2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

Status
Not open for further replies.
langster said:
You will never win by saying you want to abolish private medical insurance and to be honest, you shouldn't say it anyway as people don't understand what you mean.

EVERY SINGLE PERSON should be entitled to and should be able to receive exactly the same medical advice, care and treatment. It should be paid for by taxes. However, those who wish to then pay extra out of their own pocket for private care should be free to do so, but they do so by paying separately and while still contributing via their taxes.

Ideally there would be no need for a separate private healthcare system but nothing is ideal and it does has positives as well as negatives but the priority is healthcare for all. Get that first and then sort the rest later.
Click to expand...

It was a loaded question by corporate presenters.
What Bernie obviously means is you get the very same treatment you want now, except you do not pay Premiums, co pays or Deductibles.
He explained this so well on Fox town Hall. But you don't get the time in the format they had.

If there is a need for private health insurance it would only for cosmetic surgery or similar.
 
berbatrick said:
The nation state she represents is pretty militaristic.
The blanket condemnation of Trump's move, which objectively reduces the chance of war, is militaristic. The rhetoric about "love letters" is macho. The emphasis of US security and absence of peace in that entire tweet is militaristic.

@Carolina Red goes for you too



You can compare her statement to Bernie's, the difference isn't that hard to see:

Click to expand...


There's nothing in Trump's move that reduces the chance of war. Kim is simply using him to gain a bit of credibility while not giving up anything of his own. Neither can afford a proper deal since neither can afford to give up the concessions the other side wants.
 
Raoul said:
There's nothing in Trump's move that reduces the chance of war. Kim is simply using him to gain a bit of credibility while not giving up anything of his own. Neither can afford a proper deal since neither can afford to give up the concessions the other side wants.
Click to expand...

Trump started this latest round with a tweet, NK reacted. I don't think Kim controls his twitter.
Yes I don't think they'll make a deal. But there's less chance of war as long as they're meeting and praising each other.
 
berbatrick said:
The nation state she represents is pretty militaristic.
The blanket condemnation of Trump's move, which objectively reduces the chance of war, is militaristic. The rhetoric about "love letters" is macho. The emphasis of US security and absence of peace in that entire tweet is militaristic.

@Carolina Red goes for you too
Click to expand...
You seem militaristic against her tweet.
 
For Trump, peace or war are mere byproducts of his quest for personal business opportunities.
 
berbatrick said:
You can compare her statement to Bernie's, the difference isn't that hard to see:
Click to expand...

Yes, of course there is a marked difference. Bernie is appreciating the effort and stating he wants and expects more from it rather than it just being a cheap publicity stunt or Trump being placated and used. While Warren goes on the offensive and belittles the event whilst simultaneously pontificates the obvious in a condescending manner whilst also using an inflammatory tone which is really saying North Korea will do as we say or else...

You are definitely right about her militaristic tone, I can't believe I didn't see it the first time I read her reply. I was too caught up in Netflix and The most hated Woman in America.. Definitely bed time now..
 
Carolina Red said:
There’s nothing dangerous about what she said, you’re just overly biased and it shows.
Click to expand...

The tweet has nothing, zero words, to say about the importance of not going to war. That is the 1st priority for me.

I'm amazed that you can't see the equivalence between her phrase "love letter" and GOP's "Obama's bowing", "apology tour", and macho anti-diplomacy talk in general.

The tweet emphasises US security, defending allies, and upholding human rights.
NK probably cannot hit the US.
The one US ally facing actual threat from NK - South Korea, has been the leader on the diplomatic front, when newly elected Moon Jae-In* met Kim over the stony silence and disapproval of the US represented by Pence. I would think that South Korea has a bigger security issue than the US from NK, and yet they are the ones most responsible for the existence of talks. So "defending allies" is another charged term.
If you put "human rights" at the forefront of the US FP agenda, you'd have to bomb or embargo Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, and NK, and a good part of the US for starters. Which isn't what she will do. No, human rights will be used, as they has always been used- a rhetorical, substance-free tool to condemn the enemy of the moment.


*I just checked, and despite a poor overall approval rating, his approach to NK has majority approval from voters.
 
langster said:
Yes, of course there is a marked difference. Bernie is appreciating the effort and stating he wants and expects more from it rather than it just being a cheap publicity stunt or Trump being placated and used. While Warren goes on the offensive and belittles the event whilst simultaneously pontificates the obvious in a condescending manner whilst also using an inflammatory tone which is really saying North Korea will do as we say or else...

You are definitely right about her militaristic tone, I can't believe I didn't see it the first time I read her reply. I was too caught up in Netflix and The most hated Woman in America.. Definitely bed time now..
Click to expand...

That's how I read it too. She could have used just 1 phrase about the importance of peace, and it would be ok. But without that, and with the mocking tone, it made me uncomfortable.
 
SteveJ said:
For Trump, peace or war are mere byproducts of his quest for personal business opportunities.
Click to expand...
Very true.

If he's going to pocket it either way I would hope we can get the by product of piece though.

I'll repeat: I agree with Bernie. I don't have a problem per se with them meeting, I would rather have smiles and stepping across DMZ lines than "UNLEASH HELL AND FURY" being threatened in tweets. (If one is going to say "this doesn't decrease the chance of war" well I doubt it increases it, unlike some things we've seen in the past). Likewise I have no love for the authoritarian regime in Iran but I would rather stay in the Iran deal and have the possibility of a civil channel of communication with Khamenei. Of course it all needs to lead to something, not just a photo opportunity...there is a space for productive dialogue (or if not in a particular case I am of the opinion we have a moral duty to search for one) that is not 1930s appeasement nor being needlessly aggressive/antagonistic. It's not like the US has never gone looking for a war!

If people are suspicious of the motives of their meetings given the personalities involved I get that too.

Warren's statement didn't seem that militaristic to me but I disagree with it. I think it's a little naive compared to Bernie's, and I think there's an awful lot of 'politician speak' packed in there. What does "principled diplomacy that promotes US security, defends our allies, and upholds human rights" mean? It sounds like a Buttigieg speech :lol: Would it not involve going and meeting in person?
 
Carolina Red said:
It also has 0 words to say about going to war. Like I said, you’ve read what you want into it.
Click to expand...
I think both of those statements are true and that's what I don't like about it personally. It sounds nice but it's not saying anything really substantive. Liz is great when she's being blunt and speaking her mind, she is very smart and VERY detail-oriented and that really shines through. I just feel sometimes with her her advisers re-read and re-edit her statements/tweets 5 or 6 times and then you get a vanilla statement like this and it diminishes her.

(Bernie on the other hand is too truthful for his own good and can get caught up in a smear question a lot more easily, he'll answer a question when he should be rejecting its premise...but that same honesty/zero polish is what makes his voters love him so much I guess).
 
langster said:
Yes, of course there is a marked difference. Bernie is appreciating the effort and stating he wants and expects more from it rather than it just being a cheap publicity stunt or Trump being placated and used. While Warren goes on the offensive and belittles the event whilst simultaneously pontificates the obvious in a condescending manner whilst also using an inflammatory tone which is really saying North Korea will do as we say or else...

You are definitely right about her militaristic tone, I can't believe I didn't see it the first time I read her reply. I was too caught up in Netflix and The most hated Woman in America.. Definitely bed time now..
Click to expand...
The first I learned about her was when I started secondary school, we watched a documentary about space and heard she sued because of the Apollo 8 Genesis reading. We all laughed like "what a fecking bore this woman is." It wasn't until I was older I actually learned about her, and then she resurfaced in my conscience when I took a First Amendment module here in the US. Thank god for her, she's in a better place now I hope irony fully intended
 
berbatrick said:
The nation state she represents is pretty militaristic.
The blanket condemnation of Trump's move, which objectively reduces the chance of war, is militaristic. The rhetoric about "love letters" is macho. The emphasis of US security and absence of peace in that entire tweet is militaristic.
Click to expand...
Blanket condemnation of a Donald diplomatic device is good practice. Nothing he’s doing has been planned in the pursuit of peace unless it coincides with refreshing his ego, and ramshackle diplomacy in pursuit of vane publicity doesn’t ultimately do anything to promote peace.

And the US and her allies’ security is the whole reason we’re there in the first place, so it’d be naive to exclude that consideration.
 
Last edited:
Warren’s stance is basically conduct meetings/negotiations through proxies/state department, while avoiding presidential level meeting, a long time staple of US foreign policy towards NK before Trump took a dump on it. She did the same on domestic level when refusing appearances on Fox News (and having a jab at Sanders about it), refusing to grant legitimacy to what she considers harmful.

This is more about her as a person rather than any compromise with the foreign policy establishment or military-industrial complex, although I’d say having that kind of black-and-white mindset is not especially productive in diplomacy.
 
There was no potential war with NK .Elizabeth Warren is right , nothing more than photo ops and getting one over Obama. The fact MSM are getting sucked into this reality show says everything on how cable news is now just entertainment .
 
Last edited:
langster said:
Wtf? She's like the female Chris Jericho of politics.
Click to expand...
Welcome to INCARNATION is KAMALA

Poor american parents - Due to rising rent, unstable working conditions and all around poverty it is a struggle to maintain constant schooling for my children.

Kamala Harris - Would you please......SHUT. THE HELL. UP!


Yes I remember the early 2000's
 
Charlie Foley said:
The first I learned about her was when I started secondary school, we watched a documentary about space and heard she sued because of the Apollo 8 Genesis reading. We all laughed like "what a fecking bore this woman is." It wasn't until I was older I actually learned about her, and then she resurfaced in my conscience when I took a First Amendment module here in the US. Thank god for her, she's in a better place now I hope irony fully intended
Click to expand...

:lol:

I think they botched this one and she and her story deserved a better representation. Especially after what they have shown recently.
 
fishfingers15 said:
Yeah I don't know. Trump has handled NK better and considering that's the most blatant threat as of today, let's vote Trump instead.
Click to expand...

But how does that advance my goal, and the goal of all berniebros, to harass women? We have to teach these flighty chicks what it means to have principles and stick by them.
 
Warren could be doing PR to make herself look tough to get those pro-military votes who are on the fence. Does her voting record indicate a strong militarist mindset?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.