Xtraz2
Superstar
Time to choose up, who we going with and why?
Sohh what’s the main differences between Bernie And Warren?
- Thread starter Xtraz2
- Start date
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
The toxic Bernie Stan’s
Warren has a more pro war history and has stated that she will take corporate money if she makes it to the general election. They both have detailed plans for the problems facing the country, but Sanders plans are more all encompassing. For instance Warren's student debt forgiveness plan is limited to certain people getting a certain amount forgiven while Sanders plan will forgive 100% of everyone's student debt.
OfTheCross
Veteran
why is it time to choose already?
afterlife2009
Superstar
Medicare for all
Her rationale in taking corporate cash is one i can’t entirely begrudge her on in a general election scenario.
The Koch’s, Mercers, Adelsons... and all the dark money that hit in October 2016 is going to happen in October 2020.
The airwaves in battleground states were flooded. Senate races that had Dem polling with a lead completely flipped.
How the fukk do you combat that?
AnonymityX1000
Veteran
Bernie been on the same shyt for 40 years, Warren . . . . uh hasn't.
Her being a Republican and leaving the party and realizing all their shid was crap is a powerful asset in a general election.
Bernie’s tenure as the longest serving independent in congressional history also plays well in a general election.
Bernie does not show that he understands how to command the complexity of the job.
He's an asset for movement building, not for executive function.
He's an asset for movement building, not for executive function.
Bernie would lose the White House in a single term. Warren would easily get two terms.
So you think Bernie beats Trump? And you’d vote for him if he’s the nominee?
Policy-wise I think they're similar and would vote for either in the general.
I think the main difference is that Bernie is more antagonistic towards other Democrats, which rubs some people the wrong way after 2016 (because they feel it hurts the party) but others feel is helpful.
I think the main difference is that Bernie is more antagonistic towards other Democrats, which rubs some people the wrong way after 2016 (because they feel it hurts the party) but others feel is helpful.
Change vs. Reform
I won't lose sleep if either become the nominee. It would be a great paradigm shift if that's the final two.
I won't lose sleep if either become the nominee. It would be a great paradigm shift if that's the final two.
storyteller
Veteran
I'm gonna stick with domestic policy here because they seem to have a different outlook on foreign policy and military spending but the ultra detailed stuff from them is mostly domestic.
Their plans and policies are pretty damned similar but the biggest difference principally speaking is probably Means Testing (aka conditions or requisites to receive services).
. Bernie's latest set of policies seem to remove most Means Testing altogether. Student Loan forgiveness for EVERYONE.
. Warren's plans tend to lay out similar plans but with some Means Testing. Student Loan forgiveness up to 50,000 dollars for households making $100,000 or less and than the proportions change depending on how much money above $100 K.
There are pro's and cons to both approaches.
- Eliminate Means Testing and:
. You don't lose people with needs at the margins, but you do include people who don't actually need the help.
. You simplify the application process, everyone qualifies. This should speed that part up and reduce administrative costs for the programs theoretically.
. The benefits are broadly shared which in theory ought to make it harder to attack the programs once in place (ie: Republicans can't outright repeal the ACA bc aspects of it are too broadly supported even by Republican voters). This version could be attacked by saying the program is wasting resources on people who don't need it.
- Include Means Testing and
. You may lose people at the margins, but those who don't actually need help won't receive the benefits of the program.
. The application process becomes more complicated but you reduce costs by creating a smaller pool of people that receive these benefits.
. The benefits are limited to those in need. This combats any perception of money or benefits being wasted on those without the needs. But you can attack this program at the margins by saying too many people are receiving the benefits and shrinking the program. That means less people with a vested interest in the program, less people helped by it and an easier program to shut down or divert money from.
Edit: There are also variations in how they'll try to pass their more radical legislation and address issues like the Supreme Court but each of those is worth it's own post imo and I'd probably wanna take time to go back over it all because it's been a while. Generally: Warren I believe would do away with the filibuster and court stack if I'm not mistaken. Bernie seems to be leaning more toward executive orders and separate strategies to address the supreme court that I first saw proposed from a Vanderbilt Law paper and could probably pull up old posts about with the search function if anyone is interested.
Their plans and policies are pretty damned similar but the biggest difference principally speaking is probably Means Testing (aka conditions or requisites to receive services).
. Bernie's latest set of policies seem to remove most Means Testing altogether. Student Loan forgiveness for EVERYONE.
. Warren's plans tend to lay out similar plans but with some Means Testing. Student Loan forgiveness up to 50,000 dollars for households making $100,000 or less and than the proportions change depending on how much money above $100 K.
There are pro's and cons to both approaches.
- Eliminate Means Testing and:
. You don't lose people with needs at the margins, but you do include people who don't actually need the help.
. You simplify the application process, everyone qualifies. This should speed that part up and reduce administrative costs for the programs theoretically.
. The benefits are broadly shared which in theory ought to make it harder to attack the programs once in place (ie: Republicans can't outright repeal the ACA bc aspects of it are too broadly supported even by Republican voters). This version could be attacked by saying the program is wasting resources on people who don't need it.
- Include Means Testing and
. You may lose people at the margins, but those who don't actually need help won't receive the benefits of the program.
. The application process becomes more complicated but you reduce costs by creating a smaller pool of people that receive these benefits.
. The benefits are limited to those in need. This combats any perception of money or benefits being wasted on those without the needs. But you can attack this program at the margins by saying too many people are receiving the benefits and shrinking the program. That means less people with a vested interest in the program, less people helped by it and an easier program to shut down or divert money from.
Edit: There are also variations in how they'll try to pass their more radical legislation and address issues like the Supreme Court but each of those is worth it's own post imo and I'd probably wanna take time to go back over it all because it's been a while. Generally: Warren I believe would do away with the filibuster and court stack if I'm not mistaken. Bernie seems to be leaning more toward executive orders and separate strategies to address the supreme court that I first saw proposed from a Vanderbilt Law paper and could probably pull up old posts about with the search function if anyone is interested.
Last edited: