havent watched the bernie video yet but from just reading thats a fair question
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
havent watched the bernie video yet but from just reading thats a fair question
heres how tapper framed it
heres how any honest person with a grasp on the subject would frame it
$2.0 trillion savings on medicare for all
$5.4 trillion spending on jobs guarantee
$1.4 trillion spending on student loans
$1.3 trillion on free college, paid family leave, social security expansion
net cost to current spending: $6.1 trillion
and the honest question would be:
"you've proposed higher corporate taxes that would raise $2 trillion - where is the other $4.1 trillion going to come from?"
heres how any honest person with a grasp on the subject would frame it
$2.0 trillion savings on medicare for all
$5.4 trillion spending on jobs guarantee
$1.4 trillion spending on student loans
$1.3 trillion on free college, paid family leave, social security expansion
net cost to current spending: $6.1 trillion
and the honest question would be:
"you've proposed higher corporate taxes that would raise $2 trillion - where is the other $4.1 trillion going to come from?"
If you need people like Tapper to tell you how to think then you're in trouble
I don't need anything from Tapper, as I usually research the issues by myself. Just mentioning that this is how mainstream media operates here. They don't just regurgitate factual statements from the teleprompter. They also contextualize what it means within the broader narrative of what is happening. They then go even further by discussing the issues with guest pundits who further contextualize the information.
And you think that's good journalism?
Absolutely. That's exactly what I want from watching the news. If I want a boring, generic recitation of hard facts then I could turn on PBS or BBC World. The reason a vast majority don't use those sources is because they want a bit of context and debate thrown in with the basic facts.
Yeah, he was clearly using big scary numbers to make her policies seem unrealistic, and given that she's new to the game and hasn't got the whole 'going on TV thing' down just yet, was hoping to catch her out.heres how tapper framed it
heres how any honest person with a grasp on the subject would frame it
$2.0 trillion savings on medicare for all
$5.4 trillion spending on jobs guarantee
$1.4 trillion spending on student loans
$1.3 trillion on free college, paid family leave, social security expansion
net cost to current spending: $6.1 trillion
and the honest question would be:
"you've proposed higher corporate taxes that would raise $2 trillion - where is the other $4.1 trillion going to come from?"
He was using Fake numbers that even he should have known were further confusing the issue.
It was simply gotcha drama. not journalism.
I have mentioned Russert.
My Gold Standard in TV journalists was Brian Walden.
Here is what is said of him in Wiki.
Walden is considered one of the finest political interviewers in the history of British broadcasting, tenacious and ruthless. He was known for interviews of politicians, especially Margaret Thatcher. He was said to be her favourite interviewer, although he gave her tough interviews. In October 1989, Thatcher gave Walden an interview when many within her own (Conservative) party were turning against her.
Brian Walden: "You come over as being someone who one of your backbenchers said is slightly off her trolley, authoritarian, domineering, refusing to listen to anybody else – why? Why cannot you publicly project what you have just told me is your private character?"
Margaret Thatcher: "Brian, if anyone's coming over as domineering in this interview, it's you."
It was simply gotcha drama. not journalism.
I have mentioned Russert.
My Gold Standard in TV journalists was Brian Walden.
Here is what is said of him in Wiki.
Walden is considered one of the finest political interviewers in the history of British broadcasting, tenacious and ruthless. He was known for interviews of politicians, especially Margaret Thatcher. He was said to be her favourite interviewer, although he gave her tough interviews. In October 1989, Thatcher gave Walden an interview when many within her own (Conservative) party were turning against her.
Brian Walden: "You come over as being someone who one of your backbenchers said is slightly off her trolley, authoritarian, domineering, refusing to listen to anybody else – why? Why cannot you publicly project what you have just told me is your private character?"
Margaret Thatcher: "Brian, if anyone's coming over as domineering in this interview, it's you."
What's fake about the numbers ?
He was stating that as additional costs.
When of course you would be saving by removing private health insurance costs for starters.
He should've kicked her up the arse while he had the chance.Red Dreams said:
In one interview she wanted to say more and he said "you have said enough already"
That was better than an an actual kick.
Yeah but its not his role to fill in the blanks to sell medicare for all. It was her role to correct that, which she didn't do a particularly good job of, compared to Sanders who routinely makes the case that there will be savings on the back end by way of no insurance, deductibles etc.
Trump adviser eyes entitlement cuts to plug U.S. budget gaps
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...+(News+/+US+/+Top+News)&utm_source=reddit.com
Class warfare as a 1-2 punch. Tax cuts and spending cuts.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...+(News+/+US+/+Top+News)&utm_source=reddit.com
Class warfare as a 1-2 punch. Tax cuts and spending cuts.
We have disagreed on this above.
Integrity. To keep going until all facts surface. Not with a motive to belittle or destroy anyone.
Note. I do not mention Truth. That is for the Religion thread.
The facts always speak for themselves.
And by the act of helping learn together which a solid journalist helps the viewer do, all the information is presented to make a decision.
Be that as it may, its not Tapper's role to sell medicare for all talking points that citizens would save money on the back end because they wouldn't spend money on insurance premiums, deductibles, or other out of pocket costs. That's a talking point that is being promoted by medicare for all proponents, and as such, those who go on tv to promote the plan should be able to speak authoritatively and with great attention to detail about how the plan would get paid for and how it would benefit citizens. It wasn't Tapper's job to cook Occasio a meal and then chew her food for her. As I said before, its not a big deal since she is new to politics and will gradually get wise on how to prepare for the curveballs she is going to get in MSM interviews.
My guy, this is CNN and cable news we're talking about. There's a reason why they literally refer to themselves as news entertainment.
Well you are an American . You need things sexed up for you to be interesting. It is in every facet of life here.
I honestly don't see why this is so hard to understand. As you said it's her job to correct any miss conceptions on the plan SHE is promoting. If she wasn't ready to come on a Sunday show and help others that may not understand her plan well then she shouldn't have come on.
Why is it that Eboue can explain and correct the numbers in 5 mins and she didn't. The numbers he sighted were from what he says is a left leaning article. Not sure the truth in that but if this is her big selling point I figure she should be able to answer and or correct jakes question.
Yep...and the 2nd interview I posted with Tapper and Bernie shows exactly what Ocasio should've done. To her credit, she looks more polished now than a few months ago, so I would expect her to keep improving over time and eventually be on par with Sanders.
Agreed . She will get better I really respect her and what she's trying to achieve
I like how you went through the troubles and intentionally didn't pick a pic of him in an Arse shirt
heres a thread on how the Washington DC city council (with 0 Republicans) is trying to prevent the tipped minimum wage from being raised to the same level as the minimum wage incrementally over the next 8 years.
DC voters passed this referendum in June 55% to 45% and the Democrats are trying to stop it.
Democrats are for corporations not for working people
DC voters passed this referendum in June 55% to 45% and the Democrats are trying to stop it.
Democrats are for corporations not for working people
This is why the only news coverage I watch is C-SPAN , only honest news out there on TV
I think in 4-5 years she'll be better than Sanders. Sanders has a naturally choppy, thick New England delivery. Its not the most listenable accent + speaking cadence. He is spot on though with how he easily counters the narrative with facts.
To say it 'failed in California' is not really the most accurate way to report what happened. There was some bill at the last minute that almost no one knew anything about. I can't even remember if I heard anything about it until the last minute. It had no publicity and no public discussions on it - I can't even remember a single LA Times, SF Chronicle or Oakland Tribune article on it - if they existed they were so sparse I didn't see them. In 2020 if there is even a mediocre campaign to get the word out, medical for all Californians would definitely win as it has overwhelming support.
Last edited:
I was wondering why single payer had yet to happen in CA.
Would be a great way to attract more companies coming in.
Mostly because Jerry Brown has wasted the last 8 years pushing his multi billion costing fossil fuel burning boondoggle train through Bakersfield and Modesto
Stuck in a rut until people unite and change the voting system. Which will never happen.
sickening.
This is why I am so disillusioned with both parties.
Both use fear tactics. pointing at the other party. voters are the constant losers.
I decided I'll vote for people I believe in. In Minnesota I've been fortunate that the candidates are pretty progressive.
we have a good set this November. Some really good people in the legislature I talk to now and then.
I hope the Democratic party does not screw it up like last time in 2020.
Not true but carry on.
Which part do you disagree with?
That Jerry Brown hasn't been wasting time and money on his ridiculous fossil fuel burning boondoggle? Or that that isn't the reason California democrats haven't pushed universal healthcare at the state level?
You were being silly. Brown has done more than one thing. You might not like the idea but it was voted for and supported by a majority of California. High speed rail is a great idea.
Tough have to give me better evidence on why health care is at is here in CA. I don't believe your claim.
First, how familiar with the bait and switch process that was used to sell it? Everyone I know that voted for it thought they were voting for a future forward mag-lev train (like the non-fossil fuel burning mag-lev high speed rail in Japan) that would be a direct route from LA Metro Area to SF metro area. Research conducted early showed that if a mag-lev could make the LA-SF trip under 2 hours is the key number.
A mag-lev train is future forward because it does not burn fossil fuel, making it potentially useful for centuries.
The original idea of a green mag-lev high speed rail that directly transports between SF and LA in under 2 hours was a great idea for the future.
What the idea mutated into - a fossil fuel burning conventional train that goes through the center of the state and doesn't break that under 2 hour time limit is a horrible idea.
I have meetings all afternoon but I can dig into sources later if you still think there is no difference between the original idea sold to the public of a green, future forward transpo system and the awful pork barrel project Brown is presiding over.
Here is quick article from Fallows though:
California High-Speed Rail Lucky No. 13: Let's Look at Maglev and Other Alternatives
"Should we invest in infrastructure? Absolutely! But the right kind of infrastructure." Some ideas on what that might mean.
Not 100% what you are trying to say here. Of course Brown is not the only problem but he has never been a universal healthcare supporter and his unfortunate leadership of the state Democrat party the last 8 years has been at least part of the reason why universal healthcare hasn't received a bigger push.
Gov. Jerry Brown stuck to his skeptical view on matters of broad healthcare reform on Wednesday, dismissing the idea of a universal healthcare system as something akin to a financial impossibility.
You tried to argue that Brown has wasted 8 years only working on the train issue. I'm telling you that's bollocks.
Simples.
Simples.
The question was why California doesnt have state universal health care.
Its a fact that Brown has been wasting a lot of time and energy on his boondoggle train and its fact that Brown doesnt give two fecks about universal healthcare.
I think you misread my first comment. Do you actually like Brown?
Ok so you've dropped the hyperbole. Explain to how California dems can give us UHC by dropping train funding.
Absolutely disagree with this. It’s not at all the job of a journalist to only give half the story and put politicians on the spot to correct what they must know is disingenous at best and a bare faced lie at worst. It’s not ‘selling’ a policy to report on both the good and the bad, there are plenty of genuine areas in question that the politicians could be quizzed about. By presenting only costs the journalist is starting out in opposition to the policy (and by extension selling his viewers on that opposition, and unless the politician manages to correct the ommision effectively the viewer comes away with a false impression of the policy. Since when is lying to viewers a journalists job?