[rmnka447]

 Winstonm, on 2019-September-12, 13:30, said:

It is vital for us all to know if the McCabe prosecution was a political decision from the executive branch or soley a legal decision of the Justice Department.



Justice is supposed to be non-partisan, but that ended with Barr's confirmation. Now, Justice is an extension of Trump's ego because of Barr's arrogance and belief in his own version of the power of the executive under his personal unitary executive theory.

The charges pending that may be pursued against McCabe are the result of criminal referrals from the DOJ's Inspector General Horowitz pursuant to his investigations. The Inspector General has been seen as fair and impartial throughout his investigations of possible misconduct at the DOJ and FBI. So portraying the refusal of the DOJ not to charge McCabe with criminal misconduct as partisan is absurd. There's still a process that needs to be gone through -- Grand Jury, etc. -- before he's indicted. And, of course, there must be a presumption of innocence until a persuasive case is made to the contrary.

If you'd read the scathing commentary by the IG about McCabe's conduct then maybe you'd be less inclined to portray the pending prosecution as political. Remember the IG give the FBI a pass on their conduct of the Hillary Clinton e-mail server investigation which most conservatives viewed as a whitewash.

Also, note that the DOJ has chosen not to pursue some other criminal referrals form the IG against McCabe and Comey recently.

Of course, if you view the world through a particular lens you'll point everything back toward being purely political. It's probably a case of transference - projecting into others one's own behavior. But you'd never admit that the Obama administration weaponized the government for political purposes like it did.

[hrothgar]

About those McCabe charges

https://www.lawfareb...cabe-grand-jury

Normally, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich

[Winstonm]

 rmnka447, on 2019-September-13, 16:02, said:

The charges pending that may be pursued against McCabe are the result of criminal referrals from the DOJ's Inspector General Horowitz pursuant to his investigations. The Inspector General has been seen as fair and impartial throughout his investigations of possible misconduct at the DOJ and FBI. So portraying the refusal of the DOJ not to charge McCabe with criminal misconduct as partisan is absurd. There's still a process that needs to be gone through -- Grand Jury, etc. -- before he's indicted. And, of course, there must be a presumption of innocence until a persuasive case is made to the contrary.

If you'd read the scathing commentary by the IG about McCabe's conduct then maybe you'd be less inclined to portray the pending prosecution as political. Remember the IG give the FBI a pass on their conduct of the Hillary Clinton e-mail server investigation which most conservatives viewed as a whitewash.

Also, note that the DOJ has chosen not to pursue some other criminal referrals form the IG against McCabe and Comey recently.

Of course, if you view the world through a particular lens you'll point everything back toward being purely political. It's probably a case of transference - projecting into others one's own behavior. But you'd never admit that the Obama administration weaponized the government for political purposes like it did.

Don't be a twit. Barr has the final authority in the Justice Department. Justice is part of the executive branch. Trump is the head of the executive branch, hence he is Barr's boss. Barr believes the executive has virtually unlimited powers to start and stop investigation and the only restraint there is against the executive is impeachment.

There is no way that McCabe is being prosecuted without Barr's ( and thus Trump's) approval. He is actually not being prosecuted but persecuted.

Here's what the Lawfare article to which Richard linked had to say: (One paragraph separated for enphasis)

Quote

The possibility of a criminal case against McCabe has smelled bad for a while. As one of us has spelled out in detail, this is not the kind of case that normally ends up as a criminal matter. While the Justice Department inspector general report that led to McCabe’s dismissal from the bureau is sharply critical of his conduct, indictments for false statements in internal Justice Department investigations, without some exacerbating factor, are exceedingly rare. This sort of misconduct is normally handled in internal disciplinary proceedings—and McCabe was already fired. Indeed, there’s nothing about the inspector general’s findings about McCabe that seem to make his case a likely candidate for a criminal disposition.

Quote

What makes McCabe’s situation distinctive, rather, is the public campaign against him by the president of the United States, who has tweeted and spoken repeatedly about McCabe and publicly called for his prosecution.

It's hard to see how this is not a partisan persecution led by the president, aided by the AG.

Quote

Harry Litman
✔
@harrylitman
A Grand Jury's refusal to return an indictment is something that happens maybe once every five years in a given office. If it occurred here, given the magnitude and visibility of the McCabe case, it is a stunning and humiliating rebuke for overreaching and playing politics.

Personally, I have no trouble with people who have conservative values. I disagree a lot but that is OK. What you are doing, though, with this continued rabid support of Trump is to swallow whole a reality created by gaslighting.

I strongly, strongly recommend a book titled: How Democracies Die to see how democratic republics have been taken down a little at a time from the inside out. An important weapon for the autocrat is to take over the departments - Justice being a critical one.

[Chas_P]

 barmar, on 2019-September-13, 09:49, said:

I just deleted the recent exchange between Chas_p and johnu. They serve no useful purpose to the forum.

And you were absolutely right to do so. I apologize for a mental lapse.

[johnu]

For those who thought the US was dodging a bullet when John Bolton, a guy who never saw a war he didn't like, was fired, or resigned as he has said, there is this:

Trump’s Acting National Security Adviser Said Nuclear War With USSR Was Winnable

Quote

President Donald Trump’s acting national security adviser, former Reagan administration official Charles Kupperman, made an extraordinary and controversial claim in the early 1980s: nuclear conflict with the USSR was winnable and that “nuclear war is a destructive thing but still in large part a physics problem.”

Kupperman’s suggestion that the U.S. could triumph in a nuclear war went against dominant theories of mutually assured destruction and ignored the long-term destabilizing effects that such hostilities would have on the planet’s health and global politics.

Kupperman, appointed to his new post on Tuesday after Trump fired his John Bolton from the job, argued it was possible to win a nuclear war “in the classical sense,” and that the notion of total destruction stemming from such a superpower conflict was inaccurate. He said that in a scenario in which 20 million people died in the U.S. as opposed to 150 million, the nation could then emerge as the stronger side and prevail in its objectives.

His argument was that with enough planning and civil defense measures, such as “a certain layer of dirt and some reinforced construction materials,” the effects of a nuclear war could be limited and that U.S. would be able to fairly quickly rebuild itself after an all-out conflict with the then-Soviet Union.

So, 20 million American deaths is an acceptable loss if we "win" a nuclear war. And a nuclear war is just a "physics problem" It's clear the Manchurian President is getting his political appointees from below the scum on the bottom of the barrel, but how does he even find these bottom 1%'ers.

[y66]

 Winstonm, on 2019-September-13, 17:45, said:

Personally, I have no trouble with people who have conservative values. I disagree a lot but that is OK. What you are doing, though, with this continued rabid support of Trump is to swallow whole a reality created by gaslighting.

I suspect that the alternative reality many Trumplandians have swallowed whole is this one:

Quote

One of the ironies today is that people are saying it is President Trump who is shredding our institutions. I really see no evidence of that. From my perspective, the idea of ‘resisting’ a Democratically elected president and basically throwing everything at him, and really changing the norms on the grounds that we have to stop this president. That’s where the shredding of our norms and institutions is occurring. -- William Barr

It follows that the people who improperly investigated links between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign are the ones who pose a real danger to democracy and to the integrity of the FBI and DOJ. This is why they must be prosecuted and why it's absurd to suggest that charging them is politically motivated. Ditto for suggesting that Barr's supporters are twits.

[Winstonm]

 y66, on 2019-September-14, 09:42, said:

I suspect that the alternative reality many Trumplandians have swallowed whole is this one:


It follows that the people who improperly investigated links between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign are the ones who pose a real danger to democracy and to the integrity of the FBI and DOJ. This is why they must be prosecuted and why it's absurd to suggest that charging them is politically motivated. Ditto for suggesting that Barr's supporters are twits.

Let me re-examine the Barr quote for factual information that he provides.

Quote

One of the ironies today is that people are saying it is President Trump who is shredding our institutions. I really see no evidence of that. From my perspective, the idea of ‘resisting’ a Democratically elected president and basically throwing everything at him, and really changing the norms on the grounds that we have to stop this president. That’s where the shredding of our norms and institutions is occurring. -- William Barr

Oops, there are no facts - except this: my emphasis

A) From his perspective, the idea of resisting a democratically elected president....yada, yada, yadi....stop this president.

B) That's where the shredding of our norms and institutions are occurring.


Conclusion: His perspective - his idea. This simply means: He made it up.

So, by parsing exactly what AG Barr actually said, we find that the only facts he offered was that he dreamed up these supposed attacks on the president. But he expects everyone to believe they are real.

Great, subtle gaslighting but still gaslighting.

[Winstonm]

The big question of the day is what does this whistleblower know that this regime doesn't want known?

Quote

The nation's top intelligence official is illegally withholding a whistleblower complaint, possibly to protect President Donald Trump or senior White House officials, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff alleged Friday.

Schiff issued a subpoena for the complaint, accusing acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire of taking extraordinary steps to withhold the complaint from Congress, even after the intel community's inspector general characterized the complaint as credible and of "urgent concern."

[kenberg]

I was listening to an interview and discussion on NPR. I was on a brief drive and I can't name who all was talking, but didn't like what I heard.

At the debate Elizabeth Warren was asked directly whether her health plan would lead to an increase in taxes. She explained that overall costs would go down.. The consensus on NPR was that her failure to directly answer a direct question was not a problem


I hope she is getting better advice elsewhere, but apparently if so, she is not following it.


No doubt she regularly reads that BBO WC so here it is in two points:
1. If you do not answer this direct question, everyone listening draws the obvious conclusion that the answer is yes, taxes will go up.
2. When a person will not give a clear answer to a clear question, quite a few people lose trust in the person who is ducking the question.


Very few people have the skills, or for that matter the time and inclination, to go over the plan in detail, work through all of the cost and benefits, figure where all the money will come from, analyze who will break even on cost, who will pay more, who will pay less. I certainly am not up for such a thorough study, It would take weeks or months, I would have to hire some expertise in some aspects, and still I would not be positive. But people have no trouble at all seeing when a question has not been answered.


So Senator, if you are getting a lot of "Oh. good duck, you did fine, no problem" advice, I suggest that you listen to someone else.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2019-September-14, 20:06, said:

I was listening to an interview and discussion on NPR. I was on a brief drive and I can't name who all was talking, but didn't like what I heard.

At the debate Elizabeth Warren was asked directly whether her health plan would lead to an increase in taxes. She explained that overall costs would go down.. The consensus on NPR was that her failure to directly answer a direct question was not a problem


I hope she is getting better advice elsewhere, but apparently if so, she is not following it.


No doubt she regularly reads that BBO WC so here it is in two points:
1. If you do not answer this direct question, everyone listening draws the obvious conclusion that the answer is yes, taxes will go up.
2. When a person will not give a clear answer to a clear question, quite a few people lose trust in the person who is ducking the question.


Very few people have the skills, or for that matter the time and inclination, to go over the plan in detail, work through all of the cost and benefits, figure where all the money will come from, analyze who will break even on cost, who will pay more, who will pay less. I certainly am not up for such a thorough study, It would take weeks or months, I would have to hire some expertise in some aspects, and still I would not be positive. But people have no trouble at all seeing when a question has not been answered.


So Senator, if you are getting a lot of "Oh. good duck, you did fine, no problem" advice, I suggest that you listen to someone else.

Perhaps some of your disgust should be pointed to the questioner who seems to only want a "gptcha momemt" rather than a genuine answer. Will taxes go up to cover the costs of universal healthcare is similar to asking are you still beating your wife.

[barmar]

 Winstonm, on 2019-September-14, 20:30, said:

Perhaps some of your disgust should be pointed to the questioner who seems to only want a "gptcha momemt" rather than a genuine answer. Will taxes up to cover the costs of universal healthcare is similar to asking are you still beating your wife.

The problem with answering questions like this is that the general public doesn't understand the math of "net costs" -- yes, your taxes will go up, but your other expenses will go down commensurately. Also, it's not necessarily the case that everyone comes out ahead. Policies to increase benefits for the poor often require the rich to pay more -- it is a transfer of wealth.

Look at most of the countries with national health services: they do generally have higher taxes than we do. There's no free lunch.

But there's another piece to the puzzle: if there's a 500 lb gorilla (i.e. the government) running health care, they have clout to negotiate prices with providers. Most of the Democrat health care plans include provisions to force drug companies to make prices more fair -- currently the US is subsidizing all the low prices that other countries have negotiated, and Medicare for All would give us real clout.

The main people who will see a significant net cost increase are the ones who choose NOT to get health insurance. When it becomes a tax, it's no longer voluntary. And people generally dislike being forced to do things.

But they also get used to it. I'll bet there were people decrying being forced to pay Social Security and unemployment insurance when those were first instituted, now no one gives them a second thought, they're just a line item on everyone's paystub. The same with the requirements to get car and homeowner's insurance (the latter isn't a government requirement, it's from the bank issuing the mortgage, but you still can't get around it if you want to buy a home and aren't uber-rich enough to pay cash). There's all sorts of things you're forced to do in life, and as long as everyone else is in the same boat, it's OK -- maybe you gripe a little, but you live with it.

[y66]

I winced when Warren ducked that question in the debate. I suspect she did too and will be better prepared next time.

[hrothgar]

Few thoughts on last night's debate

1. I really want some candidate, ANY candidate to go out and say that the differences between Warren/Sanders and Biden/the rest on health care are cosmetic and irrelevant. Health care will be decided in the House of Representatives, not the White House. Whatever comes down the pike will be a compromise worked out between various Democratic constituencies. Its nice that the different candidates have their own preferences. Great. I hope that they fight for them. But in the long run, I don't care much about the distinctions between medicare for all, single payer, what have you.

2. Biden was an incoherent mess by the end of the debate. I want someone who is presents a clear difference from Trump. Joe just isn't doing it for me.

3. Harris was even more of a mess. She was off last night. Harris was originally one of the candidates that I was most interested in. However, she has not risen to the occasion. Time for her to go.

4. I think that Castro's attack on Biden was too ham handed. Came across as desperate and rehearsed (in a bad way). Would have preferred that this not happen. (I wonder whether he is auditioning for a VP slot with Warren)

5. I personally thought that Warren had the best performance last night and positioned herself the best. Also was impressed with Booker and Beto. (And I don't much like either of them). Klobuchar also had some good moments, as did Buddageig.

6. There was no one that I missed having on stage. I hope to see things contract further in the next debate. Probably time to lose Harris and Yang

[y66]

From To Counter China, Out-Invent It. Trump’s Trade War Ignores the Real Threat From Beijing by Jonathan Gruber and Simon Johnson at Foreign Affairs via Noah Smith:

Quote

The biggest threat from China is both much more serious and considerably easier to address than any the Trump administration has identified. Through government-led investment in research and development, China is poised to become the global leader in scientific and technological innovation in the near future, displacing the United States from a position it has held for 70 years. China’s rise in this area will not only threaten U.S. national security but deprive the U.S. economy of a great many good jobs. Instead of sparring with China over trade, the United States should dramatically increase its own investment in research and development. Only by spurring domestic innovation can the United States counter China.

Quote

To avoid being overtaken by China, the United States should increase federal government support for scientific research as well as efforts to translate that research into products and services that can be brought to market. Government R & D spending has a remarkably high rate of social return, meaning that the benefits are spread widely throughout society. Based on recent studies of government support for civilian- and military-oriented research in the United States, Europe, and New Zealand, we estimate that a federal government commitment of $100 billion per year to R & D would help create roughly four million good new jobs. The most productive use of such funding would be to upgrade the physical infrastructure that supports science, including new laboratories, expanded graduate programs, and incubators for developing capital-intensive technologies that may take a long time to perfect.

Wherever possible, the government should look for productive ways to spread this investment around the country. Innovation increasingly takes place in a few highly concentrated hubs where talented people congregate—places such as Seattle, the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, Boston, New York City, and Washington, D.C. But with restrictive zoning and high housing prices, these hubs have become expensive and congested. Investing in places where land is cheap and people have the potential to become much more productive will help redress regional disparities in opportunity and employment, while at the same time building an advantage over international competitors by drawing more Americans into the scientific enterprise.

In our book Jump-Starting America, we identify 102 urban communities that are plausible next-generation tech hubs. Spread across 36 states in all regions of the country, these cities and towns have large populations, highly educated workers, and a low cost of living. Examples include Rochester, New York; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and Topeka, Kansas. To turn these cities into tech hubs, the federal government should support collaboration between universities, private businesses, and local governments with the aim of making higher education more affordable, expanding practical and technical training, and creating pipelines from local educational institutions to employers. Together, these public-private consortiums could work to keep housing costs affordable by overhauling zoning law to allow for sufficient construction.

The best way to counter China is to out-invent it—and to turn inventions into products and services that people around the world want to buy. The United States was once very good at this. China’s rise should remind the United States that it can and should renew its commitment to technological and scientific advancement.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2019-September-14, 20:30, said:

Perhaps some of your disgust should be pointed to the questioner who seems to only want a "gptcha momemt" rather than a genuine answer. Will taxes up to cover the costs of universal healthcare is similar to asking are you still beating your wife.

I strongly disagree. She, or someone, has to win the general election and this will certainly come up. And it's more than just ducking the question, the answer she was that the rich will pay more, others will pay less. Let's look at that. A non-rich, ir ordinary person might earn 40L, 60K, 80K, 100K etc a year. the increase in taxes will be different for these people. And their health care needs will be different. One person is young healthy and single. S/he will be carrying the least expensive plan available. Another person has a chronic illness or kids or maybe kids with chronic illnesses. Anther person has a very good health plan through his/her employer, another has no health plan from his/her employer. None of these people will be satisfied with the answer Warren gave. [Oh, and I was not really disgusted, it's more accurate to say I was disappointed. And worried. It was a weak response to an obvious and predictable question.]

The question was completely legitimate, her response was a slogan instead of an answer. If she hopes to win in a general election, she must do better.

And so I move on to Richard's point 1:

Quote

1. I really want some candidate, ANY candidate to go out and say that the differences between Warren/Sanders and Biden/the rest on health care are cosmetic and irrelevant. Health care will be decided in the House of Representatives, not the White House. Whatever comes down the pike will be a compromise worked out between various Democratic constituencies. Its nice that the different candidates have their own preferences. Great. I hope that they fight for them. But in the long run, I don't care much about the distinctions between medicare for all, single payer, what have you.

You don't care. But surely others do. Imagine that Warren gave your answer in response to the question "Oh, it doesn't really matter what I think about health care, I would jut be the president and of course health care will be for the Congress to decide." This would not go over well, as we can probably all agree. If health care is to be a part, and it seems to be a major part, of her campaign then she has to be able to answer questions about it.

I agree about Biden. I could not watch the debate all the way through, some columnist asked if there was in fact anyone, other than those paid to do so, who watched it all the way through. But Biden indeed was incoherent. We should not run an incoherent candidate against an incoherent incumbent. Shall we ram the ramparts before or after we play the TV I mean the the phonograph to help kids learn more words?

But back to Warren because I think she has a pretty decent chance of becoming the nominee. It will not be enough to say "My plan is that the rich will pay for it. For everything I want to do. The rich will pay for it". There are many skeptics out there, including me. The health care question was a legitimate question, she refused to answer, except in that her refusal to answer was an answer. An incomplete answer, but an answer.

[kenberg]

I just saw in https://beta.washing...omments-wrapper that my concern about Warren's response is shared by ehough others so that it was singled out in this column. My thoughts were my own, but I am not surprised that others see it the same way.

There is another thing in that article, and elsewhere, that is worth looking at. I quote:

Quote

The polls show a three-person race among Biden, Sanders and Warren. In the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, there was a clear gap between Biden and Warren and Sanders. There was then a similar gap between Warren and Sanders and the rest of the candidates who were onstage.

I would be interested in knowing how people would respond to "Let's rank Sanders, Biden, Warren. Who would you put in third place?" I am trying to get at the following: Suppose that Sanders dropped out. Would his supporters go to Warren or Biden? My guess is that largely they would go to Warren. To put it another way, I think Sanders and Warren are competing for the vote of people who would prefer either of them to Biden. Polls can miss such subtleties.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I strongly disagree. She, or someone, has to win the general election and this will certainly come up. And it's more than just ducking the question, the answer she was that the rich will pay more, others will pay less. Let's look at that. A non-rich, ir ordinary person might earn 40L, 60K, 80K, 100K etc a year. the increase in taxes will be different for these people. And their health care needs will be different. One person is young healthy and single. S/he will be carrying the least expensive plan available. Another person has a chronic illness or kids or maybe kids with chronic illnesses. Anther person has a very good health plan through his/her employer, another has no health plan from his/her employer. None of these people will be satisfied with the answer Warren gave. [Oh, and I was not really disgusted, it's more accurate to say I was disappointed. And worried. It was a weak response to an obvious and predictable question.][/size]

[size="4"]The question was completely legitimate, her response was a slogan instead of an answer. If she hopes to win in a general election, she must do better.

Ken, I agree and disagree all at the same time. I think our differences hinge more on the way we view things - you pragmatically, me ideologically. Pragmatism is not a bad thing.

IMO, asking for a yes/no answer about a complex subject is lazy journalism - even if the public likes it. To me, it's the kind of question you ask if you are chasing ratings instead of trying to uncover facts - and I think the whole point of journalism is to uncover facts.

I watched most of the debates but I confess to not seeing this particular question asked or answered. Still, I argue that the question was wrongheaded; however, Warren would have done better to simply say, "That's the wrong question, Sid (or whoever). The question should be will healthcare costs go up and will everyone have access?" And then go on to explain how insurance premiums are actually taxes that private companies charge to control your healthcare payouts and those same companies keep part of your taxes for themselves as profits. So even if government taxes rise, you're private insurance tax bill will be zero.

The question for us (the voters) is whether or not the polls that show healthcare concerns to be the #1 issue are accurate. If they are, then someone like Warren is going to be the best choice IMO.

At the same time, if that forceful of ideological change would create an opening for Trump's reelection, then Booker or Buttigieg is probably best.

Biden was like milk after the expiration date - real white but with a bad smell.

[awm]

 kenberg, on 2019-September-15, 07:36, said:

I would be interested in knowing how people would respond to "Let's rank Sanders, Biden, Warren. Who would you put in third place?" I am trying to get at the following: Suppose that Sanders dropped out. Would his supporters go to Warren or Biden? My guess is that largely they would go to Warren. To put it another way, I think Sanders and Warren are competing for the vote of people who would prefer either of them to Biden. Polls can miss such subtleties. [/size][/size]

While this seems logical on the surface, it's actually not true. Sanders' supporters tend to be younger, less educated, and more racially diverse than Warren's supporters. For most of them Biden (not Warren) is the second choice. There seem to be a lot of Warren-Harris voters (myself included) and a lot of Biden-Sanders voters. This is counterintuitive if you're basing your vote on the candidate's stated positions, but it makes some sense if you view it as people who want a candidate who "seems smart" versus people who want a candidate who "seems like a regular guy" and it also makes sense if you think name recognition is still a big factor for a lot of voters.

[kenberg]

 awm, on 2019-September-15, 09:03, said:

While this seems logical on the surface, it's actually not true. Sanders' supporters tend to be younger, less educated, and more racially diverse than Warren's supporters. For most of them Biden (not Warren) is the second choice. There seem to be a lot of Warren-Harris voters (myself included) and a lot of Biden-Sanders voters. This is counterintuitive if you're basing your vote on the candidate's stated positions, but it makes some sense if you view it as people who want a candidate who "seems smart" versus people who want a candidate who "seems like a regular guy" and it also makes sense if you think name recognition is still a big factor for a lot of voters.

Thank you very much, that is a very interesting presentation. It goes right at what I have been thinking about and I had not realized that it in fact has been looked at. I suppose, with regret, that part of the answer for Harris being the second choice of Warren supporters, Warren the second choice of Harris supporters, Biden the second choice of Sanders supporters, and Sanders the second choice of Biden supporters could be that Biden and Sanders are men, Warren and Harris are women. I would like to think we are past that, but that might be naive.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2019-September-15, 09:01, said:

Ken, I agree and disagree all at the same time. I think our differences hinge more on the way we view things - you pragmatically, me ideologically. Pragmatism is not a bad thing.

IMO, asking for a yes/no answer about a complex subject is lazy journalism - even if the public likes it. To me, it's the kind of question you ask if you are chasing ratings instead of trying to uncover facts - and I think the whole point of journalism is to uncover facts.

I watched most of the debates but I confess to not seeing this particular question asked or answered. Still, I argue that the question was wrongheaded; however, Warren would have done better to simply say, "That's the wrong question, Sid (or whoever). The question should be will healthcare costs go up and will everyone have access?" And then go on to explain how insurance premiums are actually taxes that private companies charge to control your healthcare payouts and those same companies keep part of your taxes for themselves as profits. So even if government taxes rise, you're private insurance tax bill will be zero.

The question for us (the voters) is whether or not the polls that show healthcare concerns to be the #1 issue are accurate. If they are, then someone like Warren is going to be the best choice IMO.

At the same time, if that forceful of ideological change would create an opening for Trump's reelection, then Booker or Buttigieg is probably best.

Biden was like milk after the expiration date - real white but with a bad smell.

Ideological or idealistic do you mean? Usually I don't quibble, but here the distinction might matter. As to Idealism versus practicality I doubt that "the rich will pay for it" satisfies either criterion. Ideologically, maybe it does suffice. Some blend of idealism and practicality is what I hope for, the ideological not so much. I guess I do not know what it mean to be the right answer ideologically.

Added: Well. I thought a bit. But the distinction I came to is that in an ideological position it doesn't matter whether it is actually workable. But I don't think Warren, or you for that matter, is claiming it doesn't matter, she is claiming that it is workable. And for that, she needs to answer questions.