No, since it is true it is great as Pete is a conman who should be unmasked. The billionaires who have bankrolled his campaign currently have Pete as their boy, now that Kamala has faltered and Biden might yet falter. As Obama says: "anybody, but Bernie" This is desperation for Obama as he likes to stay above the fray and a moderate. Obama hasn't roused himself this much from celebrity life and getting paid since he went all out to beat Keith Ellison for head of the DNC.
As a moderate, you’re upset the DNC favored an actual Democrat over the progressive independent who only joined the Democratic Party for access to the campaign funding apparatus?
Coincidentally.... Warren’s poll numbers started tanking once she unveiled her progressive agenda of Medicare and Wealth Tax... Foreshadowing of how popular progressive ideals are once price tags start getting discussed...
I dont want the establishment to be picking anything. Its not their place to cherry pick and push their agenda through MSNBC. Let the voters choose the candidates without any interruption.
MSNBC should be in the bag for Pete according to the resident conspiracy theorists. Actually Pete not having any black support has been a big story over the last 2 weeks with MSNBC. It just goes to show you media is chasing the sizzle more than trying to get anyone elected.
What weird things? There have several reports on what he has done in South Bend are you frustrated because they are not dragging him down?
Warren started tanking because she started waffling on her progressive agenda. She wanted to appease the progressives and the moderates and she lost her progressive support trying to go to the center. She was being duplicitous and people didn't like that. Progressives especially didn't like that. it was a terrible move not to go all in on her progressive policies especially when the media had her back in an effort to stop Bernie.
Black people being upset with what Buttigieg said is a problem with black people. We want to save the inner city without admitting its dysfunctional because the rest of us find it insulting If we can't be honest we will never solve these problems Deserves own thread
The point I was getting at is stuff link the link you shared, from a self proclaimed "citizen journalist," is dangerous. When one takes a minute to peruse said "journalists" Twitter page, it's obvious he's a Bernie shill at the very least, perhaps something more sinister yet. I'm as baffled as the next guy why Buttigieg has surged in some polls, but these sorts of social media attack jobs, which can spread like wildfire whether they're true or not, can work both ways; one minute a "citizen journalist" can claim all sorts of things about someone like Buttigieg, in another one can attack Bernie, or Warren, or whomever these "journalists" deem to be a threat to their candidate. I think the general population has become fairly immune, for lack of a better word right now, to television and radio attack ads--these sorts of things, not so much. I am glad Buttigieg's history as mayor is being discussed, don't get me wrong. It's just what you shared feels very Trumpian, W, or H.W. like, IMO, and I think our democracy deserves better. I'll get off my soapbox now.
You cannot fix the inner city without forcibly reallocating wealth. Racism drove out the wealth once integration became a thing and capitalism keeps the wealth out as there is no reason to lend where there is little money to be made. The US would be a better place if the people had been able to look beyond skin color following the civil war.
No need to be too baffled. The billionaire ownmed media likes him. Mayor Pete also has more billionaire donors than the other Democratic Donors. He is good looking, well spoken and carries the water of the wealthy in an attractive younger package. As many have noted he is the white Obama whom he consulted early on before running.
This article shows that several other Dem candidates have more billionaire donors than Pete. Sanders and Warren have used these donations (or a lack thereof) as a selling point for their candidacy, but that doesn’t mean every other candidate is no more than a corporate shill whose ideas are not worthy of discussion. I don’t agree with many of Sanders or Warren’s policy positions, but I’m at least willing to have a discussion about them. It’s so much more productive to have a conversation about candidates based on the merits of their ideas, policies, and candidacy, as opposed to this mudslinging. Topics like: Does Medicare for all who want it give the government the ability to negotiate price effectively and keep costs down? Is there a role for private insurance at all? Can policy like the Douglass Plan help Pete to build up trust with communities of color, who he has had trouble relating to in the past? What is the best way to bankroll huge government expansions like increased healthcare coverage, student loan forgiveness, etc.?
From what I understand Medicare for all limits the need for private insurance. People use private insurance to have access to doctors and pay the costs. With Medicare for all people can choose whichever doctors they want and their visits, medicine, and procedures would be covered. If you have that, why would you need private insurance? Maybe there will be plans to pay for things like private rooms in hospitals? I don't know. Yes, they would be able to negotiate and keep prices down since they are pretty much the only ones buying and certainly the main ones. Is paying for govt. programs still a thing? Republicans obviously don't really care about that. The way to do it would be with increased taxes.
Why do think Medicare for all will allow people to pick whatever doctors they want? Some doctors would definitley not take medicare patients and those that do will have serious wait times.
So since there would be no private insurance would those doctors take only patients who pay cash? That seems like a very small base of patrons. I'm not sure how sustainable it will be for very many doctors.
