'Nobody likes him' - Hillary Clinton bashes Bernie Sanders

[BritManToo]

1 minute ago, sucit said:

"You can't get rich in politics unless you are a crook". Harry Truman

"You can't get nominated by your party unless you're a crook" ......... Me.

[sucit]

32 minutes ago, mogandave said:

I didn’t know we were only talking about health care, but when someone links to something by the WHO I don’t put much stock in it. 
 

It would take hours for me to go through the study before I could really comment on how I feel about it. 
 

It has been my experience that the government has done much more to ruin my healthcare than improve it.

 

So is it your position that the WHO and others pushing for socialized medicine have an agenda?

 

 

 

You do not need to go through studies. There are charts online showing you US healthcare outcomes are worse while they spend more than the countries with single payer and government run systems like NHS. 

 

It is a known fact to everyone in the world, except certain people in the US for reasons I am sure we all know. 

[sucit]

6 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

"You can't get nominated by your party unless you're a crook" ......... Me.

That has been true. Bernie is coming closer than anyone to breaking that rule however. We will see how it turns out you very well may be right yet again. I hope not. 

[Ramen087]

15 hours ago, sucit said:

I don't think that is accurate. It is not sour grapes. 

 

The system was set up in part to be a deterrent to say a Hitler type figure gaining momentum in the general populace. It is a fail safe because electoral votes can actually go to the person who does not win the state. They wanted the system to elect the person who got the popular vote, but this was the best compromise they could come up with. 

 

I would agree they all know the rules before they start, but in my opinion the system was set up in an attempt to elect the person who gets the popular vote. 

A Hitler type figure? The electoral college was founded in the late 1700s. Electoral votes can go to the person who doesn’t win the state?  You may want to research how each state has a certain amount of electoral votes, and how it is determined which candidate gets them. 

[mogandave]

23 minutes ago, sucit said:

I think it is more accurate to say she lost because the framers failed to come up with a perfect system, using democratically elected presidents as their base assumption. 

More because we were incredibly lucky.

 

Quote

Constitutional scholars say as much.

 

Only the constitutional scholars that are on the left, which admittedly is most all of them anymore.

 

Quote

The electoral college was just a compromise between two groups, one who wanted the people to elect the president, and the other who wanted congress to vote and elect a president.

 

Much of what is in the Constitution is/was a compromise. In the US, the idea is that the majority rules, but (unlike many “democracies) it’s important that the rights of the minority be respected. 

 

Quote

I personally do not even care. Cross my heart. Foreign policy is the most important issue and Hilary would probably have been worse and more aggressive than Trump. They are both establishment candidates, although I would term Trump as more of an establishment candidate that need constant prodding. 

Really?

 

[mogandave]

14 minutes ago, sucit said:

You do not need to go through studies. There are charts online showing you US healthcare outcomes are worse while they spend more than the countries with single payer and government run systems like NHS. 

 

It is a known fact to everyone in the world, except certain people in the US for reasons I am sure we all know. 

Yes, it a known fact to everyone on the left. 
 

The “charts” typically use life expectancy as the measure, which is ridiculous. 
 

Meanwhile, the left/government has and continues to all it can to ruin the insurance industry and force the public to embrace single payer. 
 

You no doubt see it differently. 

[mogandave]

20 minutes ago, sucit said:

You do not need to go through studies. There are charts online showing you US healthcare outcomes are worse while they spend more than the countries with single payer and government run systems like NHS. 

And I don’t doubt that you would trust any chart that supports your position while knowing virtually nothing of the study. 

[BritManToo]

19 minutes ago, mogandave said:

And I don’t doubt that you would trust any chart that supports your position while knowing virtually nothing of the study. 

I don't need any chart to tell me the US system of health care is wrong.

Morally and financially wrong.

[justin case]

hillary, the woman that was for sale

 

the woman that attacked the women her husband abused while in office

 

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

And I don’t doubt that you would trust any chart that supports your position while knowing virtually nothing of the study. 

And how do your form your stance on this subject? Published charts from repected organizations or your first hand experience in numerous medical situation in numerous health care institutions right across the US?

 

You say '...The “charts” typically use life expectancy as the measure, which is ridiculous. ...'

 

So mr. expert what measures should be used?

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by scorecard

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

Yes, it a known fact to everyone on the left. 
 

The “charts” typically use life expectancy as the measure, which is ridiculous. 
 

Meanwhile, the left/government has and continues to all it can to ruin the insurance industry and force the public to embrace single payer. 
 

You no doubt see it differently. 

And what wrong with bringing insurance companies to a more balanced position?

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

More because we were incredibly lucky.

 

 

Only the constitutional scholars that are on the left, which admittedly is most all of them anymore.

 

 

Much of what is in the Constitution is/was a compromise. In the US, the idea is that the majority rules, but (unlike many “democracies) it’s important that the rights of the minority be respected. 

 

Really?

 

So what do you suggest, the minority should be ignored and forgotten? Minorities and low income folks contribute to the country and the economy, they deserve as much repect as any other folks.

[scorecard]

3 hours ago, mogandave said:

Yes, but that wasn’t my question. I was asking someone’s opinion, not for a link to leftist propaganda, by thanks for your response. 
 

 

Why do you say it's leftist propaganda?

[scorecard]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Both. I understood you to say that any number of systems of government were better than the US. 
 

I asked you which, and one the the countries you mentioned was China. I pointed out China as I thought it was the silliest.

 

I don’t know what the capitalism policies / mechanisms are, but I believe citizens are generally much better served by capitalism than by government. 
 

 

 

"...Both. I understood you to say that any number of systems of government were better than the US. "

---

I didn't say that at all, again you misrepresent what I wrote.

 

I did write:

 

"...Several Scandinavian countries, the national health service and medibank in Australia and New zealand and I understand similar in Canada. Vietnam today a mixed capitalist / socialist country, and works well, China somewhat similar. And more..."

 

I didn't say that any of them were better than the US in any aspect

 

I wasn't commenting on systems of government, but since you raise it, I don't see any system of government as excellent. Unfortunately, across the whole worls there is no excellent / perfect model. 

 

They all have weak to hightly immoral faults.

 

In the US can a poorly educated citizen with no funds, in reality become president? NO.

 

Is the electoral college a balanced mechanism, seems the answer from many Americans is NO and many would even also say it's undemocratic.

 

Does the US have vote buying in elections? Some would claim NO, but what about clever lobbyists? Is that not vote buying?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BobBKK]

On 1/22/2020 at 10:12 AM, Jingthing said:

Yes. 

Actually the most votes of any presidential candidate in American history. 

Erm... hey... maybe the populations growing?  and don't forget all the illegals! 

In fact I predict the population will keep growing and votes will go UP (now ain't that something?)

[scorecard]

5 hours ago, mogandave said:

Yes, it a known fact to everyone on the left. 
 

The “charts” typically use life expectancy as the measure, which is ridiculous. 
 

Meanwhile, the left/government has and continues to all it can to ruin the insurance industry and force the public to embrace single payer. 
 

You no doubt see it differently. 

IMHO the charts should highlight several measurement criteria, however please share why life expectancy is ridiculous as a measure? (Just one measurement criteria.)

 

So why is 'life epectancy' as a measure' ridiculous?

 

IMHO it's a valid measurment criteria, but along with other appropriate criteria. 

 

I'm tempted to think you're saying it's ridiculous because it doesn't support your argument, but I apologize if I'm wrong.

 

Here's an example:

 

- Imagine a fake comparison: a country where life expectancy in a country which has a national health service funded by taxpayers funds is 85 for men and 86 for women.

 

- Now a country where there is no NHS and patients must pay all costs out of their pockets (and possibly take many many years to pay off the debt, or go bankrupt) and imagine that the stats show that life expectancy is 82 for men and 83 for women.

 

So I guess you would claim the data shows that life expectancy is longer in the country which has an NHS service, therefore automatically 'life expectancy' is not a valid measure.

 

I contend that it is a valid measure but should be just one of a number of valid measurment criteria. 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by scorecard

[xylophone]

8 hours ago, sucit said:

Obama made the bank bailouts possible. The alternatives were bleak, but he essentially socialized risks and privatized gains for banks.

Sure as hell the alternatives were bleak and IMO and that of many others, he made the right decision because if the banks had gone bust, the investors/depositors funds would have been decimated or disappeared and the US economy would a much worse state.

 

As they say "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", because the banking sector recovered and although I do not agree with the obscene profits that some of them make, it's a better scenario than the alternative as you quite rightly pointed out.

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, BritManToo said:

She lost because she was the worse of two bad contenders.

 

It seems in every recent western election the choice is between two people that nobody really wants.

What competent, charismatic, ethical person would subject themselves and their families to the media circus that now accompanies every president or prime minister? There's a case to be made that anyone with children that is elected to lead a country is causing child abuse to their children, given the vicious attacks on their parents, which they can hardly ignore, and sometimes even on them personally.

If only the current lot are in power, blame the media for their often outright lies and vicious attacks for that.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, xylophone said:

Sure as hell the alternatives were bleak and IMO and that of many others, he made the right decision because if the banks had gone bust, the investors/depositors funds would have been decimated or disappeared and the US economy would a much worse state.

 

As they say "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", because the banking sector recovered and although I do not agree with the obscene profits that some of them make, it's a better scenario than the alternative as you quite rightly pointed out.

Shame though that none of the corrupt bankers went to jail, and that apparently no safeguards have been put in place to stop them doing the same thing again. The time to put such safeguards in place would have been after the crash ie during Obama's first term.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, scorecard said:

IMHO the charts should highlight several measurement criteria, however please share why life expectancy is ridiculous as a measure? (Just one measurement criteria.)

 

So why is 'life epectancy' as a measure' ridiculous?

 

IMHO it's a valid measurment criteria, but along with other appropriate criteria. 

 

I'm tempted to think you're saying it's ridiculous because it doesn't support your argument, but I apologize if I'm wrong.

 

Here's an example:

 

- Imagine a fake comparison: a country where life expectancy in a country which has a national health service funded by taxpayers funds is 85 for men and 86 for women.

 

- Now a country where there is no NHS and patients must pay all costs out of their pockets (and possibly take many many years to pay off the debt, or go bankrupt) and imagine that the stats show that life expectancy is 82 for men and 83 for women.

 

So I guess you would claim the data shows that life expectancy is longer in the country which has an NHS service, therefore automatically 'life expectancy' is not a valid measure.

 

I contend that it is a valid measure but should be just one of a number of valid measurment criteria. 

 

 

Life expectancy increased due to factors other than the health service, such as cleaner air, clean drinking water, better food and less children.

The health service is largely occupied with keeping old people alive, often against their wishes. Just being alive is not an indication that one has a good life.

[mogandave]

14 hours ago, scorecard said:

IMHO the charts should highlight several measurement criteria, however please share why life expectancy is ridiculous as a measure? (Just one measurement criteria.)

 

So why is 'life epectancy' as a measure' ridiculous?

 

IMHO it's a valid measurment criteria, but along with other appropriate criteria. 

 

I'm tempted to think you're saying it's ridiculous because it doesn't support your argument, but I apologize if I'm wrong.

 

Here's an example:

 

- Imagine a fake comparison: a country where life expectancy in a country which has a national health service funded by taxpayers funds is 85 for men and 86 for women.

 

- Now a country where there is no NHS and patients must pay all costs out of their pockets (and possibly take many many years to pay off the debt, or go bankrupt) and imagine that the stats show that life expectancy is 82 for men and 83 for women.

 

So I guess you would claim the data shows that life expectancy is longer in the country which has an NHS service, therefore automatically 'life expectancy' is not a valid measure.

 

I contend that it is a valid measure but should be just one of a number of valid measurment criteria. 

 

 

What are the other criteria that should be charted? 
 

Life expectancy does not take into account differences in genetics, nutrition and lifestyle choices. 
 

It could be a valid measurement if all these things were accounted for. 
 

Imagine a country where 70,000 people a year die of opioid. That represents of 2% of the total number of deaths. 
 

What percentage of deaths are obesity related?

 

Do you not agree that some cultures are healthier than others, regardless of healthcare?

 

Do you not think genetics plays a role in longevity? 
 

[mogandave]

12 hours ago, xylophone said:

Sure as hell the alternatives were bleak and IMO and that of many others, he made the right decision because if the banks had gone bust, the investors/depositors funds would have been decimated or disappeared and the US economy would a much worse state.

 

As they say "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", because the banking sector recovered and although I do not agree with the obscene profits that some of them make, it's a better scenario than the alternative as you quite rightly pointed out.

So you supported bailing out all the greedy rich people? 

I didn’t. 

 

[lannarebirth]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 There's a case to be made that anyone with children that is elected to lead a country is causing child abuse to their children, given the vicious attacks on their parents, which they can hardly ignore, and sometimes even on them personally.

 

 

Oh, I don't know...

 

Quote

 

Chelsea Clinton reaps $9 million from corporate board position

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/476894-chelsea-clinton-reaps-9-million-from-corporate-board-position

 

 

[mogandave]

18 hours ago, scorecard said:

So what do you suggest, the minority should be ignored and forgotten? Minorities and low income folks contribute to the country and the economy, they deserve as much repect as any other folks.

 

No, my position is the opposite, that respect for the minority must respected. 
 

It’s worth noting I was responding to someone (You?) that was arguing how important majority rule was. 

[mogandave]

18 hours ago, scorecard said:

And what wrong with bringing insurance companies to a more balanced position?

What does that mean? 
 

If you mean some regulation needs to exist to protect the consumer, I agree. 
 

if you mean insurance companies have to cover everyone for everything for try szz as me price, I disagree. 
 

[xylophone]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Shame though that none of the corrupt bankers went to jail, and that apparently no safeguards have been put in place to stop them doing the same thing again. The time to put such safeguards in place would have been after the crash ie during Obama's first term.

I agree that many bankers should have been locked up for what they did, but the problem is that Wall Street and the investment banking fraternity had been allowed to "self regulate" meaning basically that if they thought it was okay to do something, then they were free to do it.

 

The financial chicanery behind CDOs (Collateralised Debt Obligations) is a great example of being able to make poor performing loans look better so that they could be sold, which they were.

 

So Obama and co did put in place financial reforms via the Dodd Frank Wall Street reform and Consumer Protection Act, which was designed in the main to prevent the same thing happening again, and it also included reforms of the Rating Agencies (which played a major part in helping sell these useless CDOs– – some argue that they were corrupt in allowing that to happen, and I agree) and also included, amongst other things, Deposit Insurance for investors.

 

In a nutshell, the Dodd-Frank Act is the most extensive revision of US financial regulation since the 1930s and was certainly needed because self-regulation basically caused the crisis....for example, allowing deposit free lending on homes and even 110% mortgages with no security needed etc.

The act could have gone further and probably should have done, however what has now happened is that the Trump administration has rolled back some of the regulatory requirements which eases restrictions on all but the largest banks. Those institutions also would not have to undergo stress tests or submit so-called living wills, both safety valves designed to plan for financial disaster.

In effect, some self-regulation has been allowed back in the finance industry and even as I write this, a clone of the CDOs, which played a major part in the collapse, a CLO has now been financially engineered and is being sold, so the US is not far away from potentially another collapse in this regard.

The Dodd Frank act should have been strengthened in several areas, rather than being wound back, so if such a financial crisis happens again it's easy to know where to point the finger.

As a footnote, I was Chief Manager of Investments in a major NZ bank when we were visited by a US organisation trying to sell CDOs to add to our investment portfolio, and I and another chief manager decided against it because the financial engineering behind the product was so complicated as to be damn near unintelligible and one step away from a scam.........and it turns out we were right.

So, safeguards were put in place during the Obama regime, and more were probably needed, however Trump and co have wound the regulations back – – go figure.
 

[scorecard]

52 minutes ago, mogandave said:

What does that mean? 
 

If you mean some regulation needs to exist to protect the consumer, I agree. 
 

if you mean insurance companies have to cover everyone for everything for try szz as me price, I disagree. 
 

But many NHS systems don't involve insurance companies, perhaps your not aware of that.

 

What is possible of coure, in some countries citizens can elect to take private health insurance on top of their NHS entitlement.

 

However in many countries which have a NHS total cover is already the basic entitlement.

 

 

[SiSePuede419]

I said it before and I'll say it again.

 

If Hillary had chosen Bernie as VP instead of Dad Jeans Nobody, we wouldn't be having this conversation today because President Hillary.

[SiSePuede419]

On 1/22/2020 at 8:04 AM, Sticky Wicket said:

From the mouth of the most despicable woman on the planet, reviled by all and evil to the core

The most exonerated politician in history.  How many BENGHAZI investigations resulted in nothing, nada, no charges.

 

She testified under oath for 10 hours.

 

How many hours has your hero Tump testified under oath?  ZERO.

 

You sir have no evidence of her wrongdoing.  You're full of <deleted>.

[SiSePuede419]

On 1/22/2020 at 8:58 AM, rabas said:

2nd term as she was the President when hubby was in power his staff.

 

So she was pushing sub-prime lending which nearly brought down the world?

 

That was Republicans Phil Graham and Newt Gingrich who ridiculed someone who warned that creating derivatives was an economic threat.

 

Conservatives are ALWAYS on the wrong side of history. 

 

Remember, they fought on the side of the British. 

 

They were Tories. 

 

They looooooooove being told what to do by a "strong" King. 

 

Why?

 

They're Authoritarians with Daddy issues or substandard size reproductive organs. ????

Edited January 24, 2020 by SiSePuede419