In an epidemic, a system where people can't afford to go to the doctor, who can't afford to go to the hospital, who don't get paid sick leave, who can't afford to get tested, who can't afford treatment even if one is needed and available....will lead to _many_ more deaths.

The usual "sorry, you're on your own" attitude is not going to play well.

The only silver lining, and it is cold comfort, is that it _might_ make an actual healthcare for all plan a real possibility, when people see the ridiculous alternatives played out in real time.

I still believe at her core is a fierce fighter for social justice, a sharp advocate for consumers against the fraud and greed of Wall Street, and a tough opponent to Trump's mafia.

I have to believe she is just getting terrible advice from the usual class of Democratic campaign advisors who want to run away from populism. But I can't avoid her own bad judgment in listening to that advice.

Not that anyone cares .

Here's what I have a hard time believing: that anyone in this country is even seriously discussing the re-election of a half-wit who a month ago was so stupidly careless and ignorant that he almost stumble-bummed us into world war III.

That, if not for the restraint of the mullahs in Iran, we would all (those still alive) be scratching around in the radioactive dust looking for cockroaches to eat, and the media is treating it like just another election.

What.The.Fuck

it will be interesting to see

Actually, no I don't wonder that at all. Somehow, he made sure the Trump dismantled ours, though.

Enjoy:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=brunch+with+bernie+thom+hartmann&sp=CAI%253D

I think the most likely scenario we are facing is in about two years from now, everyone will have had it and the people who survive it will still be around.

I say this because of things like

1. people can be contagious for over a week without showing any symptoms
2. people can have the same viral load whether they are showing symptoms or not
3. testing for the virus is in early stages
4. china doesn't seem serious about preventing its spread (the CDC and WHO just were allowed into China recently)
5. it is a kind of virus that is prone to mutation and resistant to having vaccines made against it

From what I can tell, the virus kills by infecting the lungs which are then also susceptible to bacterial pneumonia, which brings on death. Because the Dump administration is completely lying down on the job, we will have to prepare and battle this virus at the local/state level.

We should encourage our local governments to stockpile anti-pneumonia antibiotics, anti-virals, and other measures that may make the difference to people with lung infection. We should assume we will all have this virus at some point, and think about ways to deal with it at home or in local gathering places if our hospitals are overrun.

Time to protect ourselves if Trump's government won't do it.

He's running on FDR style reforms of actually giving people some value for the taxes they pay.

He's an actual populist (as opposed to Trump's fake populism) and his policies represent a kindness and compassion for working people that hasn't been on the ballot for decades.

He is against corporate bribes ruining our governance.

He polls better in head to head comparisons with Trump than any other candidate

He is bringing young people and independents to the polls.

He's not even my preferred candidate, but what the hell is wrong with everyone here on DU?

Look, there are currently two flavors of the word:

Socialism == the workers control the means of production, the industrial proletariat overthrows the industrial bourgeoisie, up against the wall capitalist pigs, etc. etc.

This form of "socialism" is what everyone fear mongers on - it's the Cold War, it's left wing South American juntas, it's blah blah blah. It's why people think other people will be scared of "socialism", and why Chris Matthews thinks he's about to be executed.

And then there is

Socialism == paying to have civilization. Pulling resources together so that no one's life is a complete and utter miserable horror story just because they aren't heirs to fortunes. Paying for common goods like roads, courts, the military. Keeping people in poverty from dying of starvation or preventable medical crises. Making the rich pay their fair share for the wonderful society they live in.

This second form of "socialism" is also "society" or "civilization", or "building a world that's better to live in". It's the basis for a lot of government decision making in Finland, Sweden, Denmark, where people are happy and healthy. It's why when I hear "socialism", I get ready to hear about things I like.

The word has been ruined by its first sense. So, can we find a better term for the second sense? "Democratic socialism" is so-so as a label. The democratic part is great - people all need to help decide how we can pull our resources for a better life - but again, 'socialism' is pretty ruined. "Social Democracy" may be slightly better.

But what about "civilization"? or a "fair society" (echos of the "Fair Deal" )?

How about saying for example, that Democrats are running on a platform of "civilization"? If we can't get billionaires to help pay for things, civilization will go away.

I don't know. this nonsense is killing me. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.