Support NeoGAF

[Daniel B·]

The students of Liberty University put Bernie on the hot seat, with this question:

You've talked in your campaign about how it's immoral to protect the billionaire class at the expense of the most vulnerable in society - children.

A majority of Christians would agree with you, but would also go further and say children in the womb need our protection even more.

How do you reconcile the two in your mind?

Up until this point the students in the packed arena had listened respectfully to Bernie and he had received a little applause for some of his points, but this question really got the audience excited.

Bernie really had no choice but to simply concede "this is an area where we disagree", but I felt he dropped the baby with the second part of his response, where in a long winded way, he pointed out, that despite the Republicans sharing the Christian students strongly held belief on abortion, they are at the same time voting for big cuts in spending for impoverished children.

He could have made the point, entirely in keeping with his theme of "What is moral?", by saying something like "As the richest nation on Earth, we should be able say to prospective mothers, that if having a baby would cause you considerable hardship, the United States government would be there for you. But, for this to happen, all politicians, on both sides of the house, must be willing, if necessary, to support the child before and after the child is born.".

His speech on "Family Values" quite moved me "there is no justice when low income and working class mothers are forced to be separated from their babies, one to two weeks after birth" and was probably felt by a good few of the students too. Check out the speech at the 1:35:14 mark, in the following YT vid.

 

[PantherLotus]

The part at the very end

To be fair most US presidents are/were crappy human beings, so it is not hard to get into the top 5.

He has to be up there. We've had mostly racists and homophobes in office.

1. Lincoln
2. FDR
3. Washington
4. Obama
5. Teddy

 

[Ecotic]

He has to be up there. We've had mostly racists and homophobes in office.

I'd argue that's bad criteria. Bad men have still done things as President that gave them lasting greatness. Jefferson and Polk were quite shitty people in their own ways, but the Louisiana Purchase and Mexican Cession/Oregon Territory turned this two bit country into the superpower it is today. But if we're judging narrowly on personal merits then they were slave owners so they wouldn't qualify. To do that though you'd take our current greatness as a given and not worry about where it came from.

 

[User 406]

Universal health coverage has been the holy grail for progressives for over a century. You gotta admit that's one hell of a feather in Obama's cap.

 

[Retromelon]

I don't care about racism or behavior. Accounting for those, we wouldn't have enough to fill a top 5. I look at achievement, plain and simple
Mine goes,
1. Lincoln
2. Fdr
3. Washington
4. Jefferson
5. LBJ - in my head i think of this as a dual position with Kennedy, but w/e

 

[GnawtyDog]

Universal health coverage has been the holy grail for progressives for over a century. You gotta admit that's one hell of a feather in Obama's cap.

That's not what Obamacare is. At least it gets a bit of fear out of the concept once the dust settles.

 

[PantherLotus]

1. Universal Health Care*
2. OSAMA KILLED
3. Passed stimulus / saved the economy*
4. Passed Wall Street Reform*
5. Repealed DADT
6. Ended torture

...all in the FACE of the Tea Party and the most blatantly petulant Republican congress in history.

 

[B-Dubs]

1. Lincoln
2. FDR
3. Washington
4. Obama
5. Teddy

That's about what I've got, maybe Teddy above Obama though.

 

[Retromelon]

Obama hasn't done badly. What I'm saying is that his achievents are not monumental enough to merit him a number 5 position. Sorry, watered down health care is not bumping the civil rights act. (Bad memory sorry)

But hey its just my opinion

 

[PantherLotus]

Obama hasn't done badly. What I'm saying is that his achievents are not monumental enough to merit him a number 5 position. Sorry, watered down health care is not bumping the civil rights act. (Bad memory sorry)

But hey its just my opinion

I mean,

 

[B-Dubs]

Obama hasn't done badly. What I'm saying is that his achievents are not monumental enough to merit him a number 5 position. Sorry, watered down health care is not bumping the civil rights act. (Bad memory sorry)

But hey its just my opinion

Yea, but Vietnam.

 

[AntoneM]

I don't care about racism or behavior. Accounting for those, we wouldn't have enough to fill a top 5. I look at achievement, plain and simple
Mine goes,
1. Lincoln
2. Fdr
3. Washington
4. Jefferson
5. LBJ - in my head i think of this as a dual position with Kennedy, but w/e

In that case I would put Jackson above LBJ.

 

[RustyNails]

1. Reagan

 

[PhoenixDark]

Laban in your top five? I'm getting Dax flashbacks. The man escalated s war based on false pretenses, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. That trumps any handouts he gave people in the states.

 

[User 406]

That's not what Obamacare is. At least it gets a bit of fear out of the concept once the dust settles.

Setting aside temporary Republican intransigence in allowing the federal funds to flow as intended for proper Medicaid coverage, it does amount to universal coverage. Virtually anyone who wants health insurance can get it, for the first time in our nation's history. Over time, it will evolve into a proper UHC solution, much like Social Security evolved from covering only a subset of employment categories mostly dominated by white men into its present form.

Like Uncle Joe said, it's a big fucking deal.

 

[Retromelon]

I mean,

I don't want to post so much but I feel like I must ask. Are you making the point with that image that Obama winning the presidency while black is a monumental achievement?

Yea, but Vietnam

Bad as that may be, the civil rights act is such a big thing that it overrides it. Again, imo.

 

[Crisco]

At this point I'm gonna assume anyone still downplaying Obamacare is just a Hillary fan who's still bitter she didn't win the nomination. Let it go already.

 

[PantherLotus]

I don't want to post so much but I feel like I must ask. Are you making the point with that image that Obama winning the presidency while black is a monumental achievement?

Yes?

 

[Retromelon]

At this point I'm gonna assume anyone downplaying Obamacare is just a Hillary fan who's still bitter she didn't win the nomination. Just let it go already.

If you're directing this at me you probably don't read my posts because every time I have mentioned her (which has been many many times) it is to make a little snide dig or attack on her. If someone ever reads my entire post history they will find exactly one positive hillary comment, and even I don't remember what that was.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

At this point I'm gonna assume anyone still downplaying Obamacare is just a Hillary fan who's still bitter she didn't win the nomination. Let it go already.

I'll never forget liberals trying to kill Obamacare because it wasn't perfect enough. That Cenk clown from young turks, every liberal anchor from MSNBC who had nothing to lose either way acting like it was the worst thing ever.

As someone who actually benefited from a couple of the clauses in the bill I'll never get over how disturbing and downright ugly the ideological left can be. If it was up to Keith Olbermann, I wouldn't even have those benefits.

 

[GnawtyDog]

Setting aside temporary Republican intransigence in allowing the federal funds to flow as intended for proper Medicaid coverage, it does amount to universal coverage. Virtually anyone who wants health insurance can get it, for the first time in our nation's history. Over time, it will evolve into a proper UHC solution, much like Social Security evolved from covering only a subset of employment categories mostly dominated by white men into its present form.

Like Uncle Joe said, it's a big fucking deal.

It's but not "Universal Health Care".

 

[Retromelon]

1. Reagan

I change my list to this

Republicans are douches but if there's one thing to admire from them, it's that they never, EVER admit that anything's wrong when they're in charge.

I can appreciate this from a realpolitik perspective, but I will never admire it
Edit#2: not that republicans are douches
Edit#3:

Yea Civil Rights was goddamned important, but you still gotta subtract some points for Vietnam.

Because my list is achievement based, the negatives don't negate them. For example, nobody bars fdr from their list because his many terms were a threat to American democracy and that he fucked with the supreme court. Not anybody on here anyway.

 

[Oblivion]

The Obamacare website fuckup did seem to have an effect on the midterms. It was like the stupid first debate with Romney in that it's not something that you would have thought would make a lick of difference, but for some fucking reason had an impact long afterwards.

The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans don't wait for good things to run on, while Dems couldn't find a good thing if it created literally millions of jobs

This. This. THIS.

Republicans are douches but if there's one thing to admire from them, it's that they never, EVER admit that anything's wrong when they're in charge. They destroyed our economy and created the worst foreign policy blunder since Vietnam, and despite all that, they still take every single moment to brag about how great they would be at creating millions (if not BILLIONS) of jobs and how terrorists or any belligerent nations wouldn't dare attack or disobey us if they were in charge.

I'll never forget liberals trying to kill Obamacare because it wasn't perfect enough. That Cenk clown from young turks, every liberal anchor from MSNBC who had nothing to lose either way acting like it was the worst thing ever.

As someone who actually benefited from a couple of the clauses in the bill I'll never get over how disturbing and downright ugly the ideological left can be. If it was up to Keith Olbermann, I wouldn't even have those benefits.

I don't think that's fair. Sure, Cenk and Olbermann pushed hard for a stronger program, but they never said it's either single payer or nothing.

 

[B-Dubs]

In that case I would put Jackson above LBJ.

Andrew Jackson? He was pure shit!

Bad as that may be, the civil rights act is such a big thing that it overrides it. Again, imo.

Yea Civil Rights was goddamned important, but you still gotta subtract some points for Vietnam.

 

[Ecotic]

Andrew Jackson? He was pure shit!

He had one lasting good note, he gave free reign to Seward to buy Alaska.

edit: I thought I read Andrew Johnson, nm.

 

[Oblivion]

Even conservatives sorta like FDR!

Spoiler

You know, for that whole internment camp thing.

I can appreciate this from a realpolitik perspective, but I will never admire it
Edit#2: not that republicans are douches

Yeah, "admire" was probably not the right word. "Saves a lot of energy" is probably a better descriptor.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I don't think that's fair. Sure, Cenk and Olbermann pushed hard for a stronger program, but they never said it's either single payer or nothing.

At a time when it needed support more than ever they were too busy waxing poetic about ideology.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Laban in your top five? I'm getting Dax flashbacks. The man escalated s war based on false pretenses, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. That trumps any handouts he gave people in the states.

Good troll is good. "Hand outs"

 

[JesseEwiak]

Laban in your top five? I'm getting Dax flashbacks. The man escalated s war based on false pretenses, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. That trumps any handouts he gave people in the states.

Anybody who was going to get elected President in 1964 was going to kill a lot of brown people in Vietnam.

 

[Ecotic]

Anybody who was going to get elected President in 1964 was going to kill a lot of brown people in Vietnam.

I really disagree with that. All the American President at the time had to do was understand that Vietnam was principally fighting a war for Independence and to disassociate it from the Cold War. But Johnson was just an idiot when it came to global affairs and understanding the nature of the military and intelligence community so he made all the wrong assumptions and decisions. It was a case of someone who didn't do their homework because they weren't interested in the subject matter.

 

[brainchild]

The students of Liberty University put Bernie on the hot seat, with this question:



Up until this point the students in the packed arena had listened respectfully to Bernie and he had received a little applause for some of his points, but this question really got the audience excited.

Bernie really had no choice but to simply concede "this is an area where we disagree", but I felt he dropped the baby with the second part of his response, where in a long winded way, he pointed out, that despite the Republicans sharing the Christian students strongly held belief on abortion, they are at the same time voting for big cuts in spending for impoverished children.

He could have made the point, entirely in keeping with his theme of "What is moral?", by saying something like "As the richest nation on Earth, we should be able say to prospective mothers, that if having a baby would cause you considerable hardship, the United States government would be there for you. But, for this to happen, all politicians, on both sides of the house, must be willing, if necessary, to support the child before and after the child is born.".

His speech on "Family Values" quite moved me "there is no justice when low income and working class mothers are forced to be separated from their babies, one to two weeks after birth" and was probably felt by a good few of the students too. Check out the speech at the 1:35:14 mark, in the following YT vid.

All good points, but largely inconsequential.

How many people you know who are pro-life are gonna rationally deliberate whether his reasoning for being pro-choice is valid or not? Their motivations are driven by the appeal to emotion, which is a very powerful force in terms of how it affects the human conscience and the decisions that people make.

It doesn't matter what he said, nothing short of him saying that he's switching to pro-life would have changed their opinions about his statements on the matter. It would have been a waste of time, Bernie knew this, and wisely put the issue back on the republicans. Just wait until he starts debating in this election season. Minds will be blown.

Anyway, good video. Always enjoy watching Bernie passionately talk about the issues.

 

[curlyfriski]

Bad as that may be, the civil rights act is such a big thing that it overrides it. Again, imo.

Pretty easy to say when you're not Vietnamese

 

[brainchild]

Pretty easy to say when you're not Vietnamese

Good point. Though honestly, you guys aren't going to get anywhere with this argument.

It's like arguing which group of slaves throughout the entire history of humanity had it the worse. Something so subjective has no correct answer.

...oh shit, what have I done?!!

 

[Chichikov]

Pretty easy to say when you're not Vietnamese

That's a fair point.
The pro LBJ position (which I generally subscribe to) is that he didn't want to go to Vietnam, he want to get the fuck out it, but that he couldn't find out a way to unclusterfuck that mess. Plus he had really bad people giving him terrible advise on an issue he wasn't an expert on and didn't care so much about.

Now obviously, that does not absolve him from some of the truly terrible things his administration have done in Vietnam, but they can be seen as extenuating circumstances of sorts.

Anyway, as for rankings go, those things are really arbitrary and depends mostly on how you define greatness, but I think Lincoln, FDR and Washington has to be top 3, I can make case for each one of them being first, and I think they're head and shoulders above everyone else.

p.s.
JFK was a terrible president and doesn't not belong on any top whatever list, ever.
If we're talking about cases being made, I can make the case that he was the worst one ever (I don't know if I would put him there if I would bother to rank them all, but I think you can make the case for it).

 

[brainchild]

Anyway, as for rankings go, those things are really arbitrary and depends mostly on how you define greatness, but I think Lincoln, FDR and Washington has to be top 3, I can make case for each one of them being first, and I think they're head and shoulders above everyone else.

These are my sentiments as well.

Sometimes lists with predetermined ranked slots (top 5, top 10) just don't make sense because the disparity in qualifications between some of the slots are not even in the same realm. We've had a few extraordinary presidents, some great, some mediocre, some ineffectual, some terrible. Regardless of the category, there's a lot of inconsistency between some of them, making the ranked lists pretty pointless.

It would make more sense to me to list them without rank, but still group them in qualitative categories.

 

[User 406]

It's but not "Universal Health Care".

Everyone can get coverage, regardless of ability to pay. It's universal coverage.

That's the goal. It's been an uphill battle since the start. But the ACA passed, and mandated health insurance coverage for all Americans is here to stay. The system will only improve. It's all downhill from here.

I'm not sure what semantic point you're going for here.

 

[brainchild]

The system will only improve. It's all downhill from here.

This is a non-sequitur. If it can improve, it's obviously not all downhill from here.

Single-payer is a facet of universal healthcare, and currently, it's not a part of the coverage. It's also not guaranteed to happen, but one can hope.

 

[Coriolanus]

It's like arguing which group of slaves throughout the entire history of humanity had it the worse.

Real Americans. Slaves to the tiranny of the federal government, chained with taxes.

But really, its some group that was erased from history and we wont ever know because genocide + pre-written word. Otherwise Columbus slaves are near the top.

 

[brainchild]

Real Americans. Slaves to the tiranny of the federal government, chained with taxes.

Otherwise Columbus slaves are near the top.

Congratulations, you've just discovered the inside of Pandora's Box!

 

[User 406]

This is a non-sequitur. If it can improve, it's obviously not all downhill from here.

Single-payer is a facet of universal healthcare, and currently, it's not a part of the coverage. It's also not guaranteed to happen, but one can hope.

I mean downhill in the sense of how much we'll have to struggle for it to happen. The uphill battle was getting the coverage to begin with.

Also, single payer is not necessarily a required facet of universal healthcare. There are other countries with UHC that do use market solutions, and they're doing fine. The most important part is the coverage and support to ensure people can use it, the rest is detail. Although I really really do want us to move to single payer.

 

[Plinko]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...ll-carson-pulls-up-alongside-an-idling-trump/

Mr. Carson has amassed considerable new support from Republican primary and caucus voters and is now running nearly even with Mr. Trump as their pick for the party’s presidential nomination, according to a new New York Times/CBS News poll.

It's almost as if somebody in here called this.

It is guaranteed that Trump brings up Carson's idea to eliminate the VA in the debate.

 

[brainchild]

I mean downhill in the sense of how much we'll have to struggle for it to happen. The uphill battle was getting the coverage to begin with.

Also, single payer is not necessarily a required facet of universal healthcare. There are other countries with UHC that do use market solutions, and they're doing fine. The most important part is the coverage and support to ensure people can use it, the rest is detail. Although I really really do want us to move to single payer.

Again, a non-sequitur. You just said yourself that single-payer is unnecessary. A lot of people thought that universal healthcare was unnecessary.

Do you really believe that it would not be an uphill battle in a country that may as well be called the United States of Capitalism to garner support for a system that many people don't even think that we need?!

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Fighting to get single-payer absolutely would be an uphill battle. The adoption of such a system would have a serious impact on the economy, and I don't see the opponents to it rolling over and taking it in the ass. They'll fight against it as hard as they can. You can guarantee it.

 

[BertramCooper]

Walker probably would have had more success being a single-issue candidate from the outset.

Quite literally the only thing he knows how to do is fuck over organized labor. He should have made that his singular focus this whole time.

 

[Blergmeister]

Again, a non-sequitur. You just said yourself that single-payer is unnecessary. A lot of people thought that universal healthcare was unnecessary.

Do you really believe that it would not be an uphill battle in a country that may as well be called the United States of Capitalism to garner support for a system that many people don't even think that we need?!

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Fighting to get single-payer absolutely would be an uphill battle. The adoption of such a system would have a serious impact on the economy, and I don't see the opponents to it rolling over and taking it in the ass. They'll fight against it as hard as they can. You can guarantee it.

You misunderstood. Single Payer is a form of Universal Heathcare, but not the only one. We currently have a form of Universal Heathcare (medicaid fuckers adide.) The uphill battle was getting a form, any form, of universal healthcare, not Single Payer.

 

[RustyNails]

That's a fair point.
The pro LBJ position (which I generally subscribe to) is that he didn't want to go to Vietnam, he want to get the fuck out it, but that he couldn't find out a way to unclusterfuck that mess. Plus he had really bad people giving him terrible advise on an issue he wasn't an expert on and didn't care so much about.

Now obviously, that does not absolve him from some of the truly terrible things his administration have done in Vietnam, but they can be seen as extenuating circumstances of sorts.

Anyway, as for rankings go, those things are really arbitrary and depends mostly on how you define greatness, but I think Lincoln, FDR and Washington has to be top 3, I can make case for each one of them being first, and I think they're head and shoulders above everyone else.

p.s.
JFK was a terrible president and doesn't not belong on any top whatever list, ever.
If we're talking about cases being made, I can make the case that he was the worst one ever (I don't know if I would put him there if I would bother to rank them all, but I think you can make the case for it).

JFK was horrible save for dealing with Kruschev. I'd put Jimmy Carter near the top 5 or even in it. The economic malaise was such bullshit (it was OPEC's response to the Israel war)/which he had nothing to do with, and the failed rescue attempt was not his fault at all.

 

[Diablos]

JFK was horrible save for dealing with Kruschev. I'd put Jimmy Carter near the top 5 or even in it. The economic malaise was such bullshit (it was OPEC's response to the Israel war)/which he had nothing to do with, and the failed rescue attempt was not his fault at all.

He recently admitted he should have sent another helicopter, though... which is kind of strange.

 

[theprodigy]

Pretty easy to say when you're not Vietnamese

pretty easy to say FDR was the best if you're not Japanese, etc......

we can play this game with everyone, nobody wins this

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I think some people are too young to understand how big and costly (in lives, not just money) the Vietnam War was. LBJ gets off the shit list for civil rights, but makes no top-tens either.

And I know people like to blame JFK for it, but if you look at the actual escalation, that happened under LBJ. JFK had 15,000 troops in Vietnam, LBJ had over 500,000.

Lots of apologists say the LBJ was trapped into it, but look at those numbers and think about if that isn't just trying to whitewash him.

Comparing that with the Japanese-American interment is also disingenuous. That was horrible, but it's not even in the same scale.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

Republicans are douches but if there's one thing to admire from them, it's that they never, EVER admit that anything's wrong when they're in charge..

That's not something to admire though.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

That's not something to admire though.

Oh of course it's a horrible lack of honesty and cognizance, but it's a great way to play and win at politics.