Obama's gonna give Sanders a big kiss, then all the thugs and idiots will elect him by a wide margin. Landslide for Sanders. We don't need no conomy.
Anybody On This Board Voting for Sanders
- Thread starter wisemaniac
- Start date
They like all this crap when it is someone else's money. Most of them are hypocrites full of it. Some of them actually mean well, but don't look at reality.
They're too stupid to do that. These are stupid bums sitting Out Wayne or at Marcum Terrace waiting for a handout. Too many idiots, need to deport their asses.
I would like to see old Joe Biden in the race. Can you imagine the laughs watching Bernie and Joe in the debates? I imagine they will have to knock Joe's ass off or move him straight to a nursing home after his term as VP is all over. His inability to keep his mouth shut as he grows more senile could do some real harm to king Obama's reputation as being the world's savior when its all over.
IMO, no one seriously wants the job. The shit storms around the world and future economic troubles the current Pres has insured will increase through incompetence are too many for anyone to fix. Every candidate ultimately knows this.
So out of the four who favor Sanders (Fever, Ashes, Duke, & Random) Duke is the only one who has given a contingency candidate if he doesn't get the nod. I'm asking because I'm curious if he'll go the 3rd party route. A month ago I didn't think he would consider it but his numbers are strong enough that if the DNC continues to screw him over, I could see it.
It's nuts - the DNC is doing everything they can to ensure Hillary gets the nod & the RNC seems to be doing everything they can to prevent Trump from getting his. And in both cases, it's pissing off quite a few of their supporters. Folks on the right used to be worried that Trump would go 3rd party but his numbers are strong enough that it's not even a consideration right now.
It's nuts - the DNC is doing everything they can to ensure Hillary gets the nod & the RNC seems to be doing everything they can to prevent Trump from getting his. And in both cases, it's pissing off quite a few of their supporters. Folks on the right used to be worried that Trump would go 3rd party but his numbers are strong enough that it's not even a consideration right now.
Trump and Hillary want it. They'd walk through hell in gasoline suits to get it. The rest of them are old, weak, wimpy, fake, whatever. Hillary's a big liar, but her being a ferocious old bitch is real.
I am curious as to what his numbers would be if there were not 35 Republicans running for President.
The early thinking was that once the candidates started to dwindle, Rubio's numbers would really start to pick up. I didn't think Trump was serious about seeing this through - & I'm still skeptical, but I'm a lot less skeptical than I was before. And I'm not alone (that doesn't mean I'm voting for him though.) Trump & Sanders are picking up a lot of steam because the establishment is completely tone-deaf to the realities of the problems we're facing.
I'd really like to know who Hillary would pick as her VP. If Sanders does pick Warren, Hillary's done for. I'm not saying I don't think Bernie couldn't get the nom without her, but he desperately needs her on that ticket. I don't think it will really matter who Trump picks, unless it's a Palin-esque pic, which would likely hurt him.
While Rubio comes off as a good presenter, he does not seem to deviate from his talking points, which makes him appear more and more scripted. I did not think Trump was serious about this as well and is probably quite shocked by his numbers, I still believe he is enjoying his comedy routine and does not truly want the job, although becoming President of the United States would be the best thing ever for someone with an ego the size of his. Part of me believes this is an act to get more people to watch the debates.
Do you think this is the year we could see a third party candidate perform similar or better than Perot? I believe Gary Johnson could do very well if he received additional exposure.
Do you think Sanders is going to pick his VP ahead of the primaries?
A Trump ticket would be interesting because I think a lot of potential candidates would be reluctant to be associated with him.
Trump has quite a lot of his own money invested in something that he won't be able to recoup if he's not serious. If someone on the right were to run as a third party candidate, it would have to be someone who has been in the race this entire time. I like Johnson but he's basically an unknown to everybody but his supporters. I think that person would be Jeb cause it won't be Mitt. And Jeb appears to be a sinking ship at this point.
I think if Sanders plateaus in the races after Iowa & New Hampshire & needed a spark, he could start publicly floating names - & he's kind of already doing it with Warren. However, I wouldn't rule out that Warren could endorse Hillary depending on what Hillary promises her if she wins. It's politics after all.
After Obama got elected the first time, I worked with a number of people who, & I'm not making this up, framed their "I voted" stickers & not the newspapers where Obama won. I think that's pretty telling. I think a heavy amount of those same "look how progressive I am" folks would love the chance to do the same for a female candidate regardless of how despicable she is. Warren doesn't strike me as being any different. Electing an old white man doesn't tickle their clams the same way voting for the first female would.
Trump and Cruz are the only ones with enough balls to stand up to Hillary R Clinton.
Maybe they are like any normal man and they don't want to see that wench become President.
Trump appeals to those who are tired of illegals, rag head goat screwers, politicians, and limp wristed men leading our military. Oh, and he is tired, like me, of people apologizing for America. Screw that.
If you are sackless vote for the wench. If you are a commie vote for Sanders, the commie.
Maybe they are like any normal man and they don't want to see that wench become President.
Trump appeals to those who are tired of illegals, rag head goat screwers, politicians, and limp wristed men leading our military. Oh, and he is tired, like me, of people apologizing for America. Screw that.
If you are sackless vote for the wench. If you are a commie vote for Sanders, the commie.
Conservatives are just a bunch of scared and paranoid dullards. And conservative politicians are worse.
LOL, that's rich coming from Out Wayne. This guy is too scared to get bigger and make more money so he wants to take it out on the ones who weren't.
Conservatives, as usual, just make stuff up. I'm greedy when I pay people more money, and I'm greedy for not wanting to make money. Makes sense.... to a republican
Not wanting to make money? Oh, he wants to. He's just scared that he can't. Scared into a little rotting shop in hicktown. Voting for Bernie is revenge on the big timers. I'm sure they'll feel the dinky bern.
Hold on a second...I do not favor Sanders. About the only thing I agree with him on is nationalized health care, but for different reasons (I see it as the only tested and true method of containing costs). It's not going to happen anyway. I could theoretically get behind "free" college, but only with a total overhaul of our education system that would send far fewer people to traditional four year colleges. That isn't happening, either.
The open primary of Indiana gives me a chance to give the bird to one of the two parties. After Rand Paul was just fvxked by the GOP and Fox with the last debate, I am leaning heavily to voting for him.
I will probably vote for Johnson in the general, except for the contingencies I listed. Hillary is the Devil, and I firmly believe Trump or Cruz would be just horrible for this nation. What a mess when the top three candidates are utter assholes.
The open primary of Indiana gives me a chance to give the bird to one of the two parties. After Rand Paul was just fvxked by the GOP and Fox with the last debate, I am leaning heavily to voting for him.
I will probably vote for Johnson in the general, except for the contingencies I listed. Hillary is the Devil, and I firmly believe Trump or Cruz would be just horrible for this nation. What a mess when the top three candidates are utter assholes.
Cruz wouldn't win, but Trump would be great for people who are sick and tired of thugs, Mexicans and towelheads.
As for the people who love all that garbage, yeah it might suck for them.
I added the part you continue to leave out.
You already have a mini nationalized healthcare system (aka Medicare) for millions of Americans now. Its a bankrupt, mismanaged, govt controlled bureaucratic, disaster that has been one of the biggest reasons costs have been driven higher.over the last couple of decades..Medicare's attempts to "fix" costs/charges have driven prices higher and increased gaps in care for many who depend on it.
If we were to get what you want, (full govt control of reimbursement payments for all healthcare) we would be left with fewer hospitals to treat patients and patients emptying their own bed pans in the hospitals they manage finding a way to get in.
Yet it works well in other nations. Are you saying Americans are especially incompetent and corrupt?
Here is that great conservative newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, on if Medicare or private insurance is better at containing costs: "Overall, however, it appears that public programs control per capita spending somewhat more effectively than private coverage does. That may be just the opposite of what many (like you, Raleigh) would presume in a country where the private market is generally expected to outperform the public sector."
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/04/16/public-vs-private-health-insurance-on-controlling-spending/
That bloated, mismanaged disaster manages to have administrative costs of only 2%, vs A SHITLOAD MORE for private insurance. Check page five of the following link as my source. Is it possible that private insurance is actually mismanaged?
https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/7731-03.pdf
We could go back and forth and on and on, like we have before. But I think the WSJ article said it best for folks like you: " For some people, preferences for public or private coverage are largely ideological."
Here is that great conservative newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, on if Medicare or private insurance is better at containing costs: "Overall, however, it appears that public programs control per capita spending somewhat more effectively than private coverage does. That may be just the opposite of what many (like you, Raleigh) would presume in a country where the private market is generally expected to outperform the public sector."
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/04/16/public-vs-private-health-insurance-on-controlling-spending/
That bloated, mismanaged disaster manages to have administrative costs of only 2%, vs A SHITLOAD MORE for private insurance. Check page five of the following link as my source. Is it possible that private insurance is actually mismanaged?
https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/7731-03.pdf
We could go back and forth and on and on, like we have before. But I think the WSJ article said it best for folks like you: " For some people, preferences for public or private coverage are largely ideological."
I'm no where close to an expert on medical costs but could it be that Medicare Medicaid pay so little that private insurance has to reimburse higher rates to cover costs? I agree admin costs of private insurance companies is insane. why not use Medicare Medicaid taxes and insurance premiums as a health savings account and force doctors to post prices and let consumers determine costs that way
Last edited:
Bingo...........Don't try and tell Raoul this. He still wont understand it. Some just cant understand that when govt artifically fixes prices (as medicare attempts to do), it drives the financial costs for all others higher, as well as raising the ultimate cost, diminished quality care, higher too.
To answer Raoul's question...If this were a completely nationalized healthcare system here should I assume it will work better here than anywhere else? NO. Its basic economics. Its not ideological. Just like all those other nationalized systems that supposedly "work well", I would expect fewer nurses, doctors, and hospitals for their populations. Economics dictates this. You cant simply wipe away (nationalize) a market without tremendous negative impact on those that rely on its services or employment. Narrow views simply look at doing away with Insurance companies and assume the medical care side of the industry could continue unabated. IGNORANCE on multiple levels.
Medicare and the new provisions created by Obummercare for Medicare reimbursement has created some of the biggest shifts in medical care that most couldn't have imagined. Countless changes in the next 2-3 years are coming that most don't even realize yet. As bad as Obummercare is, nationalizing the system would be completely devastating to the system.....Imagine trying to meet the current nursing and doctor shortage, while having no $$ to pay them. Eliminating insurance companies would be the least of one's problems.
Oh, I understand it fine. If someone is willing to give a business more money than the next guy they will take it. Believe me, I'll give you an oil change for ten bucks if I know the next guy is going to pay me fifty. That is exactly the kind of shit, and mindset, that needs to go. It isn't a matter of ideology. It is a matter of this is an aging nation and this shit is going to bankrupt us all.
If healthcare were only as easy as changing someone's oil. LMAO.
Sure. You are all for this kind of healthcare.... until it results in you receiving the "Walmart" style care, service, and products it ends up producing (leading to endless bitching, moaning, and picketing of the same uninformed masses who demanded "low cost" in the beginning..). Health systems that have relied largely on medicare reimbursement for their largest % of patients/revenues are going bankrupt, begging state legislatures for bailout financing or looking to sellout/ merge with larger systems to save them from turning out the lights. They are already experiencing your version of "nationalized' care on a local level.
If it weren't for insured patients revenues covering Medicare related losses (due to artificially low price fixes), the number of healthcare providers and hospital systems countrywide would be decimated in numbers. Its quickly becoming a system that if you don't happen to live near a medical system/center with a relatively wealthier, productive demographic or near a center whose ties are to a teaching state funded med school/university, healthcare will be harder to come by.
i'm honestly not an expert of the matter (nor are you), but the experts do believe so, yes.
Well good, I live in a wealthy area with a teaching hospital. Damn UK stole two of my last cardiologists from UofL (both research professors) but I like the new one, too.
Again, we can go round and round. Where is the money for our current way of doing health care going to come from? How much of our GDP should go to health care? Again, national health care is not some utopian liberal dream for me. It is based in the reality of straight cash, homey. The boomers are going to bankrupt us all.
World Health O is the equivalent of United Nations. A bunch of socialist bureaucrats paid to speak out against US existence.
Go ahead and move to Columbia and check yourself into a hospital. Report back to us how good your experience was.
Similar threads
