And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[71 dB]

Let me ask you this
Would you be okay with the national government deciding who you can sell your house to and what price they pay?

One of Bernie's proposals would do that, in the name of fair housing.

Bernie wants the government to increase its intervention and control of large areas of life and the economy. It's not just health care. In fact, MfA is the least objectionable part of his platform. Bernie would leave the average person with less control over their life. His ideas, like progressivism in general, are anti-populist and pro-elitist.  If you really were against the 1%, you would oppose progressivism, because it's actually just another form of oligarchy.  Biden would give people more control over their lives than Bernie would. Which is why Biden is better than Bernie.

We understand Bernie. Because we don't have the leftist biases you have, we see him differently. But you are do blinded by your biases you can't even see why we think you are wrong about him. You are the one that is clueless.

"The national rent control standard Mr. Sanders has proposed would cap the amount that landlords can raise rents, to shield tenants from escalating housing costs and, in a deeper sense, the excesses of capitalism in the housing market. Landlords could raise the rent by no more than 3 percent per year, or one and a half times the rate of inflation, whichever is higher.

His housing plan says nothing about the profits of people buying and selling homes in the normal course of homeownership. In fact, Mr. Sanders would invest an additional $8 billion into federal programs to help first-time home buyers, precisely because homeownership in America is often a means of building wealth."

Am I missing something here?

[SimonNZ]

Based on what? He suffers from cognitive decline. He doesn't have solutions. You have your head in the sand if you don't see that. Nobody knows what happens now that we have corona crisis, but he is weak as hell as a candidate. Just as Hillary was. The corporate media has kept silent about Biden's weaknesses, but Trump/Reps won't. It will be constantTara Reade/Ukraina until Biden's support which is weak default support ("most electable myth"+Obama nostalgy) of begin with is gone. Corona may save Biden, but then what...? Oh yes, oligarchy continues... ...nothing changes and after Biden we get Trump 2.0 just as we got Trump after Obama because Obama didn't change things enough bieng a centrist hack he is. Remember, for the establishment/corporate media four more years of Trump is not that bad. Bernie would be bad. This was all along about stopping Bernie, not Trump. Oligarchs are fine with Trump.

Has Sanders himself publicly commented on the Tara Reade claims? Or is he hiding behind the figleaf of letting Bernie Bros like Kyle fan the flames of the story while he acts as though he has no responsibility for their actions?

[JBS]

Am I missing something here?

Yes.
All this.

When Bernie is president, he will:
Create an office within the Department of Housing and Urban Development to coordinate and work with states and municipalities to strengthen rent control and tenant protections, implement fair and inclusive zoning ordinances, streamline review processes and direct funding where these changes are made.
This office will convene key leaders, academics, experts, local officials, renters, tenants, and homeowners to create and implement these necessary solutions.
Preempt laws that prevent inclusionary zoning for luxury developments.
End exclusionary and restrictive zoning ordinances and replace them with zoning that encourages racial, economic, and disability integration that makes housing more affordable.
Require that recipients of federal funding from the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development make these important zoning reforms.
Provide funding to states that preempt local exclusionary zoning ordinances to make housing more equitable, accessible and affordable for all.
Make federal funding contingent on creating livable communities.
Encourage zoning and development that promotes integration and access to public transportation to reduce commuting time, congestion and long car commutes.
Prioritize projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create walkable and livable communities, and reduce urban sprawl.
Encourage zoning and development designed to expand and maximize the number of units fully accessible to people with disabilities.
Place a 25 percent House Flipping tax on speculators who sell a non-owner-occupied property, if sold for more than it was purchased within 5 years of purchase.
Impose a 2 percent Empty Homes tax on the property value of vacant, owned homes to bring more units into the market and curb the use of housing as speculative investment.
Encourage "circuit breakers" on property taxes to protect homeowners in gentrifying neighborhoods from being priced out of their own homes as their property values rise.

One thing that is probably not obvious to you is that state and local governments already do a good deal of this. Bernie's plan would impose the federal government over them.  The other problem is that to make it work, individual homeowners would have to work under the same mandates as developers and speculators. (Especially since many speculators are individuals who do one home at a time.)
So the sentence you bolded in your quote is, to put it bluntly, a falsehood.

The plan is simply another piece of social engineering using false premises (if you really want to encourage first time buyers and affordable housing, you should encourage gentrification, not oppose it) that will impose the judgment of national bureaucrats on the people who actually live there. Pretty much what every progressive policy proposal does, which is why progressivism is merely another form of oligarchy and elitism.

[71 dB]

Has Sanders himself publicly commented on the Tara Reade claims? Or is he hiding behind the figleaf of letting Bernie Bros like Kyle fan the flames of the story while he acts as though he has no responsibility for their actions?

What does this have to do with Sanders? Other than his rival in the race is accused of sexual harrashment? Whether Biden is guilty of the accusations is one thing, the other thing is the corporate media has a variable attitude againt this kind of claims depending who is the target of the accusations. If it's "their guy" they are silent, if it's not then they are talking about it 24/7.

I don't know what Bernie Sanders has commented as I stopped following US poltics as closely as I did. Why bother? The next president will be a top 1 % serving corporate anyway because the damn country is an oligarchy were people are too stupid to reclaim democracy it seems.

[71 dB]

Yes.
All this.
One thing that is probably not obvious to you is that state and local governments already do a good deal of this. Bernie's plan would impose the federal government over them.  The other problem is that to make it work, individual homeowners would have to work under the same mandates as developers and speculators. (Especially since many speculators are individuals who do one home at a time.)
So the sentence you bolded in your quote is, to put it bluntly, a falsehood.

The plan is simply another piece of social engineering using false premises (if you really want to encourage first time buyers and affordable housing, you should encourage gentrification, not oppose it) that will impose the judgment of national bureaucrats on the people who actually live there. Pretty much what every progressive policy proposal does, which is why progressivism is merely another form of oligarchy and elitism.

progressivism ended slavery.
progressivism gave women right to vote.

So back to slavery and women not voting I guess because you don't want  oligarchy and elitism.

I'm done with you at this point.

[Marc]

Then unless you're masturbating verbally, there's no need to post it onto a forum, imbecile.

Do you understand what a forum is?  Are you quite a perfect idiot?

Come on, Karl.

We can do without the imbecile/idiot/insane/moronic referrals.

I'm very bad in giving advices, but I think it would be best just to ignore members who one does not like, instead of giving them full attention continuously. (It's not easy though, I admit.) Or ask a mod if something can be done about it.
In case of Poju, whether one agrees or disagrees with him, it has been a proven fact for around 15 years on the GMG boards that he will not change his behaviour. Unless he gets silenced or even banned by a mod or admin, everyone just has to live with that.

More or less on-topic: I've said earlier that, if I were an American citizen, I would vote for Sanders instead of Biden. But I think Biden will get the nomination. I also fear that either of them will get beat by Trump.

I won't respond to the rather widespread 'fear of progressivism' here. Many Northern and Western European countries have laws, regulations and governmental funds that are based on social-democratic ideas and values. Almost every year, these countries do amazingly well in the World Happiness Report. I do know though that this report should not be read like The Bible. And, of course, this Report must be heavily influenced by the progressive elite. Obviously.

Next >>>

[Karl Henning]

Come on, Karl.

We can do without the imbecile/idiot/insane/moronic referrals.

I'm very bad in giving advices, but I think it would be best just to ignore members who one does not like

I grant that it is the least serious "problem" in the world right now, but the Forum software does not add 71dB to my Ignore List, but I appreciate the logic and (normally) the ease of your suggestion.

[Karl Henning]

I'm done with you at this point.

Another meaningless "promise to yourself" posted on a public forum to cap a thoroughly infantile post.

[71 dB]

In case of Poju, whether one agrees or disagrees with him, it has been a proven fact for around 15 years on the GMG boards that he will not change his behaviour.

What exactly is this "behavior" I have practised for 15 years here? I'm just a guy with opinions. How is my behavior different from other people with opinions?

[JBS]

progressivism ended slavery.
progressivism gave women right to vote.

So back to slavery and women not voting I guess because you don't want  oligarchy and elitism.

I'm done with you at this point.

In fact, capitalism, free markets, the Union Army, and heavy doses of Christianity freed the slaves and expanded the franchise to the poor and women.

You don't even know basic history.

[JBS]

More or less on-topic: I've said earlier that, if I were an American citizen, I would vote for Sanders instead of Biden. But I think Biden will get the nomination. I also fear that either of them will get beat by Trump.

I won't respond to the rather widespread 'fear of progressivism' here. Many Northern and Western European countries have laws, regulations and governmental funds that are based on social-democratic ideas and values. Almost every year, these countries do amazingly well in the World Happiness Report. I do know though that this report should not be read like The Bible. And, of course, this Report must be heavily influenced by the progressive elite. Obviously.

Next >>>

In fact, most American right wingers would look at the sponsors and staffing of the Report and dismiss them as global elitists.

Reading the FAQ, I notice it says happiness correlates to trust in one's community and public institutions to support you.  For a lot of Americans (not all of course) distrust of public institutions is the preferred view, and government involvement is an impediment, if not obstacle, to happiness.
It is, in other words, a different approach to happiness, so little wonder this sort of report would not rate us highly.

[Karl Henning]

In case of Poju, whether one agrees or disagrees with him, it has been a proven fact for around 15 years on the GMG boards that he will not change his behaviour.

Unfortunately true, I see no evidence in all his posts that he has any capacity to learn, not even in his own interests

[ritter]

In fact, most American right wingers would look at the sponsors and staffing of the Report and dismiss them as global elitists.

Reading the FAQ, I notice it says happiness correlates to trust in one's community and public institutions to support you.  For a lot of Americans (not all of course) distrust of public institutions is the preferred view, and government involvement is an impediment, if not obstacle, to happiness.
It is, in other words, a different approach to happiness, so little wonder this sort of report would not rate us highly.

That may be so, but I do notice that some of the leftist dogmas repeated by some posters here are retorted just with other dogmas. I'm afraid that the mantra that "government involvement is an impediment" (to happiness or whatever) is just that, a dogma. Government involvement can be good, bad or indifferent (depending on the situation and the circumstsnves'j. Actually, sometimes it is even essential. 

[JBS]

That may be so, but I do notice that some of the leftist dogmas repeated by some posters here are retorted just with other dogmas. I'm afraid that the mantra that "government involvement is an impediment" (to happiness or whatever) is just that, a dogma. Government involvement can be good, bad or indifferent (depending on the situation and the circumstsnves'j. Actually, sometimes it is even essential. 

You are not really wrong.
I just wouldn't call it a dogma, more an principle around which one organizes your point of view.  Government may be essential for some things, but for those things which it is not essential, it is a hindrance, would be the classic American conservative outlook.

For instance, I am not really against the idea of single payer health care in principle. But given how it would probably (almost certainly) work in the US, as the expansion of a badly functioning system now existing, I think it would be a bad idea to adopt it, and other plans need to be used.  71db's idea of how it would work is a fantasy.

But Bernie would involve national government over lots of things that it now is not involved in. Some of those things are handled here at the state and local level, like most of housing, no need of federal input. And others, like student debt, are problems that came to exist because of governmental involvement.   And those things, less government...or at least less federal government...would be a good thing.

[André]

That may be so, but I do notice that some of the leftist dogmas repeated by some posters here are retorted just with other dogmas. I'm afraid that the mantra that "government involvement is an impediment" (to happiness or whatever) is just that, a dogma. Government involvement can be good, bad or indifferent (depending on the situation and the circumstsnves'j. Actually, sometimes it is even essential. 

+1.

Government involvement should be an issue by issue, policy by policy decision. In a functional democracy governments are elected, and they know they have to get the people's pulse right. Furthermore, in a federal state, respect of each level of government's prerogatives helps prevent an authoritarian regime. Most of the time it works well. The Trump administration is an aberration exception that confirms the rule...

[JBS]

+1.

. Furthermore, in a federal state, respect of each level of government's prerogatives helps prevent an authoritarian regime.

The problem with progressivism is that it tends to disregard the differences among levels of government.

Bernie's housing plan is a good example. Much of what he proposes is already being done at the state and local level, in different ways. But his plan would force the entire country into a Procrustean scheme.

[Marc]

What exactly is this "behavior" I have practised for 15 years here? I'm just a guy with opinions. How is my behavior different from other people with opinions?

I won't claim that I have the answer(s) to that. Some time ago, you complained about other people's attitude against you in The Diner, and you said that therefore you did not like it here. I kinda adviced you to ignore The Diner and blabber along about music. You took it as an insult, whilst I did not mean it like that.

What I tried to make clear is this: the history of this board has shown that, apparently, loads of people here have been saying repeatedly that you should change your opinions and behaviour. And you haven't. This is not something about 'good' or 'bad', it is simply stating a fact. Those who get annoyed by you and therefore want you to change your behaviour, have done this in vain, for about 15 years. Yet, they still continue to tell you to change it. And you won't, I'm sure about that. So, if they don't want to confront themselves with it and don't want to get annoyed by it, then I guess it's best that they just ignore you. Because, unless they have proof that you insult other people too much too often, there is probably no reason for admin or any mod to silence you.

I'd like to add this: we've seen good people leave this board because of the toxic atmosphere in The Diner. Apparently they were not able to ignore it. Personally, I feel bad when interesting members leave GMG because of such reasons. I prefer them to stay. Hence my advice to ignore the members or even sections that you don't like. Especially since Rob has stated that he is not gonna delete The Diner, and that no member is gonna be blocked/banned unless he/she has gone way too far with insulting/degrading behaviour.

That's all. I hope you understand me better now.

[Karl Henning]

I won't claim that I have the answer(s) to that. Some time ago, you complained about other people's attitude against you in The Diner, and you said that therefore you did not like it here. I kinda adviced you to ignore The Diner and blabber along about music. You took it as an insult, whilst I did not mean it like that.

As ritter learnt not long ago, even neutral remarks offered in a spirit of kindness, meet only with his defensive hostility.  He's like an infant wandering around the house win a loaded diaper.

[Florestan]

Government involvement can be good, bad or indifferent (depending on the situation and the circumstsnves'j. Actually, sometimes it is even essential. 

Centrism in a nutshell.. 

[ritter]

Centrism in a nutshell.. 

You mean that as a good or as a bad thing, cher ami?

In any case, it is the gist of my (long delayed) PM to you—it'll eventually come. 

The other main point would be Gregorio Marañón's definition of what being a "liberal" (in the European sense) means:

1) Always be ready to discuss with those who have a different opinion than yours.
2) Never accept that the end can justify the means.