist? If we frame it right?

Anarchist? No, not at all. I think it would be very difficult to find many in the Bernie camp that see themselves that way. I'm definitely not authoritarian, but I don't believe that you should be able to benefit from the government while not participating. That seems kind of absurd to me. If you buy something, that something got to the store using government funded roads and is safe (or should be) due to government regulation. If you're wronged, you're able to sue using the judicial infrastructure of the government. Anything that you do, even using the internet that you're using now wouldn't be possible without the Department of Defense originally shelling out the cash to figure out how to make it.

Unless one lives on a remote island by themselves, I don't really see how any kind of anarchy would even be plausible.

 

[VIDEODROME]

I'm not sure even Ron Paul is a potential Anarchist.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

I'm not sure even Ron Paul is a potential Anarchist.

He's not. He's a constitutionalist, and believes that the Federal Government definitely has a role.