And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[JBS]

I think this election will teach you are lesson. Regular people are not "hostile" to the progressive agenda. The top 1 % is. The corporate media is.
Sure there will be misled people like you voting against Bernie, but there will also be people who vote because Bernie excites them. Half the country hates Trump.

And the other half hates the Democrats.

[Karl Henning]

Sanders is not that strong. "Getting progressives to be enthusiastic" is not nearly the same thing as "appealling to the general electorate". Sanders is the first. He is not the second.

Lawd, there's just no getting that through the Finnish concrete.

[71 dB]

Lawd, there's just no getting that through the Finnish concrete.

Sorry, my head is not soft enough for the corporate smears.

[Ratliff]

Lawd, there's just no getting that through the Finnish concrete.

I think it is concrete on all sides...

[Karl Henning]

I think it is concrete on all sides...

And what are your malleable ideas?

[71 dB]

I think it is concrete on all sides...

I feel it's "concrete" only on my side: I try to give concrete insight about this election while members here merely try to discredit me because they are not willing to believe they are somewhat misled by the corporate media. People here need to understand the corporate media has uphold for decades the narrative that lefty/progressive ideas are not popular among regular people. That is their strategy to protect the interests of top 1 %. It's not different from what Trump does: Keep repeating the lie long enough and eventually many start to believe in it.

I think this is about pride. People don't like being proven wrong. That's why people deny information that proves them wrong. For Americans it might be pretty nasty to be shown being misled by a Finn, but outsiders can have insight that insiders are blind to. From Finnish perspective American corporate media is pretty insane, almost (there are moments of exception) totally about serving the top 1 %. If you live in a society were almost all media you follow upholds right-wing narrative about things, you are likely to adopt similar mindset yourself. If this didn't work then the efforts of corporate media would be time wasted, but it works.

What about the progressive/lefty independent media? Aren't they trying to influence the public as well? Yes, yes, yes! They certainly are! How are they different from corporate media? The difference is they are NOT beholden to the top 1%, on the contrary! People working in progressive media are individual who believe in democracy and in society that works for everybody, not only for the rich. They may earn their living doing it because everybody has bills to pay, but they are not into it for the money, but for their ideals, the will to improve the country they love. The US is not the greatest country in the World, but it has the potential to be. Kyle Kulinski wants the US to have the best airports in the World, the best healthcare system, best education and so on. Before the US can become the best country in the World it needs to become a social democracy. Why? Because the most succesful countries in the World tend to be social democratic. It's simply looking at the empirical evidence and choosing the model that has worked the best. Even in the US social democracy worked brilliantly: FDR's New Deal. The Republicans had to come up with presidential term limits, because they realised they'd never get rid of a social democratic president without it. Now after a long time the US looks fed up with the oligarchy and has the opportunity to elect the next FDR, Bernard Sanders with Green New Deal. This is what this is all about and the corporate media tries their best to hide it from the public.

[JBS]

I feel it's "concrete" only on my side: I try to give concrete insight about this election while members here merely try to discredit me because they are not willing to believe they are somewhat misled by the corporate media. People here need to understand the corporate media has uphold for decades the narrative that lefty/progressive ideas are not popular among regular people. That is their strategy to protect the interests of top 1 %. It's not different from what Trump does: Keep repeating the lie long enough and eventually many start to believe in it.

I think this is about pride. People don't like being proven wrong. That's why people deny information that proves them wrong. For Americans it might be pretty nasty to be shown being misled by a Finn, but outsiders can have insight that insiders are blind to. From Finnish perspective American corporate media is pretty insane, almost (there are moments of exception) totally about serving the top 1 %. If you live in a society were almost all media you follow upholds right-wing narrative about things, you are likely to adopt similar mindset yourself. If this didn't work then the efforts of corporate media would be time wasted, but it works.

What about the progressive/lefty independent media? Aren't they trying to influence the public as well? Yes, yes, yes! They certainly are! How are they different from corporate media? The difference is they are NOT beholden to the top 1%, on the contrary! People working in progressive media are individual who believe in democracy and in society that works for everybody, not only for the rich. They may earn their living doing it because everybody has bills to pay, but they are not into it for the money, but for their ideals, the will to improve the country they love. The US is not the greatest country in the World, but it has the potential to be. Kyle Kulinski wants the US to have the best airports in the World, the best healthcare system, best education and so on. Before the US can become the best country in the World it needs to become a social democracy. Why? Because the most succesful countries in the World tend to be social democratic. It's simply looking at the empirical evidence and choosing the model that has worked the best. Even in the US social democracy worked brilliantly: FDR's New Deal. The Republicans had to come up with presidential term limits, because they realised they'd never get rid of a social democratic president without it. Now after a long time the US looks fed up with the oligarchy and has the opportunity to elect the next FDR, Bernard Sanders with Green New Deal. This is what this is all about and the corporate media tries their best to hide it from the public.

1)Progressives don't want to get rid of the elite. They merely want to change its membership. They want to be the new elite.  If I'm against elites, why would I support people who want to the elite?

2) The New Deal didn't actually work very well. In fact, it probably extended the effects of the Depression when FDR started to scale back government intervention, which provoked a recession. It took World War II to get the US economy all revved up.

[71 dB]

1)Progressives don't want to get rid of the elite. They merely want to change its membership. They want to be the new elite.  If I'm against elites, why would I support people who want to be the elite?

2) The New Deal didn't actually work very well. In fact, it probably extended the effects of the Depression when FDR started to scale back government intervention, which provoked a recession. It took World War II to get the US economy all revved up.

1) Where have you got this crazy idea? As if living wage, healthcare and free education alone made you a member of elite.  Progressives want to unrig the system so that not all the benefits of say increase of productivity goes to the top 1 %. There will always be elite, but it's power in society can be limited to reasonable level.

2) Historians debating the New Deal have generally divided between liberals who support it, conservatives who oppose it and some New Left historians who complain it was too favorable to capitalism and did too little for minorities.

[ritter]

O ciel, che noia!

[Florestan]

O ciel, che noia!

Gioia e pace per mill'anni! (if Trump out and Bernie in, that's what you'll certainly get, thinks Poju  )

[71 dB]

Dear Joe Biden's Older Supporters, He Wants to Cut YOUR Social Security!

https://www.youtube.com/v/PziXdkl3n-o

[ritter]

Gioia e pace per mill'anni! (if Trump out and Bernie in, that's what you'll certainly get, thinks Poju  )

Basta, basta, basta, per pietà!  

[Karl Henning]

Only Bernie can save us!

[SimonNZ]

2) Historians debating the New Deal have generally divided between liberals who support it, conservatives who oppose it and some New Left historians who complain it was too favorable to capitalism and did too little for minorities.

That is not how serious historians write history, that is merely your own simplistic assumption based on absolutely zero reading.

If you don't know what you're talking about then try not to say anything. You're embarrassing yourself.

[71 dB]

That is not how serious historians write history, that is merely your own simplistic assumption based on absolutely zero reading.

If you don't know what you're talking about then try not to say anything. You're embarrassing yourself.

I copy-pasted that from Wikipedia, so they are the ones "embarrassing themselves".

I don't know what you have been reading, but FDR was elected 4 times so he hardly was abyssmal or unpopular... 

[71 dB]

Only Bernie can save us!

That's pretty much the case.

[SimonNZ]

I copy-pasted that from Wikipedia, so they are the ones "embarrassing themselves".

I don't know what you have been reading, but FDR was elected 4 times so he hardly was abyssmal or unpopular... 

I didn't say anything about FDR.

And you're presenting lines from Wikipedia as your own? And without further context? And without viewing it critically? And without having done any reading on the subject yourself to judge if the quote is fair?

You're embarrassing yourself.

[71 dB]

I didn't say anything about FDR.

And you're presenting lines from Wikipedia as your own? And without further context? And without viewing it critically? And without having done any reading on the subject yourself to judge if the quote is fair?

You're embarrassing yourself.

My reading has been about Finnish politics so it hasn't included FDR or New Deal, but Kyle Kulinski says FDR was a great president and the New Deal was great for the economy and I believe him. Maybe someday I have time to read myself.

All you say is that I'm embarrassing myself. You are the bookworm here, aren't you? 

[JBS]

1) Where have you got this crazy idea? As if living wage, healthcare and free education alone made you a member of elite.  Progressives want to unrig the system so that not all the benefits of say increase of productivity goes to the top 1 %. There will always be elite, but it's power in society can be limited to reasonable level.

2) Historians debating the New Deal have generally divided between liberals who support it, conservatives who oppose it and some New Left historians who complain it was too favorable to capitalism and did too little for minorities.

You simply don't get it.

1) The elites get to boss people around. The Young Turks want to replace the current elites with themselves and their allies, and get to boss people around.  I don't want to be bossed around by anyone.

2) You need to read up on the New Deal. You'll find that it was far less effective in ending the Depression than popular history claims it to. Given all the crony capitalism involved in the New Deal, the New Left depiction of it is not actually far from the mark.

[JBS]

My reading has been about Finnish politics so it hasn't included FDR or New Deal, but Kyle Kulinski says FDR was a great president and the New Deal was great for the economy and I believe him. Maybe someday I have time to read myself.

All you say is that I'm embarrassing myself. You are the bookworm here, aren't you?

Read Howard Zinn. He's a leftist, so he'll reinforce all your biases, but at least he's a Leftist who knows what he is talking about, unlike Kulinski.