Comments by "wvu05" (@wvu05) on "The Story Tucker Guests Like Michael Tracey Refuse To Cover" video.

@gooddogreallygooddog6157 "Just asking questions" is a technique for people advocating really bad things who want a crutch when called on it.
7
@jocksharerock7318 Greenwald would probably still be defending white supremacists and insisting that they didn't mean it literally when they threatened to kill a judge.
6
@sergeikhripun They have done multiple videos critical of that. What's next, are you going to say that Jimmy Dore cares about the Supreme Court?
5
@sergeikhripun Super majority? They have a literal bare majority in the Senate and they need nearly 99% of Democrats in the House to pass anything. A Dore Knob who doesn't understand the most basic facts. See my shocked face :-|
4
@sergeikhripun Biden can't do Medicare for All based on the ACA. He can allow states to adopt Medicare for All. There is a provision in the original Medicare bill that it can be expanded for that specific emergency, and it would be the Medicare that exists now with copays. At this point, I have to wonder if there is anything you do know.
4
@jocksharerock7318 Not sure what happened to the link, but if you Google Glenn Greenwald Edward Snowden Julian Assange, there is a New Republic article that goes into depths about his actual history. Most disturbing that the example I gave was from his past. He actually tried to use a First Amendment argument for a white supremacist accused of threatening to kill a judge.
3
@sergeikhripun The exact same thing? Yes, because Trump pushed for an actual infrastructure bill and voting rights. If you can't tell the difference between a fascist and a neoliberal, then either you're not paying attention or you don't have the slightest understanding of politics. And, let's just follow your argument and say that this time would be the one that wakes the people up and makes an unbreakable electoral force. Well, if the right to vote is taken away a fat lot of good that does, and even if you can overcome that somehow, and the Supreme Court is still to the right, you aren't getting jack squat. Look at how much Marshall was able to do when he was rushed through the Supreme Court after Adams lost and was on his way out the door.
3
@sergeikhripun How did Dems roll over when RBG died? Republicans were the majority, and they already got rid of the filibuster for the Supreme Court. Every single Democrat in the Senate voted No. But I thank you for demonstrating to anyone who came here the dangers of taking your news from an idiot who doesn't understand basic things about how politics work and how it warps your own understanding.
3
@sergeikhripun A supermajority means that you have larger than a simple majority, often 3/5 or 2/3 in the context of government. That is unified control, and your argument that bare majorities mean that the left should get everything or the entire Democratic Party are sellouts is absurd. The Democratic Party has always been more of a coalition than the Republican Party and less ideologically united. A hundred years ago, Will Rogers said "I belong to no organized party, I'm a Democrat." To expect ideological consistency from Bernie to Manchin is ridiculous.
3
@sergeikhripun So, you wanted them to waste their time to demand a vote that they knew would fail, and then what? No matter how many times you hold out, no one not named Nancy Pelosi was going to become Speaker, and there is already a sponsor list. This means one of three things would happen relative to that list. 1) The list is completely accurate, and the bill is 100 votes short, which then wastes that leverage for a failed vote because Pelosi can say, "See? Medicare for All is going nowhere and this was a waste of time." 2) The Soft Yes members become Hard No, and we're even farther away. You saw this even with the calls for Force the Vote when Dwight Evans, who sponsored the bill in the 116th Congress, is no longer a sponsor. Now, you're even farther away than before. 3) Pelosi uses Catch and Release, and allows a few members in lefty districts who would be vulnerable to an AOC or Bowman to vote Yes knowing that it will fail. Now, you have taken the air out of the primary challenge to the establishment that you claim to hate and those Yes votes would become No the instant there was a realistic chance of passage. Congratulations, you have just advocated something that accomplishes absolutely nothing. If you want to engage in self-indulgence, get a room and some lube.
3
@sergeikhripun That means that only the coronavirus Itself would be covered by Medicare. Are you just continuing on because you are hoping that probability kicks in sooner or later and you get something right? It only took Bill Kristol about 20 years.
2
@crashoutsignal Yes, so Hunter Biden 1) traveled 2500 miles to drop off a laptop 2) that had a folder that was the equivalent of Not Secret Illegal Stuff 3) to a repair shop that he never intended to collect 4) and the owner of the shop can confirm it's him even thiugh the security camera was switching tapes and 5) he is legally blind. Did you know that gullible isn't in the dictionary?
2
@wienerlips4240 The case for Maddow was a specific example of her using hyperbole. The case for Tucker Carlson argued that literally nothing he says deserves to be taken seriously.
1
@sergeikhripun Let's just say for the sake of argument that you are right. (Just to make it clear, you are not, but just for the sake of argument.) Let's say that Joe Biden would be able to give Medicare to everyone with the stroke of a pen, and it covered everything. Let's go even further and say that you wouldn't still have to pay copays or deductibles. Have you even remotely given any thought to what would happen if you tried to get Medicare that way? Clearly, you have not, because you surely are not dumb enough to think that the health insurance industry wouldn't sue en masse, or to think that this Supreme Court would allow that to stand. So, are you really that stupid, or did you just not think ahead?
1
@sergeikhripun I don't understand supermajority? Okay, dummy. Here goes: supermajority (n) A majority (such as two-thirds or three-fifths) that is greater than a supermajority. Since I have had some bad luck with getting links scrubbed, Google supermajority definition. This is the definition from Merriam-Webster. I don't deal with liars, so I am done with you. Now, if you are just stupid, or you want to apologize for lying, then we can continue, but I am not wasting my time on your Dore-addled brain any longer.
1
@sergeikhripun Oh, okay. I'm not dealing with a liar, I'm dealing with an idiot. I guess the object of your admiration meant that one went without saying as far as the latter. If you want me to answer your question, I just want to figure out if I am dealing with someone who is dishonest, someone who is your garden variety stupid, or someone who is genuinely cognitively limited. Show me where you find someone else, anyone else, using your definition of supermajority? Since you claim that you are using "the political definition" and I am using "the dictionary definition," are you not aware that the reason why the term supermajority exists is because some things cannot pass with a simple majority, and there needed to be a distinction so that people understand why things fail with a majority? And I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but did you not notice that for all this talk from Angry Leader that the vote was planned to fail in the first place? Did you not notice that Biden's numbers didn't move when he said that he wouldn't sign Medicare for All in the primary? Apparently, you missed that the people of Colorado had a referendum for Medicare for All a few years ago and it only got 21% of the vote. You probably also didn't read below the actual top line of the poll and find out that a majority wrongly think that Medicare for All allows competing private insurance. Thank people like Jimmy's object of affection Tulsi Gabbard who insisted that she supported Medicare for All while saying that the thing that actually made it work is "un-American." You probably haven't done the actual organizing work and talked to people who said that they liked Medicare for All while angrily insisting that you can't "take away people's choice for insurance." I have actually done the work, and because of me and others like me, Brendan Boyle is a sponsor of the bill. You also missed the point where I said that the Democratic Party is not an ideological party in the way the GOP is. It is a coalition. Party control is irrelevant to the question of Medicare for All having a chance of passage given that only half of the Democrats in the House and a quarter of Democrats in the Senate sponsor the bill. You know what percentage of Congressional Republicans support Medicare for All? Zero. So, what have you personally done to build support for Medicare for All?
1
@sergeikhripun FDR introduced the minimum wage as a law, not as an executive order. And he did it after he had sufficient support on the Supreme Court to get it passed. If he went for the minimum wage in 1933, it would have gotten struck down. He did it in 1938. And the minimum wage was a law passed by Congress, and you are proposing an executive order. If you suddenly tell people who negotiated health insurance far more generous than Medicare that they no longer have that insurance, you will destroy support for Medicare for All. You do things to actually build support. You don't go by a poll and say it is popular. If Biden signed it tomorrow as an executive order and abolished private insurance, there would be a stay before the day was done. I'd be surprised if it took an hour for such a stay. Just like a typical Dore Knob, you just want to feel better rather than actually make anyone's lives better.
1