A relationship with Melania has been downgraded to a junk bond.Stand in line:
Trump 2024!
- Thread starter mcmurtry66
- Start date
You're just pissed because you woke, in a tube of ice cubes, with a note to get to a hospital quickly.
Never miss a trip wire dude!
Bernie didn't get the nomination in 2016, because the Wall St CORPORATE media and the DNC was never going to let him. (which was obvious to those paying attention at the time, but was later confirmed and revealed by Wikileaks, which is part of why not just the Pubs, but also Obama and Biden and the Dems have persecuted Assange beyond belief to this day).
Bernie didn't get the nomination in 2020, for the same reasons.
that said, i blame Bernie for rolling over and letting that happen.
let's be real about this.
Comcast/NBC/Universal/Sky Group media would have lost hundreds of billions if Bernie had been elected.
NBC's biggest advertisers, primarily big pharma and big insurance and big healthcare, would have lost trillions had Bernie been elected.
BlackRock, Vanguard, Wall St, no telling how much Bernie would have cost them.
and that's just on the programs Bernie was campaigning hardest on.
medicare for all, negotiating pharma costs, net neutrality, bringing back anti trust and reducing monopoly power and the out of control industry consolidation, both horizontal and vertical, just to begin with, then adding on increasing taxes on billionaires and multi millionaires and bringing industry back on shore, which Trump also latched on to when he saw Bernie's crowds as opposed to everyone else's..
as for how this went down in 2020,
Comcast/NBC knew Biden was for sale and always had been, so they sponsored his candidacy and held a huge fund raiser for him the day Biden announced his candidacy, at the home of Comcast's top in house lobbyist/govt affairs Sr VP.
during the thousands of hrs of NBC's prez campaign coverage, did Rachel or Chris Hays or literally anyone else, even just someone on a panel, ever so much as once ever mention that Comcast/NBC was literally sponsoring and help funding Biden's candidacy, which meant killing Bernie's at all costs??? (just as in 2016).
once? even just a mention of that small detail?????
ever so much as one word about it from "journalist" Rachel Maddow???????
NO, not one word about it ever.
as for the DNC, besides some alleged questionable vote counting in the primaries, starting with Iowa and the fiasco they likely engineered that night.
then came South Carolina, which Biden openly had acknowledged would be where the DNC would stop Bernie.
the DNC bribed Jim Cliburn who dominated the SC dem organization with keeping his Dem whip position in the house, (and no telling what else), to endorse Biden, despite the fact that Clyburn's constituency would be far better represented by Bernie's programs, and that Biden had spit on Clyburn's constituency his entire political career.
and doing all they could to hopefully engineer Biden's SC primary win, they deliberately positioned the SC primary only 4 days before super tuesday, to take advantage of Biden's hopeful momentum coming out of SC, after being a no factor up til then.
and this was after Comcast/NBC and AT&T/CNN had put on a full blown kill Bernie blitz immediately after Nevada when Bernie looked like the guy to beat, and really had Comcast and AT&T and all their advertisers worried.
starting the day after Nevada and continuing past super Tues, both MSNBC and CNN literally tagged Bernie a Communist 24/7 on panel after panel, and put out 24/7 that the Dems would never again win an election if Bernie were the nominee.
that exact line that Dems would never win another election if Bernie was the nominee was played over and over on both MSNBC and CNN after Nevada. (despite the fact that Bernie's programs polled wildly popular not just with Dems, but Pubs as well, and the absolute fact that pro working class candidates owned the senate and house for 40 yrs, till Wall St took over the DNC under Bill Clinton, and the DNC abondoned the working class to shill for Wall St along with the Pubs).
and DNC planted panelists on MSNBC and CNN literally called Bernie a Communist 10 times more than Fox ever did, once Bernie put that giant scare in them after Nevada.
then the night before super tuesday, the DNC forced/bribed all the candidates but Warren, (who was the only candidate that would take votes from Bernie), to drop out that night and endorse Biden, even though the programs all were running under were far closer to Bernie, and farther from Biden.
has a candidate who's been in it the whole time ever in history dropped out the night before super tues, let alone virtually the entire field other than the party slated choice?????
ever in history???????
that said, it never was personal against Bernie, anymore than in 2016.
it was just business.
all that said, nothing has changed.
MSNBC, CNN, Disney/ABC, CBS, Facebook, Google, will always fight any progressive to the death.
as it will always be "just business" with any corp, or BlackRock or Vanguard.
an economic progressive candidate can survive the opposing parties media opposing and bad mouthing them 24/7.
they can never survive both parties' media, especially their own party's media, bad mouthing them and fighting them and their economic progressive programs to the death 24/7, and having literally no CORPORATE media or political party backing them, EVER..
and no, being that all media of scale are CORPORATE, thus will all always fight to the death and kill any economic progressive, i have no fix for this dilemma.
just ask Putin how important controlling the media and the message 24/7 is.
that said, if i were consulting a matured and more savvy AOC in the future, or any economic progressive, i would have them openly pronounce whenever they did have the media on them, that any and all CORPORATE media would fight them 24/7/365, and why, and how much money if would cost the Comcasts and Time Warners and BlackRocks and Vanguards if they they were ever elected, so take in everything said CORPORATE media say about them and their economic progressive programs, with that in mind.
then once you set that factual narrative, when the Corporate media do fight them, said candidate can say "see".
Last edited:
That's always been the problem with Bernie's medicare for all proposal....you can't commit to the cost.
Same as Warren's, she couldn't commit to a cost.
Even when pressed, Bernie stumbled and mumbled through the simple answer of the cost.
The overwhelming majority of studies has the Bernie plan costing from 40 to 60 trillion dollars to implement.
One study, Lancelot, which is a respected study, is where you are getting your talking points and what Bernie tends to point to as the end all be all.
So yeah, good luck selling that. I believe wholeheartedly that we need a competitive public health care system for all the reasons you listed and many more, but I'm not on board with blowing it up and starting from scratch forcing people onto a system that they might not want to be on in the short term.
You're the naive one if you truly believe that Bernie's abrupt switch to a single payer system was going to an easy one.
Bernie's version will never pass.
Morphing has a chance to pass.
Dude, you for real? I'm not asking about your content, yet but your volume. This is like 6 months of thoughts. you a bot for the good guys?
Pete was the one who got f'd by Iowa. Instead of being able to go into New Hampshire with any Iowa momentum, it was held up for days, so we went into New Hampshire still not knowing.
For a candidate who spent the majority of his funding on Iowa and New Hampshire (because he didn't have the coffers that senators or the VP had) his momentum bet was spent.
Pete had to get Biden out of the race before South Carolina. The Iowa debacle basically assured that wouldn't happen. Biden got to South Carolina and dominated as the so called moderate Dem....and it was over from the moderate side.
You laid out a good Ramsey theory explanation of hindsight but the bottom line has always been, progressives make up between 25-35% of the party. Wall Street mod Dems make up 65 to 75%.
You had two progressive candidates at the end. There were three major mods, one dominant outsider who factored in the mid share (Bloomberg) and then the majority of the rest were mods (Yang, Harris, Booker, etc).
Bernie looked good early because of share. Once the mods fell off and it became a two man race....Bernie was cooked.
That's simple math. It's not some gigantic deep state conspiracy....just simple math.
Progressives don't make up the majority of the party. Maybe someday they will, but it's not now.
The only thing having the libs in the debates would do is let America see just how crazy they are.
all those other studies are funded directly or indirectly by Wall St, thus big pharma, big healthcare, big insurance, as well.
they are nothing but paid for false propaganda.
that said, while the costs of medicare for all, (which no doubt are inflated as much as possible by those paid to kill it), absolutely do exist, to only list the costs of MFA without mentioning the savings in the same debate, is as totally dishonest as one can be.
the cost of MFA shouldn't be compared to no cost at all, as you have dishonestly done, but rather against the costs of what our current for profit healthcare, pharma, insurance, system would cost over the same time period.
and we don't have to do anymore studies on the costs of a MFA system verses our current systems, as those have already been done, by literally every other advanced country on the planet, and by our very own healthcare system over the last 50 plus yrs.
all other advanced countries on earth have MFA type systems in one form or another, and have had for a long time.
they are all doing healthcare, with universal coverage, for half the cost as us, and with better results.
this is all proven fact.
and Medicare has been in existence in the US for over 50 yrs, and is doing healthcare in the US today for far far less, not more, than the cost of non Medicare healthcare.
also proven undeniable fact!
and all that is not even taking into account all the other factors of life and industry and global competitiveness our for profit system has negatively affected, or the high cost in lives and quality of life to the uninsured, or the devastating life savings taking economic impact, including forced healthcare related bankruptsies, of not only the uninsured, but also those who are insured, but whose insurance didn't cover everything.
as for transitioning everything overnight, not Bernie nor anyone one else was pushing that.
that said, i know how i would do the transition.
the reason medicare does healthcare for less, is that they base what they reimburse for services on the actual costs of providing said services plus some adder, not on how much hospitals, providers, pharma, and insurance, can extract for must have healthcare.
all private insurers negotiate with hospitals and providers as to how much they pay per procedure or service.
first thing i would do, is set up a schedule for all those reimbursement rates to be transitioned from the insurance company negotiated rate, to the medicare reimbursement rate, giving time for providers to adjust/transition to the lessor reimbursement rates.
at the same time, i would immediately set pharma reimbursements based of actual costs as well. (and let's not lose sight of the fact that the US govt already funds much of the research costs, but then hands over the patents to the corporations).
at the same time, i would place the currently uninsured and under insured on medicare, and cover much of that cost with the money i immediately saved on pharma, and taxing Wall St trades themselves, and doing away with brokers paying cap gains rates on commissions, which are regular income, not income from investments.
once the private insurance reimbursement rates transition down to medicare reimbursement rates, any and all push back from hospitals and providers will cease at that point, as they will be just as well or better off collecting from medicare as from the private insurer, as the reimbursement rate will be the same either way.
no matter how we do it, there will be bumps and issues to deal with.
regardless, it has to be done, we will all be far better off for it, and every day Wall St is able to fight it off, is a loss to all of us.
at first i thought you were just ignorant.
now i realize you're an organized propaganda liar, and should be treated as such along with the other organized party propagandists.
as for economic progressives making up 25-35% of the party, that's an absolute lie pushed by Wall St and CORPORATE media..
"economic progressive", is just a modern term for pro working class.
when the Dem party pushed pro working class, they held the house and senate for almost 40 yrs straight.
and the policies backed by Bernie were wildly popular with Dems and Pubs alike.
only when the DNC started backing the Wall St and the investor class, and abandoned the working class under Clinton, did the Pubs start winning the house or senate.
and Bernie would have won the nomination in 16 and 20, had the dishonest DNC and Comcast and AT&T not conspired against him.
but since you're obviously here to lie for the parties and Wall St, i don't expect the lies from you and the other party sock puppets to stop, and i feel foolish for taking you as a legitimate poster.
Stop confirming the Bernie Bro toxic reputation. I already know the insults you're going to throw out.
All you and the Bernie Bros accomplish is painting yourselves as an unstable lunatics.
The kind that would go to a congressional softball game with a gun.
The platform is pretty good. I don't disagree with much particularly in spirit.
You guys are such abrasive assholes that it's your message gets lost because the behavior is so obnoxious.
Bernie Bros are what the right used as examples of 'the woke' or 'the left'. Why, because it's too easy to point to for examples of extremism.
Shit like defund the police has been weaponized. We both know what it means and yes, I 100% agree that we need serious police reform which includes expanded fields of expertise (more options to a 911 dispatcher than fire, hospital or police).
I'm rambling but if the progressives could ever turn down the conspiracy laden toxicity and stop offending everyone around you....you've got a compelling platform, one that should open up discussion of better minds who will add to it and morph it into legislation.
I'm not a shill not a wall Street propagandist. Progressives in most elections get around a 25-35% share. Sometimes more, sometimes less.
You struggle to win primaries.
Even Nina Turner (who said she'd rather eat shit than vote for Biden), one of the most visible progressives out there, couldn't get a majority.
I don't believe there are any progressive governors.
There's a simple reason. You're not big enough yet.
The reason why the party is 'against' you is simple.... you're not big enough yet and you're considered an abrasive extreme that scares the majority of the country.
Ever wonder why Trump vehemently told his followers to vote for Bernie in the open primaries?
Win over African Americans, increase your constituent share to over 50% and you'll be amazed at how supportive the dnc will be.
Appreciate this post. Thanks for taking the time and detail.
I don't know how the inner workings of negotiated rates for services performed go, but that's the area I'm not sure we can force via government demands that everyone drop their prices.
I do think that the govt could leverage itself and force the private sector to be competitive with a public offering....like it is with pretty much every public offering (schools, post office, police coverage, etc) as the true leveraging point of the govt is mass volume.
If we can get a baseline public system out there that anyone could use...it just adds to the leverage of volume and forces the private sector to become more competitive.
Use capitalism against the current system.
As you said, there are so many benefits to our society having a public option. The largest cause of bankruptcy is medical emergencies. Hell our average life expectancy has been getting shorter and we are one of the most unhealthy advanced countries. All of that I believe can be connected with our healthcare system access.
So we aren't debating on if we need a public offering, we're arguing over how to best implement it.
We are one of the few developed countries that doesn't have a public offering, but there isn't one consistent universal health system. Denmark is different from Germany which is different from England, etc.
Some are totally public, others are a hybrid of public and private.
I believe a hybrid system would be the best and most efficient to implement.
Again using the massive volume of people signing up for the public option competitively against the current private system.
Similar to how discover card quickly changed the game by charging the businesses instead of the user...and then gave kick backs to the user as 'cash back'. At first businesses didn't let you use discover but as it grew, it forced them to accept the card. Then it eliminated annual fees and so on.
Offer a public option, make it desirable and force the private sector to adapt to the public by making it the most popular choice (I mean good grief, it's covered and most everyone who can chooses and uses Medicare).
Spot market?
Most has been contracted for significantly lower prices, to cover fixed costs.
High end Deere pickers are half million plus...my friends in Montgomery County farm 4-4,500 acres, some owned (8 generations). Three years ago , a Deere combine caught fire and burned in the field.
They got the grain head off and saved it.
Bank and insurance company had a new combine in the field the next day.
Most farmers in our Area use John Deere equipment, they trade combines every two years. So they never run out of warranty.
I think the timing is perfect too. It's the rigged system that's problematic
Need somebody who threatens both parties somewhat equally
Cuban might be that person.
For Democrats that should be someone who is right of center. Whoever it is they’re most likely to sink one or the other candidate rather than actually outright win.
Has he expressed interest? I don't know anything about his politics, etc. But otherwise agree with you.
Yeah, we're probably too polarized between Pub/Dem to actually give a true TCP a chance to even make it deep enough in the cycle to matter
He's made vague statements. I mean, why would he really? Who wants that smoke. He's probably got all kinds of embarrassing shit in his past that he'd like to leave the door closed on. Agree with IUWC above that he's likely a centrist dem, maybe even a bit right of center.
I don't know Lars. There has to be someone out there with a modicum of common sense.
The left and the right probably define the center differently. I don’t know Cubans politics but my sense is because of his wealth and business enterprises he’s liable to be fairly conservative fiscally while probably socially more liberal. Overall that would put him center right. But for most republican voters he might be center left.
Hillary Clinton Won't Run in 2024, Rules Out Possible Trump Rematch
Trump has yet to rule out a 2024 comeback, but his 2016 rival told voters not to expect her name on the presidential ticket.
www.newsweek.com
yes, the reason the party, correction, both wings of the Wall St party, is against economic progressives, and will always be against economic progressives, Wall St's now total ownership of our political process on everything economic isn't personal, it's just business, and just business is why the moneyed interests bought the DNC to go along with their already total ownership of the RNC for a hundred yrs.
and while Randolph Hurst bought ink by the barrel, Comcast/NBC/Universal/Sky Group Media and AT&T/Time Warner/Directv/CNN, News Corp/Fox, Disney/ABC/ESPN, CBS, Viacom, right wing radio, Gannet, the hedge funds that own what remains of newspapers, all buy ink by the ocean, then add in Facebook and Google, and when literally every CORPORATE media and major social media entity has billions, to tens of billions, to hundreds of billions, riding on any economic progressive not getting a major party prez nomination, and Wall St and big money leveraging their control of both parties to that same end, no matter how popular said economic progressive's programs are, when literally ALL media has huge money into the hundreds of billions, and all their advertisers have huge money into the hundreds of billions, riding on your defeat, and they are colluding with the parties themselves to defeat you, you're going to get defeated, no matter how popular your programs are with Joe Voter, even after the non stop smearing of said programs 24/7 by said CORPORATE media, and every money financed social media troll farm.
but then you already knew this or are a political idiot of beyond colossal proportion, but far more likely, just being extremely dishonest.
Cliff Notes Version,
when literally every CORPORATE media entity, and all their biggest advertisers, have billions to hundreds of billions of dollars riding on your defeat , and all CORPORATE controlled social media troll farms, and both CORPORATE controlled major parties, are united in ensuring your defeat, you're going to get defeated one way or another in a system where money is power, and all media is CORPORATE, and has many billions riding on your defeat.
not sure whether you are that politically and economics totally ignorant, or that totally dishonest, or both, but this isn't rocket science.
David vs Goliath is one thing.
David vs Goliath and his army and his money, is another.
it's already been done by Medicare for over 50 yrs, and by every other advanced country on earth.
it's why every other country does universal coverage at half the cost of us, and with better outcomes, and why Medicare is far far less expensive for the same care.
and while the other advanced countries on earth have slightly different variations on a Medicare for All healthcare system, they all are based in said govt negotiated reimbursements as their way of controlling costs.
the only reason we haven't had it for decades, is because we have a money controlled political system, and money controlled media, and that money has always been able to fight it off, both by their literally buying off the politicians, and by their CONTROL of CORPORATE media, through their funneling billions to said media through advertising buys for a long time, and more so today, by the same mega funds/hedge funds that own the media, also having huge positions in big healthcare, big pharma, and big insurance.
But with Hillary not running and Biden being completely senile and getting worse every day and with a favorability rating in the mid 30s at best who do they run in 2024?
Has to be someone out of the box. Can't run Harris, cleary.
No way Wallace changed the results of the election. He won some traditionally Democratic Deep South states, but even if Humphrey won all of them if Wallace didn’t run it was still an easy Nixon win.
Seems you've made up your mind to vote for a guy that wanted to illegally dismiss millions of votes and overturn an election? My god, I'll never understand the MAGA crowd.As much as I despise all the BUTTRUMP posts, I'm starting to think that if he tones down his divisive rhetoric, even to just Desantis levels, he will be the nominee in 2024. The tax evasion/fraudulent valuations (case(s)) in NY appear to be toast. DA clearly has zero appetite for filing them. Obstruction as set forth in the equivocal Mueller report is about to be time barred, leaving only GA election shit left standing.
Trump's obviously awful. Only the most loyal adherents can forget his meltdown during the summer of love and the early stages of Covid, which are nothing compared to perpetuating The Big Lie. In the same vein only the most loyal adherents would support Biden and/or Harris at this point. As bad as Biden is, and as old as he is, he's still preferable to Harris who is simply an unmitigated disaster.
So, for the first time, and recognizing the difficulty and obstacles inherent to running as a third party candidate, is it possible that we could have a viable third party/independent candidate in 2024? Unlike any time in history (I think), we have individuals that have the wealth to fund it themselves (Ross Perot obviously, but even he didn't have the money of some folks today (even adjusted). I believe he and Wallace have done the best as a third). My understanding is that there are no campaign loan caps, only reporting requirements. I know Marv and other posters I think a lot of, Sope I believe, value gov experience. I don't. I like the idea of an outsider. Might 2024 be the year? One would think seeing Trump vs. Harris/Warren/Pete/AOC would inspire one with the means to think that this might be a rare station in time to pull a Trump 2.0 but as a true third party candidate. Thoughts? And as much as I'd love to see a libertarian win, Jo doesn't have the juice or the "It" factor to ever do much. Plus Clemson Taters are arguably as insufferable as OSU fans. That alone is disqualifying.
How the Manhattan D.A.’s Investigation Into Donald Trump Unraveled (Published 2022)
The criminal investigation into the former president crashed amid a disagreement about the merits of bringing a case. The debate pitted a new district attorney against two veteran prosecutors who had pursued a case against Mr. Trump for years.www.nytimes.com
*advance apologies for the screwed up parentheticals. Too many drinks today. The parentheticals read like a bad David Foster Wallace paragraph
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Just when I thought the democrats couldn’t be more disgusting . . .
- Latest: crazed_hoosier2
-
-
-
-