SpokenTruth said:
uran10 said:
I had a long reply to this but VGC logged me out and made me lose it. Give me a sec I'll edit this post with it when I'm done cause I'm mad as hell rn. I'll be editing this multiple times:
1st and Most obvious point: Its a primary! We're vetting our candidates and deciding who is best going forward for the country. All candidates will get vetted, some will be unfairly attacked and smeared. But you want to know something? Trump wont be holding back in the general so how well their record stands and how well they respond to or deal with being attacked will go very far. So yes, I reject the last thing you said cause that's what the primary is all about vetting. Clinton is the perfect example of a candidate not being able to handle attacks and her record on trade was so bad, it lost her the rust belt and the election.
2nd and other obvious point: Medicare for all. She's wishy washy on it. Sure she co-sponsored it but she also did that for the non single payer bills as well, he is very aware and that's why it's a point. She comes out strongly for it, then backs off, then that cycle repeats. You know who else in the race has also co-sponsored M4a? Kamala, but she released a non single payer plan, and the same with Warren. We're after single payer M4A and she's not committed too it. (my previous answer was longer and better explained but whatever)
3rd: Student debt, this is a big one. I will repeat this as many time as I have to. Bernie's plan does not benefit the rich! The rich don't have student loan debts. Why would they? They wouldn't need loans in the first place. On top of that her plan doesn't go far enough and would still leave thousands in debt. This is a mainstream media disingenuous talking point and is false. Bernie's plan is better and benefits the working class more than Warren's and it doesn't help the rich. If I have millions I can afford any school I please. I don't need loans, I'll pay for it myself without any help. I can afford it. As for the Medical Debt, its just to highlight that bernie is going further than her and is the better option. Are we supposed to wait for her to come up with a half measure to compare it too?
4th the disqualifying factor, big money. Here's the thing Money is corrupting and she's already taken a hell of a lot of it before the primary and she plans on doing so after the primary when she's in the general. Now, let me tell you how dumb that is. You're the nominee, you have the DNC's warchest and all donations from the public is coming to you. You do not need corporate cash. On top of that, Clinton outraised trump 5:1 and lost. And even on top of that, for real leftists, this is disqualifying. You said you're open to being bribed aka you will stab us in the back and not fight for us. You take big money you lose the progressive vote and you can't win without us and you can't shame us into voting for you. Didn't work for clinton and won't work for warren.
5th Bully pulpit. As president, you have the most power in your party when it comes to the people. You can rally them together in a primary to out members of your own party who do not want to go along with the vision the people put you in there for. This would also work on the opposition as bernie's ideas are widely popular. Someone like Joe Manchin who has voted with trump over 50% of the time can go, but instead of saying that, she defends him during the time he was being primaried by paula jean. She's clearly indicating that she's a "team player" and will not do what's needed to pass her agenda. Bernie will. That's the point. It doesn't matter if its Manchin etc, if you disagree with the proposal the the majority of americans want and the president campaigns against you, or threatens to, your vote changes real quick or you're out of a job. That's the point he's making. If its chuck, he'll do the same.
6th Military/Fp: You mostly agreed with this, but at the same time said she's in an iffy spot and I disagree. This leads back to point 4. She takes $ from them so she does their bidding. Yes her state has them stationed there but at the same time she's supposed to have a principled stance. On top of that, she's recently been pressed on her fp and jesus christ...... Her answers are unacceptable, but then again she's also running around saying green bombs so what can you expect from someone whose fp is roughly the same as clinton? here's a thread:
7th Executive orders: There's a difference between abusing presidential powers and using them especially depending on the circumstances. When the majority of the public says we want x but the bought off congress refuses to do so and its on the presidents agenda then I see it as fine. He's not declaring war (that's congresses job), he's getting the will of the people done. He's doing his job of representing americans. Its very different than tearing apart obama care and trying to unilaterally go to war. Its definitely not equivalent to big money and this climate ran by big money is pretty much essential to fighting against it. Warren will work in the system and get nothing done, Bernie will use both the bully pulpit and executive orders to ensure that the public gets what its fighting and voting for. These 2 things are not equivalent (executive orders in favour of the people vs taking big money)
8th Ben Carson: She received a backlash for the vote and went to vote no on another part. And its not that her vote would have changed the appointment, its the principle of it. All the dems were essentially fast tracking trump's swamp appointments and we were expecting the lefties to fight against this, instead she jumped on board until she was shouted down from the left. It clearly shows she would cave. This imo the smallest thing but it does say a lot about her values and morals.
Finally polling. I'm not gonna say the polls are fake but I will say I laugh at them and the reason is simply methodology. The people polled are mostly using landlines, those who use landlines are normally older folks who watch msnbc/cnn. These "news" outlets have been propping up Warren, and claiming she's bernie but better or she's the same as bernie and giving her a tremendous amount of free air time. It reflects her rise. Don't get me wrong, she is surging as Kamala's supporters rush to her after tulsi destroyed kamala but she's also being boosted in the same way trump was and is not reflecting the full reality of the situation. On top of that, the size of the polls say a lot. 500 people aint a lot and is a very small sample size. Again, not saying the polls are fake but take them with a huge grain of salt, especially when you're looking at 5+% margin of errors on these polls.
I definitely missed some points I had last time and I was missing other points then as well. But Kyle's done his research and he's interviewed bernie and does some of the best reporting next to Jordan from status coup. Give him a watch, and give his video's a try before you try this research angle. Especially because he does more research than me and you and look at how long this response is and how it counters almost every criticism you tried to lob at the video.
|
1. This isn't vetting. Vetting is a critical analysis of all aspects of a candidate. This was pitting one against the other with selected aspects with the agenda to show one character as flawless and the other as shit. Vetting is objective. There are pros and cons. This started with an agenda. It was purely to highlight positive elements for Sanders only and ignore any aspects that Warren may excel at or critique Sanders for anything he falters on.
2. She mentions Medicare For All 7 times on her health care plan page. What exactly is your (and Kyle's) problem with that? How is that wishy washy?
3.A. Are you saying households making $250k per year don't take out student loans? I seriously hope you aren't saying that. Because it looks like you are saying that. Oh, you mention millionaires? That's great. But that's not where Sanders plan stops, is it?
3.B. Medical debt. Again, Sanders only announced his plan 4 (5 now) days ago. If this were an actual vetting, yes, you'd wait to hear about her plan. Again, last week, neither had a known plan.
4. Can you elaborate where you got your 5:1 Clinton to Trump money figures from? Because my figures from the FEC show differently. Clinton Trump That's 1.67:1. Off topic but why in the world did Trump need to take out $47 million in loans?
Also, may I ask what you consider big money? SPACs, donation above $200 per quarter, dark money?
5. You want a president that's a bully? I thought we have one now and we don't like it. And didn't Kyle just say the way to beat Trump is to be principled and now you want Warren to be a bully?
6. What is wrong with her foreign policy? You haven't elaborated. Just said it was bad. I'm not going to take a twitter account as validation fro calling it bad.
7. Trump's executive orders fall into the realm of the will of the people if that's your definition of a good use of executive order. Besides, if it's not against the actions of Congress, why not just let Congress do it? We aren't electing kings here.
But as I initially stated. This whole damn episode was a tear down, not a vetting. There was a clear agenda - make Sanders look good / Make Warren look bad. His little spiel at the end after 27 minutes of tearing her down was almost condescending. *Agenda driven tear down for 27 minutes* "But she's still my number 2 choice." Seriously?
|
1st correct she's not his #2 choice, she's his 3rd and EXPLAINING DIFFERENCES BEWTEEN 2 CANDIDATES IS NOT ATTACKING THEM, ITS COMPARING AND CONTRASTING THEM. Its not a tear down and all of these are facts. so let's go again cause jesus christ I feel like you ignored a lot of the points
1) Its a primary, they are contenders. The media is claiming she's just like bernie or better than bernie. So he literally takes 10 points to show you how Bernie and warren are different. Bernie is to the left of Warren, and Kyle is also to the left of Warren. This video is there to inform warren supporters who think "they're the same, except she's a younger and a woman" that they're not. If we did the same with Kamala (which we did) would you say the same thing? Its a comparison between 2 front runners about who is better for true lefties.
2) How exactly is she wishy washy on m4a? idk, maybe coming out strongly for it and saying you support it then backing off of it. Look at her recent interviews, actually just look at them over the past few months on healthcare, she comes out strongly, backs off and waffles on it and repeats the cycle. She hasn't even been mentioning it for the longest time unless asked about it. Honestly, maybe its because I live, breath and eat politics in america but I've seen her flip flop on M4A so many times I've lost count. She's done it more than Kamala who comes out hard for it in a debate, then goes on a morning show to lie about what she heard. She's not trusted on M4A. "There are multiple paths to the goal" BS.
3) Debt. I honestly feel like you didn't read what I said since you're argument seems to be going into the realm of "richer americans have student loan debts too". I'm not saying anything about that 250K number you mentioned. I don't consider them wealthy americans in the first place with the cost of living high, in other words she's leaving them out to dry. What I'm saying is that Bernie's plan is better cause you can be in an upper bracket (and not be rich) and can't afford to pay off your loans. This argument that the "rich" benefit from his plan is crazy because the rich would not have student loans. When we say rich we mean millionaires and Billionaires. Not people barely living comfortably but the actual rich. The others are the working class aka the ones who would heavily benefit from his bill where Warren's bill would still leave them in debt, sure it would help some, but it doesn't go far enough. That's the point.
4) Exaggeration with the point being having more money in the general is not needed as clinton had way more than trump and still got bodied. The only thing taking corp money would do is cause her to lose the votes of millions of progressives. (and she's already taken it but she's fooling off some who haven't realized yet)
Its where the money comes from, She is taking corporate money and if you take corporate money you are compromised. When I say big money, I mean you're going to these wealthy individual's home or having fundraisers with them with tickets being $2800 a pop or what's outside of a regular workers ranger on a normal day. If someone trusts you and gives you 2800 and is not rich, not trying to buy you, not a corporation but just believes in your message, fine. But she's going to elites, buttering them up and taking their money. When you take the money you don't fight against them (example Obama)
5) Being principled and being a bully are not exclusive and this is very different from what you speak of. Idk where you're going with this but the bully pulpit being used in politics has always been a thing and in a country like ours where the will of the people is consistently ignored for the will of corporations who are forcing money down politicians throats to buy them so they don't represent us, its needed. We're not calling people mean names, or insulting them. We're telling them to fight for the american people or get the hell out of the way. That's what the bully pulpit is. Oh joe manchin you wont support m4a? I'll unite your constituents who want it (the majority of them btw) against you if you don't and primary you. But if you do vote for it i wont support a primary challenger vs you deal? Its called playing politics and using people power along with presidential popularity. Its very different from Trump bullying people. Do you think we'll get anything done with allies who vote with the enemy more than 50% of the time on things no one but corporations want? Sorry I want change.
6) The tweet lead to an article, and if I went into how she supports going into venezuela, and is on board with going after Iran, instead of thinking of not dropping bombs on countries that didn't do anything to us she's saying we'll make "climate friendly" bombs to keep dropping on them. She supports Isreal and isn't for BDS (yes bernie isn't for BDS either but he atleast calls out the right wing government for their violation of human rights and doesn't speak at aipac). I mean... I can go on, her foreign policy is on the same level as Hillary. She's a war hawk and that's disqualifying. Every single body in this race needs to move left on foreign policy, but if at this point your policy is as bad as a neo-liberals you can go. that's 100% disqualifying. In other words she does the bidding of MIC:
7) When I say will of the people I mean we look at the polling data for the issue and I know you know that's what I meant. Has the majority of his fit in this category where most americans want it? no. And that's why I said if congress is fighting the will of the people we jump them since they're mostly bought. I feel like you're literally just trying to disagree to disagree at this point.
Its a primary. We vet our candidates, and compare and contrast them. Is bernie perfect? HELL NO, he supports drones still and that's a big ass no no. But so does everyone else. My point being you're taking this as an attack when its simply using Warren's actions and words and comparing them to bernie highlighting how different they are breaking that establishment narrative.
