When I watch candidates, sometimes I hear them say something that is patently false, or completely disengenuous. How am I expected to vote for such a person? They clearly only have their own interests at heart if they know they are lying, or they are incompetent, not knowing basic facts about their opponents.
This is a short list with stuff that I wanted to write down in case it comes up in an argument :P. Hopefully, I eventually get to all candidates, including ones I support.
Also, the list has kind of morphed. It was originally critiques on candidates, now its just general thoughts, idk.
"I dont think we should be using taxpayer money to send wealthy kids to college" - answering a question on why she doesnt want a democratic socialist to be on the ticket (note she said 'socialist' not 'democratic socialist')
Bernies plan is free STATE SCHOOLS, which means 'wealthy kids' who go to PRIVATE IVY LEAGUE SCHOOLS (what she is implying) will have to pay full tuition, as regular. Senator Klobuchar either knows that, and is being disengenuous to try and smear Sanders, or doesnt actually know her chief opponent's plan, and is ignorant. If the latter, how can she beat Trump? She wont have facts behind her, certainly.
'We need to build a big tent' for anti-abortion Democrats
saying bernie has no idea how much healthcare will cost, and doesnt have a plan to pay for it.
Bernie regularly says that the tax increase for M4A will be 7.5% on the witholding tax. this plus truly taxing billionaires and big corporations who dont pay taxes will cover M4A, and people will end up paying less for healthcare because the current system fucking sucks.
Same as Klobuchar, he is either being disengenuous, or ignorant, 2 very bad qualities.
Claims to be a champion on the popular vote. Saying in a town hall in 2019 that he wants the popular vote over the electoral college. Then, he loses the popular vote in Iowa, and claims victory. He just says what will get him more support. He doesnt stand up for what he believes in, or he changes his tune to whatever is most politically expedient.
His 'Medicare for All Who Want it' is complete BS. The next bit found via reddit:
Pete's plan would not expand Medicare coverage to include dental and optical, for instance, and you would still have premiums, deductibles, and co-pays.
It also would allow private insurance to create low coverage, high deductible plans intended to poach young and healthy people who believe they'll always be so, which will also shift the burden of the poor and sick to Medicare making the plan unsustainable.
It will also do nothing to reduce the administrative costs and wastes of the current system.
Basically, if you are young and healthy, you will be incentivised to use the (admittedly cheaper given the circumstance!) HDHP by the private insurance. This means that the only people that will be paying into medicare would be the old and sick. This basically destroys all benefits of M4A! By having all people in one group plan (single-payer), the young can amortize the costs of healthcare for the old. This doesnt mean young people shouldnt vote for M4A. In the same vein as social security, you pay in now, and get benefits later! When you are sick, you will have nothing to worry about. Even as a young person, you may need it, so the low-coverage plan would backfire! Medicare for ALL, not just ones who havent fallen prey to Buttigeg's shit plan.
About why he is a better choice than Bernie:
"I dont think 160 Million people will be happy when the government takes away the healthcare plan they like"
Uhh I think its quite a stretch to say that 160M people are 'happy with their healthcare'. And over 150 million people dont like it then, so id rather have 150 million people with healthcare they're happy with, and then 160M STILL WITH HEALTHCARE.
I don't agree with his views on Immigration. I dont think his state has ever had to deal with immigration issues, so he may not have experience in that field. Maybe I am being easy on Bernie, because this is the best 'reason I dont like' that will probably be on the list. But, hes so 'on message' constantly, he never talks shit about other candidates. And when he does, it is purely using their own quotes, or newspaper headlines. So, maybe thats a 'sneaky' tactic, but hes not lying, he clearly states the source of his quotes, and he stays on message more than attacks other candidates.
MedicareForAll will save $450 billion and prevent 68,000 unnecessary deaths - each and every year
- https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/fulltext
In other words, MedicareForAll does not cost $3-4 trillion more a year - it saves $450 billion a year & improves care. And much of the $3-4 trillion a year in cost is in the tax increases to the middle class. Wait isnt that a bad thing? NO, becuase even with the 'tax increase' a majority of people will be saving money by not paying their corrupt health insurance companies!
Also, other candidates (and talking heads, I dont have an exact person who said this, but I hope to attribute if I hear it again) using 'the companies worked hard to make these healthcare plans, why should we disregard that?' Fuck. That. Companies should find a better incentive than healthcare, because it shouldn't be on them to fight for it. If companies don't have to fight for healthcare, then maybe they can focus on RUNNING THEIR OWN COMPANY!