And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[Florestan]

The exact same thing is happening in the canadian province of Alberta. For decades oil revenue was used to keep Albertans' taxes very low, much lower than in the rest of Canada, creating an artificially high disposable income. Human greed being what it is, the higher income was used to buy expensive SUVs, houses etc. And since big is not big enough, they used leveraging. Provincial and personal debts have soared as a consequence. As the price of oil dropped, the province dipped into its Heritage Fund to continue providing services. Now the Heritage Fund is dried up and the only way out would be to increase taxes substantially, which would worsen the capacity to make debt payments. The provincial government is crying bloody murder and blaming everybody except themselves.

The (in)famous quote should be modified accordingly: the problem with "socialism" is that you eventually run out of your own money. 

[Madiel]

The getting pulled over reasons is too much based on assumptions. It could be the reason sometimes, other times not so much.

Either way, it's also a good way of showing how the real privelege is money over everything else. The way they will be treated will be way different if they are a celebrity vs. an average person.

I still kinda feel like the discussion after the Wall Street protests were intentionally changed to other areas of "privilege" to take the focus off rich people, because of course they don't want to be portrayed as the bad guys by the media. Let's not talk about money, let's talk about race, gender, etc. 

I'm inclined to wonder what exactly you think a black US Senator is doing to justify getting pulled over 7 times in a single year (I'm not sure I've even had a random breath test that many times in 25 years).

But then I realise I don't want to go down this rabbit hole.

[Karl Henning]

Oof:

The debate in South Carolina was heavy on the shouting matches, flat jokes and opponent shivving, but light on winning.

[Karl Henning]

This felt worse. This felt like a genuine freakout.


The Democratic Party devours Itself

[71 dB]

The (in)famous quote should be modified accordingly: the problem with "socialism" is that you eventually run out of your own money. 

The problem with capitalism is eventually 10 billionaires have all the wealth...

[71 dB]

Oof:

The debate in South Carolina was heavy on the shouting matches, flat jokes and opponent shivving, but light on winning.

Even the audience was bought by Bloomberg. 

[BasilValentine]

Oof:

The debate in South Carolina was heavy on the shouting matches, flat jokes and opponent shivving, but light on winning.

For Biden it was disastrous. Anyone watching his performance and not worried about his mental health wasn't paying attention. Couldn't remember if he was talking about N Korea or China, then stumbled into silence. One belligerent senior moment after another.

[greg]

I'm inclined to wonder what exactly you think a black US Senator is doing to justify getting pulled over 7 times in a single year (I'm not sure I've even had a random breath test that many times in 25 years).

But then I realise I don't want to go down this rabbit hole.

Me neither. Could be anything. Could be racism all times, racism part of the times, racism none of the times. Just on that info alone it remains  all just speculation.

[71 dB]

This felt worse. This felt like a genuine freakout.


The Democratic Party devours Itself

There are two different kind of "moderate" Democrats: The establishment (overpaid millionaires benefiting from the rigged oligarchic system) and the voters, regular people (people who manage to pay their bills, but don't benefit from the system). Those are completely different people with completely different mindsets.

The "moderate" establishment doesn't want change, because they benefit from status quo. They HATE Bernie, because Bernie represents real change. These people are freaking out because Bernie is winning.

The "moderate" voters may prefer a more moderate candidate over Bernie for various reasons*, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't vote for Bernie against Trump. A lot of Biden supporters have Bernie as their second choice for example. How does this make any sense? People don't know labels well. They may call themselves moderates for whatever reasons, but don't know exactly what it means to be a moderate. Often these people are actually more progressive and left-leaning than they think. They listen to Bernie and find what he says making sense. Healthcare to everyone + lower costs? Makes sense! It's just that the smears on corporate media make these people doubt Bernie's chances to win and carry out his plans and that's why "nostalgic uncle Joe of the good old Obama years" has been a "safer" choice to many "moderate" voters. Especially if they have a good healthcare plan from their employer and they have paid their student loans away. If Biden dropped out, a lot of these people would vote for Bernie. If Bernie keeps winning the myth of low electability gets killed completely and many "moderate" voters will change their more moderate candidate to Bernie.

These are not my "ignorant" claims. In Nevada Bernie had strong support among voters who call themselves "moderate." The establishment wants to claim moderate voters are like they are to make progressives look more "fringe." The truth is the opposite. The establishment is the fringe group, those who deny healthcare for everybody as a human right! That's fringe.

* often generated and upheld by the establishment, corporate media such as the myth of Biden being more electable. well, that myth has been busted quite effectively in the three first states. 

[71 dB]

For Biden it was disastrous. Anyone watching his performance and not worried about his mental health wasn't paying attention. Couldn't remember if he was talking about N Korea or China, then stumbled into silence. One belligerent senior moment after another.

The left have been worried about Biden's mental health ever since he annouced he is running. All those record players and CornPops... ...He will probably do well in SC, even win, but hopefully he realizes it's time to call it a day and retire when he doesn't win in a landslide.

[JBS]

There are two different kind of "moderate" Democrats: The establishment (overpaid millionaires benefiting from the rigged oligarchic system) and the voters, regular people (people who manage to pay their bills, but don't benefit from the system). Those are completely different people with completely different mindsets.

The "moderate" establishment doesn't want change, because they benefit from status quo. They HATE Bernie, because Bernie represents real change. These people are freaking out because Bernie is winning.

The "moderate" voters may prefer a more moderate candidate over Bernie for various reasons*, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't vote for Bernie against Trump. A lot of Biden supporters have Bernie as their second choice for example. How does this make any sense? People don't know labels well. They may call themselves moderates for whatever reasons, but don't know exactly what it means to be a moderate. Often these people are actually more progressive and left-leaning than they think. They listen to Bernie and find what he says making sense. Healthcare to everyone + lower costs? Makes sense! It's just that the smears on corporate media make these people doubt Bernie's chances to win and carry out his plans and that's why "nostalgic uncle Joe of the good old Obama years" has been a "safer" choice to many "moderate" voters. Especially if they have a good healthcare plan from their employer and they have paid their student loans away. If Biden dropped out, a lot of these people would vote for Bernie. If Bernie keeps winning the myth of low electability gets killed completely and many "moderate" voters will change their more moderate candidate to Bernie.

These are not my "ignorant" claims. In Nevada Bernie had strong support among voters who call themselves "moderate." The establishment wants to claim moderate voters are like they are to make progressives look more "fringe." The truth is the opposite. The establishment is the fringe group, those who deny healthcare for everybody as a human right! That's fringe.

* often generated and upheld by the establishment, corporate media such as the myth of Biden being more electable. well, that myth has been busted quite effectively in the three first states.

Bernie offers a bunch of solutions  to problems. Trump denies they are problems. In that sense Bernie is better.
But Bernie's solutions are almost all bad ideas that will entrench government power and therefore entrench elitism.  Progressive ideas are not aimed at  getting rid of the elite. Progressive ideas are aimed at installing a different elite, thar's all. If it's bad for oligarchs to run my life, it's also bad for bureaucrats to run it. The aim of progressivism is to install bureaucrats as the ruling elite. Improving people's lives is merely the rhetoric they use to mask that underlying aim.

On the practical level,  you are ignoring, just like you have before, the number of people who would be motivated to vote for Trump if Sanders is the nominee but who would not be motivated to vote for Trump if a "moderate" is elected.  That factor all by itself renders Sanders the least electable candidate.

[Karl Henning]

All the customary rubbish of his impenetrable feedback loop.

[Karl Henning]

FWIW, vox.com lists Trump as one of four winners of the debate.

[Mirror Image]

The problem with capitalism is eventually 10 billionaires have all the wealth...

To be fair, poor people don't run successful businesses and create jobs, the wealthy do. Do you have a job, 71 dB?

[Ratliff]

To be fair, poor people don't run successful businesses and create jobs, the wealthy do. Do you have a job, 71 dB?

What creates jobs is customers. The wealthy do not hire people because "what else do I have to do with my money?" Business owners hire people because they need more staff to service their customers. If more cash flow from companies went to rank-and-file employees rather than investors there would be more people walking around with cash in their pockets, ready to spend and stimulate job growth.

[Mirror Image]

What creates jobs is customers. The wealthy do not hire people because "what else do I have to do with my money?" Business owners hire people because they need more staff to service their customers. If more cash flow from companies went to rank-and-file employees rather than investors there would be more people walking around with cash in their pockets, ready to spend and stimulate job growth.

Well, sure. Without customers, you don't have a successful business. But if all your income or most of it is going to Uncle Sam, then it doesn't really matter how much you make as it'll come out in taxes, which if you vote for Sanders, you'll be paying more of. Basically, the middle class will bear the brunt of Sanders' policies and I'm against paying higher taxes than I already pay.

[71 dB]

To be fair, poor people don't run successful businesses and create jobs, the wealthy do. Do you have a job, 71 dB?

If all people created 100 jobs that would be hundreds of billions of jobs. If you run successful businesses and create jobs you earn wealth, but there should be limits, because a lot of your wealth is created by your employers (that's why you hired them) and extreme wealth inequaty distabilizes democracy as demonstrated by mr. Bloomberg trying to buy the presidency.

[71 dB]

Well, sure. Without customers, you don't have a successful business. But if all your income or most of it is going to Uncle Sam, then it doesn't really matter how much you make as it'll come out in taxes, which if you vote for Sanders, you'll be paying more of. Basically, the middle class will bear the brunt of Sanders' policies and I'm against paying higher taxes than I already pay.

I guess you are happy paying premiums, co-pays and deductibles? Are you sure you'd be paying more?

[Mirror Image]

If all people created 100 jobs that would be hundreds of billions of jobs. If you run successful businesses and create jobs you earn wealth, but there should be limits, because a lot of your wealth is created by your employers (that's why you hired them) and extreme wealth inequaty distabilizes democracy as demonstrated by mr. Bloomberg trying to buy the presidency.

So you don't work?

[JBS]

I guess you are happy paying premiums, co-pays and deductibles? Are you sure you'd be paying more?

Bernie's programs (not just MfA) would cost an amount equal to all privately held assets in the US according to a soundbite I heard this morning. So yes, we would certainly be paying more.

And remember, MfA is just one of several major expansions of government control and spending that Bernie wants to foist on us.   You seem focused on health care, but the rest of his agenda is full of proposals that assume federal control is the way to go.