Elizabeth Warren 2020 Megathread v2 (pg 35 - Emily List support)

[It’s so Joever]

So you guys are going to vote for that neoliberal clown against Warren because she accused Bernie of saying something that they, he probably actually said? God I hate this country!

Tough sh**t. At least your friends and family aren't being treated like trash and denied disaster aid because this administration is downright vile and inhuman (e.g. Maria in 2017 and earthquakes in Puerto Rico right now).

Worse of all, they're stuck in second grade citizen status. At least you get to vote, and politicians (read: Republicans in this case) have to at least pretend like they care.

You say that you hate this country, and you haven't felt its heel down your throat quite just yet.

Work to make it better. Your current rhetoric isn't helping to that end.

Neither is the borderline psychotic hatred of Sanders about half the Democrats on this forum have.

Not hatred, fear. I am scared of Sanders. I will vote for him against Trump, but he still scares me.

[GeneralMacArthur]

https://mobile.twitter.com/karavoght/status/1218171896086388737

These documents are from a foreign bank (Barclays, in the UK).

Mother Jones makes it seem like they've found a secret trove of rich Wall Street guys whining about Warren.  Instead, this is a foreign bank doing a sober analysis of what each candidate's nomination would mean for the U.S. going forward, and how it would change their investment strategy.

Unsurprisingly, the conclusion for Warren is "if Warren is elected she'll f*** everything up"

Warren’s corporate tax plan, according to one memo the bank circulated, would “directly impact corporate earnings.” Her nine-point eligibility test for international trading partners—which requires a commitment to protect religious freedom and labor rights—“would disrupt global supply chains.” And her proposed 2 percent tax on personal wealth greater than $50 million “would likely crimp investment in the economy.”

Closing tax loopholes, as Warren proposes, would “likely limit the size” of the private equity industry—an industry that Warren has described as “legalized looting” because of the way it buys and restructures companies. Banning fracking would be “broadly negative” for energy companies. The households subject to Warren’s wealth tax “would likely need to fund it by reducing their assets.” Warren’s plans to break up Big Tech—companies like Amazon, Facebook, and Google—would be “detrimental to the performance of these companies” and “erode the value of the companies that own them.” And, as Mother Jones reported last year, Barclays predicts that Swiss banks—which often serve as off-shore havens for the ultra-wealthy—would suffer, due in large part to the fact that their clientele are “the segment right in the middle of Senator Warren’s crosshairs.”

This is known, though.  If you elect Warren you're probably trading off about a 20-30% reduction in the economy for the chance to stick it to rich people.

[Pericles]

This is known, though.  If you elect Warren you're probably trading off about a 20-30% reduction in the economy for the chance to stick it to rich people.

A Great Depression equivalent because a progressive Democrat won a presidential election? Gosh that’s delusional! You can’t expect to be taken seriously if you make such absurd posts.

[GeneralMacArthur]

This is known, though.  If you elect Warren you're probably trading off about a 20-30% reduction in the economy for the chance to stick it to rich people.

A Great Depression equivalent because a progressive Democrat won a presidential election? Gosh that’s delusional! You can’t expect to be taken seriously if you make such absurd posts.

How many wealthy people are going to leave the United States?

How many businesses will leave the United States?

How much contraction is there going to be?

How much will our economy be disrupted by eliminating all private insurance, breaking up big banks and big tech, and slapping punishing new regulations on everything?

What will happen to innovation in this new environment where the government is at war with its own businesses?

Warren never quantifies any of this.  And she's supposed to be Ms. Details, the economic brainiac.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

This is known, though.  If you elect Warren you're probably trading off about a 20-30% reduction in the economy for the chance to stick it to rich people.

A Great Depression equivalent because a progressive Democrat won a presidential election? Gosh that’s delusional! You can’t expect to be taken seriously if you make such absurd posts.

How many wealthy people are going to leave the United States?

How many businesses will leave the United States?

How much contraction is there going to be?

How much will our economy be disrupted by eliminating all private insurance, breaking up big banks and big tech, and slapping punishing new regulations on everything?

What will happen to innovation in this new environment where the government is at war with its own businesses?

Warren never quantifies any of this.  And she's supposed to be Ms. Details, the economic brainiac.

There are going to be 50 Democrats in the Senate in a really good outcome. Makes most of this agenda very difficult Even if the outcome is worse than that (meaning many more radical dems):

No wealthy American citizen will leave America over a tiny wealth tax. It is impossible without sacrificing everything in their lifestyle. I agree that the wealth tax should be smaller, but it must exist. A starting point in negotiation with the moderate wing.

Businesses leaving the US is very difficult. America is an irreplaceable market. There may be some outsourcing of routine activities. US headquartered companies still have a lot of worldwide income that may be immediately eligible for taxation. Removing the US headquarters through inversion is nearly impossible now thanks to Obama.

Eliminating private insurance will be a disruption. However, for the vast majority of companies in the US, not having to worry about covering employer-sponsored insurance costs is a huge cost cut and likely not a terrible trade-off. I'm not a healthcare expert like many here so all I can do it echo, but this seems like a clear cut more logical and efficient system. Given the state of the Senate, this is no more than a starting point for bargaining and unlikely to happen at all. Very unfortunate for the ease of doing business in the US. [Breaking up banks is probably not ideal depending on what exactly that means. I haven't looked into it since Warren has no chance. Breaking up some tech firms is a moral necessity.]

[Rookie Yinzer]

Hotmic moment pretty much proves Warren was telling the the truth. She was indignant and Bernie was stammering and acting like he didn't know what time it was.

 Go Liz, Go.

Or he was hurt that his friend would smear him like this, but go off.

It’s always everyone else, never Bernie. Y’all never hold this 80 year old man accountable for anything ever.

I can't hold him accountable for telling his truth.  He's disputing a verifiable liar. 

I can hold Warren accountable for rejecting Bernie's handshake.  It's low class.  Being called a liar is not an excuse.  If that's the way she's going to conduct herself, she might as well go back to being Dr. Phil's Financial guru.   

Yall loved her not too long ago now she’s this pathological liar. Meanwhile Bernie has been lying to voters for five years that he could break up banks, eliminate student loan debt, and throw 140 million people off their insurance if he holds enough rallies in Louisville, Kentucky. A mess.

[Devout Centrist]

Hotmic moment pretty much proves Warren was telling the the truth. She was indignant and Bernie was stammering and acting like he didn't know what time it was.

 Go Liz, Go.

Or he was hurt that his friend would smear him like this, but go off.

It’s always everyone else, never Bernie. Y’all never hold this 80 year old man accountable for anything ever.

I can't hold him accountable for telling his truth.  He's disputing a verifiable liar. 

I can hold Warren accountable for rejecting Bernie's handshake.  It's low class.  Being called a liar is not an excuse.  If that's the way she's going to conduct herself, she might as well go back to being Dr. Phil's Financial guru.   

Yall loved her not too long ago now she’s this pathological liar.

I liked Liz Warren because she was a team player, a good public speaker, and had the right credentials to be President.

But you know what? I now realize she's utterly incompetent, politically maladroit, and more cynical than me! This leak, from her campaign, shows just how bad her political instincts are. She wants to 'deescalate' this fight after leaking and confirming the story? How delusional. She had no plan. She leaked these comments in desperation.

It's clear that Warren's chance has passed. There was a time, back in September and October, when she had momentum. It looked like she could be the new frontrunner. Then she caved to Buttigieg on Medicare for All, and it's all downhill from there.

Meanwhile Bernie has been lying to voters for five years that he could break up banks, eliminate student loan debt, and throw 140 million people off their insurance if he holds enough rallies in Louisville, Kentucky. A mess.

Are you a Democrat? Do you believe in having long term goals? Do you want to live in a better country?

People say Liz is a liar for her comments about her heritage and her alleged meeting with Sanders, not for the proposals she's making.

throw 140 million people off their insurance

Very telling that you're parroting talking points used by the insurance industry.

[GoTfan]

Hotmic moment pretty much proves Warren was telling the the truth. She was indignant and Bernie was stammering and acting like he didn't know what time it was.

 Go Liz, Go.

Or he was hurt that his friend would smear him like this, but go off.

It’s always everyone else, never Bernie. Y’all never hold this 80 year old man accountable for anything ever.

I can't hold him accountable for telling his truth.  He's disputing a verifiable liar. 

I can hold Warren accountable for rejecting Bernie's handshake.  It's low class.  Being called a liar is not an excuse.  If that's the way she's going to conduct herself, she might as well go back to being Dr. Phil's Financial guru.   

Yall loved her not too long ago now she’s this pathological liar. Meanwhile Bernie has been lying to voters for five years that he could break up banks, eliminate student loan debt, and throw 140 million people off their insurance if he holds enough rallies in Louisville, Kentucky. A mess.

When a Democrat regurgitates Republican talking points, something is wrong.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Meanwhile Bernie has been lying to voters for five years that he could break up banks, eliminate student loan debt, and throw 140 million people off their insurance if he holds enough rallies in Louisville, Kentucky. A mess.

This seems like a pretty disingenuous attack. As I recall, you were pretty enthusiastic about Stacey Abrams in 2018. If she had been elected Governor, would she have been able to enact all the policies that she would have liked to enact, if there were GOP control of the GA state legislature? Seems quite doubtful.

This is simply what politicians do when they campaign - they say what policies they would like to enact.

Whether it is possible for them to be enacted depends not on whether the voters elect any one politician, but on all of the various politicians that the voters elect.

Supposing that the voters elect Bernie Sanders with a GOP Senate, and the GOP Senate decides not to pass what Bernie Sanders wants to pass, that is no more his fault than it would be if the voters in GA elected Stacey Abrams, but the GOP still held a majority in the GA state legislature (probably with help from gerrymandered districts etc) and said "hell no, we are not doing what the black lady wants us to do."

The same is true for all politicians fairly universally - when campaigning, they say what they would like to do, but whether they can actually do it depends in large part on who else the voters (or the electoral system, more precisely, since most elections are not free and fair) decide to elect along with them.

[It’s so Joever]

Hotmic moment pretty much proves Warren was telling the the truth. She was indignant and Bernie was stammering and acting like he didn't know what time it was.

 Go Liz, Go.

Or he was hurt that his friend would smear him like this, but go off.

It’s always everyone else, never Bernie. Y’all never hold this 80 year old man accountable for anything ever.

I can't hold him accountable for telling his truth.  He's disputing a verifiable liar. 

I can hold Warren accountable for rejecting Bernie's handshake.  It's low class.  Being called a liar is not an excuse.  If that's the way she's going to conduct herself, she might as well go back to being Dr. Phil's Financial guru.   

Yall loved her not too long ago now she’s this pathological liar. Meanwhile Bernie has been lying to voters for five years that he could break up banks, eliminate student loan debt, and throw 140 million people off their insurance if he holds enough rallies in Louisville, Kentucky. A mess.

When a Democrat regurgitates Republican talking points, something is wrong.

Questioning how he is going to get things done is now “Republican”? It’s funny how not supporting the independent makes someone a fake Democrat.

[YE]

Hotmic moment pretty much proves Warren was telling the the truth. She was indignant and Bernie was stammering and acting like he didn't know what time it was.

 Go Liz, Go.

Or he was hurt that his friend would smear him like this, but go off.

It’s always everyone else, never Bernie. Y’all never hold this 80 year old man accountable for anything ever.

I can't hold him accountable for telling his truth.  He's disputing a verifiable liar. 

I can hold Warren accountable for rejecting Bernie's handshake.  It's low class.  Being called a liar is not an excuse.  If that's the way she's going to conduct herself, she might as well go back to being Dr. Phil's Financial guru.   

Yall loved her not too long ago now she’s this pathological liar. Meanwhile Bernie has been lying to voters for five years that he could break up banks, eliminate student loan debt, and throw 140 million people off their insurance if he holds enough rallies in Louisville, Kentucky. A mess.

When a Democrat regurgitates Republican talking points, something is wrong.

Questioning how he is going to get things done is now “Republican”? It’s funny how not supporting the independent makes someone a fake Democrat.

There really isn't that much of a question thought as it largely depends on the composition of the next Congress (though tbf two of those thing can be done executively anyway).

[YE]

It's funny how despite all of Bernie's rhetoric the only candidate the big money class really fears in Elizabeth Warren. Ask yourself why that is?

Because Warren is more competent on policy (and a decent chunk of why I switched to her from Sanders in June), even if I don't think Sanders is particularly bad.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

Hotmic moment pretty much proves Warren was telling the the truth. She was indignant and Bernie was stammering and acting like he didn't know what time it was.

 Go Liz, Go.

Or he was hurt that his friend would smear him like this, but go off.

It’s always everyone else, never Bernie. Y’all never hold this 80 year old man accountable for anything ever.

I can't hold him accountable for telling his truth.  He's disputing a verifiable liar. 

I can hold Warren accountable for rejecting Bernie's handshake.  It's low class.  Being called a liar is not an excuse.  If that's the way she's going to conduct herself, she might as well go back to being Dr. Phil's Financial guru.   

Yall loved her not too long ago now she’s this pathological liar. Meanwhile Bernie has been lying to voters for five years that he could break up banks, eliminate student loan debt, and throw 140 million people off their insurance if he holds enough rallies in Louisville, Kentucky. A mess.

When a Democrat regurgitates Republican talking points, something is wrong.

Questioning how he is going to get things done is now “Republican”? It’s funny how not supporting the independent makes someone a fake Democrat.

There are interesting, liberal cases to argue against Medicare for All. "Half the country will get kicked off their insurance" is not only a Republican talking point parroted by Trump's own administration, but a lie by omission.

[Beet]

Not long after meeting with Sanders at the end of 2018 to discuss her impending presidential run, Warren hosted an off-the-record dinner with a number of journalists, according to sources with knowledge of it. At the dinner, Warren was asked about her meeting with Sanders, and in the course of the discussion, she relayed that Sanders had warned that he didn’t believe a woman could beat Trump in 2020. Different reporters recalled the comments differently, a mirror image of the dispute between Warren and Sanders over exactly what Sanders said — with Warren saying that Sanders argued a woman couldn’t beat Trump, while Sanders said that he only said Trump would weaponize misogyny against a woman, not that it would work.

This latest twist in the saga suggests Warren could be telling the truth and that CNN could have sourced its story via journalists present at the dinner who broke their off-the-record agreement or others who were told about the meeting after the fact and thus not bound by the agreement. Notably, the original CNN story by M.J Lee did not refer to any Warren aides or campaign officials, but instead cited “two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting.” The latest information also calls into question the claims made by some of CNN’s own pundits, who have effectively accused Warren or her team of leaking the meeting to damage Sanders.

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/new-details-suggest-political-journalists-not-warren-campaign-couldve-leaked-woman-cant-win-claim-about-sanders-to-cnn/

[GeneralMacArthur]

Hotmic moment pretty much proves Warren was telling the the truth. She was indignant and Bernie was stammering and acting like he didn't know what time it was.

 Go Liz, Go.

Or he was hurt that his friend would smear him like this, but go off.

It’s always everyone else, never Bernie. Y’all never hold this 80 year old man accountable for anything ever.

I can't hold him accountable for telling his truth.  He's disputing a verifiable liar. 

I can hold Warren accountable for rejecting Bernie's handshake.  It's low class.  Being called a liar is not an excuse.  If that's the way she's going to conduct herself, she might as well go back to being Dr. Phil's Financial guru.   

Yall loved her not too long ago now she’s this pathological liar. Meanwhile Bernie has been lying to voters for five years that he could break up banks, eliminate student loan debt, and throw 140 million people off their insurance if he holds enough rallies in Louisville, Kentucky. A mess.

When a Democrat regurgitates Republican talking points, something is wrong.

Questioning how he is going to get things done is now “Republican”? It’s funny how not supporting the independent makes someone a fake Democrat.

There really isn't that much of a question thought as it largely depends on the composition of the next Congress (though tbf two of those thing can be done executively anyway).

Even if the next Congress was 100% Democrat, the Green New Deal and Medicare For All wouldn't get passed.

Heck, even if the Senate was 100% Bernie Sanders clones and the House was 100% AOC clones, it wouldn't happen.

Why?  Because it's not real policy.  It doesn't mathematically work.  If anyone were to every write an actual bill and not just a wish-list, the CBO assessments would be hilariously devastating.  The tax increases required to quadruple federal spending would absolutely tank the economy.  And the actual details of these policies are beyond the mental capacities of AOC and Sanders.  Just go read the Bernie Sanders NYDN interview.  He is not capable of getting in the weeds on any of this.  The only trick he has is some memorized statistics.

That's why I've always respected Warren infinitely more than Sanders.  Although I strongly disagree with her policies, I honestly believe that Warren is capable of getting into the details and crafting policies that actually work.  If the Senate was 100% Warren, she might go in there wanting M4A, but after long periods of research, end up crafting a plan that, while not the tremendously expensive we'll-pay-for-everything-no-matter-what plan they've been promising, is able to balance all the different tradeoffs and maintain a reasonable economic position while achieving her goals.

Sanders wouldn't know what to do if the Senate was 100% him because he's never actually had to write real, passable policy in his life and he doesn't know how.  All he knows how to do is write wish lists and mission statements and then criticize Democrats for not signing onto them.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Hotmic moment pretty much proves Warren was telling the the truth. She was indignant and Bernie was stammering and acting like he didn't know what time it was.

 Go Liz, Go.

Or he was hurt that his friend would smear him like this, but go off.

It’s always everyone else, never Bernie. Y’all never hold this 80 year old man accountable for anything ever.

I can't hold him accountable for telling his truth.  He's disputing a verifiable liar. 

I can hold Warren accountable for rejecting Bernie's handshake.  It's low class.  Being called a liar is not an excuse.  If that's the way she's going to conduct herself, she might as well go back to being Dr. Phil's Financial guru.   

Yall loved her not too long ago now she’s this pathological liar. Meanwhile Bernie has been lying to voters for five years that he could break up banks, eliminate student loan debt, and throw 140 million people off their insurance if he holds enough rallies in Louisville, Kentucky. A mess.

When a Democrat regurgitates Republican talking points, something is wrong.

Questioning how he is going to get things done is now “Republican”? It’s funny how not supporting the independent makes someone a fake Democrat.

There really isn't that much of a question thought as it largely depends on the composition of the next Congress (though tbf two of those thing can be done executively anyway).

Even if the next Congress was 100% Democrat, the Green New Deal and Medicare For All wouldn't get passed.

Heck, even if the Senate was 100% Bernie Sanders clones and the House was 100% AOC clones, it wouldn't happen.

Why?  Because it's not real policy.  It doesn't mathematically work.  If anyone were to every write an actual bill and not just a wish-list, the CBO assessments would be hilariously devastating.  The tax increases required to quadruple federal spending would absolutely tank the economy.  And the actual details of these policies are beyond the mental capacities of AOC and Sanders.  Just go read the Bernie Sanders NYDN interview.  He is not capable of getting in the weeds on any of this.  The only trick he has is some memorized statistics.

That's why I've always respected Warren infinitely more than Sanders.  Although I strongly disagree with her policies, I honestly believe that Warren is capable of getting into the details and crafting policies that actually work.  If the Senate was 100% Warren, she might go in there wanting M4A, but after long periods of research, end up crafting a plan that, while not the tremendously expensive we'll-pay-for-everything-no-matter-what plan they've been promising, is able to balance all the different tradeoffs and maintain a reasonable economic position while achieving her goals.

Sanders wouldn't know what to do if the Senate was 100% him because he's never actually had to write real, passable policy in his life and he doesn't know how.  All he knows how to do is write wish lists and mission statements and then criticize Democrats for not signing onto them.

What on earth?

[YE]

Hotmic moment pretty much proves Warren was telling the the truth. She was indignant and Bernie was stammering and acting like he didn't know what time it was.

 Go Liz, Go.

Or he was hurt that his friend would smear him like this, but go off.

It’s always everyone else, never Bernie. Y’all never hold this 80 year old man accountable for anything ever.

I can't hold him accountable for telling his truth.  He's disputing a verifiable liar. 

I can hold Warren accountable for rejecting Bernie's handshake.  It's low class.  Being called a liar is not an excuse.  If that's the way she's going to conduct herself, she might as well go back to being Dr. Phil's Financial guru.   

Yall loved her not too long ago now she’s this pathological liar. Meanwhile Bernie has been lying to voters for five years that he could break up banks, eliminate student loan debt, and throw 140 million people off their insurance if he holds enough rallies in Louisville, Kentucky. A mess.

When a Democrat regurgitates Republican talking points, something is wrong.

Questioning how he is going to get things done is now “Republican”? It’s funny how not supporting the independent makes someone a fake Democrat.

There really isn't that much of a question thought as it largely depends on the composition of the next Congress (though tbf two of those thing can be done executively anyway).

Even if the next Congress was 100% Democrat, the Green New Deal and Medicare For All wouldn't get passed.

Heck, even if the Senate was 100% Bernie Sanders clones and the House was 100% AOC clones, it wouldn't happen.

Why?  Because it's not real policy.  It doesn't mathematically work.  If anyone were to every write an actual bill and not just a wish-list, the CBO assessments would be hilariously devastating.  The tax increases required to quadruple federal spending would absolutely tank the economy.  And the actual details of these policies are beyond the mental capacities of AOC and Sanders.  Just go read the Bernie Sanders NYDN interview.  He is not capable of getting in the weeds on any of this.  The only trick he has is some memorized statistics.

That's why I've always respected Warren infinitely more than Sanders.  Although I strongly disagree with her policies, I honestly believe that Warren is capable of getting into the details and crafting policies that actually work.  If the Senate was 100% Warren, she might go in there wanting M4A, but after long periods of research, end up crafting a plan that, while not the tremendously expensive we'll-pay-for-everything-no-matter-what plan they've been promising, is able to balance all the different tradeoffs and maintain a reasonable economic position while achieving her goals.

Sanders wouldn't know what to do if the Senate was 100% him because he's never actually had to write real, passable policy in his life and he doesn't know how.  All he knows how to do is write wish lists and mission statements and then criticize Democrats for not signing onto them.

Warren comes from a different background than most politicians because she was actually a professor who studied bankruptcy law in the 1990s and 2000s. Sanders is unquestionably not as wonky as Warren and seems more focused on big concepts and ideas rather than the details.

I don't think Sanders is particularly incompetent in terms of getting things done either because the evident doesn't really support that as noted below.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/24/bernie-sanders/bernie-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/

https://www.alternet.org/2015/10/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you/

https://pplswar.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/what-bernie-sanders-got-done-in-washington-a-legislative-inventory/

I'm of the belief that competency in terms of getting things done is a declining factor as polarization rises in this country, and whatever happens will largely be in control of the composition of Congress. Holding a rally in Louisville isn't going to change a danm thing to convince Koch Brother backed Republicans to vote for [insert favorite progressive policy] and it shouldn't been seen as some "gotcha" when used to attack Sanders.

I guess one could argue (and I'm guessing you believe this) that Biden could get more moderate Dems on board with said policy than Sanders and Warren but for one, their are fewer and fewer moderates as polarization rises, and for two, I haven't seen any evidence that one one be any better than the other. From a procedural standpoint, I don't think Sanders, Warren, or Biden are much different in terms of competence in terms of getting stuff done on balance. Warren is more wonky (which can sometimes backfire - see Hillarycare) but does deserve credit for pushing the Obama admin to the left on many issues. Sanders and Biden come from an era where from a procedural standpoint (even if I personally disagree with many of those policies) Congress was more effective. I think Sanders would be more likely to go on the offensive (sorta like Trump with regards to Trumpcare) to push his agenda but that admittedly isn't going to be as effective as Secular Talk or TYT think.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Even if the next Congress was 100% Democrat, the Green New Deal and Medicare For All wouldn't get passed.

Heck, even if the Senate was 100% Bernie Sanders clones and the House was 100% AOC clones, it wouldn't happen.

Why?  Because it's not real policy.  It doesn't mathematically work.  If anyone were to every write an actual bill and not just a wish-list, the CBO assessments would be hilariously devastating.  The tax increases required to quadruple federal spending would absolutely tank the economy.  And the actual details of these policies are beyond the mental capacities of AOC and Sanders.  Just go read the Bernie Sanders NYDN interview.  He is not capable of getting in the weeds on any of this.  The only trick he has is some memorized statistics.

That's why I've always respected Warren infinitely more than Sanders.  Although I strongly disagree with her policies, I honestly believe that Warren is capable of getting into the details and crafting policies that actually work.  If the Senate was 100% Warren, she might go in there wanting M4A, but after long periods of research, end up crafting a plan that, while not the tremendously expensive we'll-pay-for-everything-no-matter-what plan they've been promising, is able to balance all the different tradeoffs and maintain a reasonable economic position while achieving her goals.

Sanders wouldn't know what to do if the Senate was 100% him because he's never actually had to write real, passable policy in his life and he doesn't know how.  All he knows how to do is write wish lists and mission statements and then criticize Democrats for not signing onto them.

What on earth?

Who the hell is gonna write the legislation?  Is Bernie gonna write it himself?

Is it going to look like his Medicare For All bill that he introduced to Congress?  100 pages, 24 lines per page, and if you actually read it the bulk of it is just a long wish-list accompanied by him appointing a bunch of people and telling them to figure it out.  What a joke.  For reference, here's what Obamacare looked like.  That's the difference between legislation that actually does something and legislation that's barely more than a mission statement.

Here's the Medicare Part D legislation.  This is one part of the current Medicare program and it's lengthy, detailed, complicated.  Sanders wants to completely tear the system down and re-build it from scratch, and his proof of concept may as well be written in crayon.

[Wells]

Since when has the length and complexity of a bill meant it was better? Obamacare has actually been criticized for it's length. Just because a bill is ten thousand pages or whatever doesn't mean it's automatically a better policy or more realistic!

Medicare For All, when it is passed, will definitely be a shorter bill because it is a simpler policy than most other healthcare plans, in concept and delivery. And it is also a demonstrably better policy.

[Rat]

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/17/sanders-warren-vice-president-treasury-secretary/

Interesting article from the Intercept discussing how Sanders campaign was looking into the possibility of having Warren serve as both VP and Treasury Secretary simultaneously.

Another interesting part a few paragraphs in, discussing the he-said-she-said feud:

NOT LONG AFTER meeting with Sanders at the end of 2018 to discuss her impending presidential run, Warren hosted an off-the-record dinner with a number of journalists, according to sources with knowledge of it. At the dinner, Warren was asked about her meeting with Sanders, and in the course of the discussion, she relayed that Sanders had warned that he didn’t believe a woman could beat Trump in 2020. Different reporters recalled the comments differently, a mirror image of the dispute between Warren and Sanders over exactly what Sanders said — with Warren saying that Sanders argued a woman couldn’t beat Trump, while Sanders said that he only said Trump would weaponize misogyny against a woman, not that it would work. (The Intercept was not at the dinner. Most politicians hold informal, off-record dinners or meetings with journalists, though it’s not something Sanders is known to do. Occasionally details from those meetings leak, but it’s rare.)

From there, the piece of news entered the journalistic bloodstream, circulating among reporters as gossip but not finding its way into print. On Monday, it finally did, with CNN’s M.J. Lee reporting that according to four sources — described as “two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting” — Sanders had told Warren, according to CNN’s paraphrasing, that “he did not believe a woman could win.”

It was widely assumed in the immediate aftermath of the story that Warren’s campaign had planted the story. Indeed, CNN anchor Erin Burnett said as much on air. But Burnett was merely making an assumption, and had no inside knowledge of the sources, two CNN sources told The Intercept.

[GP270watch]

 All the vitriol the Sanders people had for Warren seems to have been dismissed. She did not leak the story or lie. It's clear Bernie said something to the effect even if it was misinterpreted and it's now being made clear she wasn't the one who planted the story.


 So what now?

[Florida Man for Crime]

All the vitriol the Sanders people had for Warren seems to have been dismissed. She did not leak the story or lie. It's clear Bernie said something to the effect even if it was misinterpreted and it's now being made clear she wasn't the one who planted the story.


 So what now?

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=354409.0

[Progressive Pessimist]

All the vitriol the Sanders people had for Warren seems to have been dismissed. She did not leak the story or lie. It's clear Bernie said something to the effect even if it was misinterpreted and it's now being made clear she wasn't the one who planted the story.


 So what now?

People admit that it was all a distracting waste of time? Yeah, that probably won't happen.

[jamestroll]

Eliminating private insurance will be a disruption. However, for the vast majority of companies in the US, not having to worry about covering employer-sponsored insurance costs is a huge cost cut and likely not a terrible trade-off. I'm not a healthcare expert like many here so all I can do it echo, but this seems like a clear cut more logical and efficient system. Given the state of the Senate, this is no more than a starting point for bargaining and unlikely to happen at all. Very unfortunate for the ease of doing business in the US. [Breaking up banks is probably not ideal depending on what exactly that means. I haven't looked into it since Warren has no chance. Breaking up some tech firms is a moral necessity.]

I have never understood the logic of expecting employers to cover the cost of health care. That is a terrible idea in today's market especially as people either change employers every few years or in a gig economy.

The cost cut of taking the burden off of employers for health care would be huge and make up for other losses.

[Florida Man for Crime]

I have never understood the logic of expecting employers to cover the cost of health care.

It is not based in logic. It is based in path-dependency which creates entrenched interest groups and inertial resistance to change.