𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

There’s a variety of ways to implement it, but the vast majority save trillions in the long run. https://www.citizen.org/news/fact-check-medicare-for-all-would-save-the-u-s-trillions-public-option-would-leave-millions-uninsured-not-garner-savings/ has a couple sources listed, even a Koch-funded institute found it would save money.

The reasoning is simple: you cut out the middlemen who demand a portion of the premiums for themselves. Those costs are instantly removed, and there isn’t really anything that starts costing more in return.

There’s also collective governmental bargaining on procedures and medication which lowers prices.

No, the sum of all premiums paid by all Americans is way more than is required. You could make it a flat tax and it’d still be cheaper.

The tax increase is more than offset by the cost of premiums.

Why? UHC is cheaper than the current system. You wouldn’t need any extra taxes.

Is public healthcare actually made illegal by the supreme court?

No, Citizens United is the effective legalization of public bribery, masked as “political donations”.

The problem is that you’re never going to get that grassroots movement built up. The healthcare companies rake in billions, they’ll happily spend that to ensure they can keep existing. And other billionaire corporations will join in too, because why risk a party willing to deal with healtcare companies getting power? What else will that party do that could harm their precious profits?

They’ll invest billions to primary candidates, buy media coverage, demonize their opponents or even fabricate fake negative PR. That grassroots movement would be stamped out, as you won’t be able to get enough votes. That’ll put a party like the GOP in charge and they will pass as many voter disenfranchisement laws, gerrymandering laws, etc… to ensure you need massive majorities to barely get 50% of the representation.

People are already pissed with the state of healthcare, so much so that they’re collectively cheering for the murder of a CEO. Yet no grassroots campaign is in sight. By the time the next election rolls around American voters will already have forgotten about that CEO and will be more concerned about inflation or migration or whatever-the-fuck the media has decided to focus on.

I think by the time you get enough Americans on board with a grassroots campaign powerful enough to actually make changes, you are at such a high level of public anger a violent revolution is nearly inevitable.

First-Past-The-Post system sucks but systematic change can happen. Its just… you guys elected Trump.

Systemic change is being made next to impossible due to the rampant legalised bribery and corruption at all levels of the political offices.

How would you even go about going against the corporate oligarchy? Your candidates will get primaried and out-funded, your party colleagues will get bribed to vote against tackling these issues, and that’s all assuming you could get close enough to having enough candidates for all races across the country, you get your messaging picked up by the media and you somehow poll so high that strategic voters won’t split the vote, actively putting the worst party in charge instead.

You’d somehow have to get elected, get enough supreme court justices pushed through and have them repeal Citizens United to even get started. That’s a tall order to ask from a political class that actively benefits from the current situation.

You could become president with an attitude like that!

Which is why he bought the closest thing to being president. So now he wants to de facto be president.

Season 1 Michael was a bit more of a jackass though. Maybe he could’ve done it.

The C.I.A.’s partnership in Ukraine can be traced back to two phone calls on the night of Feb. 24, 2014, eight years to the day before Russia’s full-scale invasion.

Those phone calls, as I already mentioned, did not reveal a secret CIA partnership with Ukraine. They revealed the US was not up to date on what was happening at the time and that they were in the beginning stages of figuring out what to do in Ukraine. Russian propaganda claims otherwise but there’s never been any evidence of that.

The CIA building a bunker to run ops from makes sense since Putin immediately invaded Crimea and sparked the Donbas war. That was built well after the revolution had already taken place. It is not evidence of meddling before or during the revolution.

I see you are not fond of citing sources that can be verified

Here it is: https://www.democracynow.org/2014/3/3/who_is_provoking_the_unrest_in

Taken from Wikipedia: “Russian propaganda” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity#%3A~%3Atext=[337]-%2CRussian+propaganda%2C-Russian+propaganda+portrayed

It’s really not that difficult to find. At this point you’re just spewing nonsense. Time for a block.

The writer of that article is an apologist as well. He cites tons of imperialist arguments for why Ukraine as a sovereign nation apparently doesn’t matter and how everyone should bend to Russia because they are a “great power” (an imperialist concept). He has also written other articles that seek to blame the West for what happened, despite having terrible and easily countered arguments for it. His article on “western meddling in Ukraine” is especially terrible. In it, he claims EU meddling was brazen, because (and I’m not joking here) one high-ranking EU official expressed her support for the protesters and handed out cookies.

The US meddling was supposedly more brazen, with a leaked phone call discussing who the US would like to see take power. But as others have already noted:

Yale University professor Timothy Snyder said, “Imagine just how much evidence the Russians have of what the U.S. was doing in Ukraine, given that they had access to that telephone call. That was the best bit they could come up with. And in the context of the time, what that telephone conversation showed was that the Americans were, A, not up to date about what was happening in Ukraine and, B, unable to influence events happening in Ukraine.”

It’s also blatantly ignoring that nothing unconstitutional happened (other than the firing on protesters killing over a hundred civilians), that Yanukovych was voted out of office by a large majority of the democratically elected parliament and that the first thing they did was hold new elections.

It’s also blatantly ignoring Russian meddling, providing 2 billion to Yanukovych and effectively ordering him to crush the protests (possibly the final trigger that led to his removal).

You can’t accept the arguments in that article without also accepting that Ukraine is a vassal state to Russia, which it just isn’t. Russia could have done plenty to make themselves more popular with their neighbours, but never did. They did nothing but demand, demand, demand. Nobody is required to listen to those unreasonable demands, and claiming that not doing so is “provocative” is total horseshit.

Some of us are more concerned with human lives than preserving imaginary lines drawn a map.

If only that was true for Putin.

You started with the claim that Putin was somehow “provoked” into committing mass rape and murder on an innocent civilian population. That’s an imperialist/fascist talking point, literally used by the Nazis back when Hitler invaded Poland.

At no point have I claimed you support the invasion (that’s a strawman you just made up), only that you made excuses for it. Hence why you were called a Nazi apologist.

Even with my limited IQ of 142

Ah, that explains it. You must have at least 160 IQ in order to understand that making excuses for Putins invasion is morally indefensible.

Also, pretending both-sidesism is somehow enlightened is hilarious. In this conflict, it’s pretty fucking clear who is on the moral highground, ulterior motives be damned. Putin sent in a military that rapes and murders innocent civilians, NATO has provided weapons to the Ukrainian military to prevent that. Even if you believe NATO has a secret master plan to topple Putin or whatever, defending an innocent civilian population is a good thing regardless of any geopolitical reasoning involved.

States that governments don’t need taxes to finance stuff

Lists reasons why governments really do need to do so and that not doing so is a terrible idea

Refuses to elaborate

Leaves

What did he mean by this?

Random blogger tweets unsourced claims. More at eleven. Also completely unrelated.

Still not seeing how any of this suggests there’s anything remotely close to a justification of Putins invasion of Ukraine.

Sure, that doesn’t seem to be true?

Gallup found the following:

• Pro-life: Men 49%, Women 33%
• Pro-choice: Men 45%, Women 63%

Women are also more in favour of less restrictions on abortion (e.g. from X weeks) than men.

See https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx

Lmao as if I don’t know? Philosophy experiments are fun and all but humans just suck at conceptualizing beyond what we can see. Random kids across the ocean people have a hard time empathising with unprompted.

Regardless, this is another completely irrelevant article you’ve shared. Perhaps one could argue the west is standing by as a Ukrainian child is drowning. But that’s still infinitely more moral and ethical than taking the child from his mother, dragging it into a pond, raping it there, then shooting it, all in front of their mother, only to then call it “provoked” and “self-defense”, all because mommy decided to open a Tinder account and matched with a couple western guys. Because that’s all justified of course, only a couple decades ago were you their abusive boyfriend so clearly it’s justified, right?

Such a paragon of morality, that Putin fella.

Which is also irrelevant, because it doesn’t in any way excuse Putins decision to invade Ukraine, raping and killing innocent civilians as a result.

Regardless, Russia is and always was a sovereign nation. The US can advise whatever they like, Russian leadership ultimately decided what actually got implemented. Not to mention the pretty terrible state the Soviet economy was in already.

Yes, and I remember Russia demanding unreasonable terms as a condition for entering. They sabotaged that themselves. Russia demanded all kinds of foreign policy from NATO and demanded a special status within the alliance. They also did not want to follow the normal procedure for joining, like the other members did.

This is all from your own source by the way. Did you even read it or are you just throwing links around hoping people don’t read them?

By stating it was provoked, you’re defending Putin. Unleashing rape and murder on a civilian population is not something you “provoke”. Ukraine has a sovereign right to wish to join NATO or the EU, as any sovereign nation does. Putin does not get a vote in that.

Since you seem to be a little thick: you’re being called a Nazi apologist because you’re effectively providing excuses for why Russia’s fascist dictator was right to invade Ukraine, or at the very least isn’t to blame. It’s a horseshit narrative because Putin alone is in charge of his army and Ukraine has not done anything a sovereign nation shouldn’t be allowed to do.

It’s a direct attack on your position, which appears to apologize for a fascist dictator invading a sovereign nation. It’s neatly wrapped in the form of an insult, but that doesn’t make it an ad hominem by and of itself. For that to be the case, he’d have to call you a Nazi and not bother addressing what you said. But he directly addressed it, by stating that he believes your argument is apologizing for a fascist dictator. Hence it attacks your position, hence it’s not an ad hominem.

Republicans spent significant efforts trying to prove shady business interests of the Bidens in Ukraine and never managed to find jack shit that ever seemed improper.

The US acts in its own interests. Countering Russian imperialism is part of that. They’re not helping Ukraine out of pure good will, sure, but in this case US interests do align with doing the right thing.