Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign megathread v2 (pg 77 - declares victory in Iowa)

[Progressive Pessimist]

Tom Steyer here with the first legitimate anti-Sanders ad of the cycle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2Poe11xuJ4&feature=emb_logo

Somewhat unexpected considering how much esteem Steyer seems to have for Sanders.

[TheLaRocca]

Can you people PLEASE stop feeding the troll? Just put him on ignore. I assure you your Atlas experience will be much improved.

Anyone who disagrees with Bernie is an evil troll.

agreed but unironically.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Beautiful moment!

https://twitter.com/People4Bernie/status/1228515286162104326?s=20

[Roblox]

Lol the one guy that was shouting about Bernie holy water.

[Roblox]

Tom Steyer here with the first legitimate anti-Sanders ad of the cycle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2Poe11xuJ4&feature=emb_logo

Somewhat unexpected considering how much esteem Steyer seems to have for Sanders.

Honestly, he probably just did it to get some clout on twitter. Can't blame the guy, spending hundreds of millions of your fortune on a presidential campaign only to not even hit 5% nationally must be a sad existence.

[atheist4thecause]

Tom Steyer here with the first legitimate anti-Sanders ad of the cycle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2Poe11xuJ4&feature=emb_logo

Somewhat unexpected considering how much esteem Steyer seems to have for Sanders.

Honestly, he probably just did it to get some clout on twitter. Can't blame the guy, spending hundreds of millions of your fortune on a presidential campaign only to not even hit 5% nationally must be a sad existence.

Steyer is actually doing pretty well. National polls aren't very important. They will go up if he wins some states. He's been in the 2nd-3rd range in South Carolina. He's also around 4th in Nevada with a chance to move up. If he performs well in Nevada and then South Carolina, that could really springboard him into Super Tuesday, and he has money to spend as well. Bloomberg isn't the only one with money.

About Sanders giving water, I mean, okay but most candidates would try to get the person water. This isn't like the bird that flew on his podium as he spoke. Now that was special.

[Dr. Arch]

Beautiful moment!

https://twitter.com/People4Bernie/status/1228515286162104326?s=20

A true rarity in our political system

[Beet]

https://twitter.com/ConorLambPA/status/1228430867078488075

Another anti-endorsement.

[GoTfan]

https://twitter.com/ConorLambPA/status/1228430867078488075

Another anti-endorsement.

"Let's do this environmentally risky measure because JOBS."

[John Dule]

Beautiful moment!

https://twitter.com/People4Bernie/status/1228515286162104326?s=20

But some boomer on TV told me that Sanders wouldn't stop on the road to help me fix my car. How do I square these two contradictory facts??

[Beet]

Beautiful moment!

https://twitter.com/People4Bernie/status/1228515286162104326?s=20

But some boomer on TV told me that Sanders wouldn't stop on the road to help me fix my car. How do I square these two contradictory facts??

When you're being watched by thousands and millions of people, people tend to be a bit more pro social than seeing a person with a broken car at the side of a lonely road.

[Annatar]

There are a lot of comparisons to be made between Trump in 2016 and Sanders in 2020, one difference however is at this point Trump had consolidated a larger share of the Republican electorate behind him than Bernie has. In NH Trump got 35% whereas Bernie got 26% in 2020, now 26% vs 35% might not seem like a huge difference but if Bernie had gotten 35% in NH this primary would already be over.

In NV Trump got nearly 46% of the vote, however well Bernie does I doubt he will exceed 35% of the vote in NV. If Bernie gets close to Trump's 46% in NV this primary is over and I think Bernie will easily won a majority of delegates, but so far Bernie has not consolidated as large a share of the primary electorate as Trump did.

[vitoNova]

He's not really sealing the deal because:

1. His age
2. Doesn't his tax plan propose raising taxes on middle-income earners?  Democrats don't want to hear that jive.   They want to hear "I will raise taxes on the rich."

Having said that, he theoretically should be the nominee.   Especially in the current field of milquetoasts. 

[Hollywood]

He's not really sealing the deal because:

1. His age
2. Doesn't his tax plan propose raising taxes on middle-income earners?  Democrats don't want to hear that jive.   They want to hear "I will raise taxes on the rich."

Having said that, he theoretically should be the nominee.   Especially in the current field of milquetoasts. 

You'd have to make over $75,000 to keep less of your money under Bernie's tax plan, but that depends on how much you're spending on health care.  You're taxed 4% for "medicare for all" premiums similar to standard deductions, and that 4% is a lot lower than the amount middle class Americans are spending on private insurance premiums.   Anyone making under $29,000 would not have to pay due to standard deductions.

[Babeuf]

Beautiful moment!

https://twitter.com/People4Bernie/status/1228515286162104326?s=20

But some boomer on TV told me that Sanders wouldn't stop on the road to help me fix my car. How do I square these two contradictory facts??

When you're being watched by thousands and millions of people, people tend to be a bit more pro social than seeing a person with a broken car at the side of a lonely road.

https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-saved-a-woman-from-getting-hit-by-a-car-2018-10

[atheist4thecause]

He's not really sealing the deal because:

1. His age
2. Doesn't his tax plan propose raising taxes on middle-income earners?  Democrats don't want to hear that jive.   They want to hear "I will raise taxes on the rich."

Having said that, he theoretically should be the nominee.   Especially in the current field of milquetoasts. 

You'd have to make over $75,000 to keep less of your money under Bernie's tax plan, but that depends on how much you're spending on health care.  You're taxed 4% for "medicare for all" premiums similar to standard deductions, and that 4% is a lot lower than the amount middle class Americans are spending on private insurance premiums.   Anyone making under $29,000 would not have to pay due to standard deductions.

Bernie has been known to mislead through false numbers, at least according to the opinion of Democratic economists and Hillary Clinton in 2016:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/democratic-economists-say-bernie-sanders-math-doesnt-add-up-1455726507
https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/268335-clinton-bernies-numbers-dont-add-up
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/27/1492441/-Bernie-s-Numbers-don-t-add-up-detailed-analysis

[Shadows]

He's not really sealing the deal because:

1. His age
2. Doesn't his tax plan propose raising taxes on middle-income earners?  Democrats don't want to hear that jive.   They want to hear "I will raise taxes on the rich."

Having said that, he theoretically should be the nominee.   Especially in the current field of milquetoasts.  

You'd have to make over $75,000 to keep less of your money under Bernie's tax plan, but that depends on how much you're spending on health care.  You're taxed 4% for "medicare for all" premiums similar to standard deductions, and that 4% is a lot lower than the amount middle class Americans are spending on private insurance premiums.   Anyone making under $29,000 would not have to pay due to standard deductions.

Bernie has been known to mislead through false numbers, at least according to the opinion of Democratic economists and Hillary Clinton in 2016:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/democratic-economists-say-bernie-sanders-math-doesnt-add-up-1455726507
https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/268335-clinton-bernies-numbers-dont-add-up
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/27/1492441/-Bernie-s-Numbers-don-t-add-up-detailed-analysis

Clinton people talk & of economists/think tanks funded by special groups. Many great economists including Piketty Sachs & Nobel winner Stiglitz have endorsed Bernie's tax plan.

[Hollywood]

He's not really sealing the deal because:

1. His age
2. Doesn't his tax plan propose raising taxes on middle-income earners?  Democrats don't want to hear that jive.   They want to hear "I will raise taxes on the rich."

Having said that, he theoretically should be the nominee.   Especially in the current field of milquetoasts. 

You'd have to make over $75,000 to keep less of your money under Bernie's tax plan, but that depends on how much you're spending on health care.  You're taxed 4% for "medicare for all" premiums similar to standard deductions, and that 4% is a lot lower than the amount middle class Americans are spending on private insurance premiums.   Anyone making under $29,000 would not have to pay due to standard deductions.

Bernie has been known to mislead through false numbers, at least according to the opinion of Democratic economists and Hillary Clinton in 2016:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/democratic-economists-say-bernie-sanders-math-doesnt-add-up-1455726507
https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/268335-clinton-bernies-numbers-dont-add-up
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/27/1492441/-Bernie-s-Numbers-don-t-add-up-detailed-analysis

I don't accept Hillary Clinton as a source for anything.  Not a credible person. 

Also, the Wall Street has been known to mislead its readers about a variety of government healthcare programs.  They have a known bias. This is the Wall Street Journal editorial arguing against the SCHIP program, which provides healthcare to children in low-income areas.  https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118662306308792513.  This is the Wall Street Journal attacking Medicaid by claiming the program spurred Opium addition, as opposed to the drug companies profit-sharing and incentivizing of physicians and medical practices.  https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-medicaid-spur-opioid-abuse-1506289279.

Based on articles discussing the Wall Street Journal numbers, they are misleading readers into believing that the $14.7 trillion isn’t a drastic reduction in healthcare costs.  The reduction in private spending in favor of a progressive tax will save Americans $2 trillion each year, particularly in the bottom two-thirds of American households. 

[2016]

Bernie & his Supporters marching to an Early Voting Location in Nevada:

https://twitter.com/GarrettHaake/status/1228769577510686720

[John Dule]

Bernie & his Supporters marching to an Early Voting Location in Nevada:

https://twitter.com/GarrettHaake/status/1228769577510686720

Comrade Sanders' Long March.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Pete wins Iowa
Bernie Bros: Bernie won Iowa
Bernie wins NH
Bernie Bros: Winning is winning, only the Bernie can claim victory

[Adam Griffin]

https://twitter.com/AnnieGrayerCNN/status/1228515740204064768

https://twitter.com/coniglio_aj/status/1228541470765916160

[Progressive Pessimist]

Pete wins Iowa
Bernie Bros: Bernie won Iowa
Bernie wins NH
Bernie Bros: Winning is winning, only the Bernie can claim victory

I am by no means a Bernie Bro, but Buttigieg winning the SDE measure by the skin of his teeth yet losing the popular vote, doesn't make it that much of a stretch to consider Sanders the real winner there.

[T'Chenka]

Pete wins Iowa
Bernie Bros: Bernie won Iowa
Bernie wins NH
Bernie Bros: Winning is winning, only the Bernie can claim victory

I am by no means a Bernie Bro, but Buttigieg winning the SDE measure by the skin of his teeth yet losing the popular vote, doesn't make it that much of a stretch to consider Sanders the real winner there.

The Buttigieg posters are in meltdown mode now that they're realizing that Pete isn't gonna win another state.

[atheist4thecause]

He's not really sealing the deal because:

1. His age
2. Doesn't his tax plan propose raising taxes on middle-income earners?  Democrats don't want to hear that jive.   They want to hear "I will raise taxes on the rich."

Having said that, he theoretically should be the nominee.   Especially in the current field of milquetoasts. 

You'd have to make over $75,000 to keep less of your money under Bernie's tax plan, but that depends on how much you're spending on health care.  You're taxed 4% for "medicare for all" premiums similar to standard deductions, and that 4% is a lot lower than the amount middle class Americans are spending on private insurance premiums.   Anyone making under $29,000 would not have to pay due to standard deductions.

Bernie has been known to mislead through false numbers, at least according to the opinion of Democratic economists and Hillary Clinton in 2016:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/democratic-economists-say-bernie-sanders-math-doesnt-add-up-1455726507
https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/268335-clinton-bernies-numbers-dont-add-up
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/27/1492441/-Bernie-s-Numbers-don-t-add-up-detailed-analysis

I don't accept Hillary Clinton as a source for anything.  Not a credible person. 

Also, the Wall Street has been known to mislead its readers about a variety of government healthcare programs.  They have a known bias. This is the Wall Street Journal editorial arguing against the SCHIP program, which provides healthcare to children in low-income areas.  https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118662306308792513.  This is the Wall Street Journal attacking Medicaid by claiming the program spurred Opium addition, as opposed to the drug companies profit-sharing and incentivizing of physicians and medical practices.  https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-medicaid-spur-opioid-abuse-1506289279.

Based on articles discussing the Wall Street Journal numbers, they are misleading readers into believing that the $14.7 trillion isn’t a drastic reduction in healthcare costs.  The reduction in private spending in favor of a progressive tax will save Americans $2 trillion each year, particularly in the bottom two-thirds of American households. 

The WSJ is merely covering what Democratic economists say, and they were saying that Bernie's numbers don't add up. These economists operated under Obama and others under Bill Clinton who I'm guessing you also dismiss. I'm guessing you will dismiss any sources that don't fit your narrative. On one hand you have some Democrats agreeing with Sanders. On the other hand, other Democrats and Republicans are united against together against Sanders. If you look at the reasoning of those on the Sanders side, they cite the UK system. Well, as you already acknowledged, their proposed system is nothing like the UK system because the UK system is nationalized.