GMG Classical Music Forum

The Back Room => The Diner => Topic started by: JBS on June 26, 2019, 05:40:42 PM

Title: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on June 26, 2019, 05:40:42 PM
This thread for stuff related to the Democratic Party primaries, so it doesn't get too entangled with Trump stuff on the main Trump thread.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Daverz on June 26, 2019, 05:45:12 PM
Quote from: JBS on June 26, 2019, 05:40:42 PM
This thread for stuff related to the Democrat primaries, so it doesn't get too entangled with Trump stuff on the main Trump thread.

Democrat is a noun, not a modifier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on June 26, 2019, 05:47:07 PM
Quote from: Daverz on June 26, 2019, 05:45:12 PM
Democrat is a noun, not a modifier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)

True. Fixed now.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on June 27, 2019, 10:33:52 PM
I did not watch/listen to the debates but based on the comments of those who did, I'm definitely looking forward to Marianne Williamson becoming president and replacing all health care with healing crystals or something.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Que on June 27, 2019, 10:48:11 PM
Sorry to intrude at another American political party...

But in my humble outsider opinion the problem with the US is not that Democrats are not in power.

Your presidential, two party system has been malfunctioning for a long time and is now close to a breakdown. This political crisis is combined with a huge divisions in an increasing violent society and a general and deep rooted lack of trust in federal government

Getting "the right people" into office is not going to fix this.... I think... ::)

Q
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on June 28, 2019, 03:06:36 AM
Quote from: Que on June 27, 2019, 10:48:11 PM
Sorry to intrude at another American political party...

But in my humble outsider opinion the problem with the US is not that Democrats are not in power.

Your presidential, two party system has been malfunctioning for a long time and is now close to a breakdown. This political crisis is combined with a huge divisions in an increasing violent society and a general and deep rooted lack of trust in federal government

Getting "the right people" into office is not going to fix this.... I think... ::)

Q

Todd will never admit non-Americans can understand the US politics. I watched the debates. Unless Biden's campaign does something  miraculous, the nomination seems to be a fight between Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on June 28, 2019, 05:10:54 AM
Quote from: Que on June 27, 2019, 10:48:11 PM
Sorry to intrude at another American political party...

But in my humble outsider opinion the problem with the US is not that Democrats are not in power.

Your presidential, two party system has been malfunctioning for a long time and is now close to a breakdown. This political crisis is combined with a huge divisions in an increasing violent society and a general and deep rooted lack of trust in federal government
I think it's functioning perfectly as intended, to be honest. It's a system designed to prevent the working class from ever taking power, or the wealthy from ever losing it. Both parties exist primarily to perpetuate themselves and enrich their members, as well as to soak up and diffuse any working-class political organising until it lacks any kind of class character. The main difference is which set of billionaires they represent. (or as the quote goes: "The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them.")

This does however have the side effect of producing some wonderful theatre.

I don't have any strong predictions, but think the most likely outcome is Joe Biden winning the primary by a narrow margin after several months of back-and-forth mudslinging between him, Warren, Sanders and Harris, and then losing to Trump in the general election by ~100 electoral votes. The second most likely scenario is probably Marianne turning out the ~35% of Americans who never vote but read lots of self-help books and believe all science is fake, and winning in a 45 state landslide.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on June 28, 2019, 06:17:54 AM
Quote from: Que on June 27, 2019, 10:48:11 PM
Sorry to intrude at another American political party...

But in my humble outsider opinion the problem with the US is not that Democrats are not in power.

Your presidential, two party system has been malfunctioning for a long time and is now close to a breakdown. This political crisis is combined with a huge divisions in an increasing violent society and a general and deep rooted lack of trust in federal government

Getting "the right people" into office is not going to fix this.... I think... ::)

Q

Certainly, Trump is with us because both major parties let the country down. And Trump has done sufficient damage to the country, that just getting "the right person" in the White House may be too little, too late.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on June 28, 2019, 10:41:03 AM
     
Quote from: amw on June 28, 2019, 05:10:54 AM
I think it's functioning perfectly as intended, to be honest. It's a system designed to prevent the working class from ever taking power, or the wealthy from ever losing it. Both parties exist primarily to perpetuate themselves and enrich their members, as well as to soak up and diffuse any working-class political organising until it lacks any kind of class character. The main difference is which set of billionaires they represent. (or as the quote goes: "The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them.")


     I certainly don't want the working class to take power. I want the Dems to represent them. Dems are more couth, too couth for my tastes.

     The loss of labor power has been a tragedy for this country. Organized labor provided a route to power and a social structure of support that has been filled by nothing but MAGAhood, nothing for sure.

     Dems have lost, workers lost a meaningful idea of class interest and if the only thing left is a lousy idea of a working class taking power instead of fully taking part I'm off to Paraguay.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on June 28, 2019, 10:48:53 AM

     I'm in France so by osmosis I'm temporarily not understanding American politics. Ill be back tomorrow with a sword in my hand. No seashells for you. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on June 28, 2019, 07:02:00 PM
 Revitalizing Diplomacy: A 21st Century Foreign Service
-by Elizabeth Warren (https://medium.com/@teamwarren/revitalizing-diplomacy-a-21st-century-foreign-service-2d9d195698f)

[...]"Through a toxic combination of malice and neglect, Donald Trump has declared war on the State Department. In one of his first acts, he attempted to cut the State Department's budget by a third. Some senior career officials were pushed out, while others resigned in protest. The State Department has lost 60% of its career ambassadors and 20% of its most experienced civil servants. And too often, these skilled diplomats have been replaced with totally unqualified campaign donors and other Trump cronies.
[...]

I'll double the size of the foreign service and open new diplomatic posts in underserved areas to broaden U.S. presence. And to get the most bang for our buck, I'll prioritize growing core diplomatic functions like political and economic reporting and public diplomacy, and affiliated functions like the foreign commercial and agriculture services.

Achieving that goal means we'll need to recruit a new generation of foreign service officers while retaining the talented service we currently have. Here's what I'll do as president. First, I'll establish a diplomatic equivalent of the ROTC program at universities across the country. I'll double the size of the Peace Corps, exposing young people to the world and creating a direct employment pipeline to future government service. I'll grow programs that fund scholarships for critically important languages; and develop or expand similar programs for new skill areas such as data science. And I'll create new pathways to re-incorporate expertise into our diplomatic corps, including by reducing barriers for returning foreign service officers by fast-tracking reentry for those who return within 5 years; and expanding lateral entry and mid-career hiring authorities and pay.

We also need to significantly expand the pool of diplomatic talent so that our foreign service reflects the diversity of the country it represents. Today's foreign service is 79% white and 65% male €Š— €Šand the nature of the recruitment process also limits the number of diplomats from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. That changes in a Warren administration. I'll direct the State Department to correct the employment records of all employees fired or forced to resign because of their sexual orientation, to make it clear that all are welcome to serve their country. I'll dedicate recruiting resources to applicants from HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions, women's colleges, and community colleges. And I'll double the size of fellowships designed to recruit minority and low-income diplomats.
[...]

Trump has perfected the act of selling swanky diplomatic posts to rich buffoons. In the Trump administration, $1 million buys you an appointment to the Bahamas €Š— €Ševen if you're not quite sure what that means. For $2 million, you can become Ambassador to the United Nations. Trump nominated a real estate lawyer accused of sexual harassment as ambassador to Romania. His South Africa nominee is a handbag designer. In all, Donald Trump has appointed political cronies to nearly half the available ambassadorial positions €Š— €Šfar more than any president in recent memory. As a result, opportunities for career professionals are severely limited.

The practice of auctioning off American diplomacy to the highest bidder must end.

This president may think a fat wallet and a big campaign check qualifies someone to represent our country abroad. I don't. I don't spend my time at fancy closed-door fundraisers trading favors for money, and I'll make my ambassadorial appointments based on only one thing: finding the most qualified person for the job.

That's why I'm pledging to put America's national interests ahead of campaign donations and end the corrupt practice of selling cushy diplomatic posts to wealthy donors €Š— €Šand I call on everyone running for President to do the same. I won't give ambassadorial posts to wealthy donors or bundlers €Š— €Šperiod.

And I'll also ensure that some of the most senior positions in the State Department, including at least one Deputy Secretary position and the Director General of the Foreign Service, are always filled by experienced career ambassadors."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on June 28, 2019, 07:36:41 PM
To be clear, giving ambassadorial posts to big campaign donors is a very old practice. The only limits were that such appointments were made only to posts of no great importance (say, Andorra) and State Department was able to send experienced staff who could make up for any deficiency.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on June 28, 2019, 07:41:37 PM
Quote from: Que on June 27, 2019, 10:48:11 PM
Sorry to intrude at another American political party...

But in my humble outsider opinion the problem with the US is not that Democrats are not in power.

Your presidential, two party system has been malfunctioning for a long time and is now close to a breakdown. This political crisis is combined with a huge divisions in an increasing violent society and a general and deep rooted lack of trust in federal government

Getting "the right people" into office is not going to fix this.... I think... ::)

Q

Though a quick glance may suggest otherwise, the US is nowhere near being a violent society. The late 60s, with student strikes and massive urban riots, was far more violent.
I would suggest that the political crisis (which certainly exists) is caused by and/or is a symptom of sociocultural divisions and lack of trust in government.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on June 28, 2019, 08:22:30 PM
How and when did this Marianne Williamson get in the race? Does she have any experience in politics, or does she see this as an entry-level job?

It made the news out here that her answer to the question of her first act in office being to call Jacinda Adern (who said she wants to make Nz the best place to raise children) and tell her the US is the best for that.

Her first act, note, wont be to take the kids out of the cages.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on June 28, 2019, 08:40:27 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on June 28, 2019, 08:22:30 PM
How and when did this Marianne Williamson get in the race? Does she have any experience in politics, or does she see this as an entry-level job?

It made the news out here that her answer to the question of her first act in office being to call Jacinda Adern (who said she wants to make Nz the best place to raise children) and tell her the US is the best for that.

Her first act, note, wont be to take the kids out of the cages.

She's a best selling "New Age" author. Originally at least she based herself on "A Course in Miracles".  I haven't read a word she ever wrote.  As far as I know she has no political experience.  Of course, political novice with con artist background also described Donald Trump back in 2015...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Que on June 29, 2019, 07:57:22 AM
Quote from: JBS on June 28, 2019, 07:41:37 PM
Though a quick glance may suggest otherwise, the US is nowhere near being a violent society. The late 60s, with student strikes and massive urban riots, was far more violent.

I wasn't particularly thinking of political violence (though that might come next), but of this development:

(https://infographic.statista.com/normal/chartoftheday_16421_the_number_of_us_gun_deaths_due_to_firearms_n.jpg)

QuoteI would suggest that the political crisis (which certainly exists) is caused by and/or is a symptom of sociocultural divisions and lack of trust in government.

Ah, I didn't mean to connect the increasing violence directly to the political crisis, though they have socio-economic divisions as a common denominator.

Q
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 05, 2019, 10:29:52 AM
The Descent of the Bern [my headline ~kh]

Since the Democratic presidential debate last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has fallen from 18 percent to 14 percent in the national CNN poll, stayed flat in the Morning Consult/Politico poll and dropped all the way to 9 percent in Iowa, a state in which he got 49.6 percent of the vote in the 2016 caucuses. He raised $18 million in the second quarter of 2019, $7 million less than the mayor of South Bend, Ind.

Sanders is delivering virtually the identical message, in virtually the identical cadence, from his 2016 campaign. It is fair to conclude that either voters are tired of it, craving change, or that an old white guy screaming about socialism isn't a winner in today's Democratic Party. Either way, I cannot think of a candidate in this field less willing than Sanders to adjust to changed circumstances. I find it improbable he will win, and frankly, I'd give that South Bend mayor, Pete Buttigieg, who's still an unknown to most voters, a better chance of winding up in the top three or four candidates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/03/sanders-likely-cant-turn-it-around-biden-can-heres-how/?utm_term=.553684536759 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/03/sanders-likely-cant-turn-it-around-biden-can-heres-how/?utm_term=.553684536759)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 05, 2019, 08:08:57 PM

      Everyone (that is, not me) thinks Biden is liked by everyone who thinks Biden is liked by someone else. It might be the case that no one wants him to be President. He's almost as electable as Hillary, his time has come like hers did, it's his turn. Who besides several others could be better?

      The tussle over whether we should have Medicare for all or permit private health insurance will turn out to be meaningless. I have Medicare. I have private health insurance. Medicare will be delivered by private insurers unless you elect the government plan. I didn't, I elected Tufts Health Care Medicare Advantage. That's how it will work.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on July 07, 2019, 02:42:42 PM
A little humor during the primaries, why not?  Seen on Twitter... :D

(https://i.postimg.cc/7LP2tQC6/Twitter-White-House-is-it-dusty.jpg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on July 07, 2019, 05:14:12 PM
No...because there's a tantrum-throwing toddler who needs disciplining.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on July 07, 2019, 06:47:20 PM
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/07/tom-steyer-2020-run/593434/

Everything is going great in America I see
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on July 07, 2019, 07:35:29 PM
Is there a cutoff date for announcing a candidacy or can it be done pretty much from the convention press room?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on July 07, 2019, 08:03:34 PM
I think the filing deadlines vary state by state, and some of them have passed already, but candidates who file over the next year are probably banking on a brokered convention and therefore not needing to compete in any primaries.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Daverz on July 08, 2019, 01:20:36 AM
Quote from: Muzio on July 07, 2019, 02:42:42 PM
A little humor during the primaries, why not?  Seen on Twitter... :D

Well, it's one of the humors. Yellow bile, I think.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 08, 2019, 02:47:51 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 05, 2019, 10:29:52 AM
The Descent of the Bern [my headline ~kh]

Since the Democratic presidential debate last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has fallen from 18 percent to 14 percent in the national CNN poll, stayed flat in the Morning Consult/Politico poll and dropped all the way to 9 percent in Iowa, a state in which he got 49.6 percent of the vote in the 2016 caucuses. He raised $18 million in the second quarter of 2019, $7 million less than the mayor of South Bend, Ind.

Sanders is delivering virtually the identical message, in virtually the identical cadence, from his 2016 campaign. It is fair to conclude that either voters are tired of it, craving change, or that an old white guy screaming about socialism isn't a winner in today's Democratic Party. Either way, I cannot think of a candidate in this field less willing than Sanders to adjust to changed circumstances. I find it improbable he will win, and frankly, I'd give that South Bend mayor, Pete Buttigieg, who's still an unknown to most voters, a better chance of winding up in the top three or four candidates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/03/sanders-likely-cant-turn-it-around-biden-can-heres-how/?utm_term=.553684536759 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/03/sanders-likely-cant-turn-it-around-biden-can-heres-how/?utm_term=.553684536759)

Washington Post hates Bernie so they come up with this nonsense to try destroy him. Washington Post is part of the establishment so they support pro-establishment candidates such as Pete Buttigieg who pretend to be progressives. Bernie Sanders has been consistent for decades because the problems have been the same for decades. Corporate media has NOTHING on Bernie of substance. Ironically Trump was partly right saying the media is the enemy of the people. Yes, if Washington Post is able to block real progressives to become presidents thet ARE the enemy of the people allowing the oligarchy reign. WP is vomit inducing. They should be ashamed of themselves. What they do is far from real journalism.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on July 08, 2019, 06:35:54 AM
I can only conclude from that that you've confused it with the Washington Examiner.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on July 08, 2019, 06:51:09 AM
The Washington Post has a sizeable stable of conservative opinion writers who have been wrong about everything since at least 2003, Jennifer Rubin being one of them (I believe she's associated in some capacity with the George W. Bush administration or maybe I'm confusing her with Ana Navarro), and who regularly churn out opinion pieces in support of various conservative policies, candidates, wars, genocides etc. It's true that they are generally hostile to Sanders (or realistically, anyone else to the left of Richard Nixon) but they do have one in-house Berniecrat in the form of Elizabeth Bruenig, which is more than can be said for e.g. the New York Times which keeps its opinion pieces within a narrower and more centrist band.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 08, 2019, 07:20:13 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 08, 2019, 02:47:51 AM
Washington Post hates Bernie so they come up with this nonsense to try destroy him. Washington Post is part of the establishment so they support pro-establishment candidates such as Pete Buttigieg who pretend to be progressives. Bernie Sanders has been consistent for decades because the problems have been the same for decades. Corporate media has NOTHING on Bernie of substance. Ironically Trump was partly right saying the media is the enemy of the people. Yes, if Washington Post is able to block real progressives to become presidents thet ARE the enemy of the people allowing the oligarchy reign. WP is vomit inducing. They should be ashamed of themselves. What they do is far from real journalism.

Are you an absolute ass? This was an opinion piece, not WaPo reportage, in the first place.

In the second, that descent in the polls is a fact, cited in the opinion piece.

So, yes, you and Trump agree that the press is "the enemy of the people," when it reports facts you don't like.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 08, 2019, 07:54:44 AM
I was certainly for Bernie four years ago, simply by the easy virtue of his being a less baggage-laden candidate than Clinton, and his being an adult. Anything on two legs, including my budgie is more mature and responsible than Trump.

But this go-round, Bernie is committing much the same "It's my turn now" floater, wherewith Clinton was content to delude herself.

He has overdrawn on his name-recognition capital.

Sure, I am content that he be part of the process this cycle. But he won't be President.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 08, 2019, 01:15:13 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 08, 2019, 02:47:51 AM
Washington Post hates Bernie so they come up with this nonsense to try destroy him. Washington Post is part of the establishment so they support pro-establishment candidates such as Pete Buttigieg who pretend to be progressives. Bernie Sanders has been consistent for decades because the problems have been the same for decades. Corporate media has NOTHING on Bernie of substance. Ironically Trump was partly right saying the media is the enemy of the people. Yes, if Washington Post is able to block real progressives to become presidents thet ARE the enemy of the people allowing the oligarchy reign. WP is vomit inducing. They should be ashamed of themselves. What they do is far from real journalism.

Bernie was the only alternative Democrats had to Hillary in 2016. Had that not been the case, he would have been lost in the shuffle. Compared to most of the other candidates, he's not particularly progressive...a sign of how far the Democratic Party has shifted to the left. So why would Democratic voters go for him, especially as he calls himself a Democrat only in election years, and otherwise is satisfied with being an independent or a Socialist?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 08, 2019, 01:56:02 PM
Quote from: JBS on July 08, 2019, 01:15:13 PM
Bernie was the only alternative Democrats had to Hillary in 2016. Had that not been the case, he would have been lost in the shuffle. Compared to most of the other candidates, he's not particularly progressive...a sign of how far the Democratic Party has shifted to the left. So why would Democratic voters go for him, especially as he calls himself a Democrat only in election years, and otherwise is satisfied with being an independent or a Socialist?

Perfectly on point.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 09, 2019, 02:59:11 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2019, 07:20:13 AM
So, yes, you and Trump agree that the press is "the enemy of the people," when it reports facts you don't like.

This is not about facts. This is in what light do you present facts. They twist Bernie's consistency into "lack of new ideas" as if the problems were new and not the oligarchy that has reigned for decades. They are not interested of the facts. They are interested of keeping the oligarchy running because they themselves benefit from it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 09, 2019, 03:07:18 AM
Quote from: JBS on July 08, 2019, 01:15:13 PM
Bernie was the only alternative Democrats had to Hillary in 2016. Had that not been the case, he would have been lost in the shuffle. Compared to most of the other candidates, he's not particularly progressive...a sign of how far the Democratic Party has shifted to the left. So why would Democratic voters go for him, especially as he calls himself a Democrat only in election years, and otherwise is satisfied with being an independent or a Socialist?

This is wrong. He is the most progressive candicate. Tulsi Gabbard comes close. The other candidates say they are progressives, but are they? Even Trump campaigned as a progressive! Elizabeth Warren has tried to "compete" with Bernie as the most progressive, but...

Voters should go for Bernie, because he has been a progressive for decades. We know he won't backpedal like a fake-populist would when corporate money starts coming in. Bernie has an army of over million people to take the streets to demand progressive policies. That's why. He is the guy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on July 09, 2019, 04:30:15 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 09, 2019, 03:07:18 AM
Bernie has an army of over million people to take the streets to demand progressive policies.

(https://static.themoscowtimes.com/image/article_1360/8b/19982e6c85.jpg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 09, 2019, 06:11:08 AM

     Warren is the credible progressive in the contest. I wanted her to stay in the Senate where she could use her knowledge and considerable skill as an inquisitor to push a feeble minded centrist towards Dem policy goals. I don't necessarily like her versions best (she seems to want a rich tax to "raise revenue"), but that's a quibble in the larger context.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Rinaldo on July 09, 2019, 07:05:33 AM
Gaining momentum..

Elizabeth Warren's presidential campaign announced Monday she raised $19.1 million in the second quarter of the year, more than tripling her first-quarter total despite holding no fundraisers. (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/08/warren-rakes-in-19-million-despite-no-fundraisers-1400058)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 09, 2019, 08:17:10 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 09, 2019, 03:07:18 AM
This is wrong. He is the most progressive candicate. Tulsi Gabbard comes close. The other candidates say they are progressives, but are they? Even Trump campaigned as a progressive! Elizabeth Warren has tried to "compete" with Bernie as the most progressive, but...

Voters should go for Bernie, because he has been a progressive for decades. We know he won't backpedal like a fake-populist would when corporate money starts coming in. Bernie has an army of over million people to take the streets to demand progressive policies. That's why. He is the guy.

He's not been a progressive for decades.
He has however been a Socialist for decades. And on social justice issues, where the momentum of American leftism, he is very much a Johnny come lately.
Trump, fyi, did not campaign as a progressive. If anything he campaigned as the antiprogressive.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 09, 2019, 11:46:29 AM
Quote from: JBS on July 09, 2019, 08:17:10 AM
He's not been a progressive for decades.
He has however been a Socialist for decades. And on social justice issues, where the momentum of American leftism, he is very much a Johnny come lately.
Trump, fyi, did not campaign as a progressive. If anything he campaigned as the antiprogressive.

Jesus Christ are you clueless of the politics in your own country and a Finn has to educate you! Bernie Sanders is not a socialist! Has he proposed that Walmart should be owned by the workers of Walmart? NO!! HE HAS NOT!! He is a social democrat who unfortunately calls himself a democratic socialist (yes, he fucked up with the terminology and labels and now we progressives have to educate every fucking political ignoramus he is a social democrat). Social democrats believe in capitalism, but understand the need to regulation and the need of strong welfare  programs to avoid crony capitalism and extreme income inequaty. How are Bernies ideas making the US socialist when the same ideas haven't made other countries socialist? Did single payer healthcare make UK socialist? No, it made UK's healthcare system one of the best int he World. Did tuition free education in Finland make Finland a socialist country? No, it made Finland's education system one of the most admired in the World. So, which policies of Bernie Sanders are socialism? Sure, many of them have a socialist favor, sure that's what is needed, because 100 % pure capitalism leads to insane society were one family owns everything. In the US three richest people own more than the bottom 50 % of people? Are you suggesting these 3 people just worked harder than half of the population combined? Even Superman couldn't do that!

Trump campaigned as a populist (working people won't be forgotten, he brings jobs back, he gives better healthcare then Obamacare etc.) and looked the more progressive option compared to establisment queen Hillary.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 09, 2019, 12:06:10 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 09, 2019, 11:57:33 AM
Not at all, buddy, not at all. Honestly,  if you are a typical product of the Finland's educational system then it is grossly overrated.

Liking Bernie Sanders makes me uneducated? How?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 09, 2019, 12:14:23 PM
If you don't like Bernie's "socialism" vote Biden as the president, the man who tells millionaires "don't worry, nothing will change."
That's how the Dems have been for decades. Nothing changed. Oligarchy continued and got worse until people got so desperate they voted for a reality tv clown. That happens when you don't change anything and keep licking the asses of your corporate overloards.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 09, 2019, 12:15:45 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 09, 2019, 12:07:58 PM
Whatever or whomever you like or dislike is irrelevant. You are an idiot, period.

You are an asshole! Fuck you!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 09, 2019, 12:17:20 PM
This fucking board! Who the fuck are you to tell me I am an idiot? Fuck you!!!! I follow american politics hours a day and I KNOW more than you fuckers!!! I know!! You you IGNORABNT"!""
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 09, 2019, 12:18:41 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 09, 2019, 12:07:58 PM
Whatever or whomever you like or dislike is irrelevant. You are an idiot, period.

WHY DO YOU THINK THAT? WHY THE FUCK?????????
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 09, 2019, 12:19:12 PM
 :-[HUMAN BEING IM I NEEEDD understandign app
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 09, 2019, 12:23:52 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 09, 2019, 12:20:20 PM
I am not a US citizen, so I won't vote for the next POTUS. Neither are, nor will, you. Go get a jerking off and come back after Bernie lost big time.

What is your problem? Why do you think I am idiot? I think I am educated about american politics. I was not 3 years ago but now I am. I can't understand why people don't see I do understand these things.

Bernie has not lost anything yet. Biden will come down. People realize they don't want "nothing will change man"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 09, 2019, 12:27:15 PM
Sorry about the language people, but I AM SICK of being treaded like this!!! Disagree all you want, but DON'T call me an idiot or uneducated. That's not cool. I
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 09, 2019, 12:28:01 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 09, 2019, 12:14:23 PM
If you don't like Bernie's "socialism" vote Biden as the president, the man who tells millionaires "don't worry, nothing will change."
That's how the Dems have been for decades. Nothing changed. Oligarchy continued and got worse until people got so desperate they voted for a reality tv clown. That happens when you don't change anything and keep licking the asses of your corporate overloards.

You apparently have no idea of how racism, guns, abortion, and the "culture wars" have shaped American politics over the last three decades or so.  Trump's appeal was to authoritarianism, bigotry, outright xenophobia, and the social conservatism embodied in the "Religious Right". Unfortunately, in the US there are a lot of social conservatives who, if not themselves bigots, are happy to ignore Trump's bigotry to ensure that social conservatism retains power.

The American Left, meanwhile, has focused far more on social justice issues than economic issues. Bernie is very much a latecomer on those.
But "social justice" is a core item in American progressivism. Ignore that at your peril.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 09, 2019, 12:29:47 PM
Locking this poll to give the toddlers a timeout people a chance to regain their tempers
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on July 09, 2019, 05:07:05 PM
click to enlarge:

(https://assets.amuniversal.com/bda792907eca0137a8c8005056a9545d)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 09, 2019, 05:38:07 PM
I don't like the way the term "populism" is used in american politics, but it is what it is. In Finland populism means offering "easy" solutions (which often aren't real solutions to complex problems) to make ignorant simpletons vote for you. In american politics populism means also offering solutions that benefit regular people and are therefore popular among regular people. Europe doesn't need "single-payer-populism", because European countries already have single-payer-healthcare, but in the US there is room for  that kind of "populism." The US has entered the era of political populism, one of the reasons why Hillary Clinton lost. She played the game like it was year 1992. Trump/Sarah Palin represent right-wing populism while Bernie Sanders/AOC represent left-wing populism.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 10, 2019, 06:43:12 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 09, 2019, 05:38:07 PM
I don't like the way the term "populism" is used in american politics, but it is what it is. In Finland populism means offering "easy" solutions (which often aren't real solutions to complex problems) to make ignorant simpletons vote for you. In american politics populism means also offering solutions that benefit regular people and are therefore popular among regular people. Europe doesn't need "single-payer-populism", because European countries already have single-payer-healthcare, but in the US there is room for  that kind of "populism." The US has entered the era of political populism, one of the reasons why Hillary Clinton lost. She played the game like it was year 1992. Trump/Sarah Palin represent right-wing populism while Bernie Sanders/AOC represent left-wing populism.

     Yes, that's a fair assessment. The right populists are white populists in revolt against what the country is becoming, which it will nevertheless become. The left populists want to accelerate the process. The right pops have no economic program other than to kill as many goats as they can because some will go to nonwhite neighbors. The left pops want goats, lots of them, and don't mind if they go to everyone. At least they don't mind very much. The programs usually offer good stuff to Trumpland like health care and higher minimum wages. Running the economy up to full output might even help the Red wastelands more than the Blue power nodes, a point that's often lost, so I found it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 10, 2019, 07:15:10 AM
Quote from: drogulus on July 10, 2019, 06:43:12 AM
The left populists want to accelerate the process.

Rather overcome the forces hindering the process.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 10, 2019, 08:23:53 AM
    One thing about populists is that while they are reacting against elites they do so in cooperation with an elite faction that runs the program for them. Trump ran as a populist then turned over his administration to the right wing elite. From a voter perspective what was gained, what jobs were saved, what such good health care was offered?

     Dem populists want to enable left wonkery sidelined by Clintonite triangulators, preferring the part of the Dem elite that wants programs that match goals the left shares with the public rather than bargaining them away to appease a semi-fictitious center. Most people don't want abortion to be half legal, most want it to be legal, including almost half of Repubs. Most people don't want half a strong economy or half a climate change investment plan or half measures on health care. Dem pops don't want to negotiate down these programs with themselves even before the fight with Repubs begins.

     I think Dems have more to gain by embracing popular ideas than they have to lose. They don't need to support the left-most candidate for this, and I hope they don't.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 10, 2019, 12:25:02 PM
The left-most candidates in the US aren't that left-wing from "European" perspective. The Overton Window in the US has moved far right so that The Dems today are where the Republicans used to be a few decades ago. Obamacare is essentially a Republican right-wing idea by the Heritage Foundation think-tank from the 1980's also known as (Mitt) RomneyCare securing the business model of insurance companies. So, the Dems did an originally Republican healthcare plan while having supermajority and Nancy Pelosi is called a master legistlator for that. What a joke! Even public option was too left-wing for Obama/the Dems and from "European" perspective public option is pretty right-wing shit. All of this is of course explained by looking who donates to the politicians in the US. The insurance companies got what they paid for! The US is a brilliantly well working oligarchy. The problem here is of course that unlike countries like Russia, the US is supposed to be a leading democracy and protector of democracy and freedom in the World. At least that's how the US justifies it's interventionism and wars.

Looked through the American Overton Window Bernie Sanders looks like this, market (B):

FAR LEFT (B)------------------- FAR RIGHT

From European perspective Bernie Sanders looks like this:

FAR LEFT --------(B)----------- FAR RIGHT
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 10, 2019, 03:41:15 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 10, 2019, 12:25:02 PM
The left-most candidates in the US aren't that left-wing from "European" perspective.

     I'm aware of that. The best candidate isn't the left-most, and the worst is not the right-most. There are other considerations. Also, there is no way to import the European spectrum without the history that produced it, the defeat of doctrinaire socialism by social democracy in the face of the Communist challenge, bolstered by the US defense guarantee. That's a special situation not replicated anywhere else.

     I'm not oversensitive about criticism of US politics from abroad. I care about arguments more than who is entitled to make them. Handsome is as handsome does IMV, and some Americans don't know where Montana is, let alone Finland.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 10, 2019, 04:03:31 PM
Quote from: drogulus on July 10, 2019, 03:41:15 PM
and some Americans don't know where Montana is, let alone Finland.

They're neighbouring states, aren't they?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 10, 2019, 04:07:31 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 10, 2019, 04:03:31 PM
They're neighbouring states, aren't they?

     Well, they're close but I don't think they share a common border.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 10, 2019, 04:44:39 PM
Quote from: drogulus on July 10, 2019, 04:07:31 PM
     Well, they're close but I don't think they share a common border.

Well, sepaarated by the Gulf of Idaho, sure.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 10, 2019, 04:51:55 PM
Quote from: drogulus on July 10, 2019, 03:41:15 PM
     I'm aware of that. The best candidate isn't the left-most, and the worst is not the right-most. There are other considerations. Also, there is no way to import the European spectrum without the history that produced it, the defeat of doctrinaire socialism by social democracy in the face of the Communist challenge, bolstered by the US defense guarantee. That's a special situation not replicated anywhere else.

     I'm not oversensitive about criticism of US politics from abroad. I care about arguments more than who is entitled to make them. Handsome is as handsome does IMV, and some Americans don't know where Montana is, let alone Finland.

So who is the best in your opinion and why?

Bernie Sanders is the best. He has the agenda to fix the problems in the US and we know he won't backpedal like fake progressives would, maybe even Elizabeth Warren. Also, Bernie has the grassroot support among the people (over a million voluntiers). As for who is most electable, Bernie would crush Trump because Trump's retoric doesn't work on Bernie and Bernie has strong support in the important rust-belt where Hillary lost. The corporate media tries to render a narrative where Bernie is struggling, but that's not true. The twist the reality to make it look maximally bad for Bernie who has more individual donor than any other candidate. Buttigieg collects those $2800 from millionaires (that makes him corrupt and anti-progressive), but that donor can give him that many ONCE. Large donations mean you run out of donations fast. Bernie gets $18 in avarege so the same people can keep donating again and again... ...the establishment has a plan to make Bernie and Elizabeth equally popular so they split the progressive support so Biden or Harris can beat them. Do you want the oligarchy to continue or do you want FINALLY change after 4 decades? Bernie is your change.

Where Montana is? Who cares? People have other problems like going bankrupt if you get ill.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 10, 2019, 06:37:50 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 10, 2019, 04:51:55 PM
So who is the best in your opinion and why?



     The best is the one that will do what I want. That is none of them, so I'll settle for the one that will do more of what I want than any other. When I find out who that is, I'll let the world know.

     We are (heh!) different. I think you have to have an ideology, but it's dangerous if you let it boss you around.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on July 10, 2019, 09:52:13 PM
I personally think all of the candidates (including Bernard Sanders) are absolute garbage, both as politicians and as human beings, none of whom actually matter because regardless of who is elected (most likely it'll be Trump, anyway—incumbent presidents tend to win reelection) none of them have any way to dismantle the american empire and the military-industrial-civil service complex that actually rules the country. That said, it is fun to watch them fight each other.

I learned recently that Senator Sanders was gifted an actual sword by Ross Perot. Hoping he actually uses it in combat against some of the other candidates. An onstage fencing match between him and Mayor Pete, with the winner being awarded the majority of delegates in Iowa or something, would be fun

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_EDio9XsAMXCQT.jpg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 11, 2019, 05:09:38 AM
Quote from: amw on July 10, 2019, 09:52:13 PM
I personally think all of the candidates (including Bernard Sanders) are absolute garbage, both as politicians and as human beings

     Yeah, what I said. Only an ideological death grip can cause a person to completely abandon sense like this. If the choice is between the ideology of human garbage or a perfect nailed human I'm moving to Paraguay, or Montana. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on July 11, 2019, 07:14:01 AM
You don't need Jesus; it's not hard for a major party in a western country to run a candidate with non-awful politics. The British Labour Party does it. La France Insoumise (or whatever its name is now) does it. Podemos does it. The conditions simply aren't right in the USA, so candidates with good politics (e.g. Jesse Jackson) will always fail until the USA's political system is different. Arguably, the fact that Sanders has succeeded to the extent that he has is by itself a condemnation of him, since if he were genuinely radical, Vermont would have replaced him a long time ago.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 11, 2019, 07:28:38 AM
Quote from: amw on July 11, 2019, 07:14:01 AM
You don't need Jesus; it's not hard for a major party in a western country to run a candidate with non-awful politics. The British Labour Party does it. La France Insoumise (or whatever its name is now) does it. Podemos does it. The conditions simply aren't right in the USA, so candidates with good politics (e.g. Jesse Jackson) will always fail until the USA's political system is different. Arguably, the fact that Sanders has succeeded to the extent that he has is by itself a condemnation of him, since if he were genuinely radical, Vermont would have replaced him a long time ago.

     That pretty much sums up what I take to be the perennial radical viewpoint, that to be a true radical you have to be useless to anyone interested in real change. It parallels aesthetic radicalism in positing that popular acceptance is self annihilating. If people come to accept a radical measure it's no good any more. If its adopted it's got normal cooties on it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on July 11, 2019, 07:47:08 AM
While true, I think that position only applies to countries like the USA and Canada where the majority is made up of genocidal settlers and their descendants and therefore yes, anything they accept and value is a priori "bad", because it doesn't conflict with their core values of land theft and white supremacy. ("Good" political actions such as the abolition of slavery were invariably extremely unpopular at the time they occurred.) In the case of Sanders it is more clear if you look at his political positions—he has voted for the bombing of Yugoslavia, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Libya, and sanctions against dozens of countries. He is a committed Zionist, despite being politically out of step with the Zionist entity's current leadership. He supports the line that any official enemy of the United States is an evil dictator who needs to be taken down, with extremely tepid opposition to the use of military action to do so. All of these positions reflect a desire to perpetuate American imperial power and spread death and suffering on a broad scale, which is why I think they are bad. You can obviously disagree.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 11, 2019, 08:03:48 AM
Quote from: amw on July 11, 2019, 07:47:08 AM
All of these positions reflect a desire to perpetuate American imperial power and spread death and suffering on a broad scale, which is why I think they are bad.

     Yes, I get that. The only moral way to be a genocidal settler is to be a radical about it. Send the so-called Native Americans back to Siberia and the Huns back to the steppes. Then they can be liquidated by the so-called original inhabitants who really should be liquidated by their predecessors. It's all an eternal blood feud. The only way to buy innocence is to be so radical you want to deport yourself to the Neanderthal homeland. We are all guilty guilty guilty of everything our ancestors did to other super guilty people. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 11, 2019, 08:04:55 AM
Who can disagree that spreading death and suffering on a broad scale is bad?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 11, 2019, 08:44:39 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 11, 2019, 08:04:55 AM
Who can disagree that spreading death and suffering on a broad scale is bad?

    Then it isn't an issue, and it doesn't justify blood libels and kulak hunts.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on July 11, 2019, 10:01:00 AM
Quote from: amw on July 11, 2019, 07:47:08 AM
While true, I think that position only applies to countries like the USA and Canada where the majority is made up of genocidal settlers and their descendants and therefore yes, anything they accept and value is a priori "bad", because it doesn't conflict with their core values of land theft and white supremacy.
Why is this brought up in any context, whatsoever? (Other than a history lesson).
Literally all of humanity are desendants of people who killed, stole land, and raped. And that's why we are here.

So other than the agenda of White guilt, patriarchy, etc. there's no need to mention this as "look, America bad."

Is it that it was only a couple hundred years ago? Or does time not apply and we should shame other cultures as well...?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 11, 2019, 11:20:44 AM
Quote from: greg on July 11, 2019, 10:01:00 AM
Why is this brought up in any context, whatsoever? (Other than a history lesson).
Literally all of humanity are desendants of people who killed, stole land, and raped. And that's why we are here.

So other than the agenda of White guilt, patriarchy, etc. there's no need to mention this as "look, America bad."

Is it that it was only a couple hundred years ago? Or does time not apply and we should shame other cultures as well...?

     There can be present victims of past crimes, and even if it can be difficult to seek justice it's something worth doing, as we did for the Japanese victims of the wartime internment policy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on July 11, 2019, 12:19:35 PM
Quote from: drogulus on July 11, 2019, 11:20:44 AM
     There can be present victims of past crimes, and even if it can be difficult to seek justice it's something worth doing, as we did for the Japanese victims of the wartime internment policy.
Are descendants of American slaves present victims of past crimes?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 11, 2019, 01:15:12 PM
Quote from: Muzio on July 11, 2019, 12:19:35 PM
Are descendants of American slaves present victims of past crimes?

You need a hobby.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on July 11, 2019, 01:18:50 PM
Quote from: Muzio on July 11, 2019, 12:19:35 PM
Are descendants of American slaves present victims of past crimes?
Nope. They are the lucky ones. So many Africans are jealous that their ancestors weren't brought here.

Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, please. But regarding the whole Native American thing. I've heard there were tribes that would publicly rape and humiliate women and children from conquered tribes. That was acceptable in their culture. Now tell me that modern American culture is a downgrade and that that should have continued. 😲
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 11, 2019, 02:08:37 PM
Quote from: drogulus on July 10, 2019, 06:37:50 PM
     The best is the one that will do what I want. That is none of them, so I'll settle for the one that will do more of what I want than any other. When I find out who that is, I'll let the world know.

     We are (heh!) different. I think you have to have an ideology, but it's dangerous if you let it boss you around.

What do you want to be done? To my eyes what should be done is pretty clear: End oligarchy, drug wars and wars oversees against countries that have not attacked the US. Remove the influence of money in the politics to have real democracy Transform the US into the leading social democracy in the World with single-payer-healthcare and tuition free education and much more so EVERYONE has the chance in life despite of family background. . Fix the "D+" infrastructure and have clean safe tap water for all citizens. Have humane immigration policy. Things like this are just screaming to be fixed and the person to fix them is Bernie Sanders. This is clear as day.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 11, 2019, 02:16:55 PM
Quote from: Muzio on July 11, 2019, 12:19:35 PM
Are descendants of American slaves present victims of past crimes?

The descendants of American slaves lack cumulated wealth. The mean of black household wealth is $138,200—for whites, that number is $933,700. So, the rationale is the blacks of today would have inherited much more wealth had their ancestors not been slaves but regular people like the whites.

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/04/06/the-black-white-wealth-gap-is-unchanged-after-half-a-century (https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/04/06/the-black-white-wealth-gap-is-unchanged-after-half-a-century)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 11, 2019, 02:36:27 PM
Bernie Welcomes Their Hatred With 'Anti-Endorsement' List:

https://www.youtube.com/v/PHaK9tIgRsI
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on July 11, 2019, 02:48:14 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 11, 2019, 02:19:06 PM
More like education...  :-\
:D
Exactly, sir.  Every man is my master in that I may learn from him.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on July 11, 2019, 07:14:02 PM
Quote from: Muzio on July 11, 2019, 12:19:35 PM
Are descendants of American slaves present victims of past crimes?

If they're still experiencing the same racism from a group of people who want to return to the Good Old Days - then yes.

Especially if that group are in positions of power.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on July 11, 2019, 07:47:49 PM
Quote from: drogulus on July 11, 2019, 08:03:48 AM
     Yes, I get that. The only moral way to be a genocidal settler is to be a radical about it. Send the so-called Native Americans back to Siberia and the Huns back to the steppes. Then they can be liquidated by the so-called original inhabitants who really should be liquidated by their predecessors. It's all an eternal blood feud. The only way to buy innocence is to be so radical you want to deport yourself to the Neanderthal homeland. We are all guilty guilty guilty of everything our ancestors did to other super guilty people. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
This is a deeply amoral perspective & unfortunately a common one: "oh the Romans, Greeks, Mongols, Egyptians and Huns all benefited from their genocide and slavery, so we should also get to benefit from our genocide and slavery." As though those things are simply relative evils that can be outweighed by some people now being able to own a car and an iPhone. The historical cycle does have to stop somewhere & my view is that it should stop now; nothing to do with "atoning for the past". Genocide and slavery are ongoing realities in the USA—first nations peoples despite making up only about 2% of the population of USA & Canada still have their children taken away by the state, their land seized to build oil pipelines, and experience the highest rate of police brutality. Black and Latino americans make up about 12% and 15% of the population respectively but a sizeable majority of the prison slave labour force subsisting on $1 or less per day, and an equally large proportion in the workforce but still not making a living wage. These are all things we can stop doing at any time, and make redress for (but that's impossible in the current political climate).

The other part of this is the constant looting of the labour and resources of the Third World (heavy metals from China and the Congo, textile workers from Vietnam, produce from Costa Rica, aluminum from Jamaica, etc) for much less than their true value, due to the US military-backed devaluation of labour in countries around the world (i.e. when a country elects a leader who promises to raise wages and enact workers' protections, the US tends to engineer military coups to overthrow that leader and install a new, more capitalist-friendly one, as in e.g. Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Venezuela, Iran, Egypt, Burkina Faso, Haiti, Brazil, Chile, Yemen, etc). Again, we could stop doing that at any time, by scaling back the US military and intelligence apparatus significantly, but it would mean higher prices for oil and beef and underwear and MacBook Airs so there's no political will to do so.

This ties directly into my criticism of Mr. Sanders which none of his supporters here have addressed (but I'm not sure if I should expect them to).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 11, 2019, 08:26:25 PM
Quote from: amw on July 11, 2019, 07:47:49 PM
This is a deeply amoral perspective & unfortunately a common one: "oh the Romans, Greeks, Mongols, Egyptians and Huns all benefited from their genocide and slavery, so we should also get to benefit from our genocide and slavery."

     Well, mostly yes, I don't see a practical proposal for trying Julius Caesar for his Gallic war, nor do I want to punish his descendants. But, I don't think you really do either. To be a radical is not to let anyone off the hook by arranging for a practical debt repayment. As they say, you want the issue. My guilt is your innocence, see. Being a radical is sorta kinda not being the descendant of the racist genocidalists you otherwise are. Which is OK by me, I don't do the born guilty thing myself on account of my deeply amoral perspective.

     It's a different matter where the descendants of victims suffer from continued oppression. I say if you can figure out how to pay them, do it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 11, 2019, 08:50:08 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 11, 2019, 02:08:37 PM
What do you want to be done?

     I want what people want and Repubs block. Health care, infrastructure, jobs, better wages, a modernized safety net with paid parental leave, protection of reproductive rights in federal law. No good purpose is served by subjecting so many people to medical bankruptcy. Oh, and the Green New Deal begun before the laggards realize we are going to have to do it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 12, 2019, 02:28:03 AM
Quote from: drogulus on July 11, 2019, 08:50:08 PM
     I want what people want and Repubs block. Health care, infrastructure, jobs, better wages, a modernized safety net with paid parental leave, protection of reproductive rights in federal law. No good purpose is served by subjecting so many people to medical bankruptcy. Oh, and the Green New Deal begun before the laggards realize we are going to have to do it.

Well I can tell you this: Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg (of those who have a chance in this race) won't do those things. A few of them at best. Why? They have been collecting too much money from wealthy people who would suffer from these changes. The more you are in the politics for the power/status and money instead of genuine will to improve the country and lives of regular people the more you are willing to sell out your principles and in an oligarchy rich people are wready to hand over their money for political services: tax cuts, relaxing regulations, blocking progressive ideas and so forth.

So, for progressive policy what's left is Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders from the top 5 candidates (Tulsi Gabbard unfortunately doesn't have a chance this time around. maybe in the future?). Elizabeth Warren's average campaign donation during Q2 was $28 while Bernie Sander's got $18 on average. Bernie Sanders is the true progressive of the top 5 candidates. Elizabeth Warren is progressive-light. Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden are Republican-lights of various degree.


Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 12, 2019, 05:47:47 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 12, 2019, 02:28:03 AM
Well I can tell you this: Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg (of those who have a chance in this race) won't do those things. A few of them at best. Why? They have been collecting too much money from wealthy people who would suffer from these changes. The more you are in the politics for the power/status and money instead of genuine will to improve the country and lives of regular people the more you are willing to sell out your principles and in an oligarchy rich people are wready to hand over their money for political services: tax cuts, relaxing regulations, blocking progressive ideas and so forth.

So, for progressive policy what's left is Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders from the top 5 candidates (Tulsi Gabbard unfortunately doesn't have a chance this time around. maybe in the future?). Elizabeth Warren's average campaign donation during Q2 was $28 while Bernie Sander's got $18 on average. Bernie Sanders is the true progressive of the top 5 candidates. Elizabeth Warren is progressive-light. Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden are Republican-lights of various degree.


  • If you want medicare for all you vote for Bernie Sanders
  • If you want public option you vote for Elizabeth Warren
  • If you want tweaks around the corners of Obamacare you vote for Kamala Harris or Pete Buttigieg
  • If you want nothing to change (you are the CEO of an insurance company) you vote for Joe Biden



     All of them will do some of the things I want, none of them will do all of them. The leftmost will promise the most, the centermost the least. We won't know who would accomplish the most.

     I'm not interested in electing a placard. I want the stuff by any means I can get it, more stuff, not more promises, more stuff.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on July 12, 2019, 07:37:43 AM
No presidential candidate will be able to enact "Medicare for All" or a "public option" (or tuition free college, universal child care, or whatever else candidates' flagship policies are) without also replacing the 20-30 Senate Democrats and 80-120 House Democrats who oppose those policies, as well as the 40-50 Senate Republicans and 170-200 House Republicans who also oppose those policies. So it's kind of irrelevant what any of them promise domestically unless they solve that problem first.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on July 12, 2019, 08:41:36 AM
Quote from: amw on July 11, 2019, 07:47:49 PM
This is a deeply amoral perspective & unfortunately a common one: "oh the Romans, Greeks, Mongols, Egyptians and Huns all benefited from their genocide and slavery, so we should also get to benefit from our genocide and slavery." As though those things are simply relative evils that can be outweighed by some people now being able to own a car and an iPhone. The historical cycle does have to stop somewhere & my view is that it should stop now; nothing to do with "atoning for the past". Genocide and slavery are ongoing realities in the USA—first nations peoples despite making up only about 2% of the population of USA & Canada still have their children taken away by the state, their land seized to build oil pipelines, and experience the highest rate of police brutality. Black and Latino americans make up about 12% and 15% of the population respectively but a sizeable majority of the prison slave labour force subsisting on $1 or less per day, and an equally large proportion in the workforce but still not making a living wage. These are all things we can stop doing at any time, and make redress for (but that's impossible in the current political climate).
Well, reading this was amusing. This must be a whole different reality here.

Not sure what genocide and slavery is going on the US now... (prison labor isn't the same as slavery btw- slavery is bad because it includes people that didn't deserve it. Not saying all prison inmates deserve it but still).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on July 13, 2019, 09:29:03 PM
Joe Biden's Senate records could answer questions about his past actions — but they're being kept secret (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-bidens-senate-records-could-answer-questions-about-his-past-actions--but-hes-keeping-them-secret/2019/07/11/7d0dd222-a347-11e9-bd56-eac6bb02d01d_story.html?utm_term=.54e025794141)

"Joe Biden's effort to make his lengthy experience the central issue of his campaign has been confounded by questions about his actions during almost four decades as a U.S. senator, on issues including criminal justice, busing and the hearings into the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Those questions might be answered in the massive trove of Senate records he donated eight years ago to the University of Delaware under an agreement that they could be made public by early this year.

But the records are being kept secret, following new terms the university posted on its website just before Biden made his presidential campaign official in April.

Biden has sought to blunt criticism of his past actions by putting the most positive spin on them, but the limited availability of documents from his 36-year Senate career complicates a full evaluation of his record.

The collection of documents that Biden donated to his alma mater fills 1,875 boxes and also includes 415 gigabytes of electronic records. It includes committee reports, drafts of legislation and correspondence.

At the time of the donation, the university's then-president, Patrick Harker, thanked Biden for providing "an abundance of materials that will illuminate decades of U.S. policy and diplomacy and the vice president's critical role in its development."

Starting in 2011 and for years after, the university had described the terms of the agreement as keeping the papers sealed "for two years after Biden retires from public office." But this year, on the day before Biden announced his presidential campaign, the university changed the way that it described those terms.

Instead of citing his departure from "public office," the university said the documents would not be made public until two years after Biden "retires from public life" or after Dec. 31, 2019, whichever is later. It did not define what is considered "public life."

"The entire collection is unavailable," said Andrea Boyle Tippett, a spokeswoman for the University of Delaware. "Its contents will become available, as the website indicates, when Mr. Biden retires from public life."

"As he is currently running for office, he is in public life," she said. "Since retirement for anyone, not just public figures, takes different forms, I can't speculate beyond that."
[...]

The Biden archive — whose closure was also reported in April by HuffPost — could shed light on some of the most consequential moments of his career. Among the areas of interest would be the 1994 crime bill, his work in 1982 and 2006 on reauthorizations of the Voting Rights Act, as well as his stance against busing as a means of integrating the schools and his actions in limiting witnesses in the Thomas hearings.

The documents also could showcase his foreign policy views, including the internal deliberations that led to his support for the Iraq War as well as letters and meetings he had with world leaders over decades. He has argued that he was a pioneer in efforts to blunt climate change — speaking out and filing legislation in 1986 — and his papers could provide more detail.

Biden has at times played down or misrepresented his record — saying last weekend, for example, that he did not support more funding for state prisons, even though in 1994 he argued for $6 billion in such funding.

On busing, his current campaign aides have argued that Biden never opposed the right of local communities to implement voluntary busing plans, a distinction that Biden often did not make in interviews and news articles in which he called busing "an asinine concept, the utility of which has never been proven to me."

Biden also has argued recently that he fought against everything that a group of segregationist senators stood for — even though letters found in the archives of Sen. James O. Eastland, a longtime Democratic senator from Mississippi, illustrate how Biden solicited his help on antibusing legislation. Biden's own papers could include additional correspondence with Eastland, as well as other segregationist senators whom he served with at the start of his career.

During his Senate years, the future vice president served in multiple key roles, including as chairman of the Judiciary and Foreign Relations committees.
"The Biden papers will be a great boon for scholars of American political history in the 20th and 21st century," Brinkley said. "There will be notes on Anita Hill, segregation, busing and on and on. . . . Just seeing what the incoming was into his office, and seeing copies of letters Biden wrote in response — it'll be a rich trove."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on July 13, 2019, 09:33:20 PM
click to enlarge:

(https://i.ibb.co/8rKDnQ5/Capture.png)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on July 13, 2019, 11:07:54 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 12, 2019, 02:28:03 AM
Well I can tell you this: Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg (of those who have a chance in this race) won't do those things. A few of them at best. Why? They have been collecting too much money from wealthy people who would suffer from these changes. The more you are in the politics for the power/status and money instead of genuine will to improve the country and lives of regular people the more you are willing to sell out your principles and in an oligarchy rich people are wready to hand over their money for political services: tax cuts, relaxing regulations, blocking progressive ideas and so forth.

So, for progressive policy what's left is Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders from the top 5 candidates (Tulsi Gabbard unfortunately doesn't have a chance this time around. maybe in the future?). Elizabeth Warren's average campaign donation during Q2 was $28 while Bernie Sander's got $18 on average. Bernie Sanders is the true progressive of the top 5 candidates. Elizabeth Warren is progressive-light. Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden are Republican-lights of various degree.


  • If you want medicare for all you vote for Bernie Sanders
  • If you want public option you vote for Elizabeth Warren
  • If you want tweaks around the corners of Obamacare you vote for Kamala Harris or Pete Buttigieg
  • If you want nothing to change (you are the CEO of an insurance company) you vote for Joe Biden

Thanks for expressing this better than I could.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 14, 2019, 04:17:42 AM
Quote from: schnittkease on July 13, 2019, 11:07:54 PM
Thanks for expressing this better than I could.

Thanks! I appreciate this. I am able to express these things pretty well, because I have followed these things quite a lot for 2 and a half years from sources that I believe give good information about these things. As Kyle Kulinski puts it: "You are hypereducated about these things because you listen to me. Go and spread the word."  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 14, 2019, 07:24:35 AM
Quote from: amw on July 12, 2019, 07:37:43 AM
No presidential candidate will be able to enact "Medicare for All" or a "public option" (or tuition free college, universal child care, or whatever else candidates' flagship policies are) without also replacing the 20-30 Senate Democrats and 80-120 House Democrats who oppose those policies, as well as the 40-50 Senate Republicans and 170-200 House Republicans who also oppose those policies. So it's kind of irrelevant what any of them promise domestically unless they solve that problem first.

You think this way, because presidents haven't really fought for medicare for all. That would have been working against the interests of your donours. Kyle Kulinski would do this as the president: He would call every person in congress against medicare for all to the oval office and tell them that medicare for all is an non-debateable issue: Vast majority of the people want it, it saves money and is morally the right thing to do. So, president Kyle Kulinski would tell that he will campaign against every person in congress who is not for medicare for all. Good luck getting re-elected! That's how you FIGHT. Of course you are not able to do anything if you don't fight and you surrender to the Reps like Nancy Pelosi. If you fight you will get things done. The problem the Dems have is they are too corrupt to fight for the regular people. If they start fighting like some of them such as AOC, Ilhan Omar, regular people would vote for them more and the Republicans would come the "fringe" party for conservative billionaires and uneducated ignorant people having ~30 % support.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 14, 2019, 07:50:59 AM
Quote from: amw on July 12, 2019, 07:37:43 AM
No presidential candidate will be able to enact "Medicare for All" or a "public option" (or tuition free college, universal child care, or whatever else candidates' flagship policies are) without also replacing the 20-30 Senate Democrats and 80-120 House Democrats who oppose those policies, as well as the 40-50 Senate Republicans and 170-200 House Republicans who also oppose those policies. So it's kind of irrelevant what any of them promise domestically unless they solve that problem first.

     I want what I can't get, but also what I can get. The left/left always treats the "can't get" stuff as the only stuff.  It must come from their historical fixation on total power.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 14, 2019, 04:13:13 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 14, 2019, 07:24:35 AM
You think this way, because presidents haven't really fought for medicare for all. That would have been working against the interests of your donours. Kyle Kulinski would do this as the president: He would call every person in congress against medicare for all to the oval office and tell them that medicare for all is an non-debateable issue: Vast majority of the people want it, it saves money and is morally the right thing to do. So, president Kyle Kulinski would tell that he will campaign against every person in congress who is not for medicare for all. Good luck getting re-elected! That's how you FIGHT. Of course you are not able to do anything if you don't fight and you surrender to the Reps like Nancy Pelosi. If you fight you will get things done. The problem the Dems have is they are too corrupt to fight for the regular people. If they start fighting like some of them such as AOC, Ilhan Omar, regular people would vote for them more and the Republicans would come the "fringe" party for conservative billionaires and uneducated ignorant people having ~30 % support.

Medicare for all would not be passed, President Kulinski would not even be renominated much less reelected, and the Democrats would be the fringe party of the Left.
You seem to be unable to understand that what you despise as corporatist policies are the mainstream policies. They don't get passed because the big donors like them. They get passed because they appeal to the broad center of the American electorate.
The sources you trust are actually garbage, part of the Leftist echo chamber (parallel to the Rightwing echo chamber). You want an accurate view of American politics? Watch CNN.
Some time back you claimed that the corporate media in America are silent about climate change. In fact, they constantly push global warming/climate change every chance they get. You would know that if you paid attention to CNN and not the Leftist echo chamber.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on July 14, 2019, 07:23:07 PM
CNN regularly cites (skewed) polls conducted by Third Way, the centrist think tank that called Sanders "an existential threat." Obviously, that is fair.

Here's a subtle example of Yahoo Finance screwing Sanders over: Andre Iguodala on AOC's and Warren's wealth tax proposals: 'I'm all for it' (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/andre-iguodala-responds-to-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-and-ao-cs-tax-proposals-if-you-have-to-take-a-chunk-of-my-wealth-im-all-for-it-143609915.html). Notice that Sanders isn't present in the title, but lo and behold—the second sentence of the article reads: "In a recent episode of "Influencers with Andy Serwer," Iguodala got behind proposals from from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to institute a wealth tax." If people took a few seconds to read even the first paragraph, this would do no damage; the problem is that many don't make it past the headline. The title implies that Warren has completely usurped the "progressive vote" and is the only one pushing wealth taxes when it is clearly not the case.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 14, 2019, 07:50:04 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on July 14, 2019, 07:23:07 PM
CNN regularly cites (skewed) polls conducted by Third Way, the centrist think tank that called Sanders "an existential threat." Obviously, that is fair.

Here's a subtle example of Yahoo Finance screwing Sanders over: Andre Iguodala on AOC's and Warren's wealth tax proposals: 'I'm all for it' (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/andre-iguodala-responds-to-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-and-ao-cs-tax-proposals-if-you-have-to-take-a-chunk-of-my-wealth-im-all-for-it-143609915.html). Notice that Sanders isn't present in the title, but lo and behold—the second sentence of the article reads: "In a recent episode of "Influencers with Andy Serwer," Iguodala got behind proposals from from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to institute a wealth tax." If people took a few seconds to read even the first paragraph, this would do no damage; the problem is that many don't make it past the headline. The title implies that Warren has completely usurped the "progressive vote" and is the only one pushing wealth taxes when it is clearly not the case.

What special expertise on economics does Mr. Iguodala have that merits anyone paying him more attention on the subject than, say, you or me?  Yahoo Finance is exhibiting a subtle bias there, but not in the way you think.

And in fact Warren out of those three is the only one who has proposed an actual wealth tax (that is, a tax on actual assets). AOC wants to increase income tax rates, Sanders wants to revive the estate tax. I'd have to check the fine print, but a wealth tax is probably unconstitutional (see Article I Section 9 Paragraph 4).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on July 14, 2019, 08:30:27 PM
Quote from: JBS on July 14, 2019, 07:50:04 PM
What special expertise on economics does Mr. Iguodala have that merits anyone paying him more attention on the subject than, say, you or me?  Yahoo Finance is exhibiting a subtle bias there, but not in the way you think.

And in fact Warren out of those three is the only one who has proposed an actual wealth tax (that is, a tax on actual assets). AOC wants to increase income tax rates, Sanders wants to revive the estate tax. I'd have to check the fine print, but a wealth tax is probably unconstitutional (see Article I Section 9 Paragraph 4).

Iguodala's expertise on the subject is irrelevant. The fact is that Sanders should have been included in the title and he wasn't.

Arguably, Sanders' plan is the most sweeping and will bring about change the fastest. We know from his record that he is not afraid to go against the grain and does not backtrack on key issues. Warren was too scared to endorse Sanders over Clinton in 2016 and her foreign policy is a mess compared to his. In terms of all-round substance, Sanders is your guy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 15, 2019, 04:08:08 AM
Quote from: JBS on July 14, 2019, 04:13:13 PM
Medicare for all would not be passed, President Kulinski would not even be renominated much less reelected, and the Democrats would be the fringe party of the Left.

President Kulinski would be re-elected with flying colors. Without term limits the right-winger would never get rid of him. Anyway, all of that is speculation as the guy has said being a political commentator is more of his things than being the president, but we never know. Maybe he has changed his mind by the time he is old enough to run.

Quote from: JBS on July 14, 2019, 04:13:13 PMYou seem to be unable to understand that what you despise as corporatist policies are the mainstream policies.

Jesus Christ! Can't you understand that I understand all of this including what is wrong about what you say? Look at my posts here. My post are among those with most facts and substance. schnittkease was kind enough to say "Thanks for expressing this better than I could." Do you think I could formulate coherent, logical and fact-based posts here if I didn't understand what's going on in the US politics?

According to WHO are corporatist policies mainstream? Oh yeah, according to the corporate media! I wonder why they act like the  corporatist policies are mainstream. Could it be because the corporations have bought them to do that?

Quote from: JBS on July 14, 2019, 04:13:13 PMThey don't get passed because the big donors like them.

That's why the 28th Amendment to take money out of politics is needed. Did you know that lefties are fighting for that? The corporate media is not covering that much, are they? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC)

Quote from: JBS on July 14, 2019, 04:13:13 PMThey get passed because they appeal to the broad center of the American electorate.

The corporate media has been able to smear things and brainwash people to vote against their own good. Most election are won by the candidate with most money. More money means bigger chance to be corrupt or having financial interest against regular people. The Internet and alternative information channels like Youtube have broken the monopoly of information the corporate media has had. People can listen to say The Humanist Report Youtube channel and get real information and facts about things. The younger generation is already anti-corporate and can see through the bs of corporate media. The Republicans are able to retain political power utilizing voter suppression and gerry-mandering. Every American should understand that the Republicans do not believe in the concept of Democracy. The fact that the corporate Dems are insanely weak in fighting for their constituents also helps Republicans.

Quote from: JBS on July 14, 2019, 04:13:13 PMThe sources you trust are actually garbage, part of the Leftist echo chamber (parallel to the Rightwing echo chamber). You want an accurate view of American politics? Watch CNN.

Hahhahhaahhhaah!  ;D CNN is accurate? You are killing me! Are you really that doltish? I am very aware of the dangers of echo chambers. These lefty sources say all the time they have a lefty bias, but they are very careful to give as accurate facts as possible. Turns out most of the time the facts are on the lefty side. That's because corporations aren't interested of facts. They are interested of profits. If denying climate change means more profit then climate change is a Chinese hoax and so on...

That fact that you call these lefty sources garbage is a sign that you haven't even listened to them. You don't know anything about them. Or maybe you are a CEO of an insurance company spreading disinformation here. Or you are just ignorant, dumb or brainwashed.

Listen to some videos by Kyle Kulinski and tell me what that guy says is garbage. Why is it that almost no right-winger had the balls to debate him in the Politicon? Only Scottie Nell Hughes was brave enough. That's because he is the "Kyledriver". He knows the facts, he is smart and intellectually extremely honest. He knows how to debate. That's why. The right-wingers know they don't have a chance against him with their Koch-brothers funded nonsense.

You suffer from corporate echo-chamber syndrome. Start watching Kyle Kulinski's videos for antidote. If you don't like his face/voice there are many other option (David Pakman, The Humanist Report, The National Rational etc.), but I think Kyle Kulinski is the best. What is it that is echoing in the lefty echo chamber? Facts or lies?

Quote from: JBS on July 14, 2019, 04:13:13 PMSome time back you claimed that the corporate media in America are silent about climate change. In fact, they constantly push global warming/climate change every chance they get. You would know that if you paid attention to CNN and not the Leftist echo chamber.

The corporate media is talking about climate change now because the left has made it a hot (pun intended) topic and because the campaigns of people running for president have also brought it up, but what are they proposing? Are they advocating the lefty politicians like AOC and the New Green Deal? Saying they are silent about climate change is wrong, but they are framing it from the corporate perspective. At best the corporate media can be pretty good and I have seen good segments from them (for example MSNBC's coverage of the border crisis seems good, but that doesn't mean MSNBC is good when it's about medicare for all because they take money from insurance companies), but they also have their ugly dark corporate moments and that's why the independent lefty Youtubers are far superior.

I myself learned about climate change back in the 80's (it was called greenhouse effect and I have considered it a fact for ~35 year) in my teens so following the US debating about the issue in 2019 would be comical if it wasn't extremely serious for the future of our planet. In Finland I think every politician says the climate change is real and an serious issue. The only debate is about what should be done about it ranging from "Finland is so small country that it's useless to do anything - large countries can fix this for us" to "Finland should be the leading country in the World in green technology and fighting the climate change showing example to other countries." Our new government is left-leaning and includes the Green Party so at the moment Finland has the political agenda of being among the leading countries in the World combatting climate change.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 15, 2019, 06:55:14 AM
Quote from: schnittkease on July 14, 2019, 08:30:27 PM
Iguodala's expertise on the subject is irrelevant. The fact is that Sanders should have been included in the title and he wasn't.

Arguably, Sanders' plan is the most sweeping and will bring about change the fastest. We know from his record that he is not afraid to go against the grain and does not backtrack on key issues. Warren was too scared to endorse Sanders over Clinton in 2016 and her foreign policy is a mess compared to his. In terms of all-round substance, Sanders is your guy.

Actually Warren's plan is the most radical.  Sanders and AOC are merely proposing a return to higher income and estate taxes.    Warren is proposing an entirely new tax, one that the Federal government has never levied, although it's standard practice at the state and local levels (property taxes and intangible taxes).   

Since, as I said before Warren's plan is possibly unconstitutional, and won't work even if it is (holding companies and offshore trusts  and other entirely legal things that the rich already use to avoid paying taxes will come in very handy to avoid a wealth tax),  her plan would be much less effective than that of Sanders (or AOC).   But it is far more leftist than theirs.

As to the Yahoo post, the bias does not lie in ignoring Sanders in the headline.  The bias lies in the fact that Yahoo is using the opinions of a person with no special expertise on the question to push a progressive agenda.   Of course, 71db will deny that, since Yahoo is a corporation.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 15, 2019, 06:58:25 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 15, 2019, 04:08:08 AM
President Kulinski would be re-elected with flying colors. Without term limits the right-winger would never get rid of him. Anyway, all of that is speculation as the guy has said being a political commentator is more of his things than being the president, but we never know. Maybe he has changed his mind by the time he is old enough to run.

Jesus Christ! Can't you understand that I understand all of this including what is wrong about what you say? Look at my posts here. My post are among those with most facts and substance. schnittkease was kind enough to say "Thanks for expressing this better than I could." Do you think I could formulate coherent, logical and fact-based posts here if I didn't understand what's going on in the US politics?

According to WHO are corporatist policies mainstream? Oh yeah, according to the corporate media! I wonder why they act like the  corporatist policies are mainstream. Could it be because the corporations have bought them to do that?

That's why the 28th Amendment to take money out of politics is needed. Did you know that lefties are fighting for that? The corporate media is not covering that much, are they? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC)

The corporate media has been able to smear things and brainwash people to vote against their own good. Most election are won by the candidate with most money. More money means bigger chance to be corrupt or having financial interest against regular people. The Internet and alternative information channels like Youtube have broken the monopoly of information the corporate media has had. People can listen to say The Humanist Report Youtube channel and get real information and facts about things. The younger generation is already anti-corporate and can see through the bs of corporate media. The Republicans are able to retain political power utilizing voter suppression and gerry-mandering. Every American should understand that the Republicans do not believe in the concept of Democracy. The fact that the corporate Dems are insanely weak in fighting for their constituents also helps Republicans.

Hahhahhaahhhaah!  ;D CNN is accurate? You are killing me! Are you really that doltish? I am very aware of the dangers of echo chambers. These lefty sources say all the time they have a lefty bias, but they are very careful to give as accurate facts as possible. Turns out most of the time the facts are on the lefty side. That's because corporations aren't interested of facts. They are interested of profits. If denying climate change means more profit then climate change is a Chinese hoax and so on...

That fact that you call these lefty sources garbage is a sign that you haven't even listened to them. You don't know anything about them. Or maybe you are a CEO of an insurance company spreading disinformation here. Or you are just ignorant, dumb or brainwashed.

Listen to some videos by Kyle Kulinski and tell me what that guy says is garbage. Why is it that almost no right-winger had the balls to debate him in the Politicon? Only Scottie Nell Hughes was brave enough. That's because he is the "Kyledriver". He knows the facts, he is smart and intellectually extremely honest. He knows how to debate. That's why. The right-wingers know they don't have a chance against him with their Koch-brothers funded nonsense.

You suffer from corporate echo-chamber syndrome. Start watching Kyle Kulinski's videos for antidote. If you don't like his face/voice there are many other option (David Pakman, The Humanist Report, The National Rational etc.), but I think Kyle Kulinski is the best. What is it that is echoing in the lefty echo chamber? Facts or lies?
 

The corporate media is talking about climate change now because the left has made it a hot (pun intended) topic and because the campaigns of people running for president have also brought it up, but what are they proposing? Are they advocating the lefty politicians like AOC and the New Green Deal? Saying they are silent about climate change is wrong, but they are framing it from the corporate perspective. At best the corporate media can be pretty good and I have seen good segments from them (for example MSNBC's coverage of the border crisis seems good, but that doesn't mean MSNBC is good when it's about medicare for all because they take money from insurance companies), but they also have their ugly dark corporate moments and that's why the independent lefty Youtubers are far superior.

I myself learned about climate change back in the 80's (it was called greenhouse effect and I have considered it a fact for ~35 year) in my teens so following the US debating about the issue in 2019 would be comical if it wasn't extremely serious for the future of our planet. In Finland I think every politician says the climate change is real and an serious issue. The only debate is about what should be done about it ranging from "Finland is so small country that it's useless to do anything - large countries can fix this for us" to "Finland should be the leading country in the World in green technology and fighting the climate change showing example to other countries." Our new government is left-leaning and includes the Green Party so at the moment Finland has the political agenda of being among the leading countries in the World combatting climate change.

The best answer to that post is a very simple observation.

It is as fact based as most of the things Donald Trump says and tweets.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 15, 2019, 07:42:51 AM
Quote from: JBS on July 15, 2019, 06:58:25 AM
The best answer to that post is a very simple observation.

It is as fact based as most of the things Donald Trump says and tweets.

My knowledge and understanding of the US politics is clearly too much for you so you compare my posts to Trump's tweets. You seem to be more interested of holding on to your ignorant beliefs than actually learn new things and facts.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on July 15, 2019, 08:41:09 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 15, 2019, 04:08:08 AM
The corporate media is talking about climate change now because the left has made it a hot (pun intended) topic and because the campaigns of people running for president have also brought it up, but what are they proposing? Are they advocating the lefty politicians like AOC and the New Green Deal? Saying they are silent about climate change is wrong, but they are framing it from the corporate perspective. At best the corporate media can be pretty good and I have seen good segments from them (for example MSNBC's coverage of the border crisis seems good, but that doesn't mean MSNBC is good when it's about medicare for all because they take money from insurance companies), but they also have their ugly dark corporate moments and that's why the independent lefty Youtubers are far superior.

I myself learned about climate change back in the 80's (it was called greenhouse effect and I have considered it a fact for ~35 year) in my teens so following the US debating about the issue in 2019 would be comical if it wasn't extremely serious for the future of our planet. In Finland I think every politician says the climate change is real and an serious issue. The only debate is about what should be done about it ranging from "Finland is so small country that it's useless to do anything - large countries can fix this for us" to "Finland should be the leading country in the World in green technology and fighting the climate change showing example to other countries." Our new government is left-leaning and includes the Green Party so at the moment Finland has the political agenda of being among the leading countries in the World combatting climate change.

President Trump pulled the USA out of the "man-made climate change" cabal.  Although the climate does change over long periods of time (e.g., ice age), man has little or nothing to do with it.  Lots of science to support this, as the President has noted.   :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 15, 2019, 10:34:07 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 15, 2019, 07:42:51 AM
My knowledge and understanding of the US politics is clearly too much for you so you compare my posts to Trump's tweets. You seem to be more interested of holding on to your ignorant beliefs than actually learn new things and facts.

If you insist on accepting the further left* as your source, you are not going to get an accurate picture of American politics. "You seem to be more interested of holding on to your ignorant beliefs than actually learn new things and facts."  is a very fair description of yourself.

You know Americans are generally farther to the right than Europe. So why can't you accept that people like Kulinski, while they may not seem very left to you in Europe, are so far to the left that they represent a minority of Americans?  .

I did not say watch CNN to get the facts. I said watch CNN to know what most of the American electorate thinks.

*as opposed to the far left, such as Antifa.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 15, 2019, 10:35:28 AM
Quote from: Muzio on July 15, 2019, 08:41:09 AM
President Trump pulled the USA out of the "man-made climate change" cabal.  Although the climate does change over long periods of time (e.g., ice age), man has little or nothing to do with it.  Lots of science to support this, as the President has noted.   :)

Donald J Trump wouldn't recognize a scientific fact even  if he fell into it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 15, 2019, 12:21:30 PM
Quote from: Muzio on July 15, 2019, 08:41:09 AM
President Trump pulled the USA out of the "man-made climate change" cabal.  Although the climate does change over long periods of time (e.g., ice age), man has little or nothing to do with it.  Lots of science to support this, as the President has noted.   :)

The President knows as much science as a toad knows algebra.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 15, 2019, 12:22:07 PM
Quote from: JBS on July 15, 2019, 10:35:28 AM
Donald J Trump wouldn't recognize a scientific fact even  if he fell into it.

I should have read on, first....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 15, 2019, 03:17:08 PM
Quote from: JBS on July 15, 2019, 10:34:07 AM
If you insist on accepting the further left* as your source, you are not going to get an accurate picture of American politics. "You seem to be more interested of holding on to your ignorant beliefs than actually learn new things and facts."  is a very fair description of yourself.

You know Americans are generally farther to the right than Europe. So why can't you accept that people like Kulinski, while they may not seem very left to you in Europe, are so far to the left that they represent a minority of Americans?  .

I did not say watch CNN to get the facts. I said watch CNN to know what most of the American electorate thinks.

*as opposed to the far left, such as Antifa.

Many but not all Americans are conservative in social issues. You can be religious, you may hate gay people and so on, but EVERYONE loves paid vacation time. So, why is the US the only developped country without paid vacation time by law? It's not because Americans hate paid vacation time. It's because oligarchy. People don't know labels. Many lefty ideas are popular in the USA. The New Green Deal poll 70 % for example.

Kulinski is very left in the eyes of the establishment, but so what? He is still right most of the time while the establishment it wrong most of the time.  I know what American electorate thinks, because Kulinski explains these things. Watch his videos and see yourself!

As for the Overton Window, European countries tend to function better as societies, so maybe the European Overton Window is more correct? Are you really blind to how fucked up the US system is?

https://www.youtube.com/watch/v/W2AAtVGY30w
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 15, 2019, 04:41:40 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 15, 2019, 03:17:08 PM
Many but not all Americans are conservative in social issues. You can be religious, you may hate gay people and so on, but EVERYONE loves paid vacation time. So, why is the US the only developped country without paid vacation time by law? It's not because Americans hate paid vacation time. It's because oligarchy.

Your error is in going for the simple answer.  In fact, most if not all of the evil corporations provide paid vacation time.

Say, bingo! you make it a  law that all vusinesses must pay their employees for vacation.  QWhat percentage of small businesses go out of business (or lay off their employees, because, few though their employees are, the expense is too great.


JBS has a much better bead on the problems in the US than have you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 15, 2019, 04:59:17 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 15, 2019, 04:41:40 PM
Your error is in going for the simple answer.  In fact, most if not all of the evil corporations provide paid vacation time.

Say, bingo! you make it a  law that all vusinesses must pay their employees for vacation.  QWhat percentage of small businesses go out of business (or lay off their employees, because, few though their employees are, the expense is too great.


JBS has a much better bead on the problems in the US than have you.

I know. Why not just return to slavery? That would be good for business. It's capitalism. Businesses die if they are not profitable.

I don't know why you are against me nowadays Karl. You used to be a cool guy and I respected you, but then something happened... Maybe you are too rich to care about anything?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on July 15, 2019, 05:53:18 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 15, 2019, 04:59:17 PM
I don't know why you are against me nowadays Karl. You used to be a cool guy and I respected you, but then something happened... Maybe you are too rich to care about anything?
Dude... maybe I'm missing context (?), but sounds like you are taking what he said personal when it's not needed.

You can disagree with him and just continue on, of course.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 15, 2019, 06:25:13 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 15, 2019, 04:59:17 PM
I know. Why not just return to slavery? That would be good for business. It's capitalism. Businesses die if they are not profitable.

I don't know why you are against me nowadays Karl. You used to be a cool guy and I respected you, but then something happened... Maybe you are too rich to care about anything?

Well, I am really sorry if I have been antagonistic, Poju. When we disagree, I'll try to be less adversarial.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 15, 2019, 06:33:40 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 15, 2019, 03:17:08 PM
Many but not all Americans are conservative in social issues. You can be religious, you may hate gay people and so on, but EVERYONE loves paid vacation time. So, why is the US the only developped country without paid vacation time by law? It's not because Americans hate paid vacation time. It's because oligarchy. People don't know labels. Many lefty ideas are popular in the USA. The New Green Deal poll 70 % for example.

Kulinski is very left in the eyes of the establishment, but so what? He is still right most of the time while the establishment it wrong most of the time.  I know what American electorate thinks, because Kulinski explains these things. Watch his videos and see yourself!

As for the Overton Window, European countries tend to function better as societies, so maybe the European Overton Window is more correct? Are you really blind to how fucked up the US system is?

https://www.youtube.com/watch/v/W2AAtVGY30w

Maybe by American standards European societies don't function better...
The US system is screwed up, but not in the way you think it is. By our standards, Europe in general suffers from government handling things it should not be handling. The Green New Deal is exactly the sort of thing that is anathema to how America works: government ordering people how to spend their money.

https://www.aier.org/article/fake-poll-green-new-deal

Kulinski is a leftist advocating leftist solutions.  I have watched some of his videos. He faithfully regurgitated leftist talking points. That you mistake those talking points for facts merely shows that you have a lot more to learn.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on July 15, 2019, 06:44:18 PM
So we take a middle ground approach? Let's see how that works out in 12 years.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 15, 2019, 07:00:19 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on July 15, 2019, 06:44:18 PM
So we take a middle ground approach? Let's see how that works out in 12 years.

I think most leftist solutions are bad solutions, but my problem with 71db is very simple: he vastly overestimates the popularity and influence of leftist ideas, and mistakes mainstream American ideas for "corporate influence".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Wendell_E on July 16, 2019, 02:08:35 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 15, 2019, 04:41:40 PM
Your error is in going for the simple answer.  In fact, most if not all of the evil corporations provide paid vacation time.

Say, bingo! you make it a  law that all businesses must pay their employees for vacation.  What percentage of small businesses go out of business (or lay off their employees, because, few though their employees are, the expense is too great.




To quote Firefly "let me do the math here. Nothing into nothin'. Carry the nothin'"

If an small business is so dependent on exploiting employees who are probably underpaid that they they can't squeeze out a week or two of vacation per year, they deserve to go out of business.

We do get that week where I work. The last time I actually took a full week was in 2011. Apparently, there are many people in my position.

https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/survey-52-of-american-workers-didnt-use-all-their-vacation-days-in-2017
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 16, 2019, 02:51:36 AM
Quote from: JBS on July 15, 2019, 06:33:40 PM
Kulinski is a leftist advocating leftist solutions.  I have watched some of his videos. He faithfully regurgitated leftist talking points. That you mistake those talking points for facts merely shows that you have a lot more to learn.

Kulinski is a far leftist from American perspective and a social democrat from European perspective. He says that out loud. Of course support for say medicare for all is an opinion, but an opinion based on facts. Medicare for all system around the World get everyone covered, cost less and lack problems the US healthcare system has such as medical bankruptcy. Kulinski can DEFEND his lefty talking points rationally.

At least I know I have a lot to learn. You seem to think you already know everything...

 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 16, 2019, 03:00:47 AM
Quote from: JBS on July 15, 2019, 07:00:19 PM
I think most leftist solutions are bad solutions, but my problem with 71db is very simple: he vastly overestimates the popularity and influence of leftist ideas, and mistakes mainstream American ideas for "corporate influence".

The leftist solutions people like Kulinski proposes are very succesful in many countries. That's WHY they propose them in the first place. Lefty people like Kulinski want to improve the country, improve peoples lives. If Nordic countries are happier, have longer life expectancy, lower infant morality and so on, perhaps that's the way to go?

Popularity is one thing. Another thing is what is rational and morally right. Things can become more popular. I don't know under what rock have you lived, by lefty ideas have become more popular in the recent years. In 2016 Medicare for all was a "fringe" idea. Now isn't anymore even when the corporate media tries to smear it non-stop.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 16, 2019, 03:20:45 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 15, 2019, 06:25:13 PM
Well, I am really sorry if I have been antagonistic, Poju. When we disagree, I'll try to be less adversarial.

Thanks Karl.

I dont know... ...your posts tend to be short, but your condensating message is clear: 71 dBs post are worthless. Sorry if I overreact.

I am sick an tired of being called a clueless non-American. If you don't see the value of what the left is doing in the US trying to restore democracy and trying to improve the country and people's lifes then you don't. I see it, because I don't live in a country where the media
brainwashes people to believe corporate profits is all that counts and if you don't make it in life it's all your own fault no matter how poor
family you come from. The left is not advocating equal outcomes (socialism). They are advocating equal opportunity (social democracy). Things like tuition free education is equal opportunity. You Americans think you have nothing to learn from other countries. Open your eyes!

You do know and understand that the corporate media belittles the left? They ignore if they can. That's why the left looks small. When TYT arranges a protest against money in politics, the corporate media doesn't cover it. So most people don't know these protests happen. When the corporate media can't ignore they smear: "Medicare for all will cost 32 trillion over 10 years - how are we going  to PAY for it??" leaving out that the current system costs MORE. Also it's funny how they are fiscally conservative ONLY when it is about improving peoples lives. There is ALWAYS money for wars and Wall Street bailouts, but when it's foods stamps for kids the money is hard to find.  :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 16, 2019, 04:45:02 AM
Quote from: JBS on July 15, 2019, 06:33:40 PM
Maybe by American standards European societies don't function better...
The US system is screwed up, but not in the way you think it is. By our standards, Europe in general suffers from government handling things it should not be handling. The Green New Deal is exactly the sort of thing that is anathema to how America works: government ordering people how to spend their money.



     This is a common American opinion, that solutions are the problems. But it operates as a generality, and falls apart when you get to cases. The government screws things up in general, but the services are essential when we get them. Only the most crankish want to give them back for "liberty", and only because they know they won't have to.

     It's also common to think European governments handle too many problems, like delivering health care and providing other services Americans have less of. Once again it's a generality. First class infrastructure isn't such a burden in countries that have it, and Nordic taxation can hardly be a burden in countries where it's practically illegal to be poor.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on July 16, 2019, 04:49:01 AM
Quote from: JBS on July 15, 2019, 10:35:28 AM
Donald J Trump wouldn't recognize a scientific fact even  if he fell into it.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 15, 2019, 12:21:30 PM
The President knows as much science as a toad knows algebra.
Guys, guys!!  Please!  Such language about our President!   :(  To the contrary, he is very intelligent.  In fact, President Trump is a genius, as confirmed in this tweet:

(https://i.postimg.cc/jSvJZ5Lf/Twitter-Trump-stable-genius.jpg)

Now back to the man-made climate change thing.  (71db will want to listen up.)  The Department of Physics and Astronomy, located at the Univ. of Turku in the country of Finland (somewhere in Europe :)), has very recently issued the results of a study that is getting a lot of press.  It is entitled, "No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change."  You can read the study here:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf)

Also, the study was briefly discussed on a prestigious current events TV program:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayUXpxWmzgg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayUXpxWmzgg)

Right again, President Trump!!  :-*

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 16, 2019, 06:58:37 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 16, 2019, 03:00:47 AM
The leftist solutions people like Kulinski proposes are very succesful in many countries. That's WHY they propose them in the first place. Lefty people like Kulinski want to improve the country, improve peoples lives. If Nordic countries are happier, have longer life expectancy, lower infant morality and so on, perhaps that's the way to go?

Popularity is one thing. Another thing is what is rational and morally right. Things can become more popular. I don't know under what rock have you lived, by lefty ideas have become more popular in the recent years. In 2016 Medicare for all was a "fringe" idea. Now isn't anymore even when the corporate media tries to smear it non-stop.

Medicare for all still is a fringe idea.  It would also suck up all the money in the US economy to pay for it, so it can't be cheaper. That's not a fringe idea, that's a fact.  It would lead to better health care for some people, but poorer health care for most people.   That too is a fact, and nothing Mr. Kulinski can say can change that. 

I have said it once before:  you don't accept Kulinski's assertions because they are fact based.  You accept them because you and he are both leftists, and you don't subject them to the scrutiny they deserve because you happen to like the policies.

If Nordic countries are happier, have longer life expectancy, lower infant morality

Two fatal flaws to your reasoning:  You are assuming those things would not happen without specific government action, and even more fundamentally, you're assuming it's government's job to ensure those things happen.  If you want to truly understand the American system, you need to understand the American system doesn't operate on those assumptions.  The American system is based on the premise that government's job is solely and simply to ensure that people can find their own means of happiness, prosperity, and health.  That's why the DOI says "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" instead of "life, liberty, and happiness".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 16, 2019, 07:26:18 AM
Quote from: JBS on July 16, 2019, 06:58:37 AM
Medicare for all still is a fringe idea.  It would also suck up all the money in the US economy to pay for it, so it can't be cheaper.



     When programs provide money it's the opposite of sucking money up. No country goes broke from big programs, party because money sovereigns can only go broke by external debt, not in their own currency.

     This is where the "how are you going to pay for it" types on the right and left are so off base. Stephanie Kelton said the truest thing ever: "Money doesn't grow on rich people". They get their money from everyone else. The rich don't fund all of us, we fund them, and net government spending funds us. I don't counterfeit dollars, neither does Amazon or Missouri. I don't issue "my own money", there are no Droguli, and I don't have the tax power to give them value.

     Spending for programs makes us rich. The idea of absolute cost, where the money for Medicare for all or the Green New Deal disappears after it's spent, is ridiculous. All of the biggest benefits will have the biggest costs. Unspent dollars are not saved, they don't exist. Nobody gets rich from undollars.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 16, 2019, 07:35:41 AM
Quote from: drogulus on July 16, 2019, 07:26:18 AM
     When programs provide money it's the opposite of sucking money up. No country goes broke from big programs, party because money sovereigns can only go broke by external debt, not in their own currency.

     This is where the "how are you going to pay for it" types on the right and left are so off base. Stephanie Kelton said the truest thing ever: "Money doesn't grow on rich people". They get their money from everyone else. The rich don't fund all of us, we fund them, and net government spending funds us. I don't counterfeit dollars, neither does Amazon or Missouri. I don't issue "my own money", there are no Droguli, and I don't have the tax power to give them value.

     Spending for programs makes us rich. The idea of absolute cost, where the money for Medicare for all or the Green New Deal disappears after it's spent, is ridiculous. All of the biggest benefits will have the biggest costs. Unspent dollars are not saved, they don't exist. Nobody gets rich from undollars.

Actually, we pay for all government spending.  That's what taxes are.  Taxes are not government taking back something it originally created.  Taxes are government taking something that it had no role in creating. [A generalization, of course, that ignores patents and regulation and so forth.]   Your salary does not come from the government, but from your employer, and your employer gets its money from its customers.  If the government happens to be the customer, it is merely paying your employer money it gets from taxpayers.

And there is not enough money in all the checking accounts, saving accounts, investment vehicles, and  401k portfolios to pay for Medicare for all would need to pay for.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 16, 2019, 08:08:37 AM
Quote from: Muzio on July 16, 2019, 04:49:01 AM
Guys, guys!!  Please!  Such language about our President!   :(  To the contrary, he is very intelligent.

I suffered secret misgivings at having slighted the intellect of the toad.  The comparison was perhaps injudicious.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 16, 2019, 08:20:17 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 16, 2019, 03:20:45 AM

I am sick an tired of being called a clueless non-American. If you don't see the value of what the left is doing in the US trying to restore democracy and trying to improve the country and people's lifes then you don't. I see it, because I don't live in a country where the media
brainwashes people to believe corporate profits is all that counts and if you don't make it in life it's all your own fault no matter how poor
family you come from. The left is not advocating equal outcomes (socialism). They are advocating equal opportunity (social democracy). Things like tuition free education is equal opportunity. You Americans think you have nothing to learn from other countries. Open your eyes!

I am indeed rich, but my riches are not of this world.

I do see the value, and I agree that it is important that the far left be part of the national conversation. But Americans will not be pushed towards happiness with an iron fist, either.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 16, 2019, 09:12:16 AM
Quote from: JBS on July 16, 2019, 07:35:41 AM
Actually, we pay for all government spending.  That's what taxes are.  Taxes are not government taking back something it originally created. 

     No, this is wrong. The taxes are paid from government spending. There is no initial condition of taxpayers having U.S. currency that was not first spent into existence. Taxes are used to control the value of dollars issued. If they aren't issued they can't be taxed. Only the government has the sovereign power to issue dollars, which it creates as it spends. Since we are permitted to keep many of them the private sector, all of us, can have positive savings, otherwise impossible. These saved dollars are sometimes called the national debt. All you have to do (as a thought experiment) is tax them all back to see if there are any "our own" dollars. Do you want to try this experiment?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 16, 2019, 09:39:44 AM
Quote from: Muzio on July 16, 2019, 04:49:01 AM
Now back to the man-made climate change thing.  (71db will want to listen up.)  The Department of Physics and Astronomy, located at the Univ. of Turku in the country of Finland (somewhere in Europe :)), has very recently issued the results of a study that is getting a lot of press.  It is entitled, "No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change."  You can read the study here:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf)

I am not a climate scientist so I need time to study this research and figure out what it means.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 16, 2019, 10:07:08 AM
Quote from: JBS on July 16, 2019, 06:58:37 AM
Medicare for all still is a fringe idea.  It would also suck up all the money in the US economy to pay for it, so it can't be cheaper. That's not a fringe idea, that's a fact.  It would lead to better health care for some people, but poorer health care for most people.   That too is a fact, and nothing Mr. Kulinski can say can change that. 

To you apparently, because you seem to be so throughly brainwashed by the corporate media. Can't be cheaper? How come the single payer systems of all other countries are much cheaper? How come even the Koch brother funded research about the fiscal effects of medicare for all says it would save money? Do you think we have poor healthcare in Finland? Do you think France has poor healthcare. Your brainwashing is much worse than I feared.  :o

Quote from: JBS on July 16, 2019, 06:58:37 AMI have said it once before:  you don't accept Kulinski's assertions because they are fact based.  You accept them because you and he are both leftists, and you don't subject them to the scrutiny they deserve because you happen to like the policies.

Yeah, I like the policies, but there's a reason why I like them. They are good policies. A healthcare system that covers everyone and is cheaper is better than a healthcare system that leaves millions uncovered or undercovered and causes medical bankruptcies. I just read somewhere a guy got accidentally an arrow to his knee. He didn't go to be treated, because he didn't have insurance. So, his knee got gangrene and his leg was amputated. So, now he has only one leg and $60.000 medical debt. What would you think happens in this kind of situation in single-payer countries? This happens: You get an arrow to your leg, you go to hospital (ambulance is free to 50 euros depending on the country). Your knee gets operated. The government pays for your rehabilitation program and a few months later you go back to work as a tax paying citizen. You have two legs and no debt. Excuse me, but I think the latter system makes more sense.

Quote from: JBS on July 16, 2019, 06:58:37 AMIf Nordic countries are happier, have longer life expectancy, lower infant morality

Two fatal flaws to your reasoning:  You are assuming those things would not happen without specific government action, and even more fundamentally, you're assuming it's government's job to ensure those things happen.  If you want to truly understand the American system, you need to understand the American system doesn't operate on those assumptions.  The American system is based on the premise that government's job is solely and simply to ensure that people can find their own means of happiness, prosperity, and health.  That's why the DOI says "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" instead of "life, liberty, and happiness".

The problem is that the American governent is NOT ensuring that people can find their own means of happiness, prosperity, and health. To find your happiness, prosperity, and health everybody needs some basic things like opportunity to get education and healthcare. Do you think European countries forve happiness on it's citizens? No, just provides basic things to allow discovery of happiness.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on July 16, 2019, 10:13:08 AM
Someone was playing Skyrim, but in real life? 😵
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: North Star on July 16, 2019, 10:14:16 AM
Quote from: Muzio on July 16, 2019, 04:49:01 AM
Guys, guys!!  Please!  Such language about our President!   :(  To the contrary, he is very intelligent.  In fact, President Trump is a genius, as confirmed in this tweet:

(https://i.postimg.cc/jSvJZ5Lf/Twitter-Trump-stable-genius.jpg)

Now back to the man-made climate change thing.  (71db will want to listen up.)  The Department of Physics and Astronomy, located at the Univ. of Turku in the country of Finland (somewhere in Europe :)), has very recently issued the results of a study that is getting a lot of press.  It is entitled, "No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change."  You can read the study here:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf)

Also, the study was briefly discussed on a prestigious current events TV program:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayUXpxWmzgg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayUXpxWmzgg)

Right again, President Trump!!  :-*

The Department of Physics and Astronomy of the University of Turku has not issued the study. It was published by an emeritus professor of optics in Energy & Environment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_%26_Environment), the journal's mission statement states that the publication's "objective is to inform across professional and disciplinary boundaries and debate the social, economic, political and technological implications of environmental controls, as well as interrogate the science claims made to justify environmental regulations of the energy industries, including transport."

QuoteThe journal is regarded as "a small journal that caters to climate change denialists".[10] It has played an important role in attacking climate science and scientists, for example Michael E. Mann.[11]

Several scientists and socials scientists such Gavin Schmidt, Roger A. Pielke, Jr. Stephan Lewandowsky and Michael Ashley, have criticised that E&E has low standards of peer review and little impact.[12][13] In addition, Ralph Keeling criticized a paper in the journal which claimed that CO2 levels were above 400 ppm in 1825, 1857 and 1942, writing in a letter to the editor, "Is it really the intent of E&E to provide a forum for laundering pseudo-science?"[12][14]

A 2005 article in Environmental Science & Technology stated that the journal is "obscure" and that "scientific claims made in Energy & Environment have little credibility among scientists."[11] Boehmer-Christiansen acknowledged that the journal's "impact rating has remained too low for many ambitious young researchers to use it", but blamed this on "the negative attitudes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)/Climatic Research Unit people."[15] According to Hans von Storch, the journal "tries to give people who do not have a platform a platform," which "is then attractive for skeptic papers. They know they can come through and that interested people make sure the paper enters the political realm."[11]

When asked about the publication in the Spring of 2003 of a revised version of the paper at the center of the Soon and Baliunas controversy, Boehmer-Christiansen said, "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?"[16]

Part of the journal's official mission statement reads: "E&E has consistently striven to publish many 'voices' and to challenge conventional wisdoms. Perhaps more so than other European energy journal, the editor has made E&E a forum for more sceptical analyses of 'climate change' and the advocated solutions".[7]

Here you can see how he managed to come to the wrong conclusions:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/12/new-paper-no-experimental-evidence-for-the-significant-anthropogenic-climate-change/
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/



But, of course, you take it as a confirmation of genius when someone who thinks Americans had an air force in the 18th century, says they are "not smart, but genius... and a very stable genius at that!" on Twitter. Usually, if you are stable, you don't have to go around telling people that, and the same goes for being a genius.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on July 16, 2019, 10:29:52 AM
Um, pretty sure that was a joke.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 16, 2019, 10:43:40 AM
Quote from: Muzio on July 16, 2019, 04:49:01 AM
Now back to the man-made climate change thing.  (71db will want to listen up.)  The Department of Physics and Astronomy, located at the Univ. of Turku in the country of Finland (somewhere in Europe :)), has very recently issued the results of a study that is getting a lot of press.  It is entitled, "No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change."  You can read the study here:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf)

Ok, I was too lazy to study the paper myself, but I Googled what climate science people say about it:

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/ (https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/)

So, we are talking about a non-peer-reviewed non-published and apparently flawed paper. Even if this study was accurate, the problem of climate change wouldn't dissappear. We would just need to figure out how to control low cloud cover instead of getting rid of CO2 emissions.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: North Star on July 16, 2019, 10:44:28 AM
Quote from: greg on July 16, 2019, 10:29:52 AM
Um, pretty sure that was a joke.
I didn't get the impression that it was intentionally funny.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 16, 2019, 10:56:06 AM
Quote from: North Star on July 16, 2019, 10:14:16 AM
The Department of Physics and Astronomy of the University of Turku has not issued the study.

So what is this about? What's the role of J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi? Are these individuals some kind of bought agents for energy industry? As a Finn I feel ashamed a Finnish university and personel are somehow (how?) involved in this kind of nonsense.  :o
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on July 16, 2019, 11:08:16 AM
Quote from: North Star on July 16, 2019, 10:44:28 AM
I didn't get the impression that it was intentionally funny.
Well, more like obvious sarcasm is what I meant. We all know Trump has ridiculous tweets.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 16, 2019, 12:50:23 PM
Quote from: North Star on July 16, 2019, 10:14:16 AM
The Department of Physics and Astronomy of the University of Turku has not issued the study. It was published by an emeritus professor of optics in Energy & Environment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_%26_Environment), the journal's mission statement states that the publication's "objective is to inform across professional and disciplinary boundaries and debate the social, economic, political and technological implications of environmental controls, as well as interrogate the science claims made to justify environmental regulations of the energy industries, including transport."

Here you can see how he managed to come to the wrong conclusions:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/12/new-paper-no-experimental-evidence-for-the-significant-anthropogenic-climate-change/
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/



But, of course, you take it as a confirmation of genius when someone who thinks Americans had an air force in the 18th century, says they are "not smart, but genius... and a very stable genius at that!" on Twitter. Usually, if you are stable, you don't have to go around telling people that, and the same goes for being a genius.

Thanks for the clarification.

Muzio is just a troll, is he not?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: North Star on July 16, 2019, 02:07:08 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 16, 2019, 10:56:06 AM
So what is this about? What's the role of J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi? Are these individuals some kind of bought agents for energy industry? As a Finn I feel ashamed a Finnish university and personel are somehow (how?) involved in this kind of nonsense.  :o
I have no idea, it seems he's had a long academic career and over a hundred publications in less interesting to the general public applications of optical sciences, and then a couple of climate change related papers, first one saying that half of the global warming is man-made, and then apparently even less according to his second paper..

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 16, 2019, 12:50:23 PM
Thanks for the clarification.

Muzio is just a troll, is he not?
It does seem that way.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 16, 2019, 05:35:42 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on July 16, 2019, 04:06:41 PM
Sanders losing the 'Bern' in New Hampshire: poll (https://nypost.com/2019/07/16/sanders-losing-the-bern-in-new-hampshire-poll/)

I love how quickly the NYT pounced on Sanders' poor showing here. Let me point out that this is a major outlier; he is usually in or tied for 2nd place. Sanders supposedly received only 3.4% of the 18-34 age demographic and 12.5% of 55-64. This makes absolutely no sense as millennials have always been where the majority of his support lies.
It makes a good deal of sense.
I think Sanders' only strength is that people remember him from 2016.
As people get more familiar with the other candidates, they will switch support to some of them.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 16, 2019, 05:38:53 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 16, 2019, 12:50:23 PM
Thanks for the clarification.

Muzio is just a troll, is he not?

Or at least a true Трамп идолопоклонник.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 16, 2019, 05:55:17 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 16, 2019, 10:07:08 AM
To you apparently, because you seem to be so throughly brainwashed by the corporate media. Can't be cheaper? How come the single payer systems of all other countries are much cheaper? How come even the Koch brother funded research about the fiscal effects of medicare for all says it would save money? Do you think we have poor healthcare in Finland? Do you think France has poor healthcare. Your brainwashing is much worse than I feared.  :o

Yeah, I like the policies, but there's a reason why I like them. They are good policies. A healthcare system that covers everyone and is cheaper is better than a healthcare system that leaves millions uncovered or undercovered and causes medical bankruptcies. I just read somewhere a guy got accidentally an arrow to his knee. He didn't go to be treated, because he didn't have insurance. So, his knee got gangrene and his leg was amputated. So, now he has only one leg and $60.000 medical debt. What would you think happens in this kind of situation in single-payer countries? This happens: You get an arrow to your leg, you go to hospital (ambulance is free to 50 euros depending on the country). Your knee gets operated. The government pays for your rehabilitation program and a few months later you go back to work as a tax paying citizen. You have two legs and no debt. Excuse me, but I think the latter system makes more sense.

The problem is that the American governent is NOT ensuring that people can find their own means of happiness, prosperity, and health. To find your happiness, prosperity, and health everybody needs some basic things like opportunity to get education and healthcare. Do you think European countries forve happiness on it's citizens? No, just provides basic things to allow discovery of happiness.

You correctly point out that American health care is more expensive.  That's not because of the insurance companies or the drug companies. They are responding to Medicare, the single payer insurance for people over 65. For decades the US government paid out money on behalf of seniors and they did it so freely prices naturally rose rapidly.  Even after the government started trying to control that rise, they went on rising.
Government is already the biggest spender in health care (figure I have seen is $700 Billion US for 2017), just for seniors. To expand that to cover everyone would require either diverting almost all tax revenue to that single program, or forcing drastic price cuts on everyone. Which in turn will mean drastic cuts to the care they receive.

That's why Medicare for all is not a realistic option.

BTW, don't feel sorry for that fellow with the arrow in his knee. If he couldn't in truth afford the several hundred dollars a visit to a private 24/7 emergency clinic (plenty of them around as they are relatively cheap alternatives to regular MDs and hospitals for people who don't normally need MDs) he could have gone to a public hospital, and recieved care as an indigent.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 16, 2019, 06:23:21 PM
Quote from: JBS on July 16, 2019, 05:35:42 PM
It makes a good deal of sense.
I think Sanders' only strength is that people remember him from 2016.
As people get more familiar with the other candidates, they will switch support to some of them.

You don't know as much as you think and you are interpreting this wrong. Please watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMywiBzVNsc) to learn.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 16, 2019, 06:37:56 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 16, 2019, 06:23:21 PM
You don't know as much as you think and you are interpreting this wrong. Please watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMywiBzVNsc) to learn.

As always, you are mistaking partisan advocacy for a presentation of facts.
Bernie is an old socialist who got wealthy as a politician doing the bidding of corporations. There are several much younger politicians who are just as much socialists as he is, who are not as beholden to the corporations you despise, and who are actual members of the Democratic Party, unlike Bernie (who joins the Party only when he wants to run for POTUS). He is not the only option to the anointed Establishment candidate, unlike 2016.  He won't even win the old white guy category. That will go to Biden.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 16, 2019, 06:38:34 PM
Quote from: JBS on July 16, 2019, 05:55:17 PM
You correctly point out that American health care is more expensive.  That's not because of the insurance companies or the drug companies. They are responding to Medicare, the single payer insurance for people over 65. For decades the US government paid out money on behalf of seniors and they did it so freely prices naturally rose rapidly.  Even after the government started trying to control that rise, they went on rising.
Government is already the biggest spender in health care (figure I have seen is $700 Billion US for 2017), just for seniors. To expand that to cover everyone would require either diverting almost all tax revenue to that single program, or forcing drastic price cuts on everyone. Which in turn will mean drastic cuts to the care they receive.

That's why Medicare for all is not a realistic option.

Medicare for all is a completely new thing. You can't extrapolate medicare costs. These things have been calculated, $32 trillion over 10 years = $3.2 trillion per year. As I said, even Koch brothers funded study made medicare for all cheaper than current system, other (better) studies even more.

All other developped countries do single payer. The reason the US doesn't also do is oligarchy. That's it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 16, 2019, 06:41:34 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 16, 2019, 06:38:34 PM
Medicare for all is a completely new thing. You can't extrapolate medicare costs. These things have been calculated, $32 trillion over 10 years = $3.2 trillion per year. As I said, even Koch brothers funded study made medicare for all cheaper than current system, other (better) studies even more.

All other developped countries do single payer. The reason the US doesn't also do is oligarchy. That's it.

It would be cheaper. It would be cheaper because it would deliver lower quality of care.
What the US public wants is cheaper health care but at a level of quality that is at least as good as now.
In geometry that problem is known as squaring the circle.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 16, 2019, 06:52:26 PM
Quote from: JBS on July 16, 2019, 06:37:56 PM
As always, you are mistaking partisan advocacy for a presentation of facts.
Bernie is an old socialist who got wealthy as a politician doing the bidding of corporations. There are several much younger politicians who are just as much socialists as he is, who are not as beholden to the corporations you despise, and who are actual members of the Democratic Party, unlike Bernie (who joins the Party only when he wants to run for POTUS). He is not the only option to the anointed Establishment candidate, unlike 2016.  He won't even win the old white guy category. That will go to Biden.

What the fuck are you talking about? Bernie got wealthy writing a book that sold well. We know this, because he showed his tax returns, something Trump hasn't done. Doing the bidding of corporations? What the FUCK? He is the last dude to do that. Was forcing Amazon and Disney to pay $15 to their workers doing the bidding of corporations? Also, Bernie is NOT a socialist. He is a social democrat who calls himself democratic socialist (yes, he fucked up with that terminology, unfortunately). Compared to other senators, Bernie's wealth is very modest. Bernie is not the only option, but he is the best option.

I have seen a lot of people on other forum like you. I have wrote these same fucking lectures 300 times all over the internet. Why do I even bother? If you american enjoy the oligarchy so much then KEEP IT. Just TRY to elect presidents who are not idiots.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 16, 2019, 06:59:12 PM
Quote from: JBS on July 16, 2019, 06:41:34 PM
It would be cheaper. It would be cheaper because it would deliver lower quality of care.
What the US public wants is cheaper health care but at a level of quality that is at least as good as now.
In geometry that problem is known as squaring the circle.

Except the care in single payer countries is not of lower quality. It depends on what things you emphasize, but the US healthcare system provides average care according to studies. Medicare for all would not affect the quality of care. It would cover everyone and drop the costs.

Squaring the circle has nothing to do with this. Removing the effects of oligarchy is what this is about.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 16, 2019, 08:09:24 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 16, 2019, 06:52:26 PM
What the fuck are you talking about? Bernie got wealthy writing a book that sold well. We know this, because he showed his tax returns, something Trump hasn't done. Doing the bidding of corporations? What the FUCK? He is the last dude to do that. Was forcing Amazon and Disney to pay $15 to their workers doing the bidding of corporations? Also, Bernie is NOT a socialist. He is a social democrat who calls himself democratic socialist (yes, he fucked up with that terminology, unfortunately). Compared to other senators, Bernie's wealth is very modest. Bernie is not the only option, but he is the best option.

I have seen a lot of people on other forum like you. I have wrote these same fucking lectures 300 times all over the internet. Why do I even bother? If you american enjoy the oligarchy so much then KEEP IT. Just TRY to elect presidents who are not idiots.

Bernie was wealthy long before he wrote that book. Check into his career as mayor/local politician, and you will understand better.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on July 16, 2019, 08:27:27 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 16, 2019, 06:59:12 PM
Except the care in single payer countries is not of lower quality. It depends on what things you emphasize, but the US healthcare system provides average care according to studies. Medicare for all would not affect the quality of care. It would cover everyone and drop the costs.

Squaring the circle has nothing to do with this. Removing the effects of oligarchy is what this is about.
American health care is lower quality than that of many other countries that use a single payer system (eg Canada, Cuba, France, Germany, etc) or some kind of public-private partnership where point of service healthcare costs are subsidised (eg Switzerland, etc). Apart from a few specialist research hospitals/clinics which are competitive on a world class level, the rest of the US's healthcare system is generally considered subpar. We can see this from looking at where the super rich travel for medical tourism—it's largely places like France, Switzerland, Israel, Belgium etc.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 16, 2019, 08:39:37 PM
Quote from: JBS on July 16, 2019, 08:09:24 PM
Bernie was wealthy long before he wrote that book. Check into his career as mayor/local politician, and you will understand better.

Now three houses is a problem? Jesus.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on July 16, 2019, 09:21:18 PM
And Trump is a billionaire. Do you really think the country cares about a president's wealth? Sanders has consistently been on the right side of issues, even when the legislature does not benefit him.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 16, 2019, 09:58:28 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on July 16, 2019, 09:21:18 PM
Sanders has consistently been on the right side of issues, even when the legislature does not benefit him.

That's what I have heard.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on July 16, 2019, 10:10:29 PM
If you have an hour:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YYSlyyOXA4
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 17, 2019, 01:21:16 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on July 16, 2019, 09:24:33 PM
B O O M (https://splinternews.com/b-o-o-m-1836430588)

Try that on for size.

Sanders 1974 complained about the problem, while Sanders 2020 proposed (again) a massive governmental regulation that doesn't actually work.
Biden 1975 identified the solution: fix the schools.

Quote from: schnittkease on July 16, 2019, 09:21:18 PM
And Trump is a billionaire. Do you really think the country cares about a president's wealth? Sanders has consistently been on the right side of issues, even when the legislature does not benefit him.

I referred to Sanders' wealth as an indication that he is in fact just another politician  making his money from the corrupt practices you complain about. (And how many working class people you know own three houses?)

Sanders has been consistently on the right side only if you think that the right side involves increased government subsidies (=government interference via deciding who gets the subsidies), regulation and price fixing. IOW, consistently on left side.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on July 18, 2019, 01:03:31 AM
Quote from: JBS on July 17, 2019, 01:21:16 PM
Sanders 1974 complained about the problem, while Sanders 2020 proposed (again) a massive governmental regulation that doesn't actually work.
Biden 1975 identified the solution: fix the schools.

I referred to Sanders' wealth as an indication that he is in fact just another politician  making his money from the corrupt practices you complain about. (And how many working class people you know own three houses?)

Sanders has been consistently on the right side only if you think that the right side involves increased government subsidies (=government interference via deciding who gets the subsidies), regulation and price fixing. IOW, consistently on left side.

Sanders' housing plan is very similar to Warren's, and it does work.

Where does Biden 'identify the solution'? I think you are putting words in his mouth:

"The new integration plans being offered are really just quota-systems to assure a certain number of blacks, Chicanos, or whatever in each school," Biden apparently told a TV reporter in 1975.

"That, to me, is the most racist concept you can come up with," Biden added. "What it says is, in order for your child with curly black hair, brown eyes, and dark skin to be able to learn anything, he needs to sit next to my blond-haired, blue-eyed son. That's racist! Who the hell do we think we are, that the only way a black man or woman can learn is if they rub shoulders with my white child?"

No, Sanders is not making any money off of corrupt practices. If you recall his tax returns from the 2016 campaign, he earned $205,271 in 2014 (most of that being from the Senate salary) while Clinton earned $28 million in the same year. Yes, he wrote a few books in the meantime and become wealthier, but I stress that none of the money profited off of corruption. Sanders is not in the "working class" (NO politician is) but that's who he fights for.

I guess you're one of those people that thinks opposing the Iraq War is a "leftist solution."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 18, 2019, 03:30:46 AM
Quote from: schnittkease on July 16, 2019, 10:10:29 PM
If you have an hour:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YYSlyyOXA4

Watching this felt 30 minutes. Nothing new to me really, but Bernie shines when he can use time to explain things (to ignorant people). He is not as good in answering quick silly 30 seconds "YES" or "NO" questions.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 18, 2019, 03:54:53 AM
Trump's presidency has been hard for me, because it made me follow American politics closely. Lerning about the US politics and society has been devastating. I knew that a portion of Americans are ignorant, uneducated and dumb, to the level od idiocracy we find ourselves is mind-blowing. The way the corporate media has brainwashed people is mindblowing. The way oligarchy has decimated the middle class is mindblowing. We have flat-earthers, young earth believers, anti-vaxxers, evolution deniers, climate change deniers, trickle-down effect-believers, LGBT haters, xenophobes, racists and so on. How did this happen? Where is enlightment? Did it expire after 600 years? Where is reason and intelligence? When I was young (and naive) I thought mankind goes forward, not backwards. I don't know what mankind is doing. What is the vision? This is lunacy. We fight each other holding idiotic beliefs and destroy the planet in the process.

I can deal with the fact that there's always dumb, uneducated and ignorant people, but there are just so many of them and Koch brothers spend their money to keep these people ignorant. That is so utterly immoral I have no words. That is literally work of Satan. Koch brothers could do so much good with their money if they were normal human beings with empathy.

Even in a board dedicated to CLASSICAL MUSIC I am not safe from dumb people and I have to suffer reading posts from people like JBS who thinks Bernie Sanders is corrupt. Of all American senators Bernie is the corrupt one? Jesus Christ! This is just inbearable!  ???
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 18, 2019, 04:05:36 AM
Quote from: JBS on July 17, 2019, 01:21:16 PM


Sanders has been consistently on the right side only if you think that the right side involves increased government subsidies (=government interference via deciding who gets the subsidies), regulation and price fixing. IOW, consistently on left side.

      That's not the only way to be on the right side but it may be the default way to use subsidies and regulations. Governments exist to come up with ways, calling it interference is a little bit mischievous IMV, as if the governments concerns were some strictly defined set of functions that include no means of promoting the general welfare.

      What better way exists to get right side results other than "interfering"? What alternative is involved? What would real "repeal and replace" solutions look like for government functions? We will never know.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 18, 2019, 04:11:54 AM
I think I am becoming the Mike Malloy (https://www.youtube.com/user/hschulein) of Finland... ...I feel I am equally pissed off about what's going on.  >:(
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 18, 2019, 06:52:59 AM

Quote from: schnittkease on July 18, 2019, 01:03:31 AM
Sanders' housing plan is very similar to Warren's, and it does work.

Where does Biden 'identify the solution'? I think you are putting words in his mouth:

"The new integration plans being offered are really just quota-systems to assure a certain number of blacks, Chicanos, or whatever in each school," Biden apparently told a TV reporter in 1975.

"That, to me, is the most racist concept you can come up with," Biden added. "What it says is, in order for your child with curly black hair, brown eyes, and dark skin to be able to learn anything, he needs to sit next to my blond-haired, blue-eyed son. That's racist! Who the hell do we think we are, that the only way a black man or woman can learn is if they rub shoulders with my white child?"

No, Sanders is not making any money off of corrupt practices. If you recall his tax returns from the 2016 campaign, he earned $205,271 in 2014 (most of that being from the Senate salary) while Clinton earned $28 million in the same year. Yes, he wrote a few books in the meantime and become wealthier, but I stress that none of the money profited off of corruption. Sanders is not in the "working class" (NO politician is) but that's who he fights for.

I guess you're one of those people that thinks opposing the Iraq War is a "leftist solution."

I was a student in the era of forced busing, although I wasn't one of the kids who was bused. 
If your goal is fixing the mess that is inner city schools...which is what Biden was actually talking about...busing did not work. In fact it probably made the problem worse.

For your information, the Iraq War is a classic Leftist program: big government planning a giant program using ideas that  have no basis in reality, spending loads of money to do so, and then blaming the failures on bad implementation instead of acknowledging it was a bad idea from start to finish. The fact that the GOP backs it merely demonstrates how the GOP likes big government.

Fair housing is another such program: government deciding who can live where without reference to anything in reality.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 18, 2019, 07:04:35 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 18, 2019, 03:54:53 AM
Trump's presidency has been hard for me, because it made me follow American politics closely. Lerning about the US politics and society has been devastating. I knew that a portion of Americans are ignorant, uneducated and dumb, to the level od idiocracy we find ourselves is mind-blowing. The way the corporate media has brainwashed people is mindblowing. The way oligarchy has decimated the middle class is mindblowing. We have flat-earthers, young earth believers, anti-vaxxers, evolution deniers, climate change deniers, trickle-down effect-believers, LGBT haters, xenophobes, racists and so on. How did this happen? Where is enlightment? Did it expire after 600 years? Where is reason and intelligence? When I was young (and naive) I thought mankind goes forward, not backwards. I don't know what mankind is doing. What is the vision? This is lunacy. We fight each other holding idiotic beliefs and destroy the planet in the process.

I can deal with the fact that there's always dumb, uneducated and ignorant people, but there are just so many of them and Koch brothers spend their money to keep these people ignorant. That is so utterly immoral I have no words. That is literally work of Satan. Koch brothers could do so much good with their money if they were normal human beings with empathy.

Even in a board dedicated to CLASSICAL MUSIC I am not safe from dumb people and I have to suffer reading posts from people like JBS who thinks Bernie Sanders is corrupt. Of all American senators Bernie is the corrupt one? Jesus Christ! This is just inbearable!  ???

Familiarize yourself with Bernie's preSenate career, and you will understand better.

But step back a moment.
You want Trump to be defeated in 2020. So do I.
To do that, you need a candidate whom people will vote for.
They won't vote for a progressive candidate. Progressive ideas are not popular, especially when mixed in with the social justice issues that so pre-occupies the Left today. Anyone who says otherwise is spouting bosh.
Whether you like them or not, the policies you label as corporatist [they are not in fact, for the most part] are the sort of policies that appeal to American voters. They will vote for a candidate who will let them get the public option health care if they want. [Biden!]  They will not vote for a candidate who wants them to only have the public option [anyone backing Medicare for all.]
And so on.
Think of it this way: any candidate who appeals to you is too far left, and will lose to Trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 18, 2019, 08:18:00 AM
Quote from: JBS on July 18, 2019, 07:04:35 AM
Think of it this way: any candidate who appeals to you is too far left, and will lose to Trump.

That is the nub.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 18, 2019, 09:00:29 AM
    We need bigness and planning and government. The scale is determined by the size of the tasks to be accomplished. The failure of a big government plan does not delegitimize bigness or planning or government. We have to do better and learn from mistakes, get back up and plan to be big again. There really isn't a choice in this. If "shrink to grow" economics could produce a path forward we'd know long before now.

     We get richer by spending enough money to solve problems big enough to justify the cost. The cost is itself part of the benefit as the economy gets the money for more than a one time use. That's how a money economy works, the money spent to fix a problem is spent on and that drives the economy

     The Green New Deal will happen, perhaps with a less scary name. It will be gigantic. Rather than "cost" the economy it will drive it towards a richer future. I saw some shrinky economic analysis about how much the GND would subtract from GDP! The biggest spending program of all time will use one time dollars apparently. Where they go? I'm a patient guy but sometimes I wonder.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 18, 2019, 09:14:45 AM

     The idea of the public option was opposed for precisely the reason it was supported, that its superiority would doom the current version of private insurance, which would have to transform itself into a Medicare Advantage model. Private plans would exist for as long as people wanted them and insurance companies offered them. I have one. It's the highest rated in Massachusetts. You don't have to live in my state to get a plan like this, people all over the country have them. About a third of Medicare recipients have them, ~20 million people.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 18, 2019, 09:37:32 AM
Quote from: drogulus on July 18, 2019, 09:00:29 AM
    We need bigness and planning and government. The scale is determined by the size of the tasks to be accomplished. The failure of a big government plan does not delegitimize bigness or planning or government. We have to do better and learn from mistakes, get back up and plan to be big again. There really isn't a choice in this. If "shrink to grow" economics could produce a path forward we'd know long before now.

     We get richer by spending enough money to solve problems big enough to justify the cost. The cost is itself part of the benefit as the economy gets the money for more than a one time use. That's how a money economy works, the money spent to fix a problem is spent on and that drives the economy

     The Green New Deal will happen, perhaps with a less scary name. It will be gigantic. Rather than "cost" the economy it will drive it towards a richer future. I saw some shrinky economic analysis about how much the GND would subtract from GDP! The biggest spending program of all time will use one time dollars apparently. Where they go? I'm a patient guy but sometimes I wonder.

You sometimes read like a parody of yourself.

The GND would be gigantic, and in the form AOC wants, wreck the economy by forcing people to buy stuff they don't want and banning them from buying stuff they do want. And have no useful impact on man made emissions.

I read today that Berkeley has banned any future home building from using natural gas in the name of controlling emissions. So they have decided that Berkeleyites will have no opportunity to decide for themselves what best lowers emissions (and obviously, they think natural gas technology will never produce less emissions than their preferred mode, electricity. I suppose they have not bothered to  examine the emission costs of electricity.)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on July 18, 2019, 09:40:47 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 18, 2019, 03:54:53 AM
Koch brothers could do so much good with their money if they were normal human beings with empathy.
Koch Brothers will not be supporting Trump for 2020, as the KB agenda includes increased immigration, laxity on crime enforcement, etc.  Of course, Trump said (soon after winning the 2016 election) that he had not seen any of the Koch money during his run.  I have read that the KB team will be throwing their 2020 $ behind 'moderate Democrats.'
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 18, 2019, 10:03:56 AM
Quote from: Muzio on July 18, 2019, 09:40:47 AM
Koch Brothers will not be supporting Trump for 2020, as the KB agenda includes increased immigration, laxity on crime enforcement, etc.  Of course, Trump said (soon after winning the 2016 election) that he had not seen any of the Koch money during his run.  I have read that the KB team will be throwing their 2020 $ behind 'moderate Democrats.'

The Kochs are libertarian conservatives who actually don't like big government.
Trump is an authoritarian conservative, and therefore likes big government. He is actually much more like the Leftists he despises than he or any Trumpnik will ever admit.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 18, 2019, 10:05:53 AM
Quote from: JBS on July 18, 2019, 09:37:32 AM

The GND would be gigantic, and in the form AOC wants, wreck the economy by forcing people to buy stuff they don't want and banning them from buying stuff they do want. And have no useful impact on man made emissions.



     Of course it will be gigantic. It's a gigantic problem. No ideology will make it small. If you're waiting for proof, it's here. The Repub plan is to deny the problem. How clever is that? What will that cost?

     Do I want to be forced to buy clean energy and pay my share of a carbon tax? Given the alternative the answer is an unequivocal yes. The alternative is far worse, and just as forced if we're dumb enough to slouch our way towards it. If you want to measure a devastating cost to GDP you have to look at what happens if we don't spend gigantic dollars, not if we do.

     No doubt we'll have to do lots of tacking back and forth on which measures make the most sense. My hope is nuclear power plays a significant part because that makes the odds a plan will be effective much higher. Early versions of the GND have included wish list items from Greenies stuck in "no nukes" nostalgia. Sorry, guys, hard choices have to be made, and this is one of them.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 18, 2019, 10:15:29 AM
Quote from: drogulus on July 18, 2019, 10:05:53 AM
     Of course it will be gigantic. It's a gigantic problem. No ideology will make it small. If you're waiting for proof, it's here. The Repub plan is to deny the problem. How clever is that? What will that cost?

     Do I want to be forced to buy clean energy and pay my share of a carbon tax? Given the alternative the answer is an unequivocal yes. The alternative is far worse, and just as forced if we're dumb enough to slouch our way towards it. If you want to measure a devastating cost to GDP you have to look at what happens if we don't spend gigantic dollars, not if we do.

     No doubt we'll have to do lots of tacking back and forth on which measures make the most sense. My hope is nuclear power plays a significant part because that makes the odds a plan will be effective much higher. Early versions of the GND have included wish list items from Greenies stuck in "no nukes" nostalgia. Sorry, guys, hard choices have to be made, and this is one of them.

In that case I am sure you won't mind paying my carbon tax for me.

I do agree with on the desireability of nuclear power.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 18, 2019, 10:30:36 AM
Quote from: JBS on July 18, 2019, 10:03:56 AM
The Kochs are libertarian conservatives who actually don't like big government.


    Not liking big government is highly overrated. Libertarianism is a cause for a fringe group that have no use for practicality. It's a jumped up thought experiment, self-limiting since people can't be harangued into thinking it's a good idea. In idea terms it falls into the category of "not even false".

Quote from: JBS on July 18, 2019, 10:15:29 AM
In that case I am sure you won't mind paying my carbon tax for me.

I do agree with on the desireability of nuclear power.

     If you agree to forgo the benefits of the spending I'll pay the tax. Generally I favor big programs that send money into the economy, so it would be churlish of me to claim that somehow the tax on the increase robs me.  Big plans are behind big gains. The tax of some of that gain is a bargain. Yes, it's more expensive to get richer than to stay poor (in nominal terms, that is), but does that mean it's not worth it? I say tax me baby, tax me all night longgg!!

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on July 18, 2019, 12:14:07 PM
Quote from: JBS on July 18, 2019, 10:03:56 AM
The Kochs are libertarian conservatives who actually don't like big government.
Trump is an authoritarian conservative, and therefore likes big government. He is actually much more like the Leftists he despises than he or any Trumpnik will ever admit.
I think your assessments about the President are profoundly misguided.  But no useless argumentation from me. :) 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on July 18, 2019, 01:38:14 PM
Quote from: JBS on July 18, 2019, 07:04:35 AM
Think of it this way: any candidate who appeals to you is too far left, and will lose to Trump.

Sanders leads Trump in the vast majority of polls, just like in 2016. Biden is a corporate centrist that will be ripped to shreds by Trump (that's why the President wants him to be the nominee).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 18, 2019, 01:48:18 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on July 18, 2019, 01:38:14 PM
Biden is a corporate centrist that will be ripped to shreds by Trump (that's why the President wants him to be the nominee).

Setting aside Trump's self-delusion. he doesn't rip anybody to anything like shreds, he just trolls, to throw red meat to the trumpkins.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 18, 2019, 01:58:13 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on July 18, 2019, 01:38:14 PM
Sanders leads Trump in the vast majority of polls, just like in 2016. Biden is a corporate centrist that will be ripped to shreds by Trump (that's why the President wants him to be the nominee).

Trump wants Biden because Trump knows that a lot of leftists won't vote for him because he's too much of a moderate. Just like they didn't vote for Hillary. But he'll be happy to run against any of the others and make use of their leftism.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on July 18, 2019, 02:51:52 PM
I'm tired of this false narrative that Hillary lost the election because of Sanders. In 2008 it was "Obama's Boys" and now it's "Bernie Bros." Sanders did 39 rallies for Clinton in 13 states over the final three months of the 2016 general election alone. 9/10 Sanders supporters voted for Clinton, and even if she got all of them she wouldn't have won. The truth is that Hillary shot herself in the foot. First off, she rigged the primaries by buying the DNC out of a $2 million debt. There were the meaningless and vacuous platitudes utilized in countless speeches and ads. Labeling Trump supporters as sexist, racist, misogynistic, islamophobic, anti-semitic, homophobic, etc., wasn't a good idea, was it? She spent literally no time in Wisconsin, whereas Trump campaigned there repeatedly; Wisconsin turned red. Three days before the election, Tim Kaine tweeted: "Thinking about my daughter right now. No little girl will ever again have to wonder whether she, too, can be president." Arrogance.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 18, 2019, 05:13:12 PM
Quote from: JBS on July 18, 2019, 07:04:35 AM
Familiarize yourself with Bernie's preSenate career, and you will understand better.

But step back a moment.
You want Trump to be defeated in 2020. So do I.
To do that, you need a candidate whom people will vote for.
They won't vote for a progressive candidate. Progressive ideas are not popular, especially when mixed in with the social justice issues that so pre-occupies the Left today. Anyone who says otherwise is spouting bosh.
Whether you like them or not, the policies you label as corporatist [they are not in fact, for the most part] are the sort of policies that appeal to American voters. They will vote for a candidate who will let them get the public option health care if they want. [Biden!]  They will not vote for a candidate who wants them to only have the public option [anyone backing Medicare for all.]
And so on.
Think of it this way: any candidate who appeals to you is too far left, and will lose to Trump.

HILLARY LOST. BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON!
HOW DIFFICULT IS THIS TO UNDERSTAND???

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 18, 2019, 05:18:11 PM
I just can't take this anymore!!!!!! We see in time who wins who. I am TRIED. I do other things.

Now I get Harry: don't waste energy on trying to convince others.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on July 18, 2019, 05:26:07 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 18, 2019, 05:13:12 PM
HILLARY LOST. BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON!
HOW DIFFICULT IS THIS TO UNDERSTAND???


That is by no means a certainty.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 18, 2019, 05:29:05 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on July 18, 2019, 02:51:52 PM
I'm tired of this false narrative that Hillary lost the election because of Sanders. In 2008 it was "Obama's Boys" and now it's "Bernie Bros." Sanders did 39 rallies for Clinton in 13 states over the final three months of the 2016 general election alone. 9/10 Sanders supporters voted for Clinton, and even if she got all of them she wouldn't have won. The truth is that Hillary shot herself in the foot. First off, she rigged the primaries by buying the DNC out of a $2 million debt. There were the meaningless and vacuous platitudes utilized in countless speeches and ads. Labeling Trump supporters as sexist, racist, misogynistic, islamophobic, anti-semitic, homophobic, etc., wasn't a good idea, was it? She spent literally no time in Wisconsin, whereas Trump campaigned there repeatedly; Wisconsin turned red. Three days before the election, Tim Kaine tweeted: "Thinking about my daughter right now. No little girl will ever again have to wonder whether she, too, can be president." Arrogance.

You forgot to mention that she is actually as corrupt as Trump.
I'm not saying Bernie voters did not vote for her. But there was a perceptible lack of enthusiasm. You mention Wisconsin. She actually lost that state by about 20, 000 votes....8/10 of 1 percent of the vote. About 30,000 people in Wisconsin voted for Jill Stein.  How many of those were Bernie backers?

FWIW, I voted for neither Clinton nor Trump. I have voted Libertarian in every Presidential race since 2004.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 18, 2019, 05:37:20 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 18, 2019, 05:13:12 PM
HILLARY LOST. BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON!
HOW DIFFICULT IS THIS TO UNDERSTAND???


Highly debateable. He might have won states she lost, but would have lost states she won. And only against Trump. Another Republican would have gathered in dissatisfied Hillaryites and all the people who couldn't stand Trump but never vote Democratic.

Obama is the most leftward POTUS in American history. And he won in large part because blacks turned out in high numbers, a lot of whites thought it was high time a black became President, and--very importantly--he campaigned as much more moderate/ centrist than he really was.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 18, 2019, 06:13:52 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on July 18, 2019, 02:51:52 PM
I'm tired of this false narrative that Hillary lost the election because of Sanders.

And who said this?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 18, 2019, 06:15:49 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on July 18, 2019, 05:26:07 PM
That is by no means a certainty.

Indeed; that should not be too difficult to understand.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 18, 2019, 07:03:59 PM
Speaking of Bernie
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/labor-fight-roils-bernie-sanders-campaign-as-workers-demand-the-15-hourly-pay-the-candidate-has-proposed-for-employees-nationwide/2019/07/18/3a6df9f4-a966-11e9-9214-246e594de5d5_story.html
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on July 18, 2019, 11:07:04 PM
Quote from: JBS on July 18, 2019, 07:03:59 PM
Speaking of Bernie
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/labor-fight-roils-bernie-sanders-campaign-as-workers-demand-the-15-hourly-pay-the-candidate-has-proposed-for-employees-nationwide/2019/07/18/3a6df9f4-a966-11e9-9214-246e594de5d5_story.html

Looks to me like a fairly standard negotiation process that is being reported on prematurely. Important that Warren and others pay their interns precisely $0 an hour.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 19, 2019, 03:31:34 AM
Quote from: JBS on July 18, 2019, 05:37:20 PM
Obama is the most leftward POTUS in American history. And he won in large part because blacks turned out in high numbers, a lot of whites thought it was high time a black became President, and--very importantly--he campaigned as much more moderate/ centrist than he really was.

In economic issues FDR was clearly more left than Obama.
In social issues maybe not, but the World has changed a lot since FDR so it's not really fair to compare.
Obama campaigned kind of leftist and governed as a moderate / centrist.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 19, 2019, 03:35:29 AM
Quote from: JBS on July 18, 2019, 07:03:59 PM
Speaking of Bernie
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/labor-fight-roils-bernie-sanders-campaign-as-workers-demand-the-15-hourly-pay-the-candidate-has-proposed-for-employees-nationwide/2019/07/18/3a6df9f4-a966-11e9-9214-246e594de5d5_story.html

I don't want to hassle with the European data protection (internet used to be simple, free and open...) so I didn't read this, but I think it's WP smearing Bernie Sanders by NOT writing about other candidates about same issues to give an impression ONLY Bernie has problems of some kind. The same was done with the sexual harassment thing: They wrote about sexual harassment in Bernies campaign while NOT writing about campaigns of OTHER candidates AS IF sexual harassment ONLY happened in Bernies campaign. Of course NOT.

WP and rest of the corporate media can go to HELL!! Fuck them!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 19, 2019, 05:52:25 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 19, 2019, 03:35:29 AM
I don't want to hassle with the European data protection (internet used to be simple, free and open...) so I didn't read this, but I think it's WP smearing Bernie Sanders by NOT writing about other candidates ...

You realize the folly of offering an opinion on something you haven't read?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 19, 2019, 08:19:36 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 19, 2019, 05:52:25 AM
You realize the folly of offering an opinion on something you haven't read?

Yes, but that's what I have to do unless people actually QUOTE here the text behind paywalls/European data protection bs. It's not anymore 2002 when you just gave the link and anyone anywhere had effortless access to it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on July 19, 2019, 09:52:42 AM
I did read the article, and it was a typical hit-piece by WaPo. The workers are being paid 17/h but since they are now working around 60h/week (they had contracts for 40h/week) the effective hourly rate drops. Negotiations are taking place.

Warren found a loophole to avoid paying her interns anything, but no one talks about that, do they?

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 19, 2019, 10:13:58 AM
Quote from: schnittkease on July 19, 2019, 09:52:42 AM
I did read the article, and it was a typical hit-piece by WaPo. The workers are being paid 17/h but since they are now working around 60h/week (they had contracts for 40h/week) the effective hourly rate drops. Negotiations are taking place.

Warren found a loophole to avoid paying her interns anything, but no one talks about that, do they?



Perhaps they're volunteers? Just a thought.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 19, 2019, 12:52:35 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on July 19, 2019, 09:52:42 AM
I did read the article, and it was a typical hit-piece by WaPo. The workers are being paid 17/h but since they are now working around 60h/week (they had contracts for 40h/week) the effective hourly rate drops. Negotiations are taking place.

Warren found a loophole to avoid paying her interns anything, but no one talks about that, do they?

In this case the unionized workers are staff workers, not interns.
I do find it amusing in a bittersweet way that you and 71db agree with Trump on at least one thing. You don't like the WaPo. It seems you are judging the messenger, not the message. If a reporter does the job correctly, every piece should be a hit piece. The candidate will make sure to present everything good about himself. It's the job of the media to make sure the public is informed about everything the csndidate doesn't want to known. Showing Bernie's practices don't match his rhetoric is what the Post should be doing. If Warren's practice are similarly mismatched, they should report on that. But that doesn't mean they should not report on Bernie's flaws.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on July 19, 2019, 03:17:29 PM
Quote from: JBS on July 19, 2019, 12:52:35 PM
In this case the unionized workers are staff workers, not interns.
I do find it amusing in a bittersweet way that you and 71db agree with Trump on at least one thing. You don't like the WaPo. It seems you are judging the messenger, not the message. If a reporter does the job correctly, every piece should be a hit piece. The candidate will make sure to present everything good about himself. It's the job of the media to make sure the public is informed about everything the csndidate doesn't want to known. Showing Bernie's practices don't match his rhetoric is what the Post should be doing. If Warren's practice are similarly mismatched, they should report on that. But that doesn't mean they should not report on Bernie's flaws.

I agree that every piece should be a hit-piece. That's not what's happening. Bernie's campaign is paying their staff workers $17/hr on the assumption that they were working 40hr weeks. Obviously, this is not the case anymore, so negotiations are taking place. The media outlets are portaying the situation as if Bernie is opposed to any compensation whatsoever.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 19, 2019, 03:47:20 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on July 19, 2019, 03:17:29 PM
I agree that every piece should be a hit-piece. That's not what's happening. Bernie's campaign is paying their staff workers $17/hr on the assumption that they were working 40hr weeks. Obviously, this is not the case anymore, so negotiations are taking place. The media outlets are portaying the situation as if Bernie is opposed to any compensation whatsoever.

No, they are portraying it as if Bernie is underpaying them for a 60 hour week and giving them no help with health insurance benefits. Which is pretty close to the facts.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on July 26, 2019, 05:29:47 PM
GOP Insiders Fear Kamala Could Be The Next Obama (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/07/gop-insiders-fear-kamala-harris)

"About the time Kamala Harris finished slicing and dicing Joe Biden, like Ed Valenti demonstrating a Ginsu knife, my cell phone started pinging with Republican operatives saying, in effect, "I told you so."

For months I've been in contact with a group of senior Republican strategists keeping tabs on Donald Trump and the party's view of the unfolding Democratic presidential primary. Since the beginning of the campaign, these people have been worried that Biden constituted the biggest political threat to Trump's reelection. Early public opinion polls certainly lend credibility to their concerns. But a smaller, though equally distinguished group of Republican operatives in my Rolodex, a sort of GOP cult of Kamala, had been insisting for weeks that Harris was being radically underestimated. With her surgical vivisection of Biden in the first debate, it seemed their fears had been realized. Now, as Democrats prepare for a second round of debates next week, these strategists are raising the alarm.

"I think she's dangerous, and probably maybe the most dangerous, from our view," a veteran Republican political consultant told me this month. "She theoretically would do very well with African American turnout and end up being positioned as a Vienna Soccer Mom." In case you're wondering, that's Vienna, Virginia, an upscale bedroom community just west of Washington, D.C., that has accelerated its drift from the Republican orbit since a certain former reality-television star secured the Republican nomination three years ago. Suburbs just like it in critical battlegrounds could hand the White House back to the Democratic Party in 2020.

"She made a mistake with private health care," this Republican operative conceded, referring to Harris's serial flip-flops on Medicare for All and whether her plans for overhauling health care would lead to the abolition of private insurance. "But she doesn't come across as a nutjob."

Harris, 54, is California's junior U.S. senator and former state attorney general. She might have more natural political skill than any of her competitors for the Democratic nomination. She certainly checks more boxes—African American, woman, racially diverse, a legitimate strength in a party occasionally obsessed with identity politics. Harris also is something of a Washington outsider, or could claim to be, at least, having served in Congress for less than three years. Unlike Biden, she has not spent decades on Capitol Hill making tough choices or agreeing to imperfect compromises.

If any of this rings familiar, it's because it is. The last Democrat to win the presidency, Barack Obama, was all of those things, save for the obvious. That is why some Republicans take it as an article of faith that by the time the Democrats gather in Milwaukee a little less than a year from now to coronate their nominee, Harris will be the guest of honor. Who else could they possibly nominate? some Republicans have told me, convinced. But in dismantling Biden on the big stage in Miami, Harris showcased how she might earn it—and why next week's debate in Detroit could be decisive.

Not everyone buys the idea that Harris is the next Obama, superficial similarities aside. "She's overrated," says a Republican grandee who still has battle scars from run-ins with the 44th president. "Obama had authenticity. She doesn't." Another Republican strategist who doesn't buy the the hype called Harris "terrible" and "a disaster."

But some dialed-in Republicans described Harris as a serious threat. "I have long been most concerned about Harris. I think she has an appeal to the Scottsdale soccer mom who is a registered Republican. Between her appeal and Trump's women problems, she has probably already won those voters," said an experienced Republican consultant in Arizona, an emerging battleground that sent a Democrat to the U.S. Senate in 2018 for the first time in a generation and is ground zero for suburban discontent with Trump. "But I also think she does better amongst Independents who generally split ideologically in Arizona," this GOP insider added. "Independents are just sick of everything, and her no-nonsense approach would have appeal broadly, and even to some white Independent and GOP men. She doesn't have the Biden wimp factor, and that's probably important in a place like Arizona."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 26, 2019, 05:58:11 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on July 26, 2019, 05:29:47 PM
GOP Insiders Fear Kamala Could Be The Next Obama (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/07/gop-insiders-fear-kamala-harris)

"About the time Kamala Harris finished slicing and dicing Joe Biden, like Ed Valenti demonstrating a Ginsu knife, my cell phone started pinging with Republican operatives saying, in effect, "I told you so."

For months I've been in contact with a group of senior Republican strategists keeping tabs on Donald Trump and the party's view of the unfolding Democratic presidential primary. Since the beginning of the campaign, these people have been worried that Biden constituted the biggest political threat to Trump's reelection. Early public opinion polls certainly lend credibility to their concerns. But a smaller, though equally distinguished group of Republican operatives in my Rolodex, a sort of GOP cult of Kamala, had been insisting for weeks that Harris was being radically underestimated. With her surgical vivisection of Biden in the first debate, it seemed their fears had been realized. Now, as Democrats prepare for a second round of debates next week, these strategists are raising the alarm.

"I think she's dangerous, and probably maybe the most dangerous, from our view," a veteran Republican political consultant told me this month. "She theoretically would do very well with African American turnout and end up being positioned as a Vienna Soccer Mom." In case you're wondering, that's Vienna, Virginia, an upscale bedroom community just west of Washington, D.C., that has accelerated its drift from the Republican orbit since a certain former reality-television star secured the Republican nomination three years ago. Suburbs just like it in critical battlegrounds could hand the White House back to the Democratic Party in 2020.

"She made a mistake with private health care," this Republican operative conceded, referring to Harris's serial flip-flops on Medicare for All and whether her plans for overhauling health care would lead to the abolition of private insurance. "But she doesn't come across as a nutjob."

Harris, 54, is California's junior U.S. senator and former state attorney general. She might have more natural political skill than any of her competitors for the Democratic nomination. She certainly checks more boxes—African American, woman, racially diverse, a legitimate strength in a party occasionally obsessed with identity politics. Harris also is something of a Washington outsider, or could claim to be, at least, having served in Congress for less than three years. Unlike Biden, she has not spent decades on Capitol Hill making tough choices or agreeing to imperfect compromises.

If any of this rings familiar, it's because it is. The last Democrat to win the presidency, Barack Obama, was all of those things, save for the obvious. That is why some Republicans take it as an article of faith that by the time the Democrats gather in Milwaukee a little less than a year from now to coronate their nominee, Harris will be the guest of honor. Who else could they possibly nominate? some Republicans have told me, convinced. But in dismantling Biden on the big stage in Miami, Harris showcased how she might earn it—and why next week's debate in Detroit could be decisive.

Not everyone buys the idea that Harris is the next Obama, superficial similarities aside. "She's overrated," says a Republican grandee who still has battle scars from run-ins with the 44th president. "Obama had authenticity. She doesn't." Another Republican strategist who doesn't buy the the hype called Harris "terrible" and "a disaster."

But some dialed-in Republicans described Harris as a serious threat. "I have long been most concerned about Harris. I think she has an appeal to the Scottsdale soccer mom who is a registered Republican. Between her appeal and Trump's women problems, she has probably already won those voters," said an experienced Republican consultant in Arizona, an emerging battleground that sent a Democrat to the U.S. Senate in 2018 for the first time in a generation and is ground zero for suburban discontent with Trump. "But I also think she does better amongst Independents who generally split ideologically in Arizona," this GOP insider added. "Independents are just sick of everything, and her no-nonsense approach would have appeal broadly, and even to some white Independent and GOP men. She doesn't have the Biden wimp factor, and that's probably important in a place like Arizona."

Her chief obstacle would be from the Left,  since they want only a True Progressive to be nominated no matter how much that increases the probability of Trump being reelected. (Witness 71db's disdain for her.)

She does have some weaknesses as a candidate, mostly arising from her record as  California's AG and San Francisco prosecutor before that.
There is also her connection to Willie Brown. (She dated/had an affair with him. He gave her a political leg up.) From Wikipedia.
QuoteBrown's relationship with Alamada County deputy district attorney Kamala Harris preceded his appointment of Harris to two California state commissions in the early 1990s. The positions on the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Medical Assistance Commission were described by local newspaper the San Francisco Chronicle as patronage positions. When the appointments became a political issue in Harris's 2003 race for District Attorney, she responded: "Whether you agree or disagree with the system, I did the work".[58] Brown's past relationship with Harris gained renewed attention in early 2019 after she had become a U.S. senator and launched a presidential bid. The Washington Free Beacon, Fox News and Business Insider, among others, published pieces relating to the relationship.[59][60][61][62] Brown addressed the questions by publishing a piece in the San Francisco Chronicle entitled "Sure, I dated Kamala Harris. So what?". He wrote that he may have "influenced" her career by appointing her to boards and supporting her run for District Attorney, but added that he had also influenced the careers of other politicians. Brown noted that difference between Harris and other politicians he had helped was that "Harris is the only one who, after I helped her, sent word that I would be indicted if I 'so much as jaywalked' while she was D.A. That's politics for ya".[63
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on July 26, 2019, 06:24:58 PM
Honestly I think if you took out all the fifth tier candidates and distributed their votes among the top four you'd probably find Biden, Harris, Sanders and Warren all at about the same % of the Democratic primary electorate at the moment. None of them has massive support from the party base, but all of them have high name recognition & reasonably low disapproval ratings, so it probably all depends on the debates & then their get out the vote operations.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 26, 2019, 06:27:45 PM
Quote from: amw on July 26, 2019, 06:24:58 PM
Honestly I think if you took out all the fifth tier candidates and distributed their votes among the top four you'd probably find Biden, Harris, Sanders and Warren all at about the same % of the Democratic primary electorate at the moment. None of them has massive support from the party base, but all of them have high name recognition & reasonably low disapproval ratings, so it probably all depends on the debates & then their get out the vote operations.

It's early in the game, in fact, earlier even than usual.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 26, 2019, 06:31:20 PM
Quote from: amw on July 26, 2019, 06:24:58 PM
Honestly I think if you took out all the fifth tier candidates and distributed their votes among the top four you'd probably find Biden, Harris, Sanders and Warren all at about the same % of the Democratic primary electorate at the moment. None of them has massive support from the party base, but all of them have high name recognition & reasonably low disapproval ratings, so it probably all depends on the debates & then their get out the vote operations.

You are probably right.
At the moment I simply want them to nominate the candidate who can best claim the title of "The Sane One". In contrast to DJT.
BTW speaking of Warren
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/07/26/politics/elizabeth-warren-donors/index.html
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on July 26, 2019, 06:33:08 PM
Yes I was going to add, it's six months until the first votes are cast, but it seems likely they'll continue to be the top 4 (or so). (And in 2015, Trump was at the head of the Republican pack by this time)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on July 26, 2019, 10:44:14 PM
Speaking of Warren:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/07/elizabeth-warren-palestine-israel-occupation-ifnotnow-bds-aipac

"Strong voting record on Israel" my ass.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 27, 2019, 09:01:59 AM
Getting rid of Trump is not the only thing the US needs. The US needs to get rid of oligarchy, the very thing that eventually led to Trump when desperate people were ready to vote for ANYONE to get change. The US needs change. Kamala Harris doesn't bring change. She is part of the oligarchic system benefitting from it. It's just no more mean tweets, but that doesn't help regular people. It doesn't help working poor, it doesn't help to avoid medical benkruptcies, it doesn't help fixing tap water crisis in Michigan, it doesn't help people who can't buy houses because they pay student loan depts the rest of their lives.

There is a reason why a non-progressive Dem is not enough. Bernie will beat Trump easily if given the nomination. Bernie brings the change the system that led to Trump. Regular people stop struggling in the richest country in the world. But if American's want to keep the oligachy to enrich the billionaires I suppose the next president can be Kamala Harris.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 27, 2019, 11:55:29 AM
MSNBC's better moments:

https://www.youtube.com/v/YpdgCrdLQbw
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 27, 2019, 12:03:42 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 27, 2019, 09:01:59 AM
Getting rid of Trump is not the only thing the US needs. The US needs to get rid of oligarchy, the very thing that eventually led to Trump when desperate people were ready to vote for ANYONE to get change. The US needs change. Kamala Harris doesn't bring change. She is part of the oligarchic system benefitting from it. It's just no more mean tweets, but that doesn't help regular people. It doesn't help working poor, it doesn't help to avoid medical benkruptcies, it doesn't help fixing tap water crisis in Michigan, it doesn't help people who can't buy houses because they pay student loan depts the rest of their lives.

There is a reason why a non-progressive Dem is not enough. Bernie will beat Trump easily if given the nomination. Bernie brings the change the system that led to Trump. Regular people stop struggling in the richest country in the world. But if American's want to keep the oligachy to enrich the billionaires I suppose the next president can be Kamala Harris.

You should stop, because you've tired of being told you're wrong, but you don't tire of calling people who disagree with you "idiots."

Really, you ought to have stopped, without the drama of creating, a pointless (judging by your present post) thread announcing that you're supposedly stopping.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on July 27, 2019, 12:55:40 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 27, 2019, 12:03:42 PM
You should stop, because you've tired of being told you're wrong, but you don't tire of calling people who disagree with you "idiots."

Really, you ought to have stopped, without the drama of creating, a pointless (judging by your present post) thread announcing that you're supposedly stopping.

Obviously none of us are going to change our minds, so maybe we should all just stop?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 27, 2019, 02:24:32 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 27, 2019, 12:03:42 PM
You should stop, because you've tired of being told you're wrong, but you don't tire of calling people who disagree with you "idiots."

Really, you ought to have stopped, without the drama of creating, a pointless (judging by your present post) thread announcing that you're supposedly stopping.

What is it I am wrong about? I have been told 100 times leftist ideas are not popular in the US. If that was true, Elizabeth Warren's and Bernie Sanders' polling number would be very low because they campaign for "unpopular" lefty ideas. If the US population really wants a corporate president, Hillary Clinton should have won easily, but somehow she lost.

The evidence clearly doesn't support me being wrong. It supports my position.

I am calling people idiots, because I am frustrated. It should not be difficult to see what the corporate media is doing. It takes quite a low IQ to watch Sean Hannity or Stuart Varney fearmonger about how the Green New Deal will make the US Venezuela where people eats rats and conclude they speak the truth. Everything that would help the regular people make the corporate media ask "How are we going to pay for it", but when it's about increasing the military budget or about Wall Street bailouts, they never ask the same. Of course there is money when it's about helping the top 1 %.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on July 27, 2019, 04:35:44 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 27, 2019, 09:01:59 AM
Bernie will beat Trump easily if given the nomination.

I don't know why you think this is obvious. There's a whole playbook of dirty tricks that would have been opened if he'd beaten Hilary and is still waiting to be opened if he wins the nomination this time. Just what his Swiftboat Benghazi Emails will be and how he will have to dwal with them are utterly unknown factors. You're also imagining some kind of level playing field where arguing better in a debate means winning the debate.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 28, 2019, 02:04:28 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on July 27, 2019, 04:35:44 PM
I don't know why you think this is obvious. There's a whole playbook of dirty tricks that would have been opened if he'd beaten Hilary and is still waiting to be opened if he wins the nomination this time. Just what his Swiftboat Benghazi Emails will be and how he will have to dwal with them are utterly unknown factors. You're also imagining some kind of level playing field where arguing better in a debate means winning the debate.

I trust Kyle Kulinski's judgement on this. If you work full time or even multiple jobs and still struggle you want change. Bernie means change.

Just because the corporate media smears Bernie all the time doesn't mean you have to be a moron yourself and believe their nonsense. More people have donated to Bernie than any other candidate. How does the corporate media frame this? Bernie has collected LESS money than others. Of course he has, because he is least corrupt and most of his donations are small donations from regular people, not $2800 donations from millionaires. So, the corporate media frames everything against Bernie. That doesn't mean Bernie is weak. It means the media is uttrly corrupt.

For Bernie the difficult part is getting the Democratic nomination (beating Biden, Warren and Harris who has the support of corporate media). Beating Trump is easy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on July 28, 2019, 02:16:01 AM
Well thanks for calling me a moron, pal.

You go right ahead and believe whatever you want to believe. In the meantime I'll be ignoring you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 28, 2019, 02:57:56 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on July 28, 2019, 02:16:01 AM
Well thanks for calling me a moron, pal.

You go right ahead and believe whatever you want to believe. In the meantime I'll be ignoring you.

I didn't mean you, pal. Surely you don't believe the nonsense of corporate media, do you?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 28, 2019, 09:45:43 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 28, 2019, 02:04:28 AM
I trust Kyle Kulinski's judgement on this. If you work full time or even multiple jobs and still struggle you want change. Bernie means change.

Just because the corporate media smears Bernie all the time doesn't mean you have to be a moron yourself and believe their nonsense. More people have donated to Bernie than any other candidate. How does the corporate media frame this? Bernie has collected LESS money than others. Of course he has, because he is least corrupt and most of his donations are small donations from regular people, not $2800 donations from millionaires. So, the corporate media frames everything against Bernie. That doesn't mean Bernie is weak. It means the media is uttrly corrupt.

For Bernie the difficult part is getting the Democratic nomination (beating Biden, Warren and Harris who has the support of corporate media). Beating Trump is easy.

Trump's blue collar voters are not going to vote for a man who decided to have his honeymoon in Moscow during the Cold War....

BTW, I listened to the YouTube you posted in the other thread in which Kulinski discusses high drug prices.  It's a good demonstration of why you should take everything Kulinksi says with the same skepticism you give to the "corporate media".

Drug prices are high in the US because "Big Pharma" is able to manipulate the patent process and the FDA approval process in their favor.  When you are the only company that can legally manufacture a drug, of course you can price gouge.   Where in that featurette does Kulinski even mention that aspect of the problem?  The "solution" he seems to advocate--government setting prices--would only increase the cronyism and corruption that exists between the manufacturers and the government agencies that supposedly oversee them.  And it would do nothing to resolve the real source of the problem. 

So he's really just advocating on behalf of Big Pharma in that clip, not against them!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 28, 2019, 09:48:07 AM
BTW, if it's corrupt for some politicians to take donations from corporations in exchange for advocating on behalf of those donors, why is not corrupt for Bernie to take donations from people in exchange for advocating on their behalf? [That leaves aside the question of whether he is actually advocating on their behalf.]
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 28, 2019, 11:01:54 AM
Quote from: JBS on July 28, 2019, 09:48:07 AM
BTW, if it's corrupt for some politicians to take donations from corporations in exchange for advocating on behalf of those donors, why is not corrupt for Bernie to take donations from people in exchange for advocating on their behalf? [That leaves aside the question of whether he is actually advocating on their behalf.]

The left wants money out of politics, but without money the left has no change so they have to take money. Corporations are not people, people are people. Democracy is for people, not corporations. If you don't see the problem of billionaires buying the elections you are dumb.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 28, 2019, 11:03:21 AM
Quote from: JBS on July 28, 2019, 09:45:43 AM
Trump's blue collar voters are not going to vote for a man who decided to have his honeymoon in Moscow during the Cold War....

BTW, I listened to the YouTube you posted in the other thread in which Kulinski discusses high drug prices.  It's a good demonstration of why you should take everything Kulinksi says with the same skepticism you give to the "corporate media".

Drug prices are high in the US because "Big Pharma" is able to manipulate the patent process and the FDA approval process in their favor.  When you are the only company that can legally manufacture a drug, of course you can price gouge.   Where in that featurette does Kulinski even mention that aspect of the problem?  The "solution" he seems to advocate--government setting prices--would only increase the cronyism and corruption that exists between the manufacturers and the government agencies that supposedly oversee them.  And it would do nothing to resolve the real source of the problem. 

So he's really just advocating on behalf of Big Pharma in that clip, not against them!

Single payer healthcare fixes this problem. Big Pharma loses their power to manipulate the market.

Who the fuck care where Bernie spend his honeymoon some 50 years ago?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 28, 2019, 11:14:54 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 28, 2019, 11:03:21 AM
Single payer healthcare fixes this problem. Big Pharma loses their power to manipulate the market.


It would actually increase Big Pharma's power since it would maximize the cronyism of the current structure.  I understand what you think would happen: government bureaucrats would negotiate lower prices.  There's no reason to think that would happen once you understand that the bureaucrats would be immune from public pressure to lower prices.

Like I said, Kulinski in that clip nowhere addresses the real problem--Big Pharma's ability via patent and regulatory manipulation to monopolize production and therefore set prices.  Any proposal that does not do that is doing nothing that Big Pharma needs to be afraid of.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 28, 2019, 11:16:08 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 28, 2019, 11:03:21 AM

Who the fuck care where Bernie spend his honeymoon some 50 years ago?

It shows how far left he was.  You actually had to want to go visit Russian in that era. It was not a normal tourist destination.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: North Star on July 28, 2019, 12:09:59 PM
Quote from: JBS on July 28, 2019, 11:16:08 AM
It shows how far left he was.  You actually had to want to go visit Russian in that era. It was not a normal tourist destination.
A mayor is rarely a normal tourist. Sanders was obviously interested in foreign affairs and had a kind of foreign policy of his own, and a part of it was helping Russians and Americans learn from each other, establishing a sister city relationship with a Russian city at a time of Soviet Union opening to the West under Gorbachev. But yeah, there are a lot of voters who will vote for Putin's pawn to keep the Commie out.



https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/12/george-will/george-will-reminds-readers-about-bernie-sanders-u/
QuoteAlong with sister-city relationships with Bethlehem in the West Bank and Puerto Cabezas, Nicaragua, the Yaroslavl program was part of Sanders' unorthodox attempt to take on international issues from a small city in New England. Sanders also actively pursued his agenda outside of the country, writing letters to world leaders and even traveling to Cuba to meet with the mayor of Havana.

"Burlington had a foreign policy," he wrote in his 1997 book Outsider in the House, "because, as progressives, we understood that we all live in one world."


The timing of the trip was unusual. Bernie and Jane were married May 28, 1988. The delegation left Burlington the next day.

"Trust me," Sanders writes in the book. "It was a very strange honeymoon."

When reached for comment, Sanders' campaign said that the dates for the trip had already been set, and the couple "set their wedding date to coincide with that trip because they didn't want to take more time off."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/17/bernie-sanders-mystery-soviet-video-revealed-1330347

QuoteThroughout the videos, as well as in the final episode of "Bernie Speaks With the Community," Sanders speaks at length about his dream of reducing conflict between the two nations by building relationships between ordinary citizens. While being interviewed by a Russian man on a bus, he says he would "love" for young people to participate in exchange programs between the two cities.

Sanders suggests a similar initiative for media outlets. He tells the man that a Vermont editor is coming to the Soviet Union soon and that "I have asked her to drop in [to] your newspaper."

Sanders' wife also talks to teachers in the Soviet Union over tea. She asks them detailed questions about their work and proposes a teacher and student exchange program.

"One thing we are very impressed with is the cultural life," she tells them. "We strive in Burlington to enrich the cultural life as much as possible. But we have much further to go."

Bruce Seifer, a top economic development aide to Sanders when he was mayor, said that 100 residents from Yaroslavl immigrated to Burlington after the trip and others visited.

"Over time, it had a positive impact on to the economy," he said. "Businesses started doing exchanges between Burlington and Yaroslavl."

Davitian, who lived in Burlington at the time, said progressives were thrilled by Sanders' trip to the Soviet Union, while everyday residents didn't mind. "As long as the streets were getting paved, there wasn't opposition to him as an activist mayor," she said.

When Sanders' delegation returned to Burlington, CCTV captured the group on film in a hopeful mood, applauding the Soviet Union's after-school programs, low rent costs and hospitality.

At the same time, they admit the poor choices of available food. Sanders says he was impressed by the beauty of the city and Soviet officials' willingness "to acknowledge many of the problems that they had."

"They're proud of the fact that their health care system is free," he says, but concede that the medical technology is far behind that of the United States.

Later that year, the relationship was officially established. Since then, "exchanges between the two cities have involved mayors, business people, firefighters, jazz musicians, youth orchestras, mural painters, high school students, medical students, nurses, librarians, and the Yaroslavl Torpedoes ice hockey team," according to Burlington's city government. A delegation traveled there as recently as 2016.

"They were just as friendly as they could possibly be," Sanders said at a news conference at the airport after returning from the trip. "The truth of the matter is, they like Americans, and they respect Americans, and they admire Americans.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 28, 2019, 12:22:43 PM
Quote from: North Star on July 28, 2019, 12:09:59 PM
A mayor is rarely a normal tourist. Sanders was obviously interested in foreign affairs and had a kind of foreign policy of his own, and a part of it was helping Russians and Americans learn from each other, establishing a sister city relationship with a Russian city at a time of Soviet Union opening to the West under Gorbachev. But yeah, there are a lot of voters who will vote for Putin's pawn to keep the Commie out.



https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/12/george-will/george-will-reminds-readers-about-bernie-sanders-u/
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/17/bernie-sanders-mystery-soviet-video-revealed-1330347

The quote mentions the sister city in Nicaragua.  At that point, the Sandinistas were still in control.  This (with the visit to Havana) merely reinforces Sanders's well-to-the-left-of-center image.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 28, 2019, 12:27:47 PM
Trumpkins support Trump no matter what.  Maybe Poju likes Bernie, no matter what.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 28, 2019, 12:29:54 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 28, 2019, 12:27:47 PM
Trumpkins support Trump no matter what.  Maybe Poju likes Bernie, no matter what.

I think it simply that he mistakes political advocacy for impartial presentation of the facts, and therefore seriously misjudges the US political climate.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 28, 2019, 12:33:25 PM
Quote from: JBS on July 28, 2019, 12:29:54 PM
I think it simply that he mistakes political advocacy for impartial presentation of the facts, and therefore seriously misjudges the US political climate.

Yes, you've hit the mark, where my bolt was wide.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 28, 2019, 12:58:09 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 28, 2019, 12:27:47 PM
Trumpkins support Trump no matter what.  Maybe Poju likes Bernie, no matter what.

If Bernie starts to take corporate money and backpedal on Medicare for all, tuition free education, etc. my opinion about Bernie will change.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: North Star on July 28, 2019, 01:10:16 PM
Quote from: JBS on July 28, 2019, 12:22:43 PM
The quote mentions the sister city in Nicaragua.  At that point, the Sandinistas were still in control.  This (with the visit to Havana) merely reinforces Sanders's well-to-the-left-of-center image.

True, but then again, the world does seem to be well to the left of the center of US politics.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/05/who-was-naive-about-bernie-sanders-meeting-the-sandinistas/
QuoteInitially, the Sandinistas had tried to establish a good relationship with the United States. But Ronald Reagan had won the presidency in 1980 in part on the basis of his promise to reject Jimmy Carter's human rights–centered approach to foreign policy, and instead be more "assertive"—to use the Times' word—especially when it came to communism.

Contrary to some assumptions at the time (and to Chait's error-filled column this week), Nicaragua was not communist. Neither was Ortega. But some Sandinistas were Marxist-Leninists, and the government had accepted Cuban military assistance. That was all Reagan needed to know.

Just six years after America's defeat in Vietnam, Reagan's advisers knew they needed to be covert in their support of the Contras—or at least covert enough not to arouse too much attention at home. Reagan directed the CIA to arm the Contras with money, weapons, and training.

One of the first Contra groups to receive this support was the Nicaraguan Democratic Force, or FDN, the group that massacred the coffee pickers. It was just one of the thousands of similar atrocities they would carry out with the financing and support of the US government.

By mid-decade, it had become abundantly clear that US policy was drowning Nicaragua in blood. When the Democratic-controlled Congress learned the CIA was putting explosive mines in Nicaraguan harbors in early 1984, it voted to outlaw military aid to the Contras.

Defying Congress, Lt. Colonel Oliver North, a member of the National Security Council, flew down to reassure the FDN in person that "President Reagan remained committed to removing the Sandinistas from power." North then helped oversee a scheme to illegally funnel money and weapons to the rebels, in part by using profits from jacked-up weapons sales to Iran.

Since the sub-episode involved Republicans arguing with Democrats, that illegal slice of the enterprise got Americans' attention. It became known as the Iran-Contra affair and resulted in a string of nationally televised hearings, and a few indictments and convictions.

But Americans were not nearly as interested in the more than 30,000 Nicaraguans killed in a war financed by their tax dollars. Even as the administration scrambled to cover up its crimes against Congress, the president could keep publicly boasting about his support for the Contras. In March 1985, four months after the coffee pickers were slaughtered, Reagan went to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington and called for millions more in military aid to Nicaragua. He said the Contras were "the moral equal of our Founding Fathers."

Sanders' visit to Nicaragua came that summer.

...

Human Rights Watch, then known as Americas Watch, found the Contras had "systematically violated the applicable laws of war throughout the conflict. They have attacked civilians indiscriminately; they have tortured and mutilated prisoners; they have murdered those placed hors de combat by their wounds; they have taken hostages; and they have committed outrages against personal dignity."

The observers found that the Sandinista government, by contrast, had committed far fewer abuses, particularly after its first year in power. Despite attempts by the Reagan administration to convince Americans otherwise, there was "no systematic practice of forced disappearances, extrajudicial killings or torture" on the Sandinistas' part—as there was with, for instance, US-backed right-wing regimes in nearby El Salvador. A State Department official told Americas Watch, "What we see is that the Sandinista casualties are usually legitimate battle victims," whereas "the Contras have a tendency to kidnap young girls."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 28, 2019, 03:30:21 PM
Quote from: North Star on July 28, 2019, 01:10:16 PM
True, but then again, the world does seem to be well to the left of the center of US politics.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/05/who-was-naive-about-bernie-sanders-meeting-the-sandinistas/

I will just leave off with the following observations.
1) Mother Jones is a magazine that itself is well to the left. Any magazine named Mother Jones that wasn't firmly leftist would be an insult to its namesake. If you search you will find other accounts that are much less sympathetic to the Sandinistas.
2) I knew through work some Nicaraguans who came to Miami to escape  the violence of that period. All of them pointed to the Sandinistas as the bad guys.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: North Star on July 29, 2019, 03:22:14 AM
Quote from: JBS on July 28, 2019, 03:30:21 PM
I will just leave off with the following observations.
1) Mother Jones is a magazine that itself is well to the left. Any magazine named Mother Jones that wasn't firmly leftist would be an insult to its namesake. If you search you will find other accounts that are much less sympathetic to the Sandinistas.
2) I knew through work some Nicaraguans who came to Miami to escape  the violence of that period. All of them pointed to the Sandinistas as the bad guys.
That Mother Jones may have leftist bias doesn't necessarily mean what it says isn't true, of course. And it would make a great deal of sense for your work acquaintances who fled to Miami from Nicaragua to be sympathetic to the US-supported Contras, and to the Somoza regime - Somoza fled to Miami, too.

Here's what Wikipedia says on the matter. Can you show me some reliable sources with different views?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somoza_family
QuoteAnastasio Somoza García assumed the presidency after luring rebel leader Augusto César Sandino to peace talks, and murdering Sandino soon afterwards. Anastacio amended the Nicaraguan Constitution, concentrating power in his hands and installed his relatives and cronies in top government positions.[1] Although the Somoza only held the presidency for 30 of those 43 years, they were the power behind the other presidents of the time through their control of the National Guard. The differences in the Somoza's ruling style only reflected their adaptation to the U.S.-Latin American policy.[2] Their regime was overthrown by the Sandinista National Liberation Front during the Nicaraguan Revolution.

For more than four decades in power, the Somoza family accumulated wealth through corporate bribes, industrial monopolies, land grabbing, and foreign aid siphoning. By the 1970s, the family owned 23 percent of land in Nicaragua while the family wealth reached $533 million, which already amounted to half of Nicaragua's debt and 33 percent of the country's 1979 GDP


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras
QuoteIn his 1997 study on U.S. low intensity warfare, Kermit D. Johnson, a former Chief of the U.S. Army Chaplains, contends that U.S. hostility toward the revolutionary government was motivated not by any concern for "national security", but rather by what the world relief organization Oxfam termed "the threat of a good example":

"It was alarming that in just a few months after the Sandinista revolution, Nicaragua received international acclaim for its rapid progress in the fields of literacy and health. It was alarming that a socialist-mixed-economy state could do in a few short months what the Somoza dynasty, a U.S. client state, could not do in 45 years! It was truly alarming that the Sandinistas were intent on providing the very services that establish a government's political and moral legitimacy"

The government's program included increased wages, subsidized food prices, and expanded health, welfare, and education services. And though it nationalized Somoza's former properties, it preserved a private sector that accounted for between 50 and 60 percent of GDP.


The United States began to support Contra activities against the Sandinista government by December 1981, with the CIA at the forefront of operations. The CIA supplied the funds and the equipment, coordinated training programs, and provided intelligence and target lists. While the Contras had little military successes, they did prove adept at carrying out CIA guerrilla warfare strategies from training manuals which advised them to incite mob violence, "neutralize" civilian leaders and government officials and attack "soft targets" — including schools, health clinics and cooperatives. The agency added to the Contras' sabotage efforts by blowing up refineries and pipelines, and mining ports.[7][54][55] Finally, according to former Contra leader Edgar Chamorro, CIA trainers also gave Contra soldiers large knives. "A commando knife [was given], and our people, everybody wanted to have a knife like that, to kill people, to cut their throats".[56][57] In 1985 Newsweek published a series of photos taken by Frank Wohl, a conservative student admirer traveling with the Contras, entitled "Execution in the Jungle":

The victim dug his own grave, scooping the dirt out with his hands... He crossed himself. Then a contra executioner knelt and rammed a k-bar knife into his throat. A second enforcer stabbed at his jugular, then his abdomen. When the corpse was finally still, the contras threw dirt over the shallow grave — and walked away.[58][59]

The CIA officer in charge of the covert war, Duane "Dewey" Clarridge, admitted to the House Intelligence Committee staff in a secret briefing in 1984 that the Contras were routinely murdering "civilians and Sandinista officials in the provinces, as well as heads of cooperatives, nurses, doctors and judges". But he claimed that this did not violate President Reagan's executive order prohibiting assassinations because the agency defined it as just 'killing'. "After all, this is war—a paramilitary operation," Clarridge said in conclusion.[60] Edgar Chamorro explained the rationale behind this to a U.S. reporter. "Sometimes terror is very productive. This is the policy, to keep putting pressure until the people cry 'uncle'".[61][62] The CIA manual for the Contras, Tayacan, states that the Contras should gather the local population for a public tribunal to "shame, ridicule and humiliate" Sandinista officials to "reduce their influence". It also recommends gathering the local population to witness and take part in public executions.[63] These types of activities continued throughout the war. After the signing of the Central American Peace Accord in August 1987, the year war related deaths and economic destruction reached its peak, the Contras eventually entered negotiations with the Sandinista government (1988), and the war began to deescalate.[7]

By 1989 the US backed Contra war and economic isolation had inflicted severe economic suffering on Nicaraguans. The US government knew that the Nicaraguans had been exhausted from the war, which had cost 30,865 lives, and that voters usually vote the incumbents out during economic decline. By the late 1980s Nicaragua's internal conditions had changed so radically that the US approach to the 1990 elections differed greatly from 1984. The Bush administration decided to promote an opposition victory and to denounce the country's electoral laws and procedures should there be a Sandinista victory. The United States, through the National Endowment for Democracy, organized a united opposition out of fourteen dissimilar microparties into the National Opposition Union (Unión Nacional Oppositora, UNO). It promoted their candidates including presidential nominee Violeta Chamorro who was received by President Bush at the White House. The US thus "micromanaged the opposition" and exerted massive external pressure on the electorate. The Contra war escalated over the year before the election. The US promised to end the war and the economic embargo should she win.[64]

The UNO scored a decisive victory on 25 February 1990. Chamorro won with 55 percent of the presidential vote as compared to Ortega's 41 percent. Of 92 seats in the National Assembly, UNO gained 51, and the FSLN won 39. On 25 April 1990, Chamorro assumed presidency from Daniel Ortega.[64]


Illegal covert operations
See also: Iran–Contra affair
With Congress blocking further contra aid, the Reagan administration sought to arrange funding and military supplies by means of third countries and private sources.[65] Between 1984 and 1986, $34 million from third countries and $2.7 million from private sources were raised this way.[65] The secret contra assistance was run by the National Security Council, with officer Lt. Col. Oliver North in charge.[66] With the third-party funds, North created an organization called The Enterprise, which served as the secret arm of the NSC staff and had its own airplanes, pilots, airfield, ship, operatives, and secret Swiss bank accounts.[65] It also received assistance from personnel from other government agencies, especially from CIA personnel in Central America.[65] This operation functioned, however, without any of the accountability required of U.S. government activities.[65] The Enterprise's efforts culminated in the Iran–Contra Affair of 1986–1987, which facilitated contra funding through the proceeds of arms sales to Iran.

According to the London Spectator, U.S. journalists in Central America had long known that the CIA was flying in supplies to the Contras inside Nicaragua before the scandal broke. No journalist paid it any attention until the alleged CIA supply man, Eugene Hasenfus, was shot down and captured by the Nicaraguan army. Similarly, reporters neglected to investigate many leads indicating that Oliver North was running the Contra operation from his office in the National Security Council.[67]

According to the National Security Archive, Oliver North had been in contact with Manuel Noriega, the military leader of Panama later convicted on drug charges, whom he personally met. The issue of drug money and its importance in funding the Nicaraguan conflict was the subject of various reports and publications. The contras were funded by drug trafficking, of which the United States was aware.[68] Senator John Kerry's 1988 Committee on Foreign Relations report on Contra drug links concluded that "senior U.S. policy makers were not immune to the idea that drug money was a perfect solution to the Contras' funding problems".[69]

The Reagan administration's support for the Contras continued to stir controversy well into the 1990s. In August 1996, San Jose Mercury News reporter Gary Webb published a series titled Dark Alliance, alleging that the contras contributed to the rise of crack cocaine in California.[70]

Gary Webb's career as a journalist was subsequently discredited by the leading U.S. papers, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the LA Times. An internal CIA report, entitled, "Managing a Nightmare", shows the agency used "a ground base of already productive relations with journalists" to help counter what it called "a genuine public relations crisis."[71] In the 1980s, Douglas Farah worked as a journalist, covering the civil wars in Central America for the Washington Post. According to Farah, while it was common knowledge that the Contras were involved in cocaine trafficking, the editors of the Washington Post refused to take it seriously:

If you're talking about our intelligence community tolerating — if not promoting — drugs to pay for black ops, it's rather an uncomfortable thing to do when you're an establishment paper like the Post. If you were going to be directly rubbing up against the government, they wanted it more solid than it could probably ever be done.[72]

An investigation by the United States Department of Justice also stated that their "review did not substantiate the main allegations stated and implied in the Mercury News articles." Regarding the specific charges towards the CIA, the DOJ wrote "the implication that the drug trafficking by the individuals discussed in the Mercury News articles was connected to the CIA was also not supported by the facts."[73] The CIA also investigated and rejected the allegations.[74]

Propaganda
During the time the US Congress blocked funding for the contras, the Reagan government engaged in a campaign to alter public opinion and change the vote in Congress on contra aid.[75] For this purpose, the NSC established an interagency working group, which in turn coordinated the Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean (managed by Otto Reich), which conducted the campaign.[75] The S/LPD produced and widely disseminated a variety of pro-contra publications, arranged speeches and press conferences.[75] It also disseminated "white propaganda"—pro-contra newspaper articles by paid consultants who did not disclose their connection to the Reagan administration.[76]

On top of that, Oliver North helped Carl Channell's tax-exempt organization, the National Endowment for the Preservation of Liberty, to raise $10 million, by arranging numerous briefings for groups of potential contributors at the premises of the White House and by facilitating private visits and photo sessions with President Reagan for major contributors.[77] Channell in turn, used part of that money to run a series of television advertisements directed at home districts of Congressmen considered swing votes on contra aid.[77] Out of the $10 million raised, more than $1 million was spent on pro-contra publicity.[77]

International Court of Justice ruling
Main article: Nicaragua v. United States
In 1984 the Sandinista government filed a suit in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the United States (Nicaragua v. United States), which resulted in a 1986 judgment against the United States. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. Regarding the alleged human rights violations by the contras, however, the ICJ took the view that the United States could be held accountable for them only if it would have been proven that the U.S. had effective control of the contra operations resulting in these alleged violations.[78] Nevertheless, the ICJ found that the U.S. encouraged acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law by producing the manual Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare (Operaciones sicológicas en guerra de guerrillas) and disseminating it to the contras.[79] The manual, amongst other things, advised on how to rationalize killings of civilians[80] and recommended to hire professional killers for specific selective tasks.[81]

The United States, which did not participate in the merits phase of the proceedings, maintained that the ICJ's power did not supersede the Constitution of the United States and argued that the court did not seriously consider the Nicaraguan role in El Salvador, while it accused Nicaragua of actively supporting armed groups there, specifically in the form of supply of arms.[82] The ICJ had found that evidence of a responsibility of the Nicaraguan government in this matter was insufficient.[83] The U.S. argument was affirmed, however, by the dissenting opinion of ICJ member U.S. Judge Schwebel,[84] who concluded that in supporting the contras, the United States acted lawfully in collective self-defence in El Salvador's support.[85] The U.S. blocked enforcement of the ICJ judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation.[86] The Nicaraguan government finally withdrew the complaint from the court in September 1992 (under the later, post-FSLN, government of Violeta Chamorro), following a repeal of the law requiring the country to seek compensation.[87]


Americas Watch – which subsequently became part of Human Rights Watch – accused the Contras of:[88]

targeting health care clinics and health care workers for assassination[89]
kidnapping civilians[90]
torturing civilians[91]
executing civilians, including children, who were captured in combat[92]
raping women[89]
indiscriminately attacking civilians and civilian houses[90]
seizing civilian property[89]
burning civilian houses in captured towns.[89]
Human Rights Watch released a report on the situation in 1989, which stated: "[The] contras were major and systematic violators of the most basic standards of the laws of armed conflict, including by launching indiscriminate attacks on civilians, selectively murdering non-combatants, and mistreating prisoners."[93]

In his affidavit to the World Court, former contra Edgar Chamorro testified that "The CIA did not discourage such tactics. To the contrary, the Agency severely criticized me when I admitted to the press that the FDN had regularly kidnapped and executed agrarian reform workers and civilians. We were told that the only way to defeat the Sandinistas was to...kill, kidnap, rob and torture..."[94]

U.S. news media published several articles accusing Americas Watch and other bodies of ideological bias and unreliable reporting. It alleged that Americas Watch gave too much credence to alleged Contra abuses and systematically tried to discredit Nicaraguan human rights groups such as the Permanent Commission on Human Rights, which blamed the major human rights abuses on the Contras.[96]

In 1985, the Wall Street Journal reported:

Three weeks ago, Americas Watch issued a report on human rights abuses in Nicaragua. One member of the Permanent Commission for Human Rights commented on the Americas Watch report and its chief investigator Juan Mendez: "The Sandinistas are laying the groundwork for a totalitarian society here and yet all Mendez wanted to hear about were abuses by the contras. How can we get people in the U.S. to see what's happening here when so many of the groups who come down are pro-Sandinista?"[97]

Human Rights Watch, the umbrella organization of Americas Watch, replied to these allegations: "Almost invariably, U.S. pronouncements on human rights exaggerated and distorted the real human rights violations of the Sandinista regime, and exculpated those of the U.S.-supported insurgents, known as the contras...The Bush administration is responsible for these abuses, not only because the contras are, for all practical purposes, a U.S. force, but also because the Bush administration has continued to minimize and deny these violations, and has refused to investigate them seriously.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on July 29, 2019, 03:52:33 AM
Quote from: North Star on July 29, 2019, 03:22:14 AM
That Mother Jones may have leftist bias doesn't necessarily mean what it says isn't true, of course. And it would make a great deal of sense for your work acquaintances who fled to Miami from Nicaragua to be sympathetic to the US-supported Contras, and to the Somoza regime - Somoza fled to Miami, too.

What you basically imply boils down to 2 points:

1. Mother Jones might tell the truth despite having leftist bias.

2. (Allegedly) Contras sympathizers might not tell the truth because having rightist bias.

The first point is fair and the logic behind it is impeccable. The second point is unfair because it violates the very logic of the first --- and it's also the only example I've ever met of guilt by geographical association.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: North Star on July 29, 2019, 06:00:48 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2019, 03:52:33 AM
What you basically imply boils down to 2 points:

1. Mother Jones might tell the truth despite having leftist bias.

2. (Allegedly) Contras sympathizers might not tell the truth because having rightist bias.

The first point is fair and the logic behind it is impeccable. The second point is unfair because it violates the very logic of the first --- and it's also the only example I've ever met of guilt by geographical association.
Yes, it's of course simplistic to suggest that the bias of a person can be determined simply by where they sought refuge. But it doesn't seem far-fetched to me to assume that if one of the parties in the civil war was supported by the US, you would be more likely to move to the US if you sympathized with that party. And even if you didn't support the Contras, you would probably keep quiet about the times when you sang about killing Yankees..

In any case, I'm not suggesting the Nicaraguans that Jeffrey knew, were lying, it seems clear the Sandinista government / supporters violated some laws too - but that their personal experience probably doesn't give an accurate picture of the situation as far as the crimes committed by each side.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on July 29, 2019, 06:23:26 AM
Quote from: North Star on July 29, 2019, 06:00:48 AM
it seems clear the Sandinista government / supporters violated some laws too

Quote
their personal experience probably doesn't give an accurate picture of the situation as far as the crimes committed by each side.

At least you acknowledge that crimes were committed by each side. Many if not most Lefties don't.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 29, 2019, 07:03:44 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2019, 06:23:26 AM
At least you acknowledge that crimes were committed by each side. Many if not most Lefties don't.



I am sure you see that your point is not at all improved by the last phrase, and that it reduces your post from discussion to contentiousness.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on July 29, 2019, 07:13:54 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 29, 2019, 07:03:44 AM
I am sure you see that your point is not at all improved by the last phrase, and that it reduces your post from discussion to contentiousness.

Well, yes, I do --- I take back Leftie, although I'm sure our mutual friend Noirth Star (whom I trust I have never offended in any way) wopuld identify himnslef as rather Left than Right.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 29, 2019, 07:22:22 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2019, 07:13:54 AM
Well, yes, I do --- I take back Leftie, although I'm sure our mutual friend Noirth Star (whom I trust I have never offended in any way) wopuld identify himnslef as rather Left than Right.

Spoken like the gentleman I know you to be.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: North Star on July 29, 2019, 08:55:19 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2019, 06:23:26 AM
At least you acknowledge that crimes were committed by each side. Many if not most Lefties don't.
I certainly have no sympathy for deniers of Communist dictatorships' crimes, or for the deniers of any other regimes' crimes, and am not a supporter of any Communist ideology, although in the context of a revolution in a country where a dictator previously controlled most of the property, it's a natural step.

Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2019, 07:13:54 AM
Well, yes, I do --- I take back Leftie, although I'm sure our mutual friend Noirth Star (whom I trust I have never offended in any way) wopuld identify himnslef as rather Left than Right.

I support many 'leftist' ideas, such as social equality, pacifism, environmentalism, free education and healthcare, and decreasing financial inequality via taxation, minimum wages and welfare. But how these things should be carried out, and the effects of a policy depend on local circumstances. I rather like the Nordic model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model) and think that many places could learn from at least some aspects of it, but it's not as if a political system can be just implemented in a different country just like that, and it magically works. Someone should tell that to the CIA.  0:)

(And no, I don't recall you offending me.)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 29, 2019, 09:01:53 AM
Quote from: North Star on July 29, 2019, 08:55:19 AM
I certainly have no sympathy for deniers of Communist dictatorships' crimes, or for the deniers of any other regimes' crimes, and am not a supporter of any Communist ideology, although in the context of a revolution in a country where a dictator previously controlled most of the property, it's a natural step.

I support many 'leftist' ideas, such as social equality, pacifism, environmentalism, free education and healthcare, and decreasing financial inequality via taxation, minimum wages and welfare. But how these things should be carried out, and the effects of a policy depend on local circumstances. I rather like the Nordic model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model) and think that many places could learn from at least some aspects of it, but it's not as if a political system can be just implemented in a different country just like that, and it magically works. Someone should tell that to the CIA.  0:)

Long ago, I read (but do not recall the author: "[Communication to] Uncle Sam is like kicking a Diplodocus in the ass, it takes 25 years for the message to reach the brain.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on July 29, 2019, 11:16:34 AM
Quote from: North Star on July 29, 2019, 08:55:19 AM
I certainly have no sympathy for deniers of Communist dictatorships' crimes, or for the deniers of any other regimes' crimes, and am not a supporter of any Communist ideology,

Substitute Rightist for Communist and I subscribe as well: I am no friend to dictatorships --- yet I frankly admit to an openly anti-Communist bias, see below.

Quote
although in the context of a revolution in a country where a dictator previously controlled most of the property, it's a natural step.

I don't know anything about Somoza, Sandinistas or Contras --- but in the context of Tsarist Russia / Bolshevik Revolution I side with Rachmaninoff and Medtner and Solzhenitsyn not because of ideology but because my own, personal, direct experience aligns with theirs.

Quote
I support many 'leftist' ideas, such as social equality, pacifism, environmentalism, free education and healthcare, and decreasing financial inequality via taxation, minimum wages and welfare. But how these things should be carried out, and the effects of a policy depend on local circumstances. I rather like the Nordic model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model) and think that many places could learn from at least some aspects of it, but it's not as if a political system can be just implemented in a different country just like that, and it magically works.   0:)

I do agree that what works well for a given country might spell disaster for another.

I think social equality is a chimera --- in the context of our discussion, Daniel Ortega never was, and continues not to be, socially equal with a Nicaraguan peasant.

I think pacifism is utopian. Or, to put in better terms, the most outstanding pacifist ever was Stalin --- he willingly dismantled a whole army, only it was the Polish army, not the Russian --- ie, Katyn.

There is no such thing as free education and healthcare --- they are all paid for by taxation, ie money taken from you. That you consent to it or not is irrelevant --- just don't call it free, because it's emphatically not.

Environmentalism --- that the climate is changing right now it's obvious; that something should be done about it, it's also obvious. What is less obvious, to me at least, is (1) that the climate is changing mainly due to human activity, and (2) that the very people who complain about climate change are prepared, and willing, to take action --- would you give up listening to your CDs? (I do trust you're fully aware that buying or listening to CDs involves aiding and abetting anti-environmentalist processes)

Quote
(And no, I don't recall you offending me.)

You can bet on it on the future as well.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 29, 2019, 11:56:43 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2019, 11:16:34 AMThere is no such thing as free education and healthcare --- they are all paid for by taxation, ie money taken from you. That you consent to it or not is irrelevant --- just don't call it free, because it's emphatically not.

Rather than saying "free" one can say "free at the point of entry." You paid your taxes so the doctor you see won't ask you for money.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 29, 2019, 12:05:25 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2019, 12:02:13 PM
Call it as you wish, it doesn't make it "free". The doctor you see won't ask for your money, still it's your money alright out of which he is paid.

And so it should be. What's the problem?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 29, 2019, 12:26:50 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2019, 12:13:19 PM
The only problem is that you call it "free healthcare". It's emphatically not "free".

I don't think I do. I call it single payer healthcare.

Biden Defends Private Insurance Sharks In Worst Strategy Ever

https://www.youtube.com/v/j7W18fY9YdQ
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 29, 2019, 12:57:46 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2019, 12:44:22 PM
Call it what you wish. It's not free and it doesn't work as smoothly as you think it does. I have close relatives in the UK and according to what they told me just yesterday the system is seriously fucked up big time, meaning that one could easily die before being refered to a specialist.

Anecdotes. You find A LOT of horror story anecdotes of US healthcare system starting from the 30.000-45.000 people who die every year because they don't have access. You have problems in every country, because no system is perfect. UK's healthcare system is considered one of the best in the World.

_______________

Example of corporate media:

CNN Is Running Pro-Kamala Ads As 'News' Segments

https://www.youtube.com/v/e2d2j5XnxFg
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 29, 2019, 12:59:17 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2019, 12:44:22 PM
Call it what you wish. It's not free and it doesn't work as smoothly as you think it does. I have close relatives in the UK and according to what they told me just yesterday the system is seriously fucked up big time, meaning that one could easily die before being refered to a specialist.

     I don't want free lunches, I want good lunches that cost enough to benefit the economy as a whole. The payments are part of the benefits.

QuoteThere is no such thing as free education and healthcare --- they are all paid for by taxation, ie money taken from you.

     You pay taxes on money the government spent. If it wasn't spent, you wouldn't have it. Government "pay fors" add to private wealth, some of which is taxed back so there won't be too much of it. I like this, not just that it happens but that I know what's in my interest.

     Seriously now, how does money get to be "other peoples" unless the government spends it first? Do you pay taxes on money that don't exist? Whoa, that's.....UNAMERICAN!!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 29, 2019, 01:18:31 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2019, 01:08:21 PM
--- the government doesn't create a single dime, they only spend it

So are you saying the government spending tax payer money on schools doesn't make any profit for the society in the long run? If so, why exactly do we have schools? Why do governments direct money on scientific research work if it never creates a single dime and is only spending?



Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: North Star on July 29, 2019, 01:42:22 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2019, 11:16:34 AM
Substitute Rightist for Communist and I subscribe as well: I am no friend to dictatorships --- yet I frankly admit to an openly anti-Communist bias, see below.

I don't know anything about Somoza, Sandinistas or Contras --- but in the context of Tsarist Russia / Bolshevik Revolution I side with Rachmaninoff and Medtner and Solzhenitsyn not because of ideology but because my own, personal, direct experience aligns with theirs.

I do agree that what works well for a given country might spell disaster for another.

I think social equality is a chimera --- in the context of our discussion, Daniel Ortega never was, and continues not to be, socially equal with a Nicaraguan peasant.

I think pacifism is utopian. Or, to put in better terms, the most outstanding pacifist ever was Stalin --- he willingly dismantled a whole army, only it was the Polish army, not the Russian --- ie, Katyn.

There is no such thing as free education and healthcare --- they are all paid for by taxation, ie money taken from you. That you consent to it or not is irrelevant --- just don't call it free, because it's emphatically not.

Environmentalism --- that the climate is changing right now it's obvious; that something should be done about it, it's also obvious. What is less obvious, to me at least, is (1) that the climate is changing mainly due to human activity, and (2) that the very people who complain about climate change are prepared, and willing, to take action --- would you give up listening to your CDs? (I do trust you're fully aware that buying or listening to CDs involves aiding and abetting anti-environmentalist processes)

You can bet on it on the future as well.

I wrote a lengthy reply to this, but lost it...oh well, in short:

I obviously agree that terrible things happened in French, Russian etc revolutions, and things didn't necessarily always improve in general either, until maybe after a long time. Social equality in the sense that everyone should have good chances to moving forward and doing what they want with their life. I don't think anyone thinks everyone should be president.. But for anyone to be able to get an education and work in your chosen field, again, since I apparently need to point out the bleeding obvious, I don't suggest that everyone should be able to be a center in a Stanley Cup winning hockey team, but that people's abilities and interest should determine what they become, not their gender, skin colour, family name or wealth. And I'm not suggesting that e.g. Finland should abolish its army or sell its weapons, but that avoiding armed conflict is always preferable. Sometimes having an army is needed for that, too, although it rarely includes deployment. And I'm sure you know we all know nothing is really free, and that what I meant was that education and healthcare should be largely paid by government with tax money. As for climate change, here's a brief summary of the causes of climate change. Deforestation, farming, man-made greenhouse gas emissions during the past 100 years or so seem to be the obvious cause. And about slowing down climate change, stopping to buy CDs surely helps a teeny weeny bit, but switching from air travel to trains, from cars to buses and bikes, from beef to chicken and to beans and lentils, from coal to nuclear and solar and wind, and using triple or at least double glazing in windows, more insulation, and so on, are surely more effective measures.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 29, 2019, 01:48:23 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2019, 01:08:21 PM
You, good sir, are a liar! Liar, I tellya! Liar, liar, liar!
I pay taxes on money I created with my own work. The government may very well spend any amount of money they want --- the government doesn't create a single dime, they only spend it


     I get paid with U.S. dollars created by the monopoly manufacturer, the U.S. government. Nobody wants "my" money. They want dollars, too.

     About "only" spending, that's how it's done. That's how the government has produced all of those dollars it hasn't taxed back, the national savings that's also the national debt. It spent them. They exist because they weren't taxed back. They became "our" money. Other countries do likewise.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 29, 2019, 01:59:07 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2019, 01:55:57 PM
Do you imply that the US government can manufacture just as many dollars as it wants?

Of course it can (the US has it's own currency), but there is a consequence to that: Inflation.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 29, 2019, 02:03:13 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2019, 01:55:57 PM
Do you imply that the US government can manufacture just as many dollars as it wants?

   

      Of course it can. It wouldn't be much of an accusation that the big fat government spends whatever it wants into our pockets if it wasn't a fact, too. It is. The practical limit is the availability of resources to spend money on. If that is exceeded high inflation results. But yes, there is no "largest number in arithmetic" nominal limit. That's a Bizarro World concept.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 29, 2019, 02:06:13 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2019, 02:01:58 PM
You've discovered the wheel, congrats!

I don't think it was me who discoved this basic fact (I learned this decades ago in school), but you do understand the inflation part kind of makes the ground muddy for the wheel?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 29, 2019, 02:16:33 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2019, 02:10:17 PM
Your grasp of monetary theory is sophomoric at best.

Anyway, good luck in creating your own salary or pension.

Your grasp of of what we are talking here is sophomoric at best. We are talking about the central bank releasing money on the market/printing more money. That is a monetary tool to control economical growth.

Nobody here is "creating" our own salary or pension apart from working and getting paid.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 29, 2019, 02:27:20 PM
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2019, 02:10:17 PM

Anyway, good luck in creating your own salary or pension.

     Why would I want to do that? Dollars are just fine with me. They are widely accepted, and since they are used to pay taxes they always will be. I don't know what all the fuss is about. The money circuit needs a faucet and a drain to balance things out and keep inflation in the Goldilocks zone, so we can spend for needs up to the practical limit, putting money into people pockets and taking less back. I think it works pretty well, and would work even better if we could get more people up to the sophomore level.

Quote from: 71 dB on July 29, 2019, 02:16:33 PM
Your grasp of of what we are talking here is sophomoric at best. We are talking about the central bank releasing money on the market/printing more money. That is a monetary tool to control economical growth.

Nobody here is "creating" our own salary or pension apart from working and getting paid.

     I wouldn't put it that way. Central banks are scorekeepers IMV. But if you consolidate fiscal/monetary at the conceptual level you don't have to consolidate at the institutional level.

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 29, 2019, 04:50:17 PM
Bernie Goes To Canada For Medicine With Desperate Americans

A vial of insulin costs $6 to manufacture. In Windsor, Ontario it costs $32 in a pharmacy. On the other side of the border in Detroit the price for this same insulin is $340. Canada has single payer healtcare. The US doesn't. Hence 10-fold price.  :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 29, 2019, 04:56:14 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 29, 2019, 04:50:17 PM
Bernie Goes To Canada For Medicine With Desperate Americans

A vial of insulin costs $6 to manufacture. In Windsor, Ontario it costs $32 in a pharmacy. On the other side of the border in Detroit the price for this same insulin is $340. Canada has single payer healtcare. The US doesn't. Hence 10-fold price.  :P

The absurd ease of demonstrating the problem doesn't mean that Bernie has a practical solution.

His show is long on moonshine.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on July 29, 2019, 05:01:54 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 29, 2019, 12:57:46 PM


Example of corporate media:

CNN Is Running Pro-Kamala Ads As 'News' Segments

https://www.youtube.com/v/e2d2j5XnxFg

What do you think is being proved here?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 29, 2019, 06:46:09 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 29, 2019, 04:56:14 PM
The absurd ease of demonstrating the problem doesn't mean that Bernie has a practical solution.



     A practical solution is not what Bernie has. What he has is the determination to put one into effect, preferably his, though perhaps not preferably mine. One thing though, is that whichever one gets done won't lack practicality.

     If someone promised me that our shitty system projected to cost ~$50T over the next few years would be replaced by a universal single payer system cost trillions less over the same time period I'd say improve coverage up to $40T and call it a win.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 30, 2019, 02:01:06 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 29, 2019, 04:56:14 PM
The absurd ease of demonstrating the problem doesn't mean that Bernie has a practical solution.

His show is long on moonshine.

What? Medicare for all system is his practical solution. What solutions does that corporate Dems have? They want to keep the status quo, maybe some small improvements here and there. You think that brings prices down? What's wrong with you man?

Allowing drugs to be inported from Canada alone would help a lot. Bernie has proposed that of course. It's not his fault almost all other politicians are utterly corrupt and don't care when americans die for rationing medicine.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 30, 2019, 02:10:33 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on July 29, 2019, 05:01:54 PM
What do you think is being proved here?

It demonstrates that CNN is not intereted of covering politics in an objective manner. They have their favorites (Biden, Harris, Buttigieg).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 30, 2019, 02:24:39 AM
Kamala Harris' Health Care Plan Exposes HUGE Campaign Flaw

https://www.youtube.com/v/voin3iAdRbE
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 30, 2019, 04:25:57 AM

Quote from: 71 dB on July 30, 2019, 02:10:33 AM
It demonstrates that CNN is not intereted of covering politics in an objective manner. They have their favorites (Biden, Harris, Buttigieg).

      They cover politics OK, it's the policy they don't cover that is the most serious flaw. Notice that their policy aversion leaves Warren with the least coverage among the top tier candidates. It's almost like the cable shows don't know what to do with her.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 30, 2019, 10:36:43 AM
Quote from: drogulus on July 30, 2019, 04:25:57 AM
      They cover politics OK, it's the policy they don't cover that is the most serious flaw. Notice that their policy aversion leaves Warren with the least coverage among the top tier candidates. It's almost like the cable shows don't know what to do with her.

Warren is a "weak" mildly corrupt progressive so they hate her much less than Bernie.

If they covered politics well they would bring up the fact that the "black" Kamala Harris isn't actually that pro-black candidate as she laughs at the proposal to legalize recreational marijuana which would significantly reduce incarceration of the black for non-violent crimes not to mention many other questionable things Kamala Harris has done in her career. Kamala Harris is a corporate candidate plain and simple. Her proposal of dealing with the student loan debt crisis (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/kamala-harris-proposes-cancelling-20000-in-student-debt-for-these-low-income-borrowers-unleashing-backlash-on-twitter-2019-07-29) is a JOKE compared to what the progressives propose. She isn't working for poor blacks (or whites for that matter) Instead they show these "inspirational ads" with emotional music and empty rethoric while smearing Bernie 19 ways to Sunday.  :P

Kamala Harris is perhaps marginally better than Joe Biden, but that's not saying much as Biden is maybe second only to John Delaney when ranking the worst Democratic candidates.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 30, 2019, 11:09:20 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 30, 2019, 10:36:43 AM
Warren is a "weak" mildly corrupt progressive so they hate her much less than Bernie.

If they covered politics well they would bring up the fact that the "black" Kamala Harris isn't actually that pro-black candidate as she laughs at the proposal to legalize recreational marijuana which would significantly reduce incarceration of the black for non-violent crimes not to mention many other questionable things Kamala Harris has done in her career. Kamala Harris is a corporate candidate plain and simple. Her proposal of dealing with the student loan debt crisis (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/kamala-harris-proposes-cancelling-20000-in-student-debt-for-these-low-income-borrowers-unleashing-backlash-on-twitter-2019-07-29) is a JOKE compared to what the progressives propose. She isn't working for poor blacks (or whites for that matter) Instead they show these "inspirational ads" with emotional music and empty rethoric while smearing Bernie 19 ways to Sunday.  :P

Kamala Harris is perhaps marginally better than Joe Biden, but that's not saying much as Biden is maybe second only to John Delaney when ranking the worst Democratic candidates.

Decriminalizing marijuana would have little or no impact on incarceration rates.  People are sent to prison for violent crimes and for selling/buying/possessing wholesale quantities and/or "harder" drugs.  It would also do nothing for all the people already in prison or already back in society after serving their sentence.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 30, 2019, 11:33:56 AM
Quote from: JBS on July 30, 2019, 11:09:20 AM
Decriminalizing marijuana would have little or no impact on incarceration rates.  People are sent to prison for violent crimes and for selling/buying/possessing wholesale quantities and/or "harder" drugs.  It would also do nothing for all the people already in prison or already back in society after serving their sentence.

It's amazing how you come up with these brainfarts to defend the status quo. You are a true status quo lover, aren't you? Anything that would change something is poison to you. Selling/buying/possessing of course are not a violent crimes and a lot of blacks (disproportionally compared to whites are sent behind the bars for these crimes. Decriminalizing marijuana would not stop incarcerting people for violent crimes. If you buy, posses and use marijuana you are not doing violent crimes. It's not different from buying a cup of coffee, except coffee isn't illegal while marijuana is. Big Pharma has bought the politicians (including Kamala Harris it seems) to oppose decriminalization of marijuana, because they want to sell people their pills instead. Also, incarceration of black people to private prisons is a good business for white rich assholes.

Yeah, it sucks if you did your time before the law was changed, but sure it's sucks for the new convicted people if the law isn't changed because of this silly logic. "MY GENERATION DIDN'T HAVE THIS SO THE FUTURE GENERATIOS CAN'T IT EITHER!!" Well, how nice of you.  ::)

----------

Bernie's Campaign Manager Calls Out Corporate Media Bias On CNN

https://www.youtube.com/v/MAK7IsU2O44
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 30, 2019, 11:44:15 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 30, 2019, 11:33:56 AM
It's amazing how you come up with these brainfarts to defend the status quo. You are a true status quo lover, aren't you? Anything that would change something is poison to you. Selling/buying/possessing of course are not a violent crimes and a lot of blacks (disproportionally compared to whites are sent behind the bars for these crimes. Decriminalizing marijuana would not stop incarcerting people for violent crimes. If you buy, posses and use marijuana you are not doing violent crimes. It's not different from buying a cup of coffee, except coffee isn't illegal while marijuana is. Big Pharma has bought the politicians (including Kamala Harris it seems) to oppose decriminalization of marijuana, because they want to sell people their pills instead. Also, incarceration of black people to private prisons is a good business for white rich assholes.

Yeah, it sucks if you did your time before the law was changed, but sure it's sucks for the new convicted people if the law isn't changed because of this silly logic. "MY GENERATION DIDN'T HAVE THIS SO THE FUTURE GENERATIOS CAN'T IT EITHER!!" Well, how nice of you.  ::)

----------

Bernie's Campaign Manager Calls Out Corporate Media Bias On CNN

https://www.youtube.com/v/MAK7IsU2O44

Once again, you prove you have no idea of what you're talking about.

Decriminalizing marijuana will not have any impact on incarceration rates because it would decriminalize something that people are not usually sent to jail over: posessing/using small amounts of marijuana.   And Big Pharma has nothing to do with it.   It's the law and order folks who generally support Trump that oppose it.

BTW, if you didn't notice, Bernie's campaign manager was making that complaint on....CNN.  On the same day that Bernie had a full scale interview with Jake Tapper on....CNN.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 31, 2019, 06:44:54 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 30, 2019, 10:36:43 AM
Warren is a "weak" mildly corrupt progressive so they hate her much less than Bernie.



     My point was/is that policy heavy candidates are disadvantaged by horsey racy coverage more than other factors like what she wants to do and whether she has the ability to get it done. These are important things.

     The circular nature of arguments about how electable candidates are is really warping coverage. Candidates are talked about as though the perception of unelectability makes it so whether any voter thinks that way or not. How many voters will throw away their vote on the electable versus the desirable choice? The theory (heh!) must be that beauty contests are won by the person who is perceived as most beautiful in the eyes of others, regardless of whether the candidate is preferred by any voter. No doubt some do vote that way. I won't give my vote away like that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 31, 2019, 08:34:57 AM
Quote from: JBS on July 30, 2019, 11:44:15 AM
Once again, you prove you have no idea of what you're talking about.

Decriminalizing marijuana will not have any impact on incarceration rates because it would decriminalize something that people are not usually sent to jail over: posessing/using small amounts of marijuana.   And Big Pharma has nothing to do with it.   It's the law and order folks who generally support Trump that oppose it.

BTW, if you didn't notice, Bernie's campaign manager was making that complaint on....CNN.  On the same day that Bernie had a full scale interview with Jake Tapper on....CNN.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/16/17243080/marijuana-legalization-mass-incarceration-boehner (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/16/17243080/marijuana-legalization-mass-incarceration-boehner)

Okay, I take it back, but still 600 000 people are arrested for marijuana possession, "These arrests on their own can create huge problems — leading to criminal records that can make it harder to get a job, housing, or financial aid for college."

Jake Tapper made questions framed from right wing perspective, but luckily Bernie's campaign manager was able to handle them.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on July 31, 2019, 08:48:57 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 31, 2019, 08:34:57 AM
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/16/17243080/marijuana-legalization-mass-incarceration-boehner (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/16/17243080/marijuana-legalization-mass-incarceration-boehner)

Okay, I take it back, but still 600 000 people are arrested for marijuana possession, "These arrests on their own can create huge problems — leading to criminal records that can make it harder to get a job, housing, or financial aid for college."

Jake Tapper made questions framed from right wing perspective, but luckily Bernie's campaign manager was able to handle them.



I get that you want to cheer Bernie at every turn. But maybe Jake Tapper was doing the debaters a service. There is no foul in having the candidates address a point in this debate, which they are likely to face from a Republican opponent down the line.

You'll pardon my not vilifying a moderator for not tossing Bernie softballs.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 31, 2019, 11:13:53 AM
     The market just made a sharp turn down on account of the rate cut. All we need is a reclusive millionaire to say "go to cash now". I love when they say that. It restores my faith in human depravity.

     You really should monitor what people say on investor sites. These places are full of "contrarians". "Contrarian" is a term of art for someone who thinks exactly like everyone else in the contrarian herd. They are herd animals. They tell you secrets about how no one can predict a recession while they are predicting one "some day".

     Aw shittt.....dumb money is buying the dip already. What's wrong with you people? We're trying to get a good crisis going and you're just fucking it up!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on July 31, 2019, 01:05:09 PM
I think the markets had hoped for a bigger cut, hence the disappointment. My feeling is that the Fed went for a mostly cosmetic adjustment to get Trump off its back.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on July 31, 2019, 02:01:52 PM
Quote from: André on July 31, 2019, 01:05:09 PM
I think the markets had hoped for a bigger cut, hence the disappointment. My feeling is that the Fed went for a mostly cosmetic adjustment to get Trump off its back.

     It was exactly the cut that was expected, wasn't it? Oh, I get it, Powell said not to expect more cuts unless blah blah etc.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on July 31, 2019, 03:51:57 PM
Yes, rate adjustments are normally by increments of a quarter of a point. It's all in the Fed statement's wording. This time it is so convoluted and indecisive that no indication of future cuts can be deduced, which befuddled the markets. Uncertainty has increased by a quarter percent as a result. 

It would appear Mr Powell has mastered the trumpian linguo: « we'll see what happens »....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 01, 2019, 06:19:43 AM
Quote from: André on July 31, 2019, 03:51:57 PM
Yes, rate adjustments are normally by increments of a quarter of a point. It's all in the Fed statement's wording. This time it is so convoluted and indecisive that no indication of future cuts can be deduced, which befuddled the markets. Uncertainty has increased by a quarter percent as a result. 

It would appear Mr Powell has mastered the trumpian linguo: « we'll see what happens »....

     Traders are very interested in this "uncertainty" thing, which affects them and produces this wobble in prices that tends to go away when they run out of panic, greed, interest, whatever.

     About the rate cut, the best interpretation is that it's CYA theater, and maybe an apology. Why oh why are we having policy based on "inflation expectations" in the middle of a yield curve inversion? But the thing is, Powell will never do what the Fed never does, admit not that they made a mistake, but that their assumptions about Philips Curveses, NAIRU, natural this and natural that are constantly revealed to be fantasies. Monetarism says implicitly that if a good economy operates at a given interest rate you can find that rate, set it and a good economy pops out. It not that Fedsters really believe it (that's a really hard thing to believe) but that they won't say it's wrong, that good economies are paid for.

     I hate Philips Curveses! If they were an independent factor like they are supposed to be you wouldn't have to make up a new one every cycle. It's not 5% any more? How low is it? Nevertheless, Fed wisdom will reset it to 5% or 6% for the next cycle. Watch them "expect" inflation again and again, watch it not show up. Watch the Concorde Fallacy take flight again and again.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 01, 2019, 12:05:22 PM
     (https://www.morganjones.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/CJ-from-the-original-Reggie-Perrin-series.jpg)

     I didn't get where I am today by going to cash now.

     How Elizabeth Warren won both nights of the Democratic debate (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-elizabeth-warren-won-both-nights-of-the-democratic-debate/2019/08/01/1d0b4856-b458-11e9-8f6c-7828e68cb15f_story.html?utm_term=.29a6c118f09e)

     She's an apex predator, that's how.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on August 01, 2019, 08:14:49 PM
On "electability":

Bernie Sanders Is Now The Only Candidate with More Individual Contributions Than Trump (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/1/1876017/-Bernie-Sanders-Is-Now-The-Only-Candidate-with-More-Individual-Donors-Than-Trump)

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on August 02, 2019, 03:15:01 AM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 01, 2019, 08:14:49 PM
On "electability":

Bernie Sanders Is Now The Only Candidate with More Individual Contributions Than Trump (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/1/1876017/-Bernie-Sanders-Is-Now-The-Only-Candidate-with-More-Individual-Donors-Than-Trump)



That's a fine data point, but doesn't speak to whether he appeals to swing voters.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 02, 2019, 04:15:10 AM
Michael Bennet Gets SALTY With Cenk

This is a good clip about the healthcare debate in the US and what it is about.

https://www.youtube.com/v/fMESYzh6mYM

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 02, 2019, 03:15:01 AM
That's a fine data point, but doesn't speak to whether he appeals to swing voters.

Trump vs. Bernie polls suggests he appeals to swing voters enough to beat Trump with ease.

This "electability" debate is corporate media fearmongering progressives to create a narrative were especially Bernie is too left, but the reality is the other way around: Are the centrists candidates left enough to inspire people in this age of political populism and lefty ideas? Hillary Clinton certainly wasn't left enough and Trump's campaign rethoric sounded more left to many.

Most people who label themselves as conservatives are socially conservative, not economically conservative. These are poor people struggling economically. They want living wage too. They need affordable healthcare too. They want clean tap water and so on. They have seen Trump isn't delivering these things. Trump cuts taxes and regulations for the rich, destroys the rule of law and gives racism for the fans of white etnostate. That's it. Bernie has so much to offer for those who are not complete idiots. That's why Bernie would crush Trump.

Karl, you are someone with a doctorate (in music, but anyway  0:) ). I am amazed by how "corporate" your views are. If the corporate media is able to brainwash even intellectuals, what hope is there for the mankind? Maybe you have made so many millions with your unrecorded music that you are living comfortable and don't care what kind of brutal healthcare system your country has. Maybe your net worth is over 50 million and you don't want lefty politicians to impose wealth taxes on you? I don't know. It just looks like you believe the corporate narrative while ignoring all the left wing momentum of progressives. Didn't you notice how last year people like AOC and Ilhan Omar got elected to congress? Despite permanent financial disadvantage because these people don't take corporate money. People are sick of the corruption and want change. That's why there is a left wing momentum, even if the corporate media tries to downplay it as much as possible as an inconvenient truth.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 02, 2019, 09:12:58 AM
     
     In the name of religious diversity we should keep all options open for the veep slot:

     (https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/11/10/autossell/23satan/09-SATANICTEMPLE-facebookJumbo.jpg)

     That's a nice familiy values touch with the kiddies.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 02, 2019, 10:35:29 AM
     We Dems (I'm a Dem for this purpose) should see if we could get some liberty love on our side in the war against drug takers. In furtherance of this noble goal I offer the thoughts of former Nixon drug warrior John Ehrlichman from the '90s:

At the time, I was writing a book about the politics of drug prohibition. I started to ask Ehrlichman a series of earnest, wonky questions that he impatiently waved away. "You want to know what this was really all about?" he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

     (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)

     Of course that's just, like, his opinion, man. But isn't he the right guy to have it?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on August 04, 2019, 12:57:09 AM
Who's in and who's out for the next Democratic debate (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/who-s-who-s-out-next-democratic-debate-n1038381)

"So far, only seven out of 24 candidates appear to have met both grades: Former Vice President Joe Biden, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, California Sen. Kamala Harris, former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren."


It looks like Klobacher just made the cut, too.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on August 05, 2019, 12:23:18 PM
MSNBC's Ridiculous War on Bernie Sanders (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/08/msnbc-poll-bernie-sanders-presidential-campaign)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on August 05, 2019, 02:16:33 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 05, 2019, 12:23:18 PM
MSNBC's Ridiculous War on Bernie Sanders (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/08/msnbc-poll-bernie-sanders-presidential-campaign)

By all means, hold their feet to the fire.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 05, 2019, 05:57:53 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 05, 2019, 12:23:18 PM
MSNBC's Ridiculous War on Bernie Sanders (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/08/msnbc-poll-bernie-sanders-presidential-campaign)

The corporate media doesn't like Tulsi Gabbard either. Too anti-war.
Bad for the profits of the military industry complex.
Since Tulsi called out Kamala's questionable record as a prosecutor in the second debate,
corporate media smears her "Assad, Assad, Assad..."


Pathetic...  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Daverz on August 05, 2019, 09:25:47 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 05, 2019, 05:57:53 PM
The corporate media doesn't like Tulsi Gabbard either. Too anti-war.
Bad for the profits of the military industry complex.
Since Tulsi called out Kamala's questionable record as a prosecutor in the second debate,
corporate media smears her "Assad, Assad, Assad..."


Pathetic...  ::)

Gabbard is a rather flaky conservative Democrat (she ranks 155th on a progressive voting score in the House).  She's been going on Tucker Carlson's White Power Hour lately.  The love for her on the UK left is rather odd.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/07/the-british-hard-left-embraces-tulsi-gabbard

EDIT: Gabbard has her revenge!  Since I posted this her web ads have been following me everywhere.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 06, 2019, 03:50:23 AM
Bill de Blasio signed TYT's Progressive Economic Pledge (https://join.tyt.com/pledge-supporters/) (Higher Wages, Medicare for All, Green New Deal, College for All, End The Corruption)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 08, 2019, 02:09:41 PM
REUTERS/IPSOS post debate 2 poll (https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-ELECTION-POLL/0100B05G09P/index.html?utm_source=reddit.com):

Top 5

Biden --- 22.4 %
Sanders --- 18.4 %
Warren --- 8.7 %
Harris --- 5.7 %
Buttigieg --- 3.9 %
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on August 13, 2019, 11:27:38 AM
Take it from Democrats in red districts: Focus on beating Trump (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/13/take-it-dems-red-districts-just-beat-trump/)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 13, 2019, 12:28:11 PM

     After minutes of serious thought I've come to the profound realization that I don't like Joe Biden. It's not dislike, just lack of like.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on August 13, 2019, 01:10:32 PM
Quote from: drogulus on August 13, 2019, 12:28:11 PM
     After minutes of serious thought I've come to the profound realization that I don't like Joe Biden. It's not dislike, just lack of like.

That's fair
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 13, 2019, 03:14:35 PM

     It looks like Hickenlooper is going to drop out and run for the Senate, where he stands a good chance against the incumbent.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on August 13, 2019, 04:53:54 PM
Quote from: drogulus on August 13, 2019, 03:14:35 PM
     It looks like Hickenlooper is going to drop out and run for the Senate, where he stands a good chance against the incumbent.

Good call.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on August 14, 2019, 08:46:25 AM
Does Bernie really want to sound like Trump ("the media is so unfair to me"?

The trouble is that there isn't much of a case to be made that Sanders is getting singled out for mistreatment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/14/bernie-sanderss-real-media-problem/
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on August 14, 2019, 08:49:27 AM
Bernie, your moment has come — and gone

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanders-has-one-big-problem-eugene-mccarthy/2019/02/19/f2c90cd4-347f-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 14, 2019, 09:06:08 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 14, 2019, 08:49:27 AM
Bernie, your moment has come — and gone

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanders-has-one-big-problem-eugene-mccarthy/2019/02/19/f2c90cd4-347f-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html

Brainwashed by WP Karl? How stupid are you?

Bernie overtakes Biden in New Hampshire poll

https://www.youtube.com/v/KDU0_C_DoRA

Bernie 21 %
Biden 15 %
Warren 12 %
Buttigieg 8 %
Kamala Harris 7 %
Gabbard 5 %

Looks like the moment came and went for Cop-mala Harris...

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 14, 2019, 09:45:02 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 14, 2019, 09:06:08 AM
Brainwashed by WP Karl? How stupid are you?


     How stupid is anyone, really, when you get down to it? At the end of the day........

     At an investor forum I often terrorize I said this about Bernie:

Sanders is a socialist. In my view he is ill-equipped to understand or sympathize with supercharged capitalist economic theory. Unlike his former advisor Stephanie Kelton, he really does believe money grows on rich people. The government has to go and get it from who has it or it can't spend for good things. This is the same stuff mainstream libraservatives believe.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on August 14, 2019, 12:52:40 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 14, 2019, 09:06:08 AM
Brainwashed by WP Karl? How stupid are you?

Somehow you see a non insulting difference of opinion with you as " toxic" but a comment like this of your own is not. How does that work?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 14, 2019, 12:53:31 PM
Quote from: drogulus on August 14, 2019, 09:45:02 AM
Sanders is a socialist.

He is a social democrat. He wants the same stuff social democratic Nordic countries have had for decades. Even Slovenia has tuition free education and that's a poor East European country with 40 % of the GDP per capita of the US. How to pay for the "free stuff?" Canada, New Zealand, Australia, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland among many other countries figured it out decades ago. Having real democracy instead of oligarchy helps a lot.  ;)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 14, 2019, 12:54:37 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on August 14, 2019, 12:52:40 PM
Somehow you see a non insulting difference of opinion with you as " toxic" but a comment like this of your own is not. How does that work?

I should stay away but it is difficult - my posts are toxic too.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on August 14, 2019, 04:07:41 PM
Sanders also improved significantly in the latest South Carolina poll (although still 14 points behind Biden and 1 behind Warren). I don't know if it means a ton since all of these changes have been primarily at the expense of the lower tier candidates, so all we're seeing is a consolidation of voters within the top four, although Mayor Pete still has some support in Iowa and New Hampshire; he's dropping rapidly anywhere else that's less white than Finland.

I also don't really think it will end up being a "top four" despite the fact that Kamala Harris has been planning to be president since at least 2016 and is trying her best to be a top tier candidate. It looks like it'll end up being a "top three" of Biden, Sanders and Warren. (I mean, at the moment it's really a "top two" of Biden and Undecided.)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on August 14, 2019, 04:48:12 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 14, 2019, 08:49:27 AM
Bernie, your moment has come — and gone

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanders-has-one-big-problem-eugene-mccarthy/2019/02/19/f2c90cd4-347f-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html

You can always count on WaPo to play into the stale "Bernie Bros" narrative when the latest poll shows that he has more female supporters than men.

Here's a far better article:

https://www.vox.com/2019/8/14/20802129/bernie-sanders-2020-corporate-media-bias-explained
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 14, 2019, 05:30:58 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 14, 2019, 04:48:12 PM
You can always count on WaPo to play into the stale "Bernie Bros" narrative when the latest poll shows that he has more female supporters than men.

Here's a far better article:

https://www.vox.com/2019/8/14/20802129/bernie-sanders-2020-corporate-media-bias-explained


You know who constantly complain about the media, and insist it is heavily biased against them?
The GOP and the Right wing. Interesting that Bernie supporters reach for the same tool as the Right.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 14, 2019, 05:32:13 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 14, 2019, 12:53:31 PM
He is a social democrat. He wants the same stuff social democratic Nordic countries have had for decades. Even Slovenia has tuition free education and that's a poor East European country with 40 % of the GDP per capita of the US. How to pay for the "free stuff?" Canada, New Zealand, Australia, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland among many other countries figured it out decades ago. Having real democracy instead of oligarchy helps a lot.  ;)

The countries you mention are just as oligarchic as the US.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 14, 2019, 07:21:32 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 14, 2019, 12:53:31 PM
He is a social democrat.

     He thinks he's a socialist and he's in a better position to know than the young people who call themselves socialist as a synonym for progressive. But then, while I'm a little puritanical about definitions, the distinction is getting muddled. Almost any positive proposal the right wants to block is left by default and socialist by the kiddies. It's not just hostility by the intellectually corrupt right wing that doesn't even acknowledge the significance of social democracy. Social democracy=socialism=communism, a view that turns history into mush. These kids should very much get off my lawn.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on August 14, 2019, 11:00:58 PM
Quote from: JBS on August 14, 2019, 05:30:58 PM

You know who constantly complain about the media, and insist it is heavily biased against them?
The GOP and the Right wing. Interesting that Bernie supporters reach for the same tool as the Right.

Do you acknowledge that the DNC conspired to prevent Bernie from winning in 2016?

A few days ago, when Bernie sat down for an hour-long podcast focused on policy and substance (which is not possible the way the debates are structured), the last question was if he would reveal info on aliens when in the White House; Sanders sarcastically said he would. Clearly this was a joke, but it didn't stop every media outlet under the sun from ignoring the issues and seizing the opportunity to portray Bernie was a crazed lunatic.

CNN - https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/us/bernie-sanders-aliens-trnd/index.html

... and Fox - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxK32pp3atM

(How low can CNN go?)

This, on the other hand, is pure gold:

http://youtube.com/v/15RjcRJ3Z70
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 15, 2019, 03:24:11 AM
Quote from: drogulus on August 14, 2019, 07:21:32 PM
     He thinks he's a socialist and he's in a better position to know than the young people who call themselves socialist as a synonym for progressive. But then, while I'm a little puritanical about definitions, the distinction is getting muddled. Almost any positive proposal the right wants to block is left by default and socialist by the kiddies. It's not just hostility by the intellectually corrupt right wing that doesn't even acknowledge the significance of social democracy. Social democracy=socialism=communism, a view that turns history into mush. These kids should very much get off my lawn.

No, he thinks he is a democratic socialist and is wrong, because he is actually a social democrat. Labels are labels. Policy is policy. The right fearmongers Venezuela in order to protect the rigged system for the 1 %. The US NEEDS the policies Bernie Sanders proposes regardless of how we label them and he is the best person to make those policies happen. That's why he must became the president.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 15, 2019, 03:36:22 AM
Quote from: JBS on August 14, 2019, 05:32:13 PM
The countries you mention are just as oligarchic as the US.

You give zero data for your claim. Gini data doesn't support your claim. You are veru ignorant if you think say Sweden is as oligachic than the US. See how "green" Sweden is. The US is pink, so is Russia a known oligarchy. Only African counties, china etc. shitholes are worse...

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on August 15, 2019, 04:00:39 AM
The Gini index should not be thought of as measuring the well-being of countries and their citizens. Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Ethiopia and a few other god forsaken places look quite green on that map. And yet, I have no desire to move there...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 15, 2019, 04:22:48 AM
Quote from: André on August 15, 2019, 04:00:39 AM
The Gini index should not be thought of as measuring the well-being of countries and their citizens. Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Ethiopia and a few other god forsaken places look quite green on that map. And yet, I have no desire to move there...

Yeah, but this is not about how rich or poor a country is, but rather how the wealth is distributed. The US and Norway are two rich western countries. However, the wealth in Norway is distributed differently from the US. Why? Could it be the politics in Norway isn't for the top 1 % the same way it is in the US?

The lowest wages in Oslo are in the ballpark of $20 per hour. Compare that to the minimum wages in the US.  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 15, 2019, 06:40:39 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 15, 2019, 04:22:48 AM
Yeah, but this is not about how rich or poor a country is, but rather how the wealth is distributed. The US and Norway are two rich western countries. However, the wealth in Norway is distributed differently from the US. Why? Could it be the politics in Norway isn't for the top 1 % the same way it is in the US?

The lowest wages in Oslo are in the ballpark of $20 per hour. Compare that to the minimum wages in the US.  ;D

That's a meaningless comparison unless you integrate it into an actual comparison of basic everyday living expenses (food, rent, transportation).

Finland and every other country have rich people.  They also have government officials and politicians. Where there is money, there is politics.  Where there is politics, there is money.  Therefore they are just as oligarchic as the US.
  IOW, you seriously underestimate the oligarchic tendencies of your own country.  It's not a matter of who has how much of the wealth.  It's a matter of who makes the decisions.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on August 15, 2019, 07:02:55 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 15, 2019, 03:36:22 AM
You give zero data for your claim. Gini data doesn't support your claim. You are veru ignorant if you think say Sweden is as oligachic than the US. See how "green" Sweden is. The US is pink, so is Russia a known oligarchy. Only African counties, china etc. shitholes are worse...
Is Gini wealth inequality?
If so then that would mean Southern Africa has richer dictators than the rest of Africa. I think the mining industry in the southern countries is bigger there?... Probably some people hoarding the wealth while the children work and die on the job.

Not a surprise the US is green since there's many absurdly rich people here. But there's also many homeless people, so makes sense. If I'm understanding Gini correctly.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 15, 2019, 11:38:04 AM
Quote from: JBS on August 15, 2019, 06:40:39 AM
That's a meaningless comparison unless you integrate it into an actual comparison of basic everyday living expenses (food, rent, transportation).

Finland and every other country have rich people.  They also have government officials and politicians. Where there is money, there is politics.  Where there is politics, there is money.  Therefore they are just as oligarchic as the US.
  IOW, you seriously underestimate the oligarchic tendencies of your own country.  It's not a matter of who has how much of the wealth.  It's a matter of who makes the decisions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy)

In a 2015 interview, former President Jimmy Carter stated that the United States is now "an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery" due to the Citizens United ruling which effectively removed limits on donations to political candidates.

We don't have "Citizens United" -type of rulings in Finland and if you check Finland's ranking in the "least corrupted" list Finland is #3 while the US is #22.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 15, 2019, 11:54:01 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 15, 2019, 11:38:04 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy)

In a 2015 interview, former President Jimmy Carter stated that the United States is now "an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery" due to the Citizens United ruling which effectively removed limits on donations to political candidates.

We don't have "Citizens United" -type of rulings in Finland and if you check Finland's ranking in the "least corrupted" list Finland is #3 while the US is #22.

1) Carter is a hack who is quite willing to give his imprimatur to dictators. In this instance he was merely repeating Democratic Party rhetoric that started as soon as Citizens United was issued. The Wikipedia paragraph, btw, mistates what Citizens United did.

2) from the same Wikipedia article
QuoteIt found that wealthy individuals and organizations representing business interests have substantial political influence, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little to none.
He's describing politics in any country. 
3) Corruption and oligarchy are two entirely different things.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on August 15, 2019, 05:01:14 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 14, 2019, 04:48:12 PM
You can always count on WaPo to play into the stale "Bernie Bros" narrative when the latest poll shows that he has more female supporters than men.


The Bernie Bros is one small detail in the Eugene McCarthy comparison.  Your complaint is wildly wide of the mark.
You & Poju both amplify an opinion piece as being indicative of paper-wide "bias"; which does not flatter your acumen as a reader.







Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on August 16, 2019, 12:19:53 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 15, 2019, 05:01:14 PM
The Bernie Bros is one small detail in the Eugene McCarthy comparison.  Your complaint is wildly wide of the mark.
You & Poju both amplify an opinion piece as being indicative of paper-wide "bias"; which does not flatter your acumen as a reader.

This is Biden's third presidential campaign, so your comparison applies to him as much as you think it does to Bernie. McCarthy never polled higher than 1% nationwide, and Sanders through his numbers⁠ has shown that (unlike others) he has a real reason to be in the race.

Anyone that draws a connection between Sanders and Trump for their criticism of the media is being silly. Trump has admitted that "fake news" is news that he does not like, regardless of whether it is true or not. Sanders, on the other hand, has been criticizing the media for decades—and for good reason!

Media coverage of the Iraq War: "A study conducted in 2003 by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) tracking the frequencies of pro-war and antiwar commentators on the major networks found that pro-war views were overwhelmingly more frequent. The FAIR study found that the two networks notably least likely to present critical commentary were Fox and CBS....

"MSNBC... fired liberal Phil Donahue, a critic of Bush's Iraq policy, a month before the invasion began and replaced his show with an expanded Countdown: Iraq, initially hosted by Lester Holt. Shortly after Donahue's firing, MSNBC hired Michael Savage, a controversial conservative radio talk show host for a Saturday afternoon show. Although Donahue's show had lower ratings than several shows on other networks, and most reports on its cancellation blamed poor ratings, it was the highest-rated program on MSNBC's struggling primetime lineup at the time of its cancellation."

You seem to forget that this is corporate media, meaning that their primary objective is to turn a profit. They went along with Bush's war propaganda and will (once again) side with the wealthy when it comes to Bernie. In 2016, Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours (https://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours). This 16-hour window included the important Democratic debate in Flint as well as the next morning's news cycle. "All of these posts paint[ed] his candidacy in a negative light, mainly by advancing the narrative that he's a clueless white man incapable of winning over people of color or speaking to women." From the looks of it, they are doing the same thing in 2019 (and this time Bernie is not going to stay quiet about it).

And you say there is no evidence of paper-wide bias? Jesus.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on August 16, 2019, 12:49:31 AM
It's great to see Americans claim the major media outlets of Iran/China/North Korea/etc only print news stories amenable to the government, while ignoring that America's own major media outlets only print news stories amenable to American billionaires. As always with Americans there's a certain amount of projection.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 16, 2019, 03:04:00 AM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 16, 2019, 12:19:53 AM
This is Biden's third presidential campaign, so your comparison applies to him as much as you think it does to Bernie. McCarthy never polled higher than 1% nationwide, and Sanders through his numbers⁠ has shown that (unlike others) he has a real reason to be in the race.

Anyone that draws a connection between Sanders and Trump for their criticism of the media is being silly. Trump has admitted that "fake news" is news that he does not like, regardless of whether it is true or not. Sanders, on the other hand, has been criticizing the media for decades—and for good reason!

Media coverage of the Iraq War: "A study conducted in 2003 by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) tracking the frequencies of pro-war and antiwar commentators on the major networks found that pro-war views were overwhelmingly more frequent. The FAIR study found that the two networks notably least likely to present critical commentary were Fox and CBS....

"MSNBC... fired liberal Phil Donahue, a critic of Bush's Iraq policy, a month before the invasion began and replaced his show with an expanded Countdown: Iraq, initially hosted by Lester Holt. Shortly after Donahue's firing, MSNBC hired Michael Savage, a controversial conservative radio talk show host for a Saturday afternoon show. Although Donahue's show had lower ratings than several shows on other networks, and most reports on its cancellation blamed poor ratings, it was the highest-rated program on MSNBC's struggling primetime lineup at the time of its cancellation."

You seem to forget that this is corporate media, meaning that their primary objective is to turn a profit. They went along with Bush's war propaganda and will (once again) side with the wealthy when it comes to Bernie. In 2016, Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours (https://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours). This 16-hour window included the important Democratic debate in Flint as well as the next morning's news cycle. "All of these posts paint[ed] his candidacy in a negative light, mainly by advancing the narrative that he's a clueless white man incapable of winning over people of color or speaking to women." From the looks of it, they are doing the same thing in 2019 (and this time Bernie is not going to stay quiet about it).

And you say there is no evidence of paper-wide bias? Jesus.

Good post and I am happy someone here is able to do this. I can't. Here is Kyle Kulinski saying essentially the same you did:

https://www.youtube.com/v/lIRHqxYMg9w

Here is Mike Figueredo:

https://www.youtube.com/v/4hKGvp-oXL4
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on August 16, 2019, 11:17:29 AM
More on the WaPo:

[https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/bernie-sanders-washington-post-media-complaint-872349/]

"The Post in 2017 asked readers how Democrats would "cope" with the Kremlin backing Bernie Sanders with "dirty tricks" in 2020. In April of this year it described the Sanders campaign as a Russian plot to help elect Donald Trump. They've run multiple stories about his "$575,000 lake house," ripping his "socialist hankering" for real estate. "From each according to his ability," the paper quipped, "to each according to his need for lakefront property...

"Apart from being described as a faux-Leninist Russian stooge who wants to elect Trump and mass-release dangerous criminals, what does Sanders have to complain about?"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 16, 2019, 11:27:14 AM
Here's Why Biden Isn't The Most 'Electable' And Bernie Is

https://www.youtube.com/v/l4O-AGjgNns

Trump won in 2016 because of the rust belt. That's were the Democratic nominee has to be strong to beat Trump. Bernie Sanders is strong there. Joe Biden is not. The left wins the electability debate.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on August 16, 2019, 06:40:33 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 16, 2019, 11:17:29 AM
More on the WaPo:

[https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/bernie-sanders-washington-post-media-complaint-872349/]

"The Post in 2017 asked readers how Democrats would "cope" with the Kremlin backing Bernie Sanders with "dirty tricks" in 2020. In April of this year it described the Sanders campaign as a Russian plot to help elect Donald Trump. They've run multiple stories about his "$575,000 lake house," ripping his "socialist hankering" for real estate. "From each according to his ability," the paper quipped, "to each according to his need for lakefront property...

"Apart from being described as a faux-Leninist Russian stooge who wants to elect Trump and mass-release dangerous criminals, what does Sanders have to complain about?"

If he's doing so well in the polls, he has nothing to worry about.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on August 16, 2019, 06:47:32 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 16, 2019, 12:19:53 AM


You seem to forget that this is corporate media, meaning that their primary objective is to turn a profit.

"I seem to forget"? As with Poju ("if you disagree with me, you're brainwashed") when you veer  from facts to the personal, I take it you're more interested in insult than discussion.

... So vox.com operates on a deficit?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on August 16, 2019, 07:01:16 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 16, 2019, 06:47:32 PM
"I seem to forget"? As with Poju ("if you disagree with me, you're brainwashed") when you veer  from facts to the personal, I take it you're more interested in insult than discussion.

"Which does not flatter your acumen as a reader" seems pretty personal to me.

Regardless, I'm not here to insult.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 16, 2019, 07:04:57 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 16, 2019, 11:27:14 AM
Here's Why Biden Isn't The Most 'Electable' And Bernie Is

https://www.youtube.com/v/l4O-AGjgNns

Trump won in 2016 because of the rust belt. That's were the Democratic nominee has to be strong to beat Trump. Bernie Sanders is strong there. Joe Biden is not. The left wins the electability debate.

The Left never wins the electability debate, because it is the Left. IOW, leftist policies will lose elections as long as the contest is about policies, because leftist policies are not popular in the US. Fortunately the election in 2020 will really be a referendum on Trump.  The Democrats need an AntiTrump, someone who projects humility and empathy and sanity in making decisions. Bernie doesn't do that. Biden does. (So do Warren, Harris, and several others in the Democratic field.)  There is a large segment of voters who are conservative but don't like Trump. The Democrats need them to either vote for the Democrat, or at least feel comfortable enough with him/her to stay home and not vote. But if presented with a candidate who aggressively pushes leftist policies, they will feel motivated to vote for Trump just to defeat the Leftist.  Biden is clearly the winner in that category,

Getting people to not vote for Trump is at least as essential as getting people to vote for the Democratic candidate.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on August 16, 2019, 08:10:51 PM
In Wisconsin 2016, Clinton ran alongside a progressive (Bernie-ish) senate candidate, Russ Feingold. Both lost. Feingold lost by slightly more. Feingold significantly outperformed Clinton throughout rural areas and small towns in the state, but Clinton significantly outperformed Feingold in the populous Milwaukee and Madison suburbs, which hold a greater percentage of the state's population and are growing while rural areas are shrinking. That said, Feingold and Clinton both significantly underperformed Obama in 2012 or 2008, and those Democratic voters did not return to the fold in 2018 either (although high turnout in Democratic areas was able to narrowly unseat the state's Republican governor).

Assuming that pattern holds throughout the country, a Clinton-like candidate probably has a slightly better chance to win than a Sanders-like candidate. Certainly Sanders could win mostly-rural states like Iowa, Michigan or Wisconsin. But mostly-suburban states that are currently Democratic strongholds, like Virginia, New Jersey and Maryland, could well end up going the other way. In any case the reality seems to be that open white nationalist candidates are very difficult to defeat in America's democratic-for-white-people-only electoral system.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on August 16, 2019, 08:48:33 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 16, 2019, 07:01:16 PM
"Which does not flatter your acumen as a reader" seems pretty personal to me.

Regardless, I'm not here to insult.

Point taken, I apologize.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 17, 2019, 03:03:17 AM
Quote from: JBS on August 16, 2019, 07:04:57 PM
The Left never wins the electability debate, because it is the Left

You can write that a million times, but you are still wrong. Facts don't care about your feelings. Before I got into American politics I thought americans are right-wing since they vote for right-wing politics, but then I learned this is not the case. The system is rigged. The turn-out of evengelicals in elections is ~85 % while the turn out of young voters is hardly 20 %. The political landscape would look pretty different if these numbers were the other way around. Who do you think will inspire young voters more? Biden or Bernie? We know this because of polls. Bernie is insanely popular among young voters. These are the facts and they don't care about our feelings.

Quote from: JBS on August 16, 2019, 07:04:57 PM. IOW, leftist policies will lose elections as long as the contest is about policies, because leftist policies are not popular in the US. Fortunately the election in 2020 will really be a referendum on Trump.  The Democrats need an AntiTrump, someone who projects humility and empathy and sanity in making decisions. Bernie doesn't do that. Biden does. (So do Warren, Harris, and several others in the Democratic field.)  There is a large segment of voters who are conservative but don't like Trump. The Democrats need them to either vote for the Democrat, or at least feel comfortable enough with him/her to stay home and not vote. But if presented with a candidate who aggressively pushes leftist policies, they will feel motivated to vote for Trump just to defeat the Leftist.  Biden is clearly the winner in that category,

someone who projects humility and empathy and sanity in making decisions? So making sure every american is covered like in all other countries is not empathy? What the fuck? You are such a hack and I wish I had the wisdom to IGNORE you completely!!! You are so wrong and this fucking election will SHOW it to you! Then you learn!  >:D

Quote from: JBS on August 16, 2019, 07:04:57 PMGetting people to not vote for Trump is at least as essential as getting people to vote for the Democratic candidate.

Decades of centrism gave us Trump. We don't want more Trumps in the future so the centrism must go. Bernie is the solution.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on August 17, 2019, 09:32:06 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 17, 2019, 03:03:17 AM
Decades of centrism gave us Trump. We don't want more Trumps in the future so the centrism must go. Bernie is the solution.
Wasn't Bernie for colleges being completely taxpayer funded?

I mean, I would have voted for him like 8-10 years ago during my start of college, but not now. Why should I have to pay taxes to fund colleges for 18 year-olds when I had to be 24 to get any government help at all? I already pay too much in taxes, I don't wanna pay even more.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 17, 2019, 09:50:53 AM
Quote from: greg on August 17, 2019, 09:32:06 AM
Wasn't Bernie for colleges being completely taxpayer funded?

I mean, I would have voted for him like 8-10 years ago during my start of college, but not now. Why should I have to pay taxes to fund colleges for 18 year-olds when I had to be 24 to get any government help at all? I already pay too much in taxes, I don't wanna pay even more.

You pay "too much" taxes because right wing politics has moved tax burden from companies and the rich to middle class. Bernie want to move the burden back. Bernie also wants to eliminate private taxes (healthcare premiums) so in the end you shouldn't pay more, even if you pay for college. Probably less... (I don't know your financial situation).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on August 17, 2019, 10:15:50 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 17, 2019, 09:50:53 AM
You pay "too much" taxes because right wing politics has moved tax burden from companies and the rich to middle class. Bernie want to move the burden back. Bernie also wants to eliminate private taxes (healthcare premiums) so in the end you shouldn't pay more, even if you pay for college. Probably less... (I don't know your financial situation).
I think it's around ~21% of my income that I pay in taxes (above average income, though nothing impressive). I mean, I'm all for redirecting taxes to colleges, though only for certain degrees (not for the liberal arts/social sciences, etc.).

If he can do that or better, then maybe he could be a contender. I would be surprised, honestly, if he could reduce wasteful spending, but that would be great.

But still kind of looking at Andrew Yang most of all because if he's right, none of this will all matter since we'll have a much larger problem coming.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on August 17, 2019, 10:20:32 AM
Also probably one of the biggest issues I have with most of them on the left and Bernie is the ass kissing of the SJW's... that stuff is the gateway drug to the social credit system, which I find to be one of the most terrifying concepts ever created.

Just watched the episode of Black Mirror called "Nosedive," so just thinking about this today... it's like the US is being primed for restrictive speech in order for the social credit system from China to eventually make its way over here- that kind of system would make me suicidal for sure...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 17, 2019, 11:16:40 AM
Quote from: greg on August 17, 2019, 10:20:32 AM
Also probably one of the biggest issues I have with most of them on the left and Bernie is the ass kissing of the SJW's... that stuff is the gateway drug to the social credit system, which I find to be one of the most terrifying concepts ever created.

Just watched the episode of Black Mirror called "Nosedive," so just thinking about this today... it's like the US is being primed for restrictive speech in order for the social credit system from China to eventually make its way over here- that kind of system would make me suicidal for sure...

You're clearly a conservative so just vote for Trump...  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on August 17, 2019, 02:40:36 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 17, 2019, 11:16:40 AM
You're clearly a conservative so just vote for Trump...  ::)
I might end up doing so this time, which is a shame since I hate him. More likely I won't vote, though.

I'd probably be considered slightly more liberal if it were the 90's, but I guess the goalpost has shifted so far left that I might be conservative by today's standards.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on August 18, 2019, 06:02:20 PM
'People Don't Want To Be Stupid Twice': Foreign Diplomats Betting On Trump Win In 2020

Full article here: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-18/people-dont-want-be-stupid-twice-foreign-diplomats-betting-trump-win-2020#comment_stream (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-18/people-dont-want-be-stupid-twice-foreign-diplomats-betting-trump-win-2020#comment_stream):

"In 2016, nobody believed he was going to be elected. People don't want to be stupid twice," former French Ambassador to the US, Gerard Araud, told Politico.

"The way it looks to people is it's going to be another four years," one Arab diplomat said, adding. "If he gets reelected, he's bound by nothing, except Congress. And I don't know how that's going to play out."

One Asian ambassador told Politico that every embassy in Washington is operating "on the basis that the president has more than an even chance at being reelected."

There's no known scientific survey on the topic — few foreign officials would participate in one given diplomatic norms that preclude them from commenting on another country's internal politics. But none who talked to POLITICO were willing to say that Trump will lose. Instead, they pointed to three key advantages for Trump: He's the incumbent, the U.S. economy is strong and the Democrats have no definitive front-runner to challenge him.

...<snip>...

"It's not Trump, it's much wider than him," a senior EU diplomat told Politico. "It's not anymore that we are the two allies fighting together against threats like terrorism. The way they look at us now is mainly as a market to conquer against Chinese interests. It has become a bilateral struggle between them and the Chinese for who conquers Europe or Africa."

"What I'm saying right now is, I think, shared by many people," said a Middle Eastern diplomat of the 2020 election, adding "It's his to lose."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 19, 2019, 04:32:58 AM
Quote from: greg on August 17, 2019, 02:40:36 PM
I might end up doing so this time, which is a shame since I hate him. More likely I won't vote, though.

I'd probably be considered slightly more liberal if it were the 90's, but I guess the goalpost has shifted so far left that I might be conservative by today's standards.

Maybe it's you who has moved to right due to brainwashing? The Overton Window in the US has been moving to right so much that the corporate Dems of today are what the Republicans used to be a few decades ago while the Republicans have become an insane far-right nazi party. For example ObamaCare is originally a Republican right wing healthcare plan crafted by Heritage Foundation to protect the interests of insurance companies by mandating people to have private healthcare plans. That's also why the Dems lost over 1000 seat during Obama: Too right wing policy - too much corruption - too much serving the top 1 %. If you want living wage, tuition free education, single-payer healthcare and so on why would you vote for a party that is merely interested in bailing out the Wall Street, expand the military budget, start new wars (Obama the Nobel peace prize winner took Bush dumber's 2 wars and started 5 more) and so on?

Where is "left" and how left should we be? Label are labels. Policies are wise or they aren't. Empirically we know many lefty policies are wise so what's the problem?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on August 19, 2019, 05:11:52 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 19, 2019, 04:32:58 AM
Maybe it's you who has moved to right due to brainwashing? T

I should have thought you had finally seen the light and stopped, and I commended you for that. I was obviously wrong. You are so fond of accusing others of being "brainwashed" that it has become your second nature --- try as you might to stop it, you simply can't. That's why I reiterate my sincere, friendly and well-meant piece of advice: do seek professional help, now! (both psychological and sexual).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 19, 2019, 09:14:25 AM
Cop-mala Harris shows her priorities and skips climate town hall for fundraiser.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Pat B on August 19, 2019, 03:13:35 PM
Quote from: JBS on August 16, 2019, 07:04:57 PM
There is a large segment of voters who are conservative but don't like Trump. The Democrats need them to either vote for the Democrat, or at least feel comfortable enough with him/her to stay home and not vote. But if presented with a candidate who aggressively pushes leftist policies, they will feel motivated to vote for Trump just to defeat the Leftist.  Biden is clearly the winner in that category,

Getting people to not vote for Trump is at least as essential as getting people to vote for the Democratic candidate.

I'm not sure that the identity or actual politics of the D nominee has any bearing on R turnout. The R bosses will find some way to terrify their voters of the D candidate, and their voters will show up for Trump, even those who are peeved by his ineptitude, braggadocio, divisiveness, or whatever.

Quote from: amw on August 16, 2019, 08:10:51 PM
In Wisconsin 2016, Clinton ran alongside a progressive (Bernie-ish) senate candidate, Russ Feingold. Both lost. Feingold lost by slightly more. Feingold significantly outperformed Clinton throughout rural areas and small towns in the state, but Clinton significantly outperformed Feingold in the populous Milwaukee and Madison suburbs, which hold a greater percentage of the state's population and are growing while rural areas are shrinking. That said, Feingold and Clinton both significantly underperformed Obama in 2012 or 2008, and those Democratic voters did not return to the fold in 2018 either (although high turnout in Democratic areas was able to narrowly unseat the state's Republican governor).

Assuming that pattern holds throughout the country, a Clinton-like candidate probably has a slightly better chance to win than a Sanders-like candidate. Certainly Sanders could win mostly-rural states like Iowa, Michigan or Wisconsin. But mostly-suburban states that are currently Democratic strongholds, like Virginia, New Jersey and Maryland, could well end up going the other way. In any case the reality seems to be that open white nationalist candidates are very difficult to defeat in America's democratic-for-white-people-only electoral system.

Policies matter, but so do personalities and campaigns.

Feingold ran a terrible campaign whose central message seemed to be "Ron Johnson has not denounced Donald Trump." A coattail campaign is a normally a bad decision, a negative coattail campaign even worse. It shouldn't even be contemplated when the candidate at the top of your ticket is viewed unfavorably, failed to win the primary (unlike her opponent), and then takes your entire state for granted to the point of not visiting it.

For all the talk about rural voters, there just aren't that many of them, even in Wisconsin (30%, and not all of them voted for Trump). The real problem for Ds in Wisconsin in 2016 was plummeting turnout in Milwaukee County. I think the single most important important thing for Ds in Wisconsin in 2020 is to not take black voters for granted.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on August 19, 2019, 03:46:46 PM
Well put.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on August 19, 2019, 05:19:02 PM
Quote from: Pat B on August 19, 2019, 03:13:35 PM
I'm not sure that the identity or actual politics of the D nominee has any bearing on R turnout. The R bosses will find some way to terrify their voters of the D candidate, and their voters will show up for Trump, even those who are peeved by his ineptitude, braggadocio, divisiveness, or whatever.

For all the talk about rural voters, there just aren't that many of them, even in Wisconsin (30%, and not all of them voted for Trump). The real problem for Ds in Wisconsin in 2016 was plummeting turnout in Milwaukee County. I think the single most important important thing for Ds in Wisconsin in 2020 is to not take black voters for granted.

Yes, the R's are in for a pound. The thing is going to be, strong appeal to the center.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on August 19, 2019, 05:30:52 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 19, 2019, 04:32:58 AM
Maybe it's you who has moved to right due to brainwashing? The Overton Window in the US has been moving to right so much that the corporate Dems of today are what the Republicans used to be a few decades ago while the Republicans have become an insane far-right nazi party.
I honestly don't know if I can respond to this politely because of how dumb these two sentences are, but:

1) I'm not even solidly left or right as far as American politics are concerned and haven't changed much overall... mostly I just hang around the center and either don't have an opinion on individual issues or just make up my own mind to decide what sounds the most logical.

This identity politics stuff from the left is something I haven't seen since the last less than 10 years (maybe 6-7 years), a few years starting after occupy wall street. Not really seeing anything change much from the conservative side except more acceptance of gays.


2) "Far-right nazi party" sounds like brainwashing from American mainstream media which is overwhelmingly leftist. Not saying that's the media you consume, just saying it's the same phrase they use. I must have missed the plans where the president is trying to genocide people- perhaps I need to watch TV more to find out about this.  ::)



There were some studies done about the shift of the left. I don't know much about the details, but if you have studies that prove the opposite, then you can post that as a counter-argument.

(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/42447153_2127087564002322_8626691888486809600_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_oc=AQlE8XTZDfw-0jjvwFoYICmYFJhEXbsbHmhYiSYxMsxI-y09Y1WdgTb1gkqijXJra-xW7ZgDq0H6mFJbbTB-XL6S&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=20f5fb0711bc757bce07dbfa5fe149e6&oe=5E0BD561)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on August 19, 2019, 06:18:09 PM
Quote from: Pat B on August 19, 2019, 03:13:35 PM
Feingold ran a terrible campaign whose central message seemed to be "Ron Johnson has not denounced Donald Trump." A coattail campaign is a normally a bad decision, a negative coattail campaign even worse. It shouldn't even be contemplated when the candidate at the top of your ticket is viewed unfavorably, failed to win the primary (unlike her opponent), and then takes your entire state for granted to the point of not visiting it.

For all the talk about rural voters, there just aren't that many of them, even in Wisconsin (30%, and not all of them voted for Trump). The real problem for Ds in Wisconsin in 2016 was plummeting turnout in Milwaukee County. I think the single most important important thing for Ds in Wisconsin in 2020 is to not take black voters for granted.
I think what struck me is that if every Democrat in Milwaukee County had voted straight ticket, Feingold would be a senator right now. But for whatever reason there was a small number of Clinton/Johnson voters, and a larger number of people who just voted for president and apparently left the rest of the ballot blank.

Clinton obviously did not campaign in Wisconsin or do any turnout operations there, but there was also a very significant voter suppression effort by Scott Walker's administration targeting black voters (which are almost entirely concentrated in Milwaukee). I believe estimates are that some 40,000 people could not vote due to the new law, whereas Trumps margin of victory was about 18,000.

In any case the Clinton underperformance/Feingold overperformance existed almost entirely in the northern and western parts of the state (including La Crosse, Eau Claire, Stevens Point, Superior etc; not including Green Bay or Appleton; plus outlying bastions of Feingoldism in Kenosha and Racine). Clinton was definitely more popular than Feingold in the more densely populated parts of the state. None of this is to deny the impact of Clinton not campaigning in Wisconsin or the voter suppression—just a small but noticeable trend that also seemed to play out elsewhere in the country.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on August 19, 2019, 06:24:32 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 19, 2019, 04:32:58 AM
(Obama the Nobel peace prize winner took Bush dumber's 2 wars and started 5 more) and so on?


Which are the five wars that Obama started?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on August 19, 2019, 07:06:14 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 19, 2019, 05:19:02 PM
Yes, the R's are in for a pound. The thing is going to be, strong appeal to the center.

It's becoming more and more apparent that there is no center (at least, not in the way there once was). The decider in this election will be voter turnout: if the Republicans succeed in suppressing turnout, they will win. Democrats need a candidate that can excite and energize; Biden is not that.

Quote from: greg on August 19, 2019, 05:30:52 PM
This identity politics stuff from the left is something I haven't seen since the last less than 10 years (maybe 6-7 years), a few years starting after occupy wall street. Not really seeing anything change much from the conservative side except more acceptance of gays.

Those that worship identity politics are a small and cancerous subsection of the left. Emphasis on small (otherwise Harris or Buttigieg would be in the lead).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on August 19, 2019, 07:22:18 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 19, 2019, 07:06:14 PM
Those that worship identity politics are a small and cancerous subsection of the left. Emphasis on small (otherwise Harris or Buttigieg would be in the lead).
They are small but extremely vocal- that's the issue. (on the right they are also small but fortunately only vocal in certain spaces, like some internet sites or in more secretive meetings IRL)

Like you said, "cancerous," meaning it will spread- over time it won't be a worshipping, it will just become a normal way of thinking.

But I think for now, you're right if you're meaning to say that most people, even on the left, care more about the politicians who prioritize the more important/day-to-day issues. (i guess those two people are supposed to be examples of people who play to identity politics?)

In the long run, there could end up being a schism in the left, like a person seeing the cancer travel through their arm and deciding to cut it off before it takes over them.  :o
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on August 19, 2019, 07:25:02 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 19, 2019, 07:06:14 PM
It's becoming more and more apparent that there is no center (at least, not in the way there once was). The decider in this election will be voter turnout: if the Republicans succeed in suppressing turnout, they will win. Democrats need a candidate that can excite and energize; Biden is not that.

Those that worship identity politics are a small and cancerous subsection of the left. Emphasis on small (otherwise Harris or Buttigieg would be in the lead).

I certainly agree both that voter turnout will be crucial, and that Biden won't have that juice.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 19, 2019, 08:04:02 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 19, 2019, 07:06:14 PM
It's becoming more and more apparent that there is no center (at least, not in the way there once was). The decider in this election will be voter turnout: if the Republicans succeed in suppressing turnout, they will win. Democrats need a candidate that can excite and energize; Biden is not that.

Those that worship identity politics are a small and cancerous subsection of the left. Emphasis on small (otherwise Harris or Buttigieg would be in the lead).

Agree with the first paragraph, more or less.

I would like to think you are right about the identity crowd being small, but they are certainly loud (and amplified by the media), and seem to dominate the "conversation". Perhaps it's a part reaction to Trump's bigotry and rhetoric, but it does seem to overshadow everything else.
Buttigieg doesn't seem to me to be an identity candidate. Or at least, his approach as someone sane and normal and thoroughly middle class negates that. He just happens to be gay, and to care about certain things because they are important to him because he's gay. Similar can be said about Yang.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on August 19, 2019, 08:58:42 PM
Quote from: JBS on August 19, 2019, 08:04:02 PM
I would like to think you are right about the identity crowd being small, but they are certainly loud (and amplified by the media), and seem to dominate the "conversation". Perhaps it's a part reaction to Trump's bigotry and rhetoric, but it does seem to overshadow everything else.
Buttigieg doesn't seem to me to be an identity candidate. Or at least, his approach as someone sane and normal and thoroughly middle class negates that. He just happens to be gay, and to care about certain things because they are important to him because he's gay. Similar can be said about Yang.

Just another instance of the media trying to make a profit at the expense of (people's perception of) the left.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on August 20, 2019, 12:50:10 AM
Warren works to overcome hurdles with black voters in S.C. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/warren-works-to-overcome-hurdles-with-black-voters-in-sc/2019/08/18/e311f94c-c1e0-11e9-9986-1fb3e4397be4_story.html)

"Other candidates, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, also tried to expand their appeal among nonwhite voters this weekend, as they campaigned in South Carolina and Georgia.
Black voters are key to winning South Carolina, the fourth nominating contest in the Democratic calendar, along with the slew of Southern primaries where African Americans also represent large shares of the vote. Hillary Clinton won the 2016 Democratic presidential primary here because of her support among black voters.

Buttigieg, whose support among blacks has been too small to measure in some polls, spent his Sunday morning glad-handing at Bethel AME church in Georgetown, S.C. Later, during an interview on CNN's "State of the Union," he made an appeal to blacks, saying President Trump's supporters are "looking the other way on racism."

Sanders used his trip to release a wide-reaching criminal justice plan. "This state is a state which has an even more broken criminal justice system than the country, and the country is pretty bad," Sanders said.

His plan would end for-profit prisons, abolish the death penalty, set national standards for the use of force by police officers and cut the prison population in half.

"We have the wealthiest country in the history of the world, and yet we have more people in jail today — 2 million people — than any other country on Earth," Sanders said at a partitioned-off area at a luncheon hosted by Brookland Baptist Church in West Columbia.

Although black churchgoers ate nearby, Sanders delivered his remarks to a group of mostly white voters who came just to see him. Several Sanders supporters insisted they shouldn't have to pay for the luncheon since they had come only to hear the candidate.

The overall effect — a crowd of largely white outsiders descending on a weekly lunch for a black church — alienated several churchgoers.

"I was eating when he spoke," said Maxine Moses, an African American woman. Although she sat with her son just feet from Sanders, she didn't go listen to him. "I might have gone and listened to him if he had attended the Sunday service," she said.
[...]

But in South Carolina, Warren and her team appeared to be navigating the racial landscape more astutely than Sanders. Among the speakers warming up a crowd for her Saturday evening in Aiken, S.C., was Lessie Price, a local black leader and the first vice chair of the state's Democratic Party.

Warren's message, Price said, speaks to African Americans. "Often­times, it's getting that message out over and over and over, and someone starts hearing it," said Price, who is staying neutral in the primary."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 20, 2019, 04:01:10 AM
Quote from: greg on August 19, 2019, 05:30:52 PM
I honestly don't know if I can respond to this politely because of how dumb these two sentences are, but:

1) I'm not even solidly left or right as far as American politics are concerned and haven't changed much overall... mostly I just hang around the center and either don't have an opinion on individual issues or just make up my own mind to decide what sounds the most logical.

This identity politics stuff from the left is something I haven't seen since the last less than 10 years (maybe 6-7 years), a few years starting after occupy wall street. Not really seeing anything change much from the conservative side except more acceptance of gays.


2) "Far-right nazi party" sounds like brainwashing from American mainstream media which is overwhelmingly leftist. Not saying that's the media you consume, just saying it's the same phrase they use. I must have missed the plans where the president is trying to genocide people- perhaps I need to watch TV more to find out about this.  ::)



There were some studies done about the shift of the left. I don't know much about the details, but if you have studies that prove the opposite, then you can post that as a counter-argument.

(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/42447153_2127087564002322_8626691888486809600_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_oc=AQlE8XTZDfw-0jjvwFoYICmYFJhEXbsbHmhYiSYxMsxI-y09Y1WdgTb1gkqijXJra-xW7ZgDq0H6mFJbbTB-XL6S&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=20f5fb0711bc757bce07dbfa5fe149e6&oe=5E0BD561)

It's true that Dems have become SOCIALLY more liberal, but on economic issues corporate Dems are not more left. The study you post shows Repubs have moved a little bit more conservative on social issues. Overton Window means the allowed spectrum of political discource in the media. You have lefty politicians like AOC and ilhan Omar in DC, but that doesn't mean their ideas are allowed in the corporate media. They are outside the Overton Window and smeared for that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 20, 2019, 04:12:02 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on August 19, 2019, 06:24:32 PM
Which are the five wars that Obama started?

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/07/11/the-obama-wars/

Yemen Syyria Somali...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on August 20, 2019, 04:14:18 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 20, 2019, 04:01:10 AM
It's true that Dems have become SOCIALLY more liberal, but on economic issues corporate Dems are not more left. The study you post shows Repubs have moved a little bit more conservative on social issues. Overton Window means the allowed spectrum of political discource in the media. You have lefty politicians like AOC and ilhan Omar in DC, but that doesn't mean their ideas are allowed in the corporate media. They are outside the Overton Window and smeared for that.

There has been considerable coverage in what you call the corporate media of their ideas, and while some may have been critical they weren't "smeared" - well, apart from at Fox, of course.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 20, 2019, 08:20:35 AM

     I don't need the media to reflect my views, I need them to inform my views. I do my own balancing, if that is what I'm doing. One thing to ponder is how different news sources rate on information density. Low density is an uh oh thing for me. Fox and MSNBC are both highly opinion driven especially in prime time. Fox is an information wasteland. They are often in open conflict with their own news people. This is odd. I can't imagine MSNBC opinionizers like Maddow or O'Donnell adopting "don't believe what you see and hear" gambits about what reporters are reporting, either from their own news outlet or any other, even Fox. They observe the forms about the news/analysis/opinion hierarchy, which is good because so do I.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 20, 2019, 09:20:43 AM
GMG is working very slow for me at the moment...  ::)

Quote from: SimonNZ on August 20, 2019, 04:14:18 AM
There has been considerable coverage in what you call the corporate media of their ideas, and while some may have been critical they weren't "smeared" - well, apart from at Fox, of course.

If you don't see it you don't see it. I see how the corporate media frames things from corporate perspective. For example those who advocate single payer healthcare are asked hard* questions such as "how are we going to pay for it?" to frame the issue as something fiscally impossible while those who don't advocate single payer healthcare are asked soft ball questions. They aren't asked how they are going to cover everybody or end medical bankruptcies. When there is bipartisan increase in military budget the corporate media NEVER asks how are we going to pay for it, but when it's about something that would benefit the regular people that start asking how to pay for it. That's framing things from corporate perspective and if you don't see it then you don't and I can't think of you as a smart person, at least politically.

* Not hard in that people like Bernie Sanders can easily answer these questions, but regular people may get an idea that these are pie in the sky things...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on August 20, 2019, 09:30:40 AM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 19, 2019, 08:58:42 PM
Just another instance of the media trying to make a profit at the expense of (people's perception of) the left.

So why does the need to make a profit not taint vox.com, again?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 20, 2019, 10:17:58 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 20, 2019, 09:20:43 AM
GMG is working very slow for me at the moment...  ::)



     I'm getting the same thing.

     On the general subject of "pay for", spending is the pay for. The tax return is the opposite of a pay for, used to suppress excess inflation without taking back too much and sinking the economy.

     There is no "how are you gonna...?" in a pay for. You do it, or you don't.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on August 20, 2019, 01:20:57 PM
Democrat Insiders Fear Tulsi Gabbard Will Run Independent Presidential Candidacy in 2020 
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/democrat-insiders-fear-tulsi-gabbard-will-run-independent-presidential-candidacy-in-2020/ (https://bigleaguepolitics.com/democrat-insiders-fear-tulsi-gabbard-will-run-independent-presidential-candidacy-in-2020/)

...Gabbard's independent streak has Democratic Party insiders worried that she might flip following the presidential primaries, and run as an independent third-party candidate to give liberal voters a more authentic option at the polls in 2020.

"Hot take/prediction: Tulsi Gabbard is going to endorse Trump in the end," The Hill correspondent Reid Wilson said in a Twitter post on Tuesday.

"My prediction: Tulsi runs as third-party Green candidate to help Trump win. I will take bets on this," said Neera Tanden, who works as president of the Center for American Progress.

"Advice to the world: Don't take Neera's bet. She is 100% right on this," said David Rothkopf, who was a former Clinton Administration appointee.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on August 20, 2019, 01:31:20 PM
Actress and activist Susan Sarandon took a hard swipe at Elizabeth Warren during an "ice cream social" event for Bernie Sanders in Cedar Rapids, Iowa (from breitbart.com with 26-second video)

Sarandon was championing Sanders' progressive credentials when she threw in the dig at Warren, because of the fact that she used to be a Republican.

"I'm heartened by the fact that so many people are on the ground knocking on doors and helping to give information that the mainstream media either is suppressing or corrupting or misrepresenting," Sarandon said. "It's so, so important, because when people know and when they hear the senator's policies, when they see his track record, when they know how authentic he is and how he has been fighting for these issues for so long, that he is the only one that had that reputation."

"He is not someone who used to be a Republican, he is not someone who used to take money, or still takes money, from Wall Street, he is the real deal," Sarandon continued.

Warren was a registered Republican until 1996.

It wasn't just Warren who was in Sarandon's crosshairs at the event, she also knocked former Vice President Joe Biden for wanting a "middle of the road" approach to climate change.

"We don't have time for middle ground," Sarandon said.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on August 20, 2019, 03:20:25 PM
Warren should use that in her campaigning, claiming it was the Rs batshit move to the extreme right with Gingrich and Limbaugh and Clinton's sustained economic growth that opened her eyes.

Sarandon is being a total dick in helping the Trump camp as much as she's "helping" Sanders in this way.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on August 20, 2019, 11:30:22 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 20, 2019, 09:30:40 AM
So why does the need to make a profit not taint vox.com, again?

I never said Vox was perfect (far from it), but they certainly aren't the worst actors.

Quote from: SimonNZ on August 20, 2019, 03:20:25 PM
Sarandon is being a total dick in helping the Trump camp as much as she's "helping" Sanders in this way.

Agreed...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on August 21, 2019, 05:46:01 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/wj1kdPgZ/Pol-E-Warren-meets-her-doppleganger.jpg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on August 21, 2019, 12:30:36 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 20, 2019, 04:01:10 AM
It's true that Dems have become SOCIALLY more liberal, but on economic issues corporate Dems are not more left. The study you post shows Repubs have moved a little bit more conservative on social issues. Overton Window means the allowed spectrum of political discource in the media. You have lefty politicians like AOC and ilhan Omar in DC, but that doesn't mean their ideas are allowed in the corporate media. They are outside the Overton Window and smeared for that.
Yeah that definitely makes sense.

Though I think AOC and such are controversial for a reason so maybe for them I don't see the problem.

Either way, probably would be best if more political parties were created to accomodate this.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on August 21, 2019, 12:33:15 PM
Obama Repeatedly Tried to Get Biden Not to Run for President
(https://www.gq.com/story/obama-to-biden-dont-run)

Yikes!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 21, 2019, 01:39:58 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 21, 2019, 12:33:15 PM
Obama Repeatedly Tried to Get Biden Not to Run for President
(https://www.gq.com/story/obama-to-biden-dont-run)

Yikes!

Kyle Kulinski's theory is that this story comes out now, because Obama has realized Biden has lost the race and won't be the nominee and instead will just tarnish the Obama legacy with all his gaffes and "I was Obama's VP" stuff while campaigning.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 21, 2019, 01:48:40 PM
Quote from: greg on August 21, 2019, 12:30:36 PM
Yeah that definitely makes sense.

Though I think AOC and such are controversial for a reason so maybe for them I don't see the problem.

Either way, probably would be best if more political parties were created to accomodate this.

The US could easily have Green Party/other "third" party politicians in the DC if the system wasn't rigged for two parties. This rigging is the reason why AOC and other progressives are Dems and not third party members. The plan is to take over the Dems and make it again a lefty party for the regular people it should have been all a long.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 21, 2019, 02:17:49 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 21, 2019, 01:39:58 PM
Kyle Kulinski's theory is that this story comes out now, because Obama has realized Biden has lost the race and won't be the nominee and instead will just tarnish the Obama legacy with all his gaffes and "I was Obama's VP" stuff while campaigning.

     It's more likely it comes out now because Obama thinks Biden might win the nomination and tarnish the Obama legacy. That's not an unreasonable suspicion given how Biden has performed.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on August 21, 2019, 04:56:10 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 20, 2019, 11:30:22 PM
I never said Vox was perfect (far from it), but they certainly aren't the worst actors.

Agreed...
Quote from: greg on August 21, 2019, 12:30:36 PM
YeEither way, probably would be best if more political parties were created to accomodate this.

Maybe, but they would have to emerge organically.  I don't see that happening at present.

If there were more parties today, the result would just be the balkanization of the opposition to Trump, and he'd be the beneficiary.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on August 21, 2019, 05:48:31 PM
Quote from: drogulus on August 21, 2019, 02:17:49 PM
     It's more likely it comes out now because Obama thinks Biden might win the nomination and tarnish the Obama legacy. That's not an unreasonable suspicion given how Biden has performed.
Yes, Biden is definitely still the second choice of most voters after "undecided" & I think has the best chance of getting the nomination and subsequently losing to trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 21, 2019, 06:39:28 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 21, 2019, 01:48:40 PM
The US could easily have Green Party/other "third" party politicians in the DC if the system wasn't rigged for two parties. This rigging is the reason why AOC and other progressives are Dems and not third party members. The plan is to take over the Dems and make it again a lefty party for the regular people it should have been all a long.

They tried that in the late 60s and 70s. Result Nixon/Ford, Reagan, Bush Jr.  The only Democrat in that run was not re-elected and was elected in the first place mainly because Ford pardoned Nixon. It's only when Democrats moved centerwards and picked Clinton that they started winning again.

Take this as your rule of thumb: the more you like a candidate on policy grounds, the easier it would be for Trump to beat them.

I'm guessing you think I'm a conservative or right wing. I'm not, at least in American terms. I am actually moderate/slightly left of center. Now calibrate your idea of the American voter from that peg.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on August 21, 2019, 07:50:41 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 21, 2019, 04:56:10 PM
If there were more parties today, the result would just be the balkanization of the opposition to Trump, and he'd be the beneficiary.
Most likely, yeah.
If the US completely went for it, I could see the conservative side splitting as well, but probably it would be into far fewer parties than the liberal side would.

But since this is already happening, in a way it may be helping Trump already. Right now, the only thing uniting the left is hatred for Trump, which is pretty sad to say the least. The saying "the left eventually eats itself" is true in this way- that excessive division will only cause harm for them. Which is ironic from the party that often likes to say "Diversity is our strength," when the very diversity of philosophies emerging from the left is dividing and weakening them.

At the same time, I like the diversity of opinions, though. It seems like the more parties the better, though maybe I could be wrong? (since I'm no world history/political expert).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 21, 2019, 08:00:51 PM
Quote from: JBS on August 21, 2019, 06:39:28 PM
They tried that in the late 60s and 70s. Result Nixon/Ford, Reagan, Bush Jr.  The only Democrat in that run was not re-elected and was elected in the first place mainly because Ford pardoned Nixon. It's only when Democrats moved centerwards and picked Clinton that they started winning again.

Take this as your rule of thumb: the more you like a candidate on policy grounds, the easier it would be for Trump to beat them.

I'm guessing you think I'm a conservative or right wing. I'm not, at least in American terms. I am actually moderate/slightly left of center. Now calibrate your idea of the American voter from that peg.

     Biden is at his high water mark. I believe Sanders is, too, because his support no longer includes everyone unhappy with Hillary.

     The showdown between Biden and Warren will be interesting. If she plays it right she won't try to take him down, but continue to talk policy. That what got her here.

   
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on August 21, 2019, 08:12:38 PM
Quote from: drogulus on August 21, 2019, 08:00:51 PM
     Biden is at his high water mark. I believe Sanders is, too, because his support no longer includes everyone unhappy with Hillary.

Let's wait and see.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on August 21, 2019, 11:50:20 PM
If Biden does collapse somehow (perhaps literally... the gaffes certainly make one wonder if age is catching up with him, in a way it hasn't caught up with Sanders) I do think Sanders and Warren will be the two left standing. Warren has a seemingly inexhaustible base of white urban/suburban professionals whereas Sanders seems to have become entrenched among blue collar and service industry unions. Neither candidate has much support among the black & Latino base of the party, which still favours Biden, and doesn't seem likely to switch allegiance to Kamala Harris no matter how much she touts her prosecutorial record and "more relatable version of Hillary" vibe. I think if anyone can get Biden past the finish line it'll be black churches in the south, and if he drops out, they may simply not vote.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 22, 2019, 01:09:45 AM
Quote from: JBS on August 21, 2019, 06:39:28 PM
They tried that in the late 60s and 70s. Result Nixon/Ford, Reagan, Bush Jr.  The only Democrat in that run was not re-elected and was elected in the first place mainly because Ford pardoned Nixon. It's only when Democrats moved centerwards and picked Clinton that they started winning again.

Take this as your rule of thumb: the more you like a candidate on policy grounds, the easier it would be for Trump to beat them.

I'm guessing you think I'm a conservative or right wing. I'm not, at least in American terms. I am actually moderate/slightly left of center. Now calibrate your idea of the American voter from that peg.

The World has changed quite a lot since 60's and 70's and what worked or didn't work back then doesn't apply anymore. In the 90's Clinton was still a "winning" name. In 2016 Clinton lost to a reality tv baffoon. That's how much the world has changed. Your old rule of thumbs are obsolete. Now policy matters because regular people are struggling and they have seen how four decades of corporatism took them nowhere.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 22, 2019, 01:27:58 AM
Quote from: amw on August 21, 2019, 11:50:20 PM
Neither candidate has much support among the black & Latino base of the party, which still favours Biden.

You have fallen to the narrative of corporate media. Bernie had weak name recognition in 2016. That has changed. If anything, age — across race — is going to be Sanders biggest hurdle in 2020.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on August 22, 2019, 03:00:15 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 22, 2019, 01:27:58 AM
You have fallen to the narrative of corporate media.

Well, I've always suspected amw to be on the payroll of the imperialist bourgeoisie. I'm glad you noticed it as well.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on August 22, 2019, 04:55:30 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 22, 2019, 01:27:58 AM
You have fallen to the narrative of corporate media.
I mean, this is more the narrative of polling organisations, some of which are corporations and others of which are universities, and all of which believe Biden is leading significantly in South Carolina (which is approximately 35% black). SC is one of the first states to vote in primary season, and Sanders lost it by 46 points in 2016, so I guess you could argue he's improved his position by being now only down 10-20 points.

I don't think Biden is necessarily beloved of black southerners (though his social & cultural conservatism probably does appeal to them to some extent) but there is a narrative about him being dependable and a known quantity, and of course primary voters tend to be older and more likely to own their own homes, two things that do predict Biden support across racial lines.

Quote from: Florestan on August 22, 2019, 03:00:15 AM
Well, I've always suspected amw to be on the payroll of the imperialist bourgeoisie. I'm glad you noticed it as well.
Ok, that's a little unfair. There are about 60 Beethoven string quartet cycles out there and they're not gonna buy themselves.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 22, 2019, 07:05:05 AM

     
Quote from: amw on August 22, 2019, 04:55:30 AM

I don't think Biden is necessarily beloved of black southerners (though his social & cultural conservatism probably does appeal to them to some extent) but there is a narrative about him being dependable and a known quantity, and of course primary voters tend to be older and more likely to own their own homes, two things that do predict Biden support across racial lines.


     I think this is right, though it depends not only on the perception that Biden can win but that he has a better chance than other Tier 1 candidates. That might not turn out to be the case. In a race against Trump the top candidates are tightly bunched even though against each other they are not.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on August 22, 2019, 09:29:56 AM
Quote from: drogulus on August 22, 2019, 07:05:05 AM
In a race against Trump the top candidates are tightly bunched even though against each other they are not.

Biden and Bernie are the only ones consistently beating Trump. I have doubts about Warren, and her endorsement of Clinton in 2016 certainly doesn't align with the values of her 2020 campaign.

(Server is mighty slow today as well.)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 22, 2019, 09:37:27 AM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 22, 2019, 09:29:56 AM
Biden and Bernie are the only ones consistently beating Trump. I have doubts about Warren, and her endorsement of Clinton in 2016 certainly doesn't align with the values of her campaign.

     She is a Dem, and she supported the Dem against the insurgent. Sharing some values with Sanders wasn't enough, like it wasn't enough for me.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on August 22, 2019, 09:55:39 AM
Quote from: drogulus on August 22, 2019, 09:37:27 AM
     She is a Dem, and she supported the Dem against the insurgent. Sharing some values with Sanders wasn't enough, like it wasn't enough for me.

It's more than just "some values" that she shares with Sanders...

Warren endorsed Clinton because she was being considered for VP.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 22, 2019, 10:18:32 AM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 22, 2019, 09:29:56 AM
Biden and Bernie are the only ones consistently beating Trump. I have doubts about Warren, and her endorsement of Clinton in 2016 certainly doesn't align with the values of her 2020 campaign.
Quote from: schnittkease on August 22, 2019, 09:55:39 AM
Warren endorsed Clinton because she was being considered for VP.

Yes, that's what the polls are telling, but do you think Joe "my time is up/nothing will change" Biden will in the end do well against Trump? I don't. In fact I believe more in Warren's abilities beating Trump. Biden has been high in the polls because of name recognition and nostalgy for the Obama years, but the more people hear him talk the more he loses support.

If it's true Warren endorsed Hillary in 2016 because of VP offer that was really dirty trick from Hillary.

Quote from: schnittkease on August 22, 2019, 09:29:56 AM
(Server is mighty slow today as well.)

Yep...  :-\ Time to boot the server?





Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 22, 2019, 10:26:19 AM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 22, 2019, 09:55:39 AM
It's more than just "some values" that she shares with Sanders...

Warren endorsed Clinton because she was being considered for VP.

      She would have done so regardless. It was the right move.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on August 22, 2019, 10:31:18 AM
Quote from: drogulus on August 22, 2019, 10:26:19 AM
      She would have done so regardless. It was the right move.

Not if she wanted to appear as a "progressive" candidate in 2020.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 22, 2019, 10:45:27 AM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 22, 2019, 10:31:18 AM
Not if she wanted to appear as a "progressive" candidate in 2020.

     Who doesn't know she is a progressive? Her Hillary endorsement shows she's a Dem that knows how to play the inside game, her policies show she is a progressive. Sanders never misses an opportunity to show he's a self-righteous dogmatist who struts around the edges of a party he is too good to join.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on August 22, 2019, 12:06:04 PM
Quote from: drogulus on August 22, 2019, 10:45:27 AM
Sanders never misses an opportunity to show he's a self-righteous dogmatist who struts around the edges of a party he is too good to join.

Who gives a damn about "party loyalty" when your job is to vote for the most qualified candidate? He caucuses with the Democrats, and that's enough for me. BTW - what did loyalty over logic do for the Republicans?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 22, 2019, 02:08:26 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 22, 2019, 12:06:04 PM
Who gives a damn about "party loyalty" when your job is to vote for the most qualified candidate? He caucuses with the Democrats, and that's enough for me.

      I don't know. Not me, apparently, since I'd vote for Sanders if he were the nominee. I don't value loyalty to party much, I do value the smarts Warren exhibited by knowing what value it had for her.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on August 22, 2019, 02:25:34 PM
Quote from: drogulus on August 22, 2019, 02:08:26 PM
      I don't know. Not me, apparently, since I'd vote for Sanders if he were the nominee. I don't value loyalty to party much, I do value the smarts Warren exhibited by knowing what value it had for her.

She would be an idiot not to see the political advantages of endorsing Clinton. It's not a high bar to pass.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on August 22, 2019, 04:35:40 PM
Sanders also endorsed Clinton in 2016, although only after he lost to her.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on August 22, 2019, 06:47:56 PM
I would probably like Sanders better if he hadn't built his entire career around doing the "smart thing" and essentially becoming a democrat in all but name. His politics were much better in the 1980s and he has drifted far to the right since then & much of it is due to his careerism in attaching himself to the Democratic Party.

Of course there are no "good" american politicians—every political figure in the USA with politics I'd consider voting for is in jail, assassinated or in exile—but Sanders's brand depends on people not recognising that and thinking he's an electable equivalent to Malcolm X or Assata Shakur or Angela Davis etc (or name your preferred american socialist here, if you have one)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 22, 2019, 07:03:08 PM
Quote from: amw on August 22, 2019, 06:47:56 PM
I would probably like Sanders better if he hadn't built his entire career around doing the "smart thing" and essentially becoming a democrat in all but name. His politics were much better in the 1980s and he has drifted far to the right since then & much of it is due to his careerism in attaching himself to the Democratic Party.

Of course there are no "good" american politicians—every political figure in the USA with politics I'd consider voting for is in jail, assassinated or in exile—but Sanders's brand depends on people not recognising that and thinking he's an electable equivalent to Malcolm X or Assata Shakur or Angela Davis etc (or name your preferred american socialist here, if you have one)

Sorry, the idea that Sanders is anything like Malcolm X or Angela Davis made me laugh so hard I didn't hear what you said.
:P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 22, 2019, 07:25:31 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 22, 2019, 01:09:45 AM
The World has changed quite a lot since 60's and 70's and what worked or didn't work back then doesn't apply anymore. In the 90's Clinton was still a "winning" name. In 2016 Clinton lost to a reality tv baffoon. That's how much the world has changed. Your old rule of thumbs are obsolete. Now policy matters because regular people are struggling and they have seen how four decades of corporatism took them nowhere.
I grew up in the 60s and 70s, so I can tell you the differences are not immense:

We didn't have computers  or cell phones.
Gays had to hide their gayness.
Communism and the Soviet Union were almost synonyms. The difference was Maoist China.

Leftism was, and still is, a fringe of American culture. What you, in your ignorance deride as corporatist policies, are popular not because corporate media advocates them , but because they are in general moderate, middle of the road. The media corporations don't advocate positions that benefit them. They advocate positions that gain them viewers and therefore revenue. Just like businesses are expected to do. They may benefit the oligarchy, but they benefit most Americans.  So that's why they are popular.

As to Hillary: she lost because she was personally corrupt, and arrogant. Her policies were not why people voted for Trump, so don't think Trump's victory was a rejection of corporatist policies. It was a rejection of the person named Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on August 22, 2019, 07:31:19 PM
Quote from: JBS on August 22, 2019, 07:03:08 PM
Sorry, the idea that Sanders is anything like Malcolm X or Angela Davis made me laugh so hard I didn't hear what you said.
:P
That's certainly what a lot of his supporters think though! I've seen people claim he will end racism in the criminal justice system, single-handedly free Palestine, start a national revolution etc—even relatively serious "left" journalists like Telesur's Abby Martin or RT's Rania Khalek.

I agree that he's less bad than any of the other candidates running for president at the moment, though. But if he does somehow get through the primary and then win the election, I don't expect his presidency to be particularly different from (eg) Jimmy Carter's.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 22, 2019, 07:43:23 PM
Quote from: JBS on August 22, 2019, 07:25:31 PM


Leftism was, and still is, a fringe of American culture.


     I suppose it is. It's just one form of rejection of everyone but the in group. Policy is different. It should be judged on its own merits. If Angela Davis has a good idea, use it. Did Hitler build an Autobahn? Does that make it Nazi? Universal health care is as left as you can get, or was. Gay marriage was too radical even for socialists. Nixon considered a negative income tax. Crankitarians have proposed a universal basic income as next best to universal basic nothing.

     Is it too much to ask for people to use their own judgment and not be herded by epithets? Yes, of course it is.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 22, 2019, 07:50:58 PM
Quote from: amw on August 22, 2019, 07:31:19 PM
That's certainly what a lot of his supporters think though! I've seen people claim he will end racism in the criminal justice system, single-handedly free Palestine, start a national revolution etc—even relatively serious "left" journalists like Telesur's Abby Martin or RT's Rania Khalek.

I agree that he's less bad than any of the other candidates running for president at the moment, though. But if he does somehow get through the primary and then win the election, I don't expect his presidency to be particularly different from (eg) Jimmy Carter's.

Do they know he worked on a (gasp!) kibbutz for one summer?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on August 22, 2019, 07:53:38 PM
Quote from: amw on August 22, 2019, 07:31:19 PM
I agree that he's less bad than any of the other candidates running for president at the moment, though. But if he does somehow get through the primary and then win the election, I don't expect his presidency to be particularly different from (eg) Jimmy Carter's.

Sanders won't lose to the hospital and medical lobbyists.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 22, 2019, 08:12:01 PM
Quote from: JBS on August 22, 2019, 07:25:31 PM
We didn't have computers  or cell phones.

That's why people couldn't factcheck what corporate media said.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on August 23, 2019, 12:28:32 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 22, 2019, 08:12:01 PM
That's why people couldn't factcheck what corporate media said.

The good side, though, was that no idiot could have thought of himself as enlightened enough to enlighten others as well just because he had an internet connection and a webcam. (I'm not alluding to you, mind you!)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 23, 2019, 03:39:30 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 23, 2019, 12:28:32 AM
The good side, though, was that no idiot could have thought of himself as enlightened enough to enlighten others as well just because he had an internet connection and a webcam. (I'm not alluding to you, mind you!)

Yes, there's always pros and cons to things... ...but the fact that the corporate media has lost it's monopoly on informing people is largely responsible for the younger generation to be more left-leaning than their parents and grandparents were. Nothing is perfect and 13 years olds are lured down the rabbit holes by (bought) people lilke Steven Crowder and Candace Owens. Fortunately there are people like Kyle Kulinski and David Pakman to help some people out of these dark echo chambers.

https://www.youtube.com/v/PBiNx3I4b5o
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 23, 2019, 06:42:20 AM
Quote from: amw on August 22, 2019, 07:31:19 PM
single-handedly free Palestine

     They are tough people to free. They've learned to hate their liberation movements as violent, corrupt and oppressive. Such movements have a dismal record of producing democratic states with rule of law and respect for human rights. Where are they going to find a different bunch of revolutionaries who aren't like that?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on August 23, 2019, 07:38:09 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 23, 2019, 03:39:30 AM
Yes, there's always pros and cons to things... ...but the fact that the corporate media has lost it's monopoly on informing people is largely responsible for the younger generation to be more left-leaning than their parents and grandparents were.
That's not true according to what I've heard about polls showing Gen Z being slightly more conservative than millenials.

Part of this I suspect is very low distrust of the media. I think it might be an all-time low? (Need to double check). The corporate media trying to compete with smaller guys like youtubers is just like seeing someone drowning- kinda sad.

I'm not sure what's wrong with Crowder, either. I don't agree with everything, but he seems to be using the power of the i internet, as mentioned, to get stats to back up his claims.

Who has bought Crowder btw? I was under the impression he was independent (nowadays). Is there someone funding him or something in 2019?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 23, 2019, 10:11:28 AM
Quote from: greg on August 23, 2019, 07:38:09 AM
I'm not sure what's wrong with Crowder, either. I don't agree with everything, but he seems to be using the power of the i internet, as mentioned, to get stats to back up his claims.

Who has bought Crowder btw? I was under the impression he was independent (nowadays). Is there someone funding him or something in 2019?

I don't think I agree with anything Steven Crowder says. He has worked for PragerU which gets funding from billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks, Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Morgan Family Foundation, Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund, Donors Trust etc.

Who care how he is funded in 2019? Has his opinions changed? Funding from the owner class created his career (and opinions).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on August 23, 2019, 04:21:48 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 23, 2019, 10:11:28 AM
I don't think I agree with anything Steven Crowder says.
Well, too bad you're not watching any of the Change My Mind videos along with me to point out what's wrong about what he is saying.

Problem is I don't think the people he interviews are qualified or ready usually (though often they are just flat out wrong).

I'd like to know how you would argue against his points... (not your opinions in isolation, but rather in a debate)... though, sadly something like that couldn't be arranged.

(I just don't hear valid arguments coming from the left against his positions, so hearing valid ones would be refreshing)


Quote from: 71 dB on August 23, 2019, 10:11:28 AM
He has worked for PragerU which gets funding from billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks, Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Morgan Family Foundation, Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund, Donors Trust etc.

Who care how he is funded in 2019? Has his opinions changed? Funding from the owner class created his career (and opinions).
So your position is that funding from billionaires will corrupt anyone on the political spectrum, whether left or right, correct?

But the real question is: does that make their opinions wrong?

Maybe that is the wrong question to ask, because the word "opinions" itself is also misleading- who cares about political opinions, that word shouldn't even exist in politics. Politics is not subjective, like making music, where opinion determines what sounds good. We all have the same goal- to make the world best as possible for everyone.

So the real word that should be used is "assessment."

Is his assessment of reality wrong? And does funding from billionaires influence that?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 23, 2019, 04:34:30 PM

     At New Hampshire town hall, Biden asks: What would have happened if Obama had been assassinated? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/at-new-hampshire-town-hall-biden-asks-what-would-have-happened-if-obama-had-been-assassinated/2019/08/23/41500820-c5fe-11e9-b5e4-54aa56d5b7ce_story.html)

     That's No Filter Joe, out of his nutshell and into our hearts. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/huh.gif)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 23, 2019, 05:04:14 PM
Quote from: greg on August 23, 2019, 04:21:48 PMSo your position is that funding from billionaires will corrupt anyone on the political spectrum, whether left or right, correct?
Jesus you are naive. How can you people on this board be this dumb? What is this? People on pop music forum understands more about politics than a lot of people here! Of course it corrupts! Jesus Christ! Those billionaires want return for their investment. Donate 1 million to get 10 million worth of tax cuts and so on. Why else donate? Giving large donations to politicians is one of the most profitable things in the US. Republicans are bought. Corporate Dems are bought. Progressive Dems and third parties aren't and that's why they can propose things that would help REGULAR people instead of the top 1 %. The owner class needs to brainwash people to vote against their own interest so that's why they finance people like Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owns etc. to do that for them.

Quote from: greg on August 23, 2019, 04:21:48 PMBut the real question is: does that make their opinions wrong?
Depends how you define wrong. Are you on the side of the 1 % or the 99 % ? Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Steven Crowder deny climate change?

Quote from: greg on August 23, 2019, 04:21:48 PMMaybe that is the wrong question to ask, because the word "opinions" itself is also misleading- who cares about political opinions, that word shouldn't even exist in politics. Politics is not subjective, like making music, where opinion determines what sounds good. We all have the same goal- to make the world best as possible for everyone.

Not true at all. A lot of people want to make the world as good as possible for themselves and couldn't care less about other people. Again you demonstrate appalling naivity.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on August 23, 2019, 05:09:41 PM
Naivety is never appalling. Cynicism is.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on August 23, 2019, 05:14:26 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 22, 2019, 07:09:58 PM
But Sanders is one of the best we've got. In our current system, a democratic socialist stands no chance of becoming president.

Angela Davis basically endorsed Bernie in 2016.

I am certain that if Sanders is the nominee, Democrats will vote for him. It's the center of the electorate, of whose stomach for Sanders, I am in doubt.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 23, 2019, 05:26:12 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 23, 2019, 05:04:14 PM
Jesus you are naive. How can you people on this board be this dumb? What is this? People on pop music forum understands more about politics than a lot of people here! Of course it corrupts! Jesus Christ! Those billionaires want return for their investment. Donate 1 million to get 10 million worth of tax cuts and so on. Why else donate? Giving large donations to politicians is one of the most profitable things in the US. Republicans are bought. Corporate Dems are bought. Progressive Dems and third parties aren't and that's why they can propose things that would help REGULAR people instead of the top 1 %. The owner class needs to brainwash people to vote against their own interest so that's why they finance people like Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owns etc. to do that for them.
Depends how you define wrong. Are you on the side of the 1 % or the 99 % ? Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Steven Crowder deny climate change?

Not true at all. A lot of people want to make the world as good as possible for themselves and couldn't care less about other people. Again you demonstrate appalling naivity.

Bernie accepts donations. If it's bad for billionaires to donate money to help people advocate for policies that benefit billionaires, why is it not bad for non-billionaires to donate to help people advocate for policies that benefit non-billionaires. The amounts may be smaller, but the advocates are just "bought".

Progressives are not advocating for "regular" people. Their policies won't help, and will often hurt regular people. They are simply trying to repopulate the elites with people like themselves. Your own naivete on this point is as astounding as the naivete you see in Greg's views.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 23, 2019, 05:39:43 PM
Quote from: JBS on August 23, 2019, 05:26:12 PM
Bernie accepts donations. If it's bad for billionaires to donate money to help people advocate for policies that benefit billionaires, why is it not bad for non-billionaires to donate to help people advocate for policies that benefit non-billionaires. The amounts may be smaller, but the advocates are just "bought".

Progressives are not advocating for "regular" people. Their policies won't help, and will often hurt regular people. They are simply trying to repopulate the elites with people like themselves. Your own naivete on this point is as astounding as the naivete you see in Greg's views.

Without money you get nowhere because of how the system is rigged. Most of Bernie's donations are around $20 from regular people. The left wants money out of politics so that nobody gets donations from anyone, but the left needs money "this time around" to get in power and change the system so that oligarchy becomes democracy.

Policies that benefit 99 % instead of 1 % are of course more democratic. It's amazing I have to explain these things here. In fact I am considering leaving this board altogether. People know a lot about (classical) music here, but when it comes to society and politics, my jaw hits the floor for the stupidity and ignorance I witness here. If I stay, it's for the music...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on August 23, 2019, 05:54:22 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 23, 2019, 05:04:14 PM
Jesus you are naive. How can you people on this board be this dumb? What is this? People on pop music forum understands more about politics than a lot of people here!

How old are you?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 23, 2019, 06:00:49 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 23, 2019, 05:39:43 PM
Without money you get nowhere because of how the system is rigged. Most of Bernie's donations are around $20 from regular people. The left wants money out of politics so that nobody gets donations from anyone, but the left needs money "this time around" to get in power and change the system so that oligarchy becomes democracy.

Policies that benefit 99 % instead of 1 % are of course more democratic. It's amazing I have to explain these things here. In fact I am considering leaving this board altogether. People know a lot about (classical) music here, but when it comes to society and politics, my jaw hits the floor for the stupidity and ignorance I witness here. If I stay, it's for the music...

You can not get money out of politics. Politics is about power, and that means whoever has money will become involved in politics. A person who advocates getting money out of politics is either ignorant or a con artist.

You may think progressive policies help the 99%, but there are plenty of reasons to say they don't, and that would be true no matter who funds the objectors. Stop assuming people advocate conservative positions because of brainwashing or corruption.  There are real reasons not to adopt Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, and most of them revolve around the fact that they would make things worse for most, if not all, of the 99%.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on August 23, 2019, 06:21:02 PM
Quote from: JBS on August 23, 2019, 06:00:49 PM
There are real reasons not to adopt Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, and most of them revolve around the fact that they would make things worse for most, if not all, of the 99%.

Try telling that to anyone who lives in the rest of the developed world.

Do you think all these countries are idiots for adopting Medicare for All?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 23, 2019, 06:33:06 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 23, 2019, 06:21:02 PM
Try telling that to anyone who lives in the rest of the developed world.

Do you think all these countries are idiots for adopting Medicare for All?

Most of them don't have an actual single payer system, which is what Medicare for All is (or at least it's what I mean when I use the term.) And most Americans would be worse off with a single payer plan. Countries that have an actual single payer plan are actually no better off, and sometimes worse off, than the US.

Something like what Biden proposes, a public option available to people who can't otherwise get health insurance, is I think the best idea.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 23, 2019, 06:35:02 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 23, 2019, 06:25:36 PM
If this doesn't change your mind, I don't know what will.

https://www.youtube.com/v/2gP35_JqKVc

Thank you for posting that, but it doesn't change the central fact that, while a single payer plan would make things better for some people, it would leave most people worse off than now.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 23, 2019, 07:44:44 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on August 23, 2019, 05:54:22 PM
How old are you?

48
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 23, 2019, 07:53:38 PM
Quote from: JBS on August 23, 2019, 06:33:06 PM
Most of them don't have an actual single payer system, which is what Medicare for All is (or at least it's what I mean when I use the term.) And most Americans would be worse off with a single payer plan. Countries that have an actual single payer plan are actually no better off, and sometimes worse off, than the US.

Something like what Biden proposes, a public option available to people who can't otherwise get health insurance, is I think the best idea.

Biden protects insurance companies and Big Pharma. If you think these profits are more important than healthcare then Biden's ideas are ok.
Can you mantion single payer countries that are worse off than US?

https://fr.april-international.com/en/healthcare-expatriates/which-countries-have-best-healthcare-systems

Anyway, you are just a stupid hack defending the status quo because you have been brainwashed to do so. SAD
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 23, 2019, 07:59:58 PM
Quote from: JBS on August 23, 2019, 06:00:49 PM
You can not get money out of politics. Politics is about power, and that means whoever has money will become involved in politics. A person who advocates getting money out of politics is either ignorant or a con artist.

You may think progressive policies help the 99%, but there are plenty of reasons to say they don't, and that would be true no matter who funds the objectors. Stop assuming people advocate conservative positions because of brainwashing or corruption.  There are real reasons not to adopt Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, and most of them revolve around the fact that they would make things worse for most, if not all, of the 99%.

You don't have a clue about what democracy means. There is no democracy if the rich uses their money to influence politics. What a sad case you are, amazingly stupid! In real democracy it's a competition of ideas, not money.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 23, 2019, 08:07:28 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 23, 2019, 07:53:38 PM
Biden protects insurance companies and Big Pharma. If you think these profits are more important than healthcare then Biden's ideas are ok.
Can you mantion single payer countries that are worse off than US?

https://fr.april-international.com/en/healthcare-expatriates/which-countries-have-best-healthcare-systems

Anyway, you are just a stupid hack defending the status quo because you have been brainwashed to do so. SAD

You seem to equate the idea of profits with bad health care. Which means it is useless to talk with you, because you don't want to discuss actual facts.  The facts are that in a true single payer system most Americans would be worse off than they are now.  What profits the insurance companies make is beside the point.

Let me adapt your last line

Anyway, you are just a stupid leftist defending leftist proposals because you have been brainwashed to do so. SAD.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 23, 2019, 08:09:44 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 23, 2019, 07:59:58 PM
You don't have a clue about what democracy means. There is no democracy if the rich uses their money to influence politics. What a sad case you are, amazingly stupid! In real democracy it's a competition of ideas, not money.

If democracy can exist only where money is not involved, then democracy never has existed, does not now exist, will never exist.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 23, 2019, 08:23:01 PM
Quote from: JBS on August 23, 2019, 08:07:28 PM
You seem to equate the idea of profits with bad health care. Which means it is useless to talk with you, because you don't want to discuss actual facts.  The facts are that in a true single payer system most Americans would be worse off than they are now.  What profits the insurance companies make is beside the point.

Let me adapt your last line

Anyway, you are just a stupid leftist defending leftist proposals because you have been brainwashed to do so. SAD.

Those profits don't come from nothing. They drive people into medical bankruptcies. People are BETTER OFF when they are not bankrupt or not covered.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 23, 2019, 08:27:42 PM
Quote from: JBS on August 23, 2019, 08:09:44 PM
If democracy can exist only where money is not involved, then democracy never has existed, does not now exist, will never exist.

Of course there is some money, but who's money and how much? Koch brothers, Soros, Big Pharma, etc. have had too much influence.  The less money the better

Majority of americans want stricter gun laws. In democracy you should have them, right? Especially as the gun violence in the US is at insane level.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on August 23, 2019, 08:50:27 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 23, 2019, 05:04:14 PM
Jesus you are naive. How can you people on this board be this dumb? What is this? People on pop music forum understands more about politics than a lot of people here! Of course it corrupts! Jesus Christ! Those billionaires want return for their investment. Donate 1 million to get 10 million worth of tax cuts and so on. Why else donate? Giving large donations to politicians is one of the most profitable things in the US. Republicans are bought. Corporate Dems are bought. Progressive Dems and third parties aren't and that's why they can propose things that would help REGULAR people instead of the top 1 %. The owner class needs to brainwash people to vote against their own interest so that's why they finance people like Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owns etc. to do that for them.
Depends how you define wrong. Are you on the side of the 1 % or the 99 % ? Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Steven Crowder deny climate change?
Well yeah, I like third parties for this reason.

My first question wasn't really a question to be answered, but more of a setup. All I'm trying to ask is- is his assessment of reality wrong just because money is involved? Or is he just wrong?

Being correct about things doesn't necessarily mean you have good or bad intentions...

I don't know if Crowder is for/against climate change since I don't really care about that topic.

Quote from: 71 dB on August 23, 2019, 05:04:14 PM
Not true at all. A lot of people want to make the world as good as possible for themselves and couldn't care less about other people. Again you demonstrate appalling naivity.
Most people couldn't care less if it inconveniences them. Which is a reasonable position (though obviously not good for a leadership position).
I thought this would have been obviously implied- maybe not.

I mean, sure, I guess there are some sadists who would wish the worst on people they don't even know, but I think most people would wish the best for everyone they don't know as long as they aren't doing something they disagree with or inconveniences them.





Quote from: 71 dB on August 23, 2019, 08:27:42 PM
Of course there is some money, but who's money and how much? Koch brothers, Soros, Big Pharma, etc. have had too much influence.  The less money the better

Majority of americans want stricter gun laws. In democracy you should have them, right? Especially as the gun violence in the US is at insane level.
Less money is better. But literally no one is going to set limits on that. Why? Because all of life is only governed by power, nothing else. And money is the most influential form of power in the world. So the people who have the most money aren't going to try to get people who make laws to change this, which would be against their own interests. It's completely hopeless.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on August 24, 2019, 03:46:19 AM
71db: "Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Steven Crowder deny climate change?"

No one that I know denies climate change.  The climate has always changed and will continue to change...forever.  What is being pushed is the political religion of man-made climate change, for which there is no real data, just correlations of...correlations of...correlations of...conjectures. It is simply a man-made globalist income redistrbution scheme.

The Left:
"PEOPLE!!  We only have a few years to implement the Green New Deal!  The Seas are rising!!  OMG!!

Also The Left just recently:
"Experts have predicted up to 1,500 individual private jets flights will be made in and out of this year's Davos summit, despite hosting a series of talks on the dangers of man-made climate change."  (This is not even counting the record number of luxury yachts...)  >:(

"Eco-lecturers Meghan Markle and Prince Harry board their private jet with baby Archie for fourth gas-guzzling flight in just 11 days as they leave the south of France 'after visiting Elton John's $18m mansion' on three-day jaunt."  8)

"Former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle are reportedly planning to purchase a multimillion dollar mansion in Martha's Vineyard off the coast of Cape Cod in Massachusetts.  TMZ reported Thursday that the Obamas are purchasing the property, which contains 29 beachfront acres and seven bedrooms, for a discounted price of $14,850,000."  >:D

The ghastly hypocritical left!  By their works shall ye know them.  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on August 24, 2019, 04:41:29 AM
Davos, the British royal family and the US ruling class all represent the ultra rich who will be fine no matter what, probably surviving the coming social collapse in purpose built bunkers in New Zealand or something. If you want to meet the actual left, try talking to the indigenous tribes of the Brazilian Amazon whose ancestral lands are being burned to make room for oil wells and soybean plantations, which will likely result in the desertification of most of South America if the rainforest reaches a sufficient level of biomass loss.

Only an extremely stupid or extremely wealthy person can afford to deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change at this point. The evidence suggests that human activity has warmed the earth since the start of high density agriculture; the holocene era was on a long term trend of global cooling until about 5000 years ago and all climate models predict that without human intervention (ie clearcutting and burning forests, grasslands and peatland in order to grow monocultures and cash crops) we would currently be in a fairly significant ice age, with glaciers down as far as upstate new york etc. Interested parties should consult, e.g. http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Ruddiman2003.pdf (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Ruddiman2003.pdf)

I also want to point out that the "Green New Deal" is not a leftist policy, it is a rightist one meant to preserve capitalism through a crisis of climate disruption. The promotion of green energy, beloved of ExxonMobil etc because of the use of fossil fuels and heavy metals involved in constructing wind turbines and solar panels, and extremely environmentally damaging in itself (especially in the form of hydroelectric dams), is a pretty obvious giveaway. The leftist "solution" to climate change is managed degrowth under a system of central planning, coupled with expropriation of the First World's stolen wealth to rebuild the Third World. I put solution in quotes because this is impossible under the american empire, but who knows, maybe Xi Jinping will eventually get his act together and bring about socialism with chinese characteristics, and successfully economically dominate the USA, I'm not holding my breath though.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on August 24, 2019, 05:22:37 AM
AMW: "Davos, the British royal family and the US ruling class all represent the ultra rich who will be fine no matter what, probably surviving the coming social collapse in purpose built bunkers in New Zealand or something..." 

You are welcome to your conspiracy theories, of course...  8)

AMW: "Only an extremely stupid or extremely wealthy person can afford to deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change at this point..."

Well, I'm not 'extremely wealthy,' so I must be...Hey!  Wait a second!!  :-X

AMW: "...stephenschneider.stanford.edu..." 

Do you mean Stephen Schneider, the global cooling guy?  Or Stephen Schneider, the global warming guy?

In 1971, Schneider co-authored a paper warning of a man-made "ice age." See: Rasool S., & Schneider S."Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141 – Excerpt: 'The rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age." Schneider was still promoting the coming "ice age" in 1978. (See: Unearthed 1970's video: Global warming activist Stephen Schneider caught on 1978 TV show 'In Search Of...The Coming Ice Age' – September 20, 2009) By the 1980's, Schneider reversed himself and began touting man-made global warming. See: "The rate of [global warming] change is so fast that I don't hesitate to call it potentially catastrophic for ecosystems," Schneider said on UK TV in 1990.

AMW: "I also want to point out that the "Green New Deal" is not a leftist policy, it is a rightist one meant to preserve capitalism through a crisis of climate disruption..."

Bernie is not going to be happy when he finds out...  :laugh:
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 24, 2019, 06:39:49 AM
Quote from: Muzio on August 24, 2019, 03:46:19 AM

What is being pushed is the political religion of man-made climate change, for which there is no real data, just correlations of...correlations of...correlations of...conjectures. It is simply a man-made globalist income redistrbution scheme.


     The cooling effect hypothesis was disconfirmed, the warming hypothesis has been confirmed, and a scientist changed his mind.

     Will the response to the crisis be a "globalist income redistrbution scheme"? Inevitably it will, as the scale will be global and income will be redistributed, mostly upward since it will force governments out of a world wide spending slump. The world will be forced to grow against its shrinky inclinations.

     Keep in mind that climate change damages incomes all over the world, millions of people have already been displaced by it, and it's looking like the worst case scenario of only a few years ago is the real case now.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on August 24, 2019, 11:22:54 AM
Quote from: JBS on August 23, 2019, 08:09:44 PM
democracy never has existed, does not now exist, will never exist.

That is actually true.  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 24, 2019, 12:27:45 PM
Quote from: Muzio on August 24, 2019, 03:46:19 AM
71db: "Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Steven Crowder deny climate change?"

No one that I know denies climate change.  The climate has always changed and will continue to change...forever.  What is being pushed is the political religion of man-made climate change, for which there is no real data, just correlations of...correlations of...correlations of...conjectures. It is simply a man-made globalist income redistrbution scheme.

So are you saying the it's pure coincidence that for thousands of years CO2 concentration was around 260 ppm to around 280 ppm - since the Industrial Revolution it has risen to over 400 ppm. Sorry, but I don't believe in coincidences like that especially when there is almost 100 % consensus among climate scientist it is not a coincidence. It's also curious why the "research" for opposing claims is financed by fossil fuel industry. How stupid are you? Jesus. I am so done with idiots like you! You fucking morrons are so dangeorus to this planet. Fuck you"!

need to calm down! I am so angry! I'll watch 007 - Dr. No for some entertainment...

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 24, 2019, 12:44:33 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 24, 2019, 12:24:41 PM
This is not true. 94 % of Americans will have more disposable income under a single-payer plan.

Thanks for this information. I haven't seen such a precise estimate. Looks totally believable.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on August 24, 2019, 03:54:51 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 24, 2019, 12:27:45 PM
So are you saying the it's pure coincidence that for thousands of years CO2 concentration was around 260 ppm to around 280 ppm - since the Industrial Revolution it has risen to over 400 ppm. Sorry, but I don't believe in coincidences like that especially when there is almost 100 % consensus among climate scientist it is not a coincidence. It's also curious why the "research" for opposing claims is financed by fossil fuel industry. How stupid are you? Jesus. I am so done with idiots like you! You fucking morrons are so dangeorus to this planet. Fuck you"!

I see I'm rising in your esteem, though I have yet to rise to the "asshole" ranking that you bestowed upon Todd.  Something to aim for.

But seriously, do you know who said the following?

"No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent."

"The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking."

"[W]e'll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods."


Why, it was Barry Obama, the same guy who just bought a 7000 SF coastal mansion on Martha's Vineyard.

The Obamas are literally investing $15 million in the fact that Global Warming is a hoax.

(https://i.postimg.cc/SNVgwHSM/Pol-Obama-mansion-Marthas-Vineyard.jpg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on August 24, 2019, 04:38:02 PM
Quote from: amw on August 24, 2019, 04:41:29 AM
Davos, the British royal family and the US ruling class all represent the ultra rich who will be fine no matter what, probably surviving the coming social collapse in purpose built bunkers in New Zealand or something.

I've heard it rumored that some Ayn Rand types are looking to NZ as their new Galts Gulch come whatever disaster.

Putting aside the fact that any global disaster will hurt NZ right along with everywhere else, I'm letting it be known that  my first priority come that day will be to concrete over the bunkers of those who helped cause it and think they can now hide - so they had better be part of the solution instead.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on August 24, 2019, 05:13:30 PM
Quote from: Muzio on August 24, 2019, 05:22:37 AM
Do you mean Stephen Schneider, the global cooling guy?  Or Stephen Schneider, the global warming guy?

If you read the paper, you'll understand why he was predicting a coming ice age in the 1970s—failure to take into account the effects of CO2 and CH4 emissions—because it pretty clearly indicates the world would be cooling if not for human activity.

Quote
Bernie is not going to be happy when he finds out...  :laugh:
Or maybe Bernie isn't quite as "left" as you all seem to think he is. Being a lifelong supporter of Israel, not to mention the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Libya, is significantly more diagnostic of one's true political leanings than what party one identifies with.

Quote from: SimonNZ on August 24, 2019, 04:38:02 PM
I've heard it rumored that some Ayn Rand types are looking to NZ as their new Galts Gulch come whatever disaster.

Putting aside the fact that any global disaster will hurt NZ right along with everywhere else, I'm letting it be known that  my first priority come that day will be to concrete over the bunkers of those who helped cause it and think they can now hide - so they had better be part of the solution instead.
This is a noble endeavour and one I will fully support. Perhaps the bunkers could also be used as a new habitat for the invasive Avondale huntsman spider.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 24, 2019, 07:30:37 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 24, 2019, 12:24:41 PM
This is not true. 94% of Americans will have more disposable income under a single-payer plan.
.

The health care will be worse for most Americans.
Single payer helps people who don't have coverage now, but only them.
What is needed is a plan that gets coverage for those who don't have it but does not degrade the coverage for anyone else. A Biden style plan is the one that best does that. Single payer does not.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 24, 2019, 07:35:29 PM
Quote from: Muzio on August 24, 2019, 03:54:51 PM


"No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent."

"The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking."

"[W]e'll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods."


Why, it was Barry Obama, the same guy who just bought a 7000 SF coastal mansion on Martha's Vineyard.

The Obamas are literally investing $15 million in the fact that Global Warming is a hoax.


     Yes, but Obama said what he did because it's true, while what you said is your interpretation of a motive that depends on the "hoax hoax", which you might not believe but like to spread.

     Scientists really do know more about climate change than trollish hoax hoaxers and energy lobbyists.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 24, 2019, 07:38:42 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 24, 2019, 12:24:41 PM

We can improve our democracy by making sure that the money involved comes from working-class people, not large corporations that have a reason to buy elections.

If it's wrong for rich people to buy elections, isn't it also wrong for not-rich people to buy elections.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 24, 2019, 08:00:52 PM
Quote from: drogulus on August 24, 2019, 07:35:29 PM
     
     Scientists really do know more about climate change than trollish hoax hoaxers and energy lobbyists.

Scientists are as prone to corruption, group think, and peer pressure as any other group of humans. They have no special immunity to the vices.

Anthropogenic climate change is an idea that is backed only by engineered models, speculation,  a determined evasion of the maxim "co-relation is not causation", and avoidance of the fact that we know relatively little about the natural causes of climate change. The last in and of itself renders any claim that human action is a major cause of climate change highly dubious.

Earth has been warmer than it is now, in historical times. The sea levels seem to have remained constant, the polar bears survived, and--most important--humans were, in general, better off.  Which leads into the second major flaw of AGW: the idea that a different climate is intrinsically worse, as if we have enough knowledge to decide what climate is best for us and for the earth in general.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on August 24, 2019, 08:29:09 PM
Quote from: JBS on August 24, 2019, 07:30:37 PM
The health care will be worse for most Americans.
Single payer helps people who don't have coverage now, but only them.
What is needed is a plan that gets coverage for those who don't have it but does not degrade the coverage for anyone else. A Biden style plan is the one that best does that. Single payer does not.

Sanders has expanded Medicare and coverage will actually be better, not worse, than before.

(This is my last word on the subject because I clearly cannot convince you of anything.)

Quote from: JBS on August 24, 2019, 07:38:42 PM
If it's wrong for rich people to buy elections, isn't it also wrong for not-rich people to buy elections.

No. Rich people buy elections to help rich people. Believe it or not, there are less rich people than not-rich people. As a consequence, when rich people buy elections, it is worse for most Americans. You seem to understand this when it comes to healthcare, but not here.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Jo498 on August 25, 2019, 02:02:25 AM
"buying elections" is obviously always wrong. One could argue that it is actually more pernicious when done "for a good cause" because it taints that presumeably good cause.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 25, 2019, 03:36:21 AM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 24, 2019, 08:29:09 PM
(This is my last word on the subject because I clearly cannot convince you of anything.)

Convincing a brick wall would be easier. JBS is totally "informed" to serve corporate/rich interests. He is just someone who votes in elections to maintain the rigged status quo. If he is a TFG (too far gone) there is no hope for him. If he is not a TFG, there is hope for him. I would like to believe he is not a TFG and has enough intellect (having an interest in classical music!) to someday realize how misled he is. Whether JBS is a TFG or not, it's pretty evident we can't convince him of anything. He must do it himself, have the will to figure things out himself. That's my mistake. Not giving people room to fugure things out while supporting them. That is what I can learn to do better and perhaps it is a solutions to my own anger and frustrations?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 25, 2019, 03:57:17 AM
Quote from: JBS on August 24, 2019, 08:00:52 PM
Scientists are as prone to corruption, group think, and peer pressure as any other group of humans. They have no special immunity to the vices.

Anthropogenic climate change is an idea that is backed only by engineered models, speculation,  a determined evasion of the maxim "co-relation is not causation", and avoidance of the fact that we know relatively little about the natural causes of climate change. The last in and of itself renders any claim that human action is a major cause of climate change highly dubious.

Earth has been warmer than it is now, in historical times. The sea levels seem to have remained constant, the polar bears survived, and--most important--humans were, in general, better off.  Which leads into the second major flaw of AGW: the idea that a different climate is intrinsically worse, as if we have enough knowledge to decide what climate is best for us and for the earth in general.

Yes, scientist are prone to corruption just like other people. Some of them are willing to do pseudoscience for money for corporations. Is smoking bad or not? A lot of scientist were wiling to work for tabacco industry. Is the climate change manmade or not? A lot of scientists are willing to work for fossile fuel industry.

There are uncertainties in science. Are you willing to take the risk all the climate science is wrong? Do you leave the door of your house unlocked just because the change of someone taking advantage of that is small? Fossile fuel industry tries to muddy to waters and create mistrust toward scientists and it works. You are a proof of that.

Yes, the climate has changes a lot in the history of this planet, but it has been a slow process taking millions of years so that the ecosystem has had time to adapt. Now it's happening insanely fast. Also in the past there hasn't vulnerable human infrastucture. There where not nuclear power plants during the last ice age. There were not electric power lines at the mercy of tornados last time tornados were strong (whenever it was, I am not an expert). Just like having a lock in your house doors is cheaper then having people walking to your house than take your stuff, combatting climate change is cheaper than letting the extreme weather conditions cause damage to our infrastructure, cause MASSIVE refuge problems because some parts of the world become inhabitable (heat/rise of sea level etc) and even wars over water.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 25, 2019, 07:36:37 AM
Quote from: JBS on August 24, 2019, 08:00:52 PM
Scientists are as prone to corruption, group think, and peer pressure as any other group of humans. They have no special immunity to the vices.

Anthropogenic climate change is an idea that is backed only by engineered models, speculation,  a determined evasion of the maxim "co-relation is not causation", and avoidance of the fact that we know relatively little about the natural causes of climate change. The last in and of itself renders any claim that human action is a major cause of climate change highly dubious.

Earth has been warmer than it is now, in historical times. The sea levels seem to have remained constant, the polar bears survived, and--most important--humans were, in general, better off.  Which leads into the second major flaw of AGW: the idea that a different climate is intrinsically worse, as if we have enough knowledge to decide what climate is best for us and for the earth in general.

     That AGW is intrinsically worse is not a factor in the hypothesis. It does follow from the effects. We can decide what better/worse for ourselves, not on an intrinsic basis but a standard pragmatic one.

     Scientists are prone to human vices, as are air traffic controllers and brain surgeons. The methods of science are for overcoming corruption, group think, and peer pressure.

     We can expect most of the important controversy within climate science to be internal to a well confirmed theory, and that's what is happening. Whether it was due to peer pressure, groupthink or just lack of sufficient data, the pace of change is faster than the consensus estimates of a few years ago.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 25, 2019, 09:58:27 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 25, 2019, 03:57:17 AM
Yes, scientist are prone to corruption just like other people. Some of them are willing to do pseudoscience for money for corporations. Is smoking bad or not? A lot of scientist were wiling to work for tabacco industry. Is the climate change manmade or not? A lot of scientists are willing to work for fossile fuel industry.

There are uncertainties in science. Are you willing to take the risk all the climate science is wrong? Do you leave the door of your house unlocked just because the change of someone taking advantage of that is small? Fossile fuel industry tries to muddy to waters and create mistrust toward scientists and it works. You are a proof of that.

Yes, the climate has changes a lot in the history of this planet, but it has been a slow process taking millions of years so that the ecosystem has had time to adapt. Now it's happening insanely fast. Also in the past there hasn't vulnerable human infrastucture. There where not nuclear power plants during the last ice age. There were not electric power lines at the mercy of tornados last time tornados were strong (whenever it was, I am not an expert). Just like having a lock in your house doors is cheaper then having people walking to your house than take your stuff, combatting climate change is cheaper than letting the extreme weather conditions cause damage to our infrastructure, cause MASSIVE refuge problems because some parts of the world become inhabitable (heat/rise of sea level etc) and even wars over water.

You apparently know as little about climate science as you do American politics.  In that last paragraph, you are assuming the most drastic predictions are the most likely, and ignore the fact they are based on models engineered to produce drastic predictions. You are like the NRA members who think that because someone might try to burgle their house, they have an absolute right to possess as many AR15s as they have the money to buy.

Climate change is not a slow process taking millions of years. In the last millenium alone it has cooled down and warmed up at rates about the same as what is currently occurring. And of course there was no fossil fuel industries, no polluting factories, etc until 200 years ago. Meaning the change occurred without any real correlation to human activity. Climate scientists themselves admit they know very little about the  natural causes. Which is why skepticism is not only deserved, but necessary.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 25, 2019, 11:08:48 AM
Quote from: JBS on August 25, 2019, 09:58:27 AM
You apparently know as little about climate science as you do American politics.  In that last paragraph, you are assuming the most drastic predictions are the most likely, and ignore the fact they are based on models engineered to produce drastic predictions. You are like the NRA members who think that because someone might try to burgle their house, they have an absolute right to possess as many AR15s as they have the money to buy.

Climate change is not a slow process taking millions of years. In the last millenium alone it has cooled down and warmed up at rates about the same as what is currently occurring. And of course there was no fossil fuel industries, no polluting factories, etc until 200 years ago. Meaning the change occurred without any real correlation to human activity. Climate scientists themselves admit they know very little about the  natural causes. Which is why skepticism is not only deserved, but necessary.

I don't claim expertise of climate science. However, I don't fall for fossile fuel industry propaganda either. I'm not THAT stupid.

Yes, smaller fluctuations happen fast*, but drastic changes comparable to what has happened during the last 100 years takes long. Look at the black thick curve (1800-present). That's humans (industrial revolution). So different from what was before (years 0-1800).

* Say 0.1 K change in global mean tempetature trend in 100 years.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on August 25, 2019, 11:49:52 AM
Per his drama queen thread, Poju has stopped, I see.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on August 25, 2019, 12:08:58 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 25, 2019, 11:49:52 AM
Per his drama queen thread, Poju has stopped, I see.

He has stopped stopping.  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 25, 2019, 01:00:51 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 25, 2019, 11:49:52 AM
Per his drama queen thread, Poju has stopped, I see.

I was very near DELETING my account here yesterday, but I decided to try controlling my anger. It's not easy, but one can try...  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on August 25, 2019, 01:54:34 PM
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2019, 12:08:58 PM
He has stopped stopping.  ;D

8)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on August 25, 2019, 02:09:13 PM
"Called the calling off off"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on August 25, 2019, 03:50:25 PM
The most recent polls are giving Sanders an edge with voters of colour and voters without college degrees. Also surprisingly little evidence of Warren cutting into his core base at all, with hers being mostly white college grads.

I doubt this means very much as Biden still leads with old people, young voters make up a much smaller portion of the electorate, and they're roughly evenly divided between Sanders and Warren which should allow Biden to coast through if his brain doesn't fall apart in the next few months. But still.

(https://i.imgur.com/sqNlLlN.jpg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on August 25, 2019, 03:57:27 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 25, 2019, 01:00:51 PM
I was very near DELETING my account here yesterday, but I decided to try controlling my anger. It's not easy, but one can try...  ::)

Well, in your defense, it's not easy being green.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 25, 2019, 05:15:19 PM
Quote from: Muzio on August 25, 2019, 03:57:27 PM
Well, in your defense, it's not easy being green.

It's not easy to be smart among dummies.  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on August 25, 2019, 06:21:44 PM
Quote from: amw on August 25, 2019, 03:50:25 PM
The most recent polls are giving Sanders an edge with voters of colour and voters without college degrees. Also surprisingly little evidence of Warren cutting into his core base at all, with hers being mostly white college grads.

I doubt this means very much as Biden still leads with old people, young voters make up a much smaller portion of the electorate, and they're roughly evenly divided between Sanders and Warren which should allow Biden to coast through if his brain doesn't fall apart in the next few months. But still.

(https://i.imgur.com/sqNlLlN.jpg)

Whatever else,it's an interesting horse race.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on August 26, 2019, 02:55:44 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 25, 2019, 06:21:44 PM
Whatever else,it's an interesting horse race.
A horse race is certainly preferable to Dementia Joe sliding to victory without breaking a sweat. I hope for future improvements in Sanders and Warren's positions as things get closer to Iowa.

(Harris seems to have given up running for president and is instead running to become the next president's AG but I suppose she still has an outside chance if Biden fans decide to ditch him)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on August 26, 2019, 10:05:42 AM
What's this news about Tulsi Gabbard dropping out soon?
Of course the most bipartisan candidate would have to.  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 26, 2019, 12:39:31 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 25, 2019, 11:08:48 AM
I don't claim expertise of climate science. However, I don't fall for fossile fuel industry propaganda either. I'm not THAT stupid.

Yes, smaller fluctuations happen fast*, but drastic changes comparable to what has happened during the last 100 years takes long. Look at the black thick curve (1800-present). That's humans (industrial revolution). So different from what was before (years 0-1800).

* Say 0.1 K change in global mean tempetature trend in 100 years.

If that's the chart I think it is, it uses cherrypicked data to give the impression that  the rate of change is faster than it really is. It understates temperature change in earlier times and overstates temperature change in modern times. Result, it gets people to say OMG! based in manipulation.

Even it is an honest chart, it merely shows correlation. The evidence for causation is remarkably thin, especially when you understand that although we know rather little about nonhuman factors in climate change, what we know suggests all of the change can be accounted for by nonhuman factors.

Which illustrates my main point.

You are assuming the information you get from AGW advocates is impartial and honest. It's actually biased and subject to manipulation. AGW advocates can look towards government grants and money from the  industries that would benefit from development of alternate energy. So they have as much motivation to mislead the public as the ones who work for the fossil fuel. Be as skeptical of the advocates on your own side as you are of the ones who advocate for the other side.  They are not trying to inform you, they are trying to persuade you. That means the information you get from them is edited and arranged. It's not impartial.

Be a cynic. Distrust both sides.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: North Star on August 26, 2019, 01:21:18 PM
Quote from: JBS on August 26, 2019, 12:39:31 PM
If that's the chart I think it is, it uses cherrypicked data to give the impression that  the rate of change is faster than it really is. It understates temperature change in earlier times and overstates temperature change in modern times. Result, it gets people to say OMG! based in manipulation.

Even it is an honest chart, it merely shows correlation. The evidence for causation is remarkably thin, especially when you understand that although we know rather little about nonhuman factors in climate change, what we know suggests all of the change can be accounted for by nonhuman factors.

Which illustrates my main point.

You are assuming the information you get from AGW advocates is impartial and honest. It's actually biased and subject to manipulation. AGW advocates can look towards government grants and money from the  industries that would benefit from development of alternate energy. So they have as much motivation to mislead the public as the ones who work for the fossil fuel. Be as skeptical of the advocates on your own side as you are of the ones who advocate for the other side.  They are not trying to inform you, they are trying to persuade you. That means the information you get from them is edited and arranged. It's not impartial.

Be a cynic. Distrust both sides.
These charts below from NASA and NOAA are more cherrypicking, I guess? (here (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)'s Poju's chart. 'It' doesn't understate or overstate anything, as it is a composite of 11 different reconstructions. You're welcome to show that the compiler cherry-picked or altered the 11 reconstructions to manipulate the resulting chart and to prove your earlier claim.)  And I see you already offer the correlation is not proof of causation defense next. We know since John Tyndall and Svante Arhus in the 19th century of the greenhouse effect, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has a dramatic effect on Earth's surface temperatures. Can you point out an alternative explanation for the correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and changes in Earth's climate? I suspect forest fires increasing with the temperature rise will not be enough to explain the recent rise.
And then, you try to prove that those who have shown with scientific methods that the science showing man-made climate change is scientifically true, are just as dishonest as those who try to show that science is wrong, or that science is not certain, or that science is corrupt because scientists want money for their solar energy plants? Maybe you should show us a chart that displays how a scientist's expressed views on climate change correlate with the money on their bank accounts. After that you would only have to refute the science. You say that these are just two sides to a story? "A lie ain't a side of a story. It's just a lie", to quote The Wire...
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
(https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg)


https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/last-2000-years
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_page_width/public/Reconstructed-Northern-Hemisphere-annual-temperature-during-the-last-2000-years-v2.jpg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 26, 2019, 01:37:17 PM
     The difference between past warming and cooling periods and the present one is that now it's global and in the same direction. This hasn't been true in past human history, though scientists once believed that warming and cooling periods were global in nature, that's no longer the case.

     Government funds all kinds of science. I'm not cynical about any of it. Selective cynicism about human engineered climate change is no more justified than cynicism about government supported research into the relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. It's not a "two sides" thing between the tobacco lobby and oncologists.

     Climate change is being caused by human intervention and we have government sponsored research to thank for much of our knowledge of it. And it's plain false to suggest that scientists do not consider correlation vs causation in their investigations. They didn't forget about the distinction.

     
Quote from: North Star on August 26, 2019, 01:21:18 PM
These charts below from NASA and NOAA are more cherrypicking, I guess? (here (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)'s Poju's chart. 'It' doesn't understate or overstate anything, as it is a composite of 11 different reconstructions. You're welcome to show that the compiler cherry-picked the 11 reconstructions to manipulate the resulting chart and to prove your earlier claim.)  And I see you already offer the correlation is not proof of causation defense next. We know since John Tyndall and Svante Arhus in the 19th century of the greenhouse effect, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has a dramatic effect on Earth's surface temperatures. Can you point out an alternative explanation for the correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and changes in Earth's climate? I suspect forest fires increasing with the temperature rise will not be enough to explain the recent rise.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
(https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg)


https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/last-2000-years
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_page_width/public/Reconstructed-Northern-Hemisphere-annual-temperature-during-the-last-2000-years-v2.jpg)

      Dammmm! I was just about to link to the charts from the NASA and NOAA "advocates" the cynics don't trust.
     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 26, 2019, 01:49:25 PM
Quote from: North Star on August 26, 2019, 01:21:18 PM
These charts below from NASA and NOAA are more cherrypicking, I guess? (here (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)'s Poju's chart. 'It' doesn't understate or overstate anything, as it is a composite of 11 different reconstructions. You're welcome to show that the compiler cherry-picked the 11 reconstructions to manipulate the resulting chart and to prove your earlier claim.)  And I see you already offer the correlation is not proof of causation defense next. We know since John Tyndall and Svante Arhus in the 19th century of the greenhouse effect, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has a dramatic effect on Earth's surface temperatures. Can you point out an alternative explanation for the correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and changes in Earth's climate? I suspect forest fires increasing with the temperature rise will not be enough to explain the recent rise.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
(https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg)


https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/last-2000-years
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_page_width/public/Reconstructed-Northern-Hemisphere-annual-temperature-during-the-last-2000-years-v2.jpg)

1) Temperature reconstructions from premodern times are by their nature speculative.
2) Even in the modern period, temperature comparisons are usually not completely completely on point because human construction can impact microclimate.
Which means that the data is not as reliable as you think it is. (And if human action is the cause of increasing CO2 levels, thre would be less fluctuation in prehuman eras and a faster rate before 1950.)
3) The point is, we do not know enough about natural factors like solar flares, etc. to say that CO2 is the only, or even the most important, reason.  We don't even know enough about the greenhouse effect: it may actually have a cooling effect.
Hence, the most reasonable attitude is skepticism if anyone claims CO2 is the main reason.
(Forest fires may have an impact, in that they result in less CO2 being taken out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis.)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on August 26, 2019, 02:22:02 PM
Quote from: JBS on August 26, 2019, 12:39:31 PM
If that's the chart I think it is, it uses cherrypicked data to give the impression that  the rate of change is faster than it really is. It understates temperature change in earlier times and overstates temperature change in modern times. Result, it gets people to say OMG! based in manipulation.

Even it is an honest chart, it merely shows correlation. The evidence for causation is remarkably thin, especially when you understand that although we know rather little about nonhuman factors in climate change, what we know suggests all of the change can be accounted for by nonhuman factors.

Which illustrates my main point.

You are assuming the information you get from AGW advocates is impartial and honest. It's actually biased and subject to manipulation. AGW advocates can look towards government grants and money from the  industries that would benefit from development of alternate energy. So they have as much motivation to mislead the public as the ones who work for the fossil fuel. Be as skeptical of the advocates on your own side as you are of the ones who advocate for the other side.  They are not trying to inform you, they are trying to persuade you. That means the information you get from them is edited and arranged. It's not impartial.

Be a cynic. Distrust both sides.

Poju islike Trump: he's always right, so he need never change his mind.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on August 26, 2019, 02:36:29 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 26, 2019, 02:22:02 PM
Poju islike Trump: he's always right, so he need never change his mind.

The same can be said for everyone else on this thread...   
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: North Star on August 26, 2019, 02:52:54 PM
Quote from: JBS on August 26, 2019, 01:49:25 PM
1) Temperature reconstructions from premodern times are by their nature speculative.
If you mean that they are not based on thermometer readings, you are correct. That doesn't mean that the methods used by scientists (coral skeletons, tree rings, glacial ice cores, etc) allow for errors of the magnitude that would result in the recent development looking unexceptional.

Quote from: JBS on August 26, 2019, 01:49:25 PM
2) Even in the modern period, temperature comparisons are usually not completely completely on point because human construction can impact microclimate.
Which means that the data is not as reliable as you think it is. (And if human action is the cause of increasing CO2 levels, thre would be less fluctuation in prehuman eras and a faster rate before 1950.)
Oh, so global warming is just the misrepresentation of the thermometers in Vancouver and Oslo that were originally in the forest, suddenly being inside an office building.

Nobody suggested that human action is the only thing that can raise CO2 levels. The point is, The recent trend is something totally different than the fluctuation caused by volcanoes and weather.

Quote3) The point is, we do not know enough about natural factors like solar flares, etc. to say that CO2 is the only, or even the most important, reason.  We don't even know enough about the greenhouse effect: it may actually have a cooling effect.
Hence, the most reasonable attitude is skepticism if anyone claims CO2 is the main reason.
Solar flares etc have existed for a long time, and so have variations in those. The climate has warmed faster than ever since the industrial revolution, according to the best means we have to measure that. Is there any reason to think that solar flares etc are suddenly having a more dramatic effect than ever before?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 26, 2019, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: JBS on August 26, 2019, 01:49:25 PM
1) Temperature reconstructions from premodern times are by their nature speculative.
2) Even in the modern period, temperature comparisons are usually not completely completely on point because human construction can impact microclimate.
Which means that the data is not as reliable as you think it is. (And if human action is the cause of increasing CO2 levels, thre would be less fluctuation in prehuman eras and a faster rate before 1950.)
3) The point is, we do not know enough about natural factors like solar flares, etc. to say that CO2 is the only, or even the most important, reason.  We don't even know enough about the greenhouse effect: it may actually have a cooling effect.
Hence, the most reasonable attitude is skepticism if anyone claims CO2 is the main reason.
(Forest fires may have an impact, in that they result in less CO2 being taken out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis.)

     All of these factors go into the scientific consensus. I doubt if I have thought of any objections they haven't already considered.

     I have thought of something else, though, a kind of counter objection. If the human induced climate change theory is wrong, you have an enormous greenhouse gas input that is doing effectively nothing. It's there, but an unknown something else is responsible for the changes. Now you have 2 puzzles, a massive effect with no cause, and a massive cause with no effect.

     Causation is a matter of predictive strength. Climate science has great predictive power and it's only getting more precise.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 26, 2019, 03:12:03 PM
Quote from: JBS on August 26, 2019, 12:39:31 PM
Be a cynic. Distrust both sides.

I am a cynic, not least because of people like you. That doesn't mean I can't evaluate the degree of which I can trust different sources of information. The US is a curious place in that corporations can finance pseudoscience and make people distrust real science to protect their short term profits and the corporate media calls it 50-50. It's different elsewhere.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 26, 2019, 03:28:04 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 26, 2019, 02:22:02 PM
Poju islike Trump: he's always right, so he need never change his mind.

Nonsense. Three years ago I thought Hillary Clinton was a good candidate because I didn't know much about American politics. Trump's victory made me realize I need better understanding/knowledge and what you know I found out she was a bad candidate. I was totally wrong and I have changed my mind about Hillary Clinton quite dramatically since.

In fact I think we Europeans have this general idea that the Dems are the "good" guys when most of them are almost as corrupt or as corrupt as the Republicans. Maybe we Europeans have been naive in thinking the US is a beacon of democracy and western freedom (brainwashed by american movies and cultural influence and what not) so at least one party has to be the good guys. Well, after Trump's victory when I started to follow american politics I was in for a big shock: There is no real democracy but oligarchy and only a handful of politicians are actually "good guys".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on August 26, 2019, 03:47:35 PM
I say, keep Tulsi Gabbard in mind.  IMO, she is going to play a much bigger role in the primaries than most people think.  She is not going to allow the DNC to shove her aside so inofficiously and discourteously after she performed the surgical takedown of Heels-up Harris.  Some suggest she may threaten to run as an independent, or worse yet (better yet?) endorse our current sublime President.  In other news:

Biden is now polling at 19 percent behind Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who are both at 20 percent, in the Monmouth University Poll.

"Biden has suffered an across the board decline in his support since June.  He lost ground with white Democrats (from 32% to 18%) and voters of color (from 33% to 19%), among voters without a college degree (from 35% to 18%) and college graduates (from 28% to 20%), with both men (from 38% to 24%) and women (from 29% to 16%), and among voters under 50 years old (from 21% to 6%) as well as voters aged 50 and over (from 42% to 33%).  Most of Biden's lost support in these groups shifted almost equally toward Sanders and Warren," Monomouth found.

NATIONAL POLL: Early #2020 Dem preference:

20% @BernieSanders (UP 6 pts from June)
20% @EWarren (UP 5)
19% @JoeBiden (DOWN 13)
---------------------------------
8% @KamalaHarris
4% @CoryBooker
4% @PeteButtigieg
3% @AndrewYang
2% @JulianCastro
2% @BetoORourke
2% @MarWilliamson
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 26, 2019, 04:47:36 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 26, 2019, 03:12:03 PM
I am a cynic, not least because of people like you. That doesn't mean I can't evaluate the degree of which I can trust different sources of information. The US is a curious place in that corporations can finance pseudoscience and make people distrust real science to protect their short term profits and the corporate media calls it 50-50. It's different elsewhere.

News flash.
It happens everywhere.
Even in Finland.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on August 26, 2019, 05:02:31 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 26, 2019, 02:36:29 PM
The same can be said for everyone else on this thread...   

I'm sure not, and not only of myself.

But, your opinion is noted.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on August 26, 2019, 11:11:40 PM
Quote from: Muzio on August 26, 2019, 03:47:35 PM
our current sublime President. 


Trump suggests 'nuking hurricanes' to stop them hitting America – report (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/26/donald-trump-suggests-nuking-hurricanes-to-stop-them-hitting-america-report)


Definition of the adjective "sublime" from Merriam-Webster:

1a : lofty, grand, or exalted in thought, expression, or manner
b : of outstanding spiritual, intellectual, or moral worth
c : tending to inspire awe usually because of elevated quality (as of beauty, nobility, or grandeur) or transcendent excellence

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 27, 2019, 02:07:50 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on August 26, 2019, 11:11:40 PM
Trump suggests 'nuking hurricanes' to stop them hitting America – report (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/26/donald-trump-suggests-nuking-hurricanes-to-stop-them-hitting-america-report)

Since stronger and more frequent extreme weather conditions are a result of climate change, Trump literally wants to fight climate change by nuking the weather...  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on August 27, 2019, 03:39:47 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on August 26, 2019, 11:11:40 PM
Definition of the adjective "sublime" from Merriam-Webster:

1a : lofty, grand, or exalted in thought, expression, or manner
b : of outstanding spiritual, intellectual, or moral worth
c : tending to inspire awe usually because of elevated quality (as of beauty, nobility, or grandeur) or transcendent excellence

Spot on.  Also, this:

(https://i.postimg.cc/4N161zSP/Pol-Melania-in-red-dress-at-G-7-2019.jpg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on August 27, 2019, 06:31:10 AM
Quote from: schnittkease on August 26, 2019, 02:36:29 PM
The same can be said for everyone else on this thread...   

You may recall that when you called me for being unfair to your esteemed self, I apologized, for I was indeed in the wrong, and you pointed this out with tactful restraint.
,
Your present remark makes for an interesting sequel, but that is your affair.

The case for your rather glib "but you're all the same" riposte will be strengthened by pointing out where Poju has apologized for calling anyone who disagrees with him "stupid" or "brainwashed."

Your search is apt to take quite some time, time which you may wish to dedicate to endeavors likelier to meet success.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 27, 2019, 08:00:42 AM
How can a nation be totally divided without somebody being brainwashed?

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on August 27, 2019, 02:21:08 PM
Sanders: China has done more to address extreme poverty 'than any country in the history of civilization' (https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/458976-sanders-china-had-done-more-to-address-extreme-poverty-than-any-country-in-the)

"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) offered praise for China while stating in an interview that he believed the U.S. could have a positive relationship with the country, saying it had made "more progress in addressing extreme poverty than any country in the history of civilization."

The Democratic presidential candidate offered a nuanced view of Beijing, criticizing it for a move toward authoritarianism and stating that it looked out for its own interests first, but also saying it had made progress in helping its own people over the last several decades.

"China is a country that is moving unfortunately in a more authoritarian way in a number of directions," Sanders told Hill.TV's Krystal Ball. "But what we have to say about China in fairness to China and it's leadership is if I'm not mistaken they have made more progress in addressing extreme poverty than any country in the history of civilization, so they've done a lot of things for their people."[/url]
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on August 27, 2019, 02:45:49 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 27, 2019, 08:00:42 AM
How can a nation be totally divided without somebody being brainwashed?



This is your pathetic justification?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 27, 2019, 06:20:37 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on August 27, 2019, 02:21:08 PM
Sanders: China has done more to address extreme poverty 'than any country in the history of civilization' (https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/458976-sanders-china-had-done-more-to-address-extreme-poverty-than-any-country-in-the)

"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) offered praise for China while stating in an interview that he believed the U.S. could have a positive relationship with the country, saying it had made "more progress in addressing extreme poverty than any country in the history of civilization."

The Democratic presidential candidate offered a nuanced view of Beijing, criticizing it for a move toward authoritarianism and stating that it looked out for its own interests first, but also saying it had made progress in helping its own people over the last several decades.

"China is a country that is moving unfortunately in a more authoritarian way in a number of directions," Sanders told Hill.TV's Krystal Ball. "But what we have to say about China in fairness to China and it's leadership is if I'm not mistaken they have made more progress in addressing extreme poverty than any country in the history of civilization, so they've done a lot of things for their people."[/url]

I am trying to read this in a way that doesn't make Sanders sound like an idiot. I will assume he is thinking only of the relatively recent past. Otherwise you have to include the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution and the millions who died under Mao. There's also the One Child policy. But China is not moving towards authoritarianism, it's been authoritarian from the day Mao assumed power. Doesn't he understand that? And the Chinese proletariat exists under conditions that in the West were outlawed decades ago. They may not be extremely poor, but they are poor.

There is also the fact that China is one of the world's great polluters, and that its economic growth and the decline of extreme poverty is tied to its polluting activities. Moreover, if China doesn't limit carbon emissions, Western attempts to do so will have little or no impact.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on August 27, 2019, 08:09:58 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 27, 2019, 06:31:10 AM
Your search is apt to take quite some time, time which you may wish to dedicate to endeavors likelier to meet success.

Yeah, it will (partly because the server is so slow right now).

You're reading too much into my remark. All I'm saying is that no one on this thread is changing their minds.

Quote from: JBS on August 27, 2019, 06:20:37 PM
I am trying to read this in a way that doesn't make Sanders sound like an idiot. I will assume he is thinking only of the relatively recent past. Otherwise you have to include the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution and the millions who died under Mao. There's also the One Child policy. But China is not moving towards authoritarianism, it's been authoritarian from the day Mao assumed power. Doesn't he understand that? And the Chinese proletariat exists under conditions that in the West were outlawed decades ago. They may not be extremely poor, but they are poor.

Yes⁠, he exaggerated a bit⁠, but you fail to see the point. China is on track to eliminate absolute poverty by 2020 and they are ahead of many other nations in that regard. Sanders pointed out everything else you mention in the next breath, so you're really not arguing anything by repeating that information.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on August 28, 2019, 02:15:45 AM
Quote from: JBS on August 27, 2019, 06:20:37 PM
I am trying to read this in a way that doesn't make Sanders sound like an idiot. I will assume he is thinking only of the relatively recent past. Otherwise you have to include the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution and the millions who died under Mao. There's also the One Child policy. But China is not moving towards authoritarianism, it's been authoritarian from the day Mao assumed power. Doesn't he understand that? And the Chinese proletariat exists under conditions that in the West were outlawed decades ago. They may not be extremely poor, but they are poor.

There is also the fact that China is one of the world's great polluters, and that its economic growth and the decline of extreme poverty is tied to its polluting activities. Moreover, if China doesn't limit carbon emissions, Western attempts to do so will have little or no impact.
Totally agree.  I don't see how Bernie gets very far with this line of campaigning.  That being said, he has moved to the top of the Dems and yesterday picked up a 35,000-member union endorsement, his first and the second, I believe, for any Dem candidate.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on August 28, 2019, 03:09:09 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on August 27, 2019, 02:21:08 PM
Sanders: China has done more to address extreme poverty 'than any country in the history of civilization' (https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/458976-sanders-china-had-done-more-to-address-extreme-poverty-than-any-country-in-the)

"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) offered praise for China while stating in an interview that he believed the U.S. could have a positive relationship with the country, saying it had made "more progress in addressing extreme poverty than any country in the history of civilization."

The Democratic presidential candidate offered a nuanced view of Beijing, criticizing it for a move toward authoritarianism and stating that it looked out for its own interests first, but also saying it had made progress in helping its own people over the last several decades.

"China is a country that is moving unfortunately in a more authoritarian way in a number of directions," Sanders told Hill.TV's Krystal Ball. "But what we have to say about China in fairness to China and it's leadership is if I'm not mistaken they have made more progress in addressing extreme poverty than any country in the history of civilization, so they've done a lot of things for their people."[/url]

This is unqualified bullshit. Nordic Countries, Germany, Switzerland achieved decades ago a level of general prosperity and working/ living conditions which hundreds of millions of Chinese can only dream of --- and did it without any trace of the appalling totalitarianism which has been a feature of China ever since Mao's first day in power.

Quote from: schnittkease on August 27, 2019, 08:09:58 PM
China is on track to eliminate absolute poverty by 2020 and they are ahead of many other nations in that regard.

They might be ahead of Sub-Saharan Africa but are decades behind North-Western Europe.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 28, 2019, 08:19:16 AM
     Per capita GDP $ (IMF 2018):

     6. Norway             74,356
   10. United States    62,606
   24. Finland              46,430
   49. Russia               29,267
   54. Romania            26,447
   72. Dominican Rep. 18,424
   73. China                18,110
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 28, 2019, 08:44:01 AM
Quote from: Florestan on August 28, 2019, 03:09:09 AM
This is unqualified bullshit. Nordic Countries, Germany, Switzerland achieved decades ago a level of general prosperity and working/ living conditions which hundreds of millions of Chinese can only dream of --- and did it without any trace of the appalling totalitarianism which has been a feature of China ever since Mao's first day in power.


     It may be bullshit but you are not providing an argument that it is. Instead you make claims that are defensible in themselves but not to the point.

     China has grown rapidly in recent decades, lifting more people out of poverty in a short time than ever before in human history. As GDP per capita of various nations show, this progress has been very uneven. 

     Sanders opposes Chinese authoritarianism but doesn't oppose Chinese economic growth, and he's not about to negate it for ideological reasons.

     My opinion is that like other countries that rely on export markets, like Japan, they will get priced out of markets they now dominate. You can get rich being the factory floor for the rich world but it will be hard to get richer than your biggest customers if you don't create a self-sustaining economy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 28, 2019, 01:13:17 PM
Quote from: drogulus on August 28, 2019, 08:44:01 AM
     It may be bullshit but you are not providing an argument that it is. Instead you make claims that are defensible in themselves but not to the point.

     China has grown rapidly in recent decades, lifting more people out of poverty in a short time than ever before in human history. As GDP per capita of various nations show, this progress has been very uneven. 

     Sanders opposes Chinese authoritarianism but doesn't oppose Chinese economic growth, and he's not about to negate it for ideological reasons.

     My opinion is that like other countries that rely on export markets, like Japan, they will get priced out of markets they now dominate. You can get rich being the factory floor for the rich world but it will be hard to get richer than your biggest customers if you don't create a self-sustaining economy.

The problem is that Chinese economic growth is a direct outcome of its totalitarian/authoritarian system. Sanders, if the link accurately reflects what he said, ignored that direct link.
Quote from: schnittkease on August 27, 2019, 08:09:58 PM

Yes⁠, he exaggerated a bit⁠, but you fail to see the point. China is on track to eliminate absolute poverty by 2020 and they are ahead of many other nations in that regard. Sanders pointed out everything else you mention in the next breath, so you're really not arguing anything by repeating that information.

Not in the quotes found in the Hill article. In fact, he made it sound as if authoritarianism is a new development in China, whereas it has been the  basic system there since 1949, and the main reason China has grown economically in the last generation.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on August 28, 2019, 02:28:01 PM
     Gillibrand is out. I never knew yee much.

Quote from: JBS on August 28, 2019, 01:13:17 PM
The problem is that Chinese economic growth is a direct outcome of its totalitarian/authoritarian system.

     I doubt it. Once they adopted growth policies, which they could have done as a monarchy or a democracy, it was inevitable that China would greatly improve. Before that, they were just as authoritarian if not more so under Mao. At this stage, though, China may find it hard to arrest the growth decline unless they make the kind of changes that would reduce the party grip on power. They need a stronger domestic economy, and that represents a danger to the regime the same way it does to Putin.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on August 31, 2019, 11:07:56 AM
More "bad news" for Trump supporters like me --> CNN reporting today:

"Poll of the week: A new national Quinnipiac University poll finds that former Vice President Joe Biden, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, California Sen. Kamala Harris and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg all lead President Donald Trump by significant margins in potential 2020 matchups.

Biden is ahead Trump by the most (16 points, 54% to 38%), while Buttigeg is up by the least (9 points, 49% to 40%).

What's the point: The Quinnipiac poll was the second probability poll that meets CNN standards and was conducted in August which found Trump down by at least 5 points against all his most likely challengers. In both the Fox News poll out earlier this month and Quinnipiac's latest, he trailed his most likely challenger, Biden, by double-digits. In fact, in an average of all the August polls (those that meet CNN standards and not), Biden was up by a 49% to 39% margin."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on August 31, 2019, 03:35:19 PM
Quote from: Muzio on August 31, 2019, 11:07:56 AM
More "bad news" for Trump supporters like me -

No, this is good news for you: you'll be able to blame the coming recession Trump is creating, floundering about, and searching for someone else to blame, on whichever Democrat wins and works desperately to pull the country out of it. Maybe you'll be able to cry havoc over their tan suit and lack of lapel pins while they're doing it.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on August 31, 2019, 03:44:31 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on August 31, 2019, 03:35:19 PM
No, this is good news for you: you'll be able to blame the coming recession Trump is creating, floundering about, and searching for someone else to blame, on whichever Democrat wins and works desperately to pull the country out of it. Maybe you'll be able to cry havoc over their tan suit and lack of lapel pins while they're doing it.

Given the recession doesn't hit before the election.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on August 31, 2019, 03:56:23 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on August 31, 2019, 03:44:31 PM
Given the recession doesn't hit before the election.

That wont matter at all. The Republican memory of the 2008 financial crisis is that Obama caused it.

Hell, they'll probably blame this one on Obama as well. When W. was asked in an interview if he felt responsible for the above happening on his watch he said no, because this all started long before he took office.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on August 31, 2019, 04:42:31 PM
Bernie Sanders's supporters find anger not as compelling this time around (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanderss-supporters-find-anger-not-as-compelling-this-time-around/2019/08/29/7e79b8e2-c8f9-11e9-8067-196d9f17af68_story.html)

"One scorching Saturday afternoon in July, some 70 supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) crammed into a community room at a library here for one of the campaign's organizing sessions. The event, a reunion fraught with both anger and nostalgia for the last presidential cycle, was just a few miles from where the senator's supporters had erupted during the state's contentious 2016 party convention.

"We were not defeated. We were cheated!" shouted one woman from the back of the room.

"Who's a little bit angry? . . . Who's ready to get to work?" a campaign staffer asked the crowd, questions met with raucous applause. Among those shouting loudest was Marcia Armstrong, a 63-year-old who lives in nearby Henderson and works in customer service for a property management company. She said she was trying find some positivity and motivation in her frustration, but others — who believe the electoral process was rigged by the Democratic National Committee three years ago — were less optimistic.

"I think they're just fed up with the whole system, and some of them feel that nothing can be done to change it. I disagree," she said. "I try to be positive."

In 2016, Sanders and his supporters shared a visceral anger at the nation's economic and political systems, which they contended had been corrupted by wealthy capitalists. Hillary Clinton proved the perfect foe for an anti-establishment campaign then. But with a sitting president who has also used anger to galvanize his base and claims to represent the antithesis of the Washington elite, some now find that aggressive messaging unappealing.

The overall dynamics also have shifted. During the 2016 presidential cycle, the independent senator stood alone in his — oftentimes cantankerous and rowdy — fight for a single-payer health-care system, tuition-free four-year public college and a $15 minimum wage. Several presidential hopefuls have fully embraced his once-radical ideas without adopting his boisterous tone.

During a spat between Sanders and Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) on the debate stage in July over how best to curb greenhouse gas emissions, Ryan told the senator from Vermont, "You don't have to yell." Ryan's campaign was quick to use the moment as a marketing ploy, with new stickers: "You Don't Have to Yell: Tim Ryan 2020."

For voters who yearn for the institutional change Sanders shepherded in during the 2016 campaign but who are turned off by his tenor, there are now options. Interviews with dozens of Democratic voters in Washington, California, New Hampshire and Nevada showed that many former Sanders loyalists are now playing the field for their 2020 vote.

Jonathan Eren, a 34-year-old software engineer from Seattle who supported Sanders in 2016, felt "cheated" when the DNC gave the nomination to Clinton. Now, Sanders is back on the campaign trail, but Eren no longer stands behind him.

"I just feel [Sen. Elizabeth] Warren has more of a better understanding of it all," he said of the Massachusetts Democrat as he perched not far from the stage where Warren would soon address 15,000 rallygoers at a park in Seattle, her biggest event to date. Sanders beat Clinton in the Washington caucus by nearly a 50-point margin in 2016."


and a reply I saw to this elsewhere:

"I made an observation in 2016, that the playing field between Bernie and Hillary wasn't level, because Hillary was trying to win and Bernie's goal was to disrupt. That meant that she had to appeal to his voters, but the reverse was not true -- he didn't want or need her voters. She had to flatter him, and didn't have the luxury of insulting him in the same way he was permitted to bait and taunt her (and us). She got the nomination anyhow, because more people voted for her -- not because the DNC cheated, and this suggestion is a deep insult to those of us who supported her.

I bring it up again, because we're now being asked to consider Bernie as a serious possible challenger to Trump. So the tables are turned: Bernie and his supporters need to earn our votes. Not only that, they need our enthusiasm. They need us to go door to door, and to contribute.

This isn't the way to go about it. Alienating Hillary's supporters may fire up the base, but the downside is ... you lose to Trump. Bernie has never truly faced scorched-earth tactics, the way Hillary had. The R's are holding their fire on Bernie, but rest assured if he were somehow to become the nominee, suddenly Hillary would be the victim and Bernie would be a dotty old man who can't find his own dick."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 01, 2019, 06:56:58 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on September 01, 2019, 06:45:03 PM
Sanders is fighting to radically change a fundamentally broken system; Warren seeks to work within the system, as can be seen from her courting of the Democratic establishment (https://archive.is/0OPQy). Take your pick.

Opinions will vary. I don't see Sanders trying to make anything in the way of a radical change.
And if you want to fix the system from the inside, Warren's route is the one that has a better chance of actually working.

[I agree that the system is broken. Which is why the last major party presidential candidate I voted for was Gore. I've voted Libertarian in the last four quadrennials.]
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 02, 2019, 02:42:18 AM
Quote from: schnittkease on September 01, 2019, 06:45:03 PM
Sanders is fighting to radically change a fundamentally broken system; Warren seeks to work within the system, as can be seen from her courting of the Democratic establishment (https://archive.is/0OPQy). Take your pick.

Elizabeth Warren is Bernie Sanders light.

Quote from: SimonNZ on August 31, 2019, 03:56:23 PM
The Republican memory of the 2008 financial crisis is that Obama caused it.

People are dumb...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on September 02, 2019, 11:47:21 AM
Quote from: JBS on September 01, 2019, 06:56:58 PM
And if you want to fix the system from the inside, Warren's route is the one that has a better chance of actually working.

Counterargument: Warren's route will not work because, as a result of concessions made to the establishment, she will not fix the system in the way Sanders would.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 02, 2019, 05:34:14 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on September 02, 2019, 11:47:21 AM
Counterargument: Warren's route will not work because, as a result of concessions made to the establishment, she will not fix the system in the way Sanders would.

I disagree with your underlying premise: that Sanders would fix the system.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on September 02, 2019, 05:50:17 PM
Quote from: JBS on September 02, 2019, 05:34:14 PM
I disagree with your underlying premise: that Sanders would fix the system.

Oh, well.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 02, 2019, 06:24:17 PM
Quote from: JBS on September 02, 2019, 05:34:14 PM
I disagree with your underlying premise: that Sanders would fix the system.

If even Bernie Sanders wouldn't fix the system then the US has no hope.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on September 02, 2019, 06:55:55 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 02, 2019, 06:24:17 PM
If even Bernie Sanders wouldn't fix the system then the US has no hope.

     The set of conditions for system fixes requires a Dem President and Senate. If both are achieved there will be some fixing.

     I recall an Onion headline some years ago that captures my feeling about an "electable" Dem. It was "Bears lead Rex Grossman to Super Bowl". Yes, that's how I see it. Dems can win with a leader, or they can thrust greatness on a mediocrity like the one we are all thinking of right now.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on September 02, 2019, 07:05:10 PM

     Dems Fly Over America!
     
     (https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--MWnGS7qf--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/mhc75kt0ftkpr6ptasdf.jpg)

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on September 02, 2019, 09:09:32 PM
Quote from: drogulus on September 02, 2019, 07:05:10 PM
     Dems Fly Over America!
     
     (https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--MWnGS7qf--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/mhc75kt0ftkpr6ptasdf.jpg)

   

Heh. From that Onion piece:

"Unveiling the new nationwide messaging strategy after six months of planning and research, the Democratic Party launched its "Listen Up, Hayseeds" campaign Monday to win over rural voters. "Hey, you redneck simpletons, put down your whittling sticks, drag yourself away from the Cracker Barrel, and let us tell you how it is," said a team of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer on the debut commercial, part of a widespread advertising blitz that will be played at NASCAR races and monster truck rallies across the country. "We know you can barely read, so we'll spell this out for you: The Republican tax plan will only benefit the rich. Don't you dumb hicks get that? Democrats will fight inequality so you and all your inbred cousins don't have to live in a trailer anymore. Get it?" Democratic officials have also announced a new "You Think You Can Do Better Than Us?" campaign aimed at increasing turnout among African American and Hispanic voters."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 03, 2019, 10:57:10 AM
Quote from: drogulus on September 02, 2019, 06:55:55 PM
     The set of conditions for system fixes requires a Dem President and Senate. If both are achieved there will be some fixing.

Obama had supermajority for a while, but not much was fixed. Incrementalism is the best these centrists can do... and that's just not enough. Fundamental radical changes are needed.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on September 04, 2019, 05:43:16 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 03, 2019, 10:57:10 AM
Obama had supermajority for a while, but not much was fixed. Incrementalism is the best these centrists can do... and that's just not enough. Fundamental radical changes are needed.

     Everything was radical once. Every change is opposed, and some opponents oppose everything.

     Climate change requires large scale investments. That means necessary economic expansion will go through and not around new infrastructure designed to combat and ameliorate climate change effects. The private sector is way ahead of our troglodyte government. What does "radical" mean to an insurance company? What does denialism do for them? Oil companies plan for a global warming future even as they continue to spew talking points against the changes they are planning for.

     The first wavelet of Green New Dealism came a decade ago when it was part of the Bush/Obama recovery plan. The investment was small, the effects were large. It was a textbook case of how large private sector investments are built on a public investment substrate. In just a few years a new energy industry blossomed. The trail blazed by public investment becomes a private sector superhighway.

     There is nothing radical about channeling economic growth through investing in solutions to the biggest problems. That's how one should expect it to work. Look at how the Trumpists efforts to resurrect the industrial past have turned out. We won't build an Again Great America on a declining base. It won't happen. Something else will, not that. I think we should move in the direction open to us, the future we see that is arriving now.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on September 05, 2019, 09:51:28 AM
Quote from: drogulus on September 04, 2019, 05:43:16 AM
     Everything was radical once. Every change is opposed, and some opponents oppose everything.

Today's Revolutionaries are (or wish to be) tomorrow's Institution.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on September 05, 2019, 10:48:46 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 05, 2019, 09:51:28 AM
Today's Revolutionaries are (or wish to be) tomorrow's Institution.

I am reminded of the (oxymoronically named) Revolutionary Institutional Party of Mexico which governed that country virtually unopposed for about 75 years*.  ;D

* actually, not unlike the Swedish Social-Democratic Party.  ;D

Also, of Emil Cioran's dictum, quoted by memory, that a revolutionist begins by being persecuted, then a street is named after him and eventually his ideas make their way into the statutory laws.  ;D

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on September 05, 2019, 11:21:20 AM
Quote from: Florestan on September 05, 2019, 10:48:46 AM


Also, of Emil Cioran's dictum, quoted by memory, that a revolutionist begins by being persecuted, then a street is named after him and eventually his ideas make their way into the statutory laws.  ;D



     I've spent my whole life not quoting Cioran and I'm too old to change now.

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on September 05, 2019, 11:27:31 AM
Quote from: drogulus on September 05, 2019, 11:21:20 AM
     I've spent my whole life not quoting Cioran and I'm too old to change now.

   

Is this an oblique way of averring he's actually right?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on September 05, 2019, 12:28:25 PM
New poll from The Economist.  Main story: Lizzie Warren advances, Heels-up Harris nosedives.

(https://i.postimg.cc/MZV6vRMx/Pol-sept-03-2019-dem-poll.jpg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on September 05, 2019, 02:45:28 PM
Quote from: Florestan on September 05, 2019, 11:27:31 AM
Is this an oblique way of averring he's actually right?

    It's not much of an insight. I wouldn't plan on becoming a persecuted revolutionist in order to have a street named after me.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on September 05, 2019, 03:12:56 PM
Quote from: drogulus on September 05, 2019, 02:45:28 PM
    It's not much of an insight. I wouldn't plan on becoming a persecuted revolutionist in order to have a street named after me.

You are as cynic as Todd is --- the difference is that you parade as a humanitarian, while he is honest.  :laugh:
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on September 05, 2019, 03:39:17 PM
Quote from: Florestan on September 05, 2019, 03:12:56 PM

You are as cynic as Todd is --- the difference is that you parade as a humanitarian, while he is honest.  :laugh:

     I'm neither a cynic nor a humanitarian. I do like parades, though, and carnival rides.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on September 12, 2019, 07:21:23 AM

     Warren says her tax plan asks just 'two cents' of the super-rich. But how much of a hit would Gates, Walton and their peers actually take? (https://beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/warren-says-her-tax-plan-asks-just-two-cents-of-the-super-rich-but-how-much-of-a-hit-would-gates-walton-and-their-peers-actually-take/2019/09/11/d279a84c-d495-11e9-9610-fb56c5522e1c_story.html#comments-wrapper)

     I am unimpressed by the arguments made by libraservatives on the effects of such a tax. Both branches agree that higher taxes on the wealthy are a hit, with the left saying it's not much of one and the right saying it's big.

Her populist pitch is largely centered on her wealth tax proposal, which would impose an annual 2 percent tax on wealth over $50 million and a 3 percent tax on wealth over a billion. The plan would raise about $2.75 trillion over 10 years, the campaign says.

     The effects of tax changes are distributional. By altering the tax balance towards increased economic activity it's unlikely the rich would suffer a hit.

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 12, 2019, 05:11:01 PM
Quote from: drogulus on September 12, 2019, 07:21:23 AM
     Warren says her tax plan asks just 'two cents' of the super-rich. But how much of a hit would Gates, Walton and their peers actually take? (https://beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/warren-says-her-tax-plan-asks-just-two-cents-of-the-super-rich-but-how-much-of-a-hit-would-gates-walton-and-their-peers-actually-take/2019/09/11/d279a84c-d495-11e9-9610-fb56c5522e1c_story.html#comments-wrapper)

     I am unimpressed by the arguments made by libraservatives on the effects of such a tax. Both branches agree that higher taxes on the wealthy are a hit, with the left saying it's not much of one and the right saying it's big.

Her populist pitch is largely centered on her wealth tax proposal, which would impose an annual 2 percent tax on wealth over $50 million and a 3 percent tax on wealth over a billion. The plan would raise about $2.75 trillion over 10 years, the campaign says.

     The effects of tax changes are distributional. By altering the tax balance towards increased economic activity it's unlikely the rich would suffer a hit.

   

Warren is a law professor, and so should know that her proposal contradicts a specific provision of the Constitution. (The same provision was the reason it was necessary to pass a constitutional amendment to allow a federal income tax.)  It's possible the courts would uphold the tax, of course, but any wealth tax would be bottled up in court challenges for years, assuming it would even pass Congress.
So is Warren ignorant of the law, or proposing something she knows won't become reality?

[Wealth taxes are a common thing in the US, of course. Anyone who pays property taxes, or intangible taxes, is paying one. But until now they are not levied on total assets, and are levied only at the state and local level.]
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on September 12, 2019, 05:41:49 PM
Quote from: JBS on September 12, 2019, 05:11:01 PM
Warren is a law professor, and so should know that her proposal contradicts a specific provision of the Constitution. (The same provision was the reason it was necessary to pass a constitutional amendment to allow a federal income tax.)  It's possible the courts would uphold the tax, of course, but any wealth tax would be bottled up in court challenges for years, assuming it would even pass Congress.
So is Warren ignorant of the law, or proposing something she knows won't become reality?

[Wealth taxes are a common thing in the US, of course. Anyone who pays property taxes, or intangible taxes, is paying one. But until now they are not levied on total assets, and are levied only at the state and local level.]

    My concern is with the effect of changes in the distribution of tax, however it's done, and the consequent improvement in economic growth when the rich get more income from customers with money and less from tax breaks on their passive investment. The efficiency gain on the demand side will work just as well as the supply side doesn't, for exactly the same reason.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 12, 2019, 06:07:33 PM
Quote from: drogulus on September 12, 2019, 05:41:49 PM
    My concern is with the effect of changes in the distribution of tax, however it's done, and the consequent improvement in economic growth when the rich get more income from customers with money and less from tax breaks on their passive investment. The efficiency gain on the demand side will work just as well as the supply side doesn't, for exactly the same reason.

My point is, it won't be done, and Warren ought to know it. Either she is proposing an idea she knows won't happen, or  she's an idiot.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on September 12, 2019, 07:20:17 PM
     
Quote from: JBS on September 12, 2019, 06:07:33 PM
My point is, it won't be done, and Warren ought to know it.

     I don't like it for my own reasons, though I like that it is proposed, for other reasons.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 13, 2019, 02:13:31 AM
The degree of Elizabeth Warren's "progressiveness" is questionable. Sure, she is more progressive than almost all other Democrat candidates running, but she is not Bernie Sanders, not even close. We can't be sure Warren is for medicare for all if she becomes the president, but we CAN be sure Bernie Sanders will be as the president. Bernie Sanders is just too kind of a person to bring up their differencies as candidates.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on September 13, 2019, 03:23:01 AM
----> Deleted...not pertinent.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on September 19, 2019, 02:39:53 PM
HILLARY CLINTON HAS MORE PEOPLE BETTING SHE'LL BE THE 2020 DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE THAN ANY OF THE ACTUAL CANDIDATES: U.K. BOOKMAKER

"More bettors at one British bookmaker are backing Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic Party's 2020 nominee than they are any of the candidates actually running in the race, giving her better odds of winning than Senator Cory Booker and Beto O'Rourke, among others..."

https://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-2020-nominee-democratic-party-election-odds-bookmaker-1459931 (https://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-2020-nominee-democratic-party-election-odds-bookmaker-1459931)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on September 19, 2019, 03:23:22 PM
Quote from: Muzio on September 19, 2019, 02:39:53 PM
HILLARY CLINTON HAS MORE PEOPLE BETTING SHE'LL BE THE 2020 DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE THAN ANY OF THE ACTUAL CANDIDATES: U.K. BOOKMAKER

"More bettors at one British bookmaker are backing Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic Party's 2020 nominee than they are any of the candidates actually running in the race, giving her better odds of winning than Senator Cory Booker and Beto O'Rourke, among others..."

https://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-2020-nominee-democratic-party-election-odds-bookmaker-1459931 (https://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-2020-nominee-democratic-party-election-odds-bookmaker-1459931)

      Given how people want to like candidates, or at least think of them as likeable, she would not fare well. Beauty contest factors aside, she would be superior to Biden as an actual President.

      While I'm inclined to support Warren, this doesn't seem to involve much liking. I didn't particularly like Obama, but the main point is I don't want to adopt a pol, even if they are cute and snuggly.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 19, 2019, 04:44:13 PM
Hillary Clinton was clueless about how to beat Trump in 2016 and she hasn't learned anything since.
It's good she is not running. Too bad Joe "my time is up" Biden is and we need to hear all those Corn Pop/record player stories as if there wasn't more important things to talk about like Medicare for All, Climate Change, ending the wars, Student loan debt cancelation etc.

Bernie Sanders must be the next president period. Any sane person should see this by now.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 19, 2019, 06:35:30 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 19, 2019, 04:44:13 PM
Hillary Clinton was clueless about how to beat Trump in 2016 and she hasn't learned anything since.
It's good she is not running. Too bad Joe "my time is up" Biden is and we need to hear all those Corn Pop/record player stories as if there wasn't more important things to talk about like Medicare for All, Climate Change, ending the wars, Student loan debt cancelation etc.

Bernie Sanders must be the next president period. Any sane person should see this by now.

Then by your definition of sane, the vast majority of mankind is insane.

It's true that Bernie would be a better President than Trump, but that's a pretty low bar to reach. Even Mike Pence would be a better Presudent.

Please remember this: any candidate you like will lose to Trump because compared them Trump will seem the moderate person (policywise). It doesn't matter what policies you like. It's the American electorate who decides, and the American electorate is skeptical of Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, and a number of other things you think are obviously good.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on September 19, 2019, 07:04:11 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 19, 2019, 04:44:13 PM
Hillary Clinton was clueless about how to beat Trump in 2016 and she hasn't learned anything since.


     Not everyone that would be good at being President is good at running for the job, or being liked in that special way people like political candidates.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 19, 2019, 07:13:45 PM
Quote from: drogulus on September 19, 2019, 07:04:11 PM
     Not everyone that would be good at being President is good at running for the job, or being liked in that special way people like political candidates.

And of course the converse is true. Being good at being a candidate does not mean being good at being a President. Obvious case in point: Trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 20, 2019, 03:25:58 AM
Quote from: JBS on September 19, 2019, 06:35:30 PM
Then by your definition of sane, the vast majority of mankind is insane.

It's true that Bernie would be a better President than Trump, but that's a pretty low bar to reach. Even Mike Pence would be a better Presudent.

Please remember this: any candidate you like will lose to Trump because compared them Trump will seem the moderate person (policywise). It doesn't matter what policies you like. It's the American electorate who decides, and the American electorate is skeptical of Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, and a number of other things you think are obviously good.

If the mankind (the whole World) got to vote for the president of the US, I'm sure Bernie would do very well. That's of course not the case. Americans get to choose their president. That's how it must be. The problem is the US is not a real democracy but an oligarchy were the media is bought to maintain the status quo in the expense of most Americans so that Americans are the only people in a developped rich country one sickness away from bankruptcy. So, the media needs to smear those who try to fix the system. You are a prime example of such 'brainwashing'.

Why wasn't Tulsi Gabbard qualified for the 3rd debate? The military industry complex doesn't like her pasifism? That's oligarchy.

I like the polices I like. Doesn't matter. I can't vote in American elections. Educate yourself about what American's want. Understand how the media lies to you. Ask yourself who wants to live one sickness away from bankruptcy? Nobody. Who wants to pay $300 for insulin that costs $6 to make and is sold for $30 elsewhere? Do American diabetic people enjoy handing $270 to Big Pharma onwers and CEO's every time they buy insulin so they can buy new yachts? I don't think so. That's why Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are in top 3 in the race. Joe 'my time is up' Biden is hanging there thanks to default support from people who don't follow politics, but who will abandon him as soon as they realise what a dumpster fire he has become. Not only are his politics Republican light, but his mind is clearly deterioting, sadly.

Elizabeth Warren is a good progressive candidate who has great ideas, but also questionable things and dark spots like foreign policy. Warren's commitment for Medicare for All is questionable and lightyears from that of Bernie Sanders who "wrote the damn bill" and has advocated it for decades instead of jumping on the bandwagon "lately" because it has become so popular (in some polls even half of Republican voters support it despite of relentless smearing in the media). We know Bernie Sanders is 1000 % committed. He is the man. Why choose the second best when you can have the best, the real thing?

The older voters are skeptical about Medicare for All and New Green Deal because these people follow the bought media that is bought to smear these things. Younger voters who follow more independent news sources get more objective information and overhelmingly support these "leftist" policies. That's why Biden has strong support among old voters and Sanders has strong support among young voters. Is it the old or the young people who are "out of touch"? That's what I encourage you to find out.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on September 20, 2019, 02:46:01 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 20, 2019, 03:25:58 AM
Elizabeth Warren is a good progressive candidate who has great ideas, but also questionable things and dark spots like foreign policy. Warren's commitment for Medicare for All is questionable and lightyears from that of Bernie Sanders who "wrote the damn bill" and has advocated it for decades instead of jumping on the bandwagon "lately" because it has become so popular (in some polls even half of Republican voters support it despite of relentless smearing in the media). We know Bernie Sanders is 1000 % committed. He is the man. Why choose the second best when you can have the best, the real thing?

This. The narrative that Bernie and Warren are "the same" annoys me to no end.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on September 20, 2019, 02:55:12 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on September 20, 2019, 02:46:01 PM
This. The narrative that Bernie and Warren are "the same" annoys me to no end.

Oh, me too.  8)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 20, 2019, 05:24:53 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on September 20, 2019, 02:46:01 PM
This. The narrative that Bernie and Warren are "the same" annoys me to no end.

Agreed, although not necessarily from the POV you have.
Bernie seems intent on proving himself an idiot, as with his fair housing proposal.  He imagines the American public would be fine with a federal bureaucracy telling them where they could live and how much rent they will have to pay,  and would support a program which if implemented in the real world would result in the exact opposite of its aim.

I don't know of any similar idiocy by Warren. She has her problems. Being late to the MfA party is a plus for me, of course, but evading the admission that it requires higher taxes is an example of her unloveliness.
She ought to know her wealth tax proposal, even if it passes Congress, would be tied up in legal challenges for years (it is, at least superficially, directly contrary to a explicit provision in the Constitution).

I will admit to a bit of bias.  I was born in Boston, and therefore any candidate who is from Massachusetts has an automatic advantage in my view of them.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 20, 2019, 06:26:09 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 20, 2019, 05:51:27 PM
Living on the street is so much better... ...you are the idiot here.

Bernie's ideas would result in less housing construction for every one, because there would be no incentive to build new housing and worse housing conditions for those who pay rent (since landlords would cut corners on maintenance to match controlled rents) and higher eviction rates (since landlords would havevan incentive to evict and get new tenants who would start out with a higher rent). Also higher mortgage rates and other results of a restricted housing market.

IOW, Bernie's program would result in more slum dwellings and more homeless people.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on September 20, 2019, 06:34:06 PM
Quote from: JBS on September 20, 2019, 06:26:09 PM
Bernie's ideas would result in less housing construction for every one, because there would be no incentive to build new housing and worse housing conditions for those who pay rent (since landlords would cut corners on maintenance to match controlled rents) and higher eviction rates (since landlords would havevan incentive to evict and get new tenants who would start out with a higher rent). Also higher mortgage rates and other results of a restricted housing market.

IOW, Bernie's program would result in more slum dwellings and more homeless people.

The unstated assumptions here are that landlords don't ALREADY cut corners and don't ALREADY get rid of tenants in order to get higher paying ones.

Those assumptions are not correct. Both of those things readily occur in a high-demand rental market because landlords believe (often correctly) they can get away with such behaviour because everyone needs somewhere to live and tenants will just have to cope/pay what's being demanded of them.

They are not problems that are caused in the way that you seem to think they are caused. Indeed, your unspoken belief that landlords will behave well just so long as they're paid enough money, and will spend the extra on the property rather than on themselves, is somewhat amusing in its naive faith in the trickle down effect.

Those are problems that are solved by having obligations on landlords, and rights for tenants.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 20, 2019, 06:41:33 PM
Quote from: Madiel on September 20, 2019, 06:34:06 PM
The unstated assumptions here are that landlords don't ALREADY cut corners and don't ALREADY get rid of tenants in order to get higher paying ones.

Those assumptions are not correct. Both of those things readily occur in a high-demand rental market because landlords believe (often correctly) they can get away with such behaviour because everyone needs somewhere to live and tenants will just have to cope/pay what's being demanded of them.

They are not problems that are caused in the way that you seem to think they are caused. And those are problems that are solved by having obligations on landlords, and rights for tenants.

You are right, and that's why Bernie's ideas are bad. They would increase the demand and associated behaviors.
Hopefully Australia is better at enforcing landlord duties/tenant's rights than the US, but here at least those duties and rights are enforced only in the most extreme obvious cases, and even when enforcement is a realistic option, finding an apartment with a different landlord is often the quickest solution.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on September 20, 2019, 06:44:15 PM
In regard to landlords, that's one area where Chairman Mao's policies cannot be faulted.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on September 20, 2019, 06:46:26 PM
I believe in some parts of the world, tenants can withhold rent if landlords fail in their obligations. Perhaps that's the best way of getting the attention of American landlords.

I don't see how controlled rent increases the demand for rental properties, unless you think renters with controlled rents have more babies. Maybe they will, there is in fact some evidence that financial pressure has an effect on family planning.

But demand for rental properties isn't driven by prices. It's driven by being a human being who requires shelter.

It's also considerably cheaper for society as a whole to house people rather than leave them homeless.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on September 20, 2019, 06:53:12 PM
Quote from: Madiel on September 20, 2019, 06:46:26 PM

It's also considerably cheaper for society as a whole to house people rather than leave them homeless.

No argument, there.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on September 20, 2019, 06:54:06 PM
      It's true that more tax comes back from more money going out unless you take action to prevent it. Consider though that cost shifting from premiums to taxes would have demand overlap, a term I made up. The demand boost from health care spending would be somewhat lessened by reduction in insurance premiums, so it's unclear that there would be enough inflation to justify actual rate increases. Another positive is that the economy is always better off when so called vertical money replaces commercial credit, the overuse of which is the debt that is a burden to actual living persons and actual future grandkiddies. The reciprocal nature of public/private debt balances is a basic feature of modern macroeconomics.

     Warren has nothing to admit. For that matter, neither does Trump with his idiotic tax cut. Idiotic it is, but it don't require a tax increase either.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on September 20, 2019, 06:57:50 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 20, 2019, 06:53:12 PM
No argument, there.

There is frequently argument from people who don't act or think as if they are part of a society.

Because many people seem to believe that if a cost is externalised, it ceases to exist.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 20, 2019, 07:04:05 PM
Quote from: Madiel on September 20, 2019, 06:46:26 PM
I believe in some parts of the world, tenants can withhold rent if landlords fail in their obligations. Perhaps that's the best way of getting the attention of American landlords.

I don't see how controlled rent increases the demand for rental properties, unless you think renters with controlled rents have more babies. Maybe they will, there is in fact some evidence that financial pressure has an effect on family planning.

But demand for rental properties isn't driven by prices. It's driven by being a human being who requires shelter.

It's also considerably cheaper for society as a whole to house people rather than leave them homeless.

Controlled rent limit supply in two ways. First, potential landlords have less incentive to  make new rental properties available.  Second, current tenants have an incentive to not move.

Witholding rent is a possibility here, but requires a good lawyer and the ability to navigate bureaucracy.  The people who have the worst landlord problems usually  don't have those two things because of poverty. 

There are loads of private and local government ideas to help the problem of affordable housing, most focused on the obvious idea of building new housing closer to the urban center.  Bernie's idea would throw most if that into a federal bureaucratic meatgrinder,

BTW, here in the States the housing problem often does not relate to homelessness, but instead to the problem faced by many people, not being able to afford housing that is reasonably priced but within reasonable distance of their work.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on September 20, 2019, 07:06:25 PM
Quote from: JBS on September 20, 2019, 07:04:05 PM
BTW, here in the States the housing problem often does not relate to homelessness, but instead to the problem faced by many people, not being able to afford housing that is reasonably priced but within reasonable distance of their work.

Yeah. Google some stuff about the Sydney housing market.

I'm not sure why you think those are 2 separate problems though, rather than homelessness being a symptom of people not being able to afford housing. It's not the only cause of homelessness but it's undoubtedly one of the causes.

Frankly the biggest cause of lack of affordable housing is a belief that property is a cash cow. This includes a relatively recent problem of people buying property as a capital investment and actually not WANTING to have tenants, preferring to leave it empty while they wait for the value to go up. Some jurisdictions now penalise this behaviour, and I am thoroughly in favour of such penalties.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on September 20, 2019, 07:10:34 PM
Quote from: Madiel on September 20, 2019, 06:57:50 PM
There is frequently argument from people who don't act or think as if they are part of a society.

Because many people seem to believe that if a cost is externalised, it ceases to exist.

     That's the argument against SomethingCare For All. Costs should be shifted, or remain, with everyone most burdened by them. The damage to the economy from externalized costs for climate change and health care are considerable.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 20, 2019, 07:29:49 PM
Quote from: Madiel on September 20, 2019, 07:06:25 PM
Yeah. Google some stuff about the Sydney housing market.

I'm not sure why you think those are 2 separate problems though, rather than homelessness being a symptom of people not being able to afford housing. It's not the only cause of homelessness but it's undoubtedly one of the causes.

Frankly the biggest cause of lack of affordable housing is a belief that property is a cash cow. This includes a relatively recent problem of people buying property as a capital investment and actually not WANTING to have tenants, preferring to leave it empty while they wait for the value to go up. Some jurisdictions now penalise this behaviour, and I am thoroughly in favour of such penalties.

Here at least homelessness seems to be very much a "people who can't afford to pay even cheap rent" problem as opposed to a "people who can't find a cheap rental within three hours drive of their job".  The usual phrase for the latter is "affordable housing". Homelessness is a term reserved for people who are either unemployed or don't earn nearly enough to afford even minimal rent.

I haven't heard of the situation you mention in the last paragraph. It seems foolish...they still have to pay mortgages , insurance, property taxes, etc, and renting it out is the most obvious way to cover those expenses. Usually speculators renovate and sell quickly, or live in the house or rent it out while waiting to sell.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on September 21, 2019, 02:46:41 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 21, 2019, 02:44:12 AM
you brainwashed moron.

I should have thought you stopped. Another heatwave hitting Finland hard,, maybe?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on September 21, 2019, 06:47:39 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 21, 2019, 03:07:19 AM
I am in a bad mood.  :-\

This is no excuse for insulting others. If you really can't stop posting about US domestic policies, then at least watch your language.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on September 21, 2019, 07:48:25 AM
Quote from: Florestan on September 21, 2019, 02:46:41 AM
I should have thought you stopped. Another heatwave hitting Finland hard,, maybe?

ROFLMFCAO*


* Rolling on the floor, laughing my fully-clothed ass off
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on September 21, 2019, 07:55:40 AM
Quote from: Florestan on September 21, 2019, 06:47:39 AM
This is no excuse for insulting others. If you really can't stop posting about US domestic policies, then at least watch your language.

Good luck, explaining to him that his rationalizing his insults is pathetic and contemptible.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: North Star on September 21, 2019, 01:46:23 PM
Quote from: Florestan on September 21, 2019, 02:46:41 AM
I should have thought you stopped. Another heatwave hitting Finland hard,, maybe?
Well, it is 0,9 °C (33.6 °F) here at the moment.   :-\
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 21, 2019, 02:27:55 PM
Quote from: North Star on September 21, 2019, 01:46:23 PM
Well, it is 0,9 °C (33.6 °F) here at the moment.   :-\

Getting cold in Oulu? +7.1 °C (44.8 °F) in Helsinki.  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on September 21, 2019, 03:43:34 PM
Quote from: North Star on September 21, 2019, 01:46:23 PM
Well, it is 0,9 °C (33.6 °F) here at the moment.   :-\

T-shirt weather!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on September 21, 2019, 07:19:17 PM

     Warren passes Biden, takes the lead in prized Iowa poll (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/22/warren-passes-biden-takes-lead-prized-iowa-poll/)

     

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 22, 2019, 03:00:55 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on September 21, 2019, 10:33:28 PM
Let's not get caught up in the horse race. Early state polls are all over the place.

A lot of people haven't even started to follow the race yet. They are busy with making the ends meet (because wages have stagnated for 4 decades and they live in oligarchy).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on September 22, 2019, 04:41:45 PM
The fact that the American system has candidates popping up 18 months in advance just does my head in. Of course people haven't started to follow the race yet. No sane person would cope with such a protracted exercise.

The USA, supposed bastion of democracy, tries to make everyone pay attention to the question of who to vote for for a huge chunk of the electoral cycle, while simultaneously making it as difficult as possible for some people to vote and being the native home of the gerrymander to prevent votes being meaningful.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 22, 2019, 06:06:07 PM
Quote from: Madiel on September 22, 2019, 04:41:45 PM
The fact that the American system has candidates popping up 18 months in advance just does my head in. Of course people haven't started to follow the race yet. No sane person would cope with such a protracted exercise.

The USA, supposed bastion of democracy, tries to make everyone pay attention to the question of who to vote for for a huge chunk of the electoral cycle, while simultaneously making it as difficult as possible for some people to vote and being the native home of the gerrymander to prevent votes being meaningful.

The 18 months is a result of the need to prepare an organization and fundraising. It takes preparation to get millions of voterx to actually cast a ballot on behalf of a particular candidate.

It's also in some cases an understatement. Biden, Sanders, and some of the others began preparing to run the moment it became clear Hillary Clinton lost the election.

Hypothetical : suppose Australia chose their party leaders by direct elections in which the registered members of the party voted, as a preliminary step to actual parliamentary elections. You'd see similar advance work.

There's also the fact that actual voting begins in February with Iowa and New Hampshire, meaning the 18 months is actually only 9 months ahead of real elections.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on September 22, 2019, 07:15:36 PM
Quote from: JBS on September 22, 2019, 06:06:07 PM
Hypothetical : suppose Australia chose their party leaders by direct elections in which the registered members of the party voted, as a preliminary step to actual parliamentary elections. You'd see similar advance work.

Actually it gets done in about a month.

One of our 2 main political parties started doing exactly this in 2013.

Labor lost the 2013 general election and the leader stepped down on 7 September. Nominations opened on 13 September. Counting started on 10 October, new leader declared on 13 October.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on September 22, 2019, 07:17:48 PM
Quote from: Madiel on September 22, 2019, 04:41:45 PM
The fact that the American system has candidates popping up 18 months in advance just does my head in.

Oh, ours, too. It is, of course, worse than usual thanks to the critical toxicity presently in the White House.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on September 22, 2019, 07:20:21 PM
Quote from: JBS on September 22, 2019, 06:06:07 PM
There's also the fact that actual voting begins in February with Iowa and New Hampshire, meaning the 18 months is actually only 9 months ahead of real elections.

That's not "actual voting". That's one step in an insanely laborious process to select the candidate.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 22, 2019, 07:25:00 PM
Quote from: Madiel on September 22, 2019, 07:15:36 PM
Actually it gets done in about a month.

One of our 2 main political parties started doing exactly this in 2013.

Labor lost the 2013 general election and the leader stepped down on 7 September. Nominations opened on 13 September. Counting started on 10 October, new leader declared on 13 October.

In that case

Go Australia!

Quote from: Madiel on September 22, 2019, 07:20:21 PM
That's not "actual voting". That's one step in an insanely laborious process to select the candidate.

Point taken. But by "actual voting" I meant the voters themselves give their opinion, and with some real world result...as opposed to the marathon of talking heads and pundits we have until then.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 23, 2019, 02:22:10 PM
For every supporter of Elizabeth Warren. It's a long video, 27 minutes, but solid from start to finnish.
Kyle Kulinski is very good at making Youtube videos like this.

Very Clear & Simple Reasons To Vote Bernie Over Warren

https://www.youtube.com/v/ZZbJQx5fpcw



Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on September 23, 2019, 04:09:44 PM
Christ. I listened to half of that and had to stop. "Bernie has promised to give me a pony, Elizabeth doesn't want to give me a pony. WHERE's MY PONY ELIZABETH??"

Seriously dude: pick up a book or at least widen your field of input.

As for the Ben Carson thing which "I don't know why and neither do you", a two second Google search gets this:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/elizabeth-warren-reverse-ben-carson-vote-235608

...which has a link to Warren's long Facebook post explaining her actions.

"Solid" it ain't. "Very good" it ain't.

And that bit at the start about his listeners voting "logically" and the non-fans voting "illogically" was particularly arrogant.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 23, 2019, 05:30:59 PM
People in New Zealand have the pony (single payer healthcare). Americans don't have it. 42 % of Americans who get cancer lose everything they own within 2 years. Does that happen in NZ?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 23, 2019, 05:33:13 PM
The only important question is, which one has a better chance of beating Trump. Policy comes in only because the more progressive/leftist a candidate is, the less chance that candidate has of beating Trump.

They won't do it by attracting disillusioned Trump voters, because there no disillusioned Trump voters.

They can do it by being attractive to Republicans who don't like Trump. They can do it by making Republicans feel that disaster won't happen if the Democrat is elected because he/she is not too far to the left.

Unfortunately for Kyle, Bernie can't do that.  Neither can Warren, nor most of the other candidates because they are too far to the left.

Biden can, Yang can, Buttigieg can.   Yang has the additional eclat of being potentially the first Asian POTUS and the first POTUS with no European DNA (Obama after all is biracial). Buttigieg has the eclat of being potentially the first openly gay POTUS. (Although the POTUS who was probably the first actual gay is not a good precedent: Buchanan, who until 2016 was almost universally considered the worst POTUS in history.)  Also Yang and Buttigieg are young, not tired out and with lots of tired baggage like Biden.

So if you want Trump defeated, start advocating for one of them. Like I said before, anyone you (meaning 71db) like on policy grounds will definitely lose to Trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 23, 2019, 05:39:05 PM
Quote from: JBS on September 23, 2019, 05:33:13 PM
Unfortunately for Kyle, Bernie can't do that.  Neither can Warren, nor most of the other candidates because they are too far to the left.

You just don't believe leftist ideas ARE popular in the US. Bernie wins Trump easily if he gets the nomination
If you were right, Hillary would be in the white house. Americans are sick of centrists. That's why Dems lost over 1000 seats under Obama and the next POTUS was Trump who campaigned economically more LEFT than Hillary (but as we know lied and is in reality a status quo president serving the top 1 %, donors).
How dfficult is this to understand?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 23, 2019, 05:49:09 PM
Quote from: JBS on September 23, 2019, 05:33:13 PM
Biden can, Yang can, Buttigieg can.   Yang has the additional eclat of being potentially the first Asian POTUS and the first POTUS with no European DNA (Obama after all is biracial). Buttigieg has the eclat of being potentially the first openly gay POTUS. (Although the POTUS who was probably the first actual gay is not a good precedent: Buchanan, who until 2016 was almost universally considered the worst POTUS in history.)  Also Yang and Buttigieg are young, not tired out and with lots of tired baggage like Biden.


Oh my! This is identity politics to you! If you haven't noticed, Buttigieg and Yang poll significantly lower than Bernie and Warren. I am not interested if the potus is woman or gay or black or whatever. Politics is everything! Bad policy kills people. Good policy safes people. It's literally life and death!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 23, 2019, 05:53:14 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 23, 2019, 05:39:05 PM
You just don't believe leftist ideas ARE popular in the US. Bernie wins Trump easily if he gets the nomination
If you were right, Hillary would be in the white house. Americans are sick of centrists. That's why Dems lost over 1000 seats under Obama.
How dfficult is this to understand?

You don't get it, do you?
Leftist ideas are not popular with actual voters, and the Electoral College magnifies that.
The Democrats lost 1000 seats because they moved too far to the left. Had they really remained centrist, that would not have happened.
Bernie wants to give bureaucrats the power to choose my doctor and my prescriptions for me (Medicare for All), and the power to tell me how much I can sell my house for and to whom (his housing proposal), and how much I can drive my car and when I can use my air conditioning (Green New Deal). With increased taxes and increased prices to go along with that.

That's not how we do things here in the US.

And then there is the social justice movement...

Trust me, millions of voters will cheerfully pick Trump over Sanders no matter how bad they think Trump is, and Trumpism will be permanently entrenched in American government.

Is that what you want?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 23, 2019, 05:58:02 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 23, 2019, 05:49:09 PM
Oh my! This is identity politics to you! If you haven't noticed, Buttigieg and Yang poll significantly lower than Bernie and Warren. I am not interested if the potus is woman or gay or black or whatever. Politics is everything! Bad policy kills people. Good policy safes people. It's literally life and death!

FYI, in that new Iowa poll,  Biden and Warren have about twice the number that Bernie has (11 percent for him). Buttigieg is not far behind Bernie, with 9 percent. Yang, it is true, is only at 3 percent. But unlike the rest of the rear tier, he has only positive reporting, nothing negative like Booker or Harris.

Being a European, you may underestimate the importance of identity politics. It got Obama elected. Millions of blacks voted for the first time because he was one of them, and they were proud of a black man getting to the White House. And millions of whites voted for him because he represented a repudiation of America's history of racism and it made them feel good to help in that repudiation.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 23, 2019, 06:35:42 PM
Quote from: JBS on September 23, 2019, 05:53:14 PM
You don't get it, do you?
Leftist ideas are not popular with actual voters, and the Electoral College magnifies that.
The Democrats lost 1000 seats because they moved too far to the left. Had they really remained centrist, that would not have happened.
Bernie wants to give bureaucrats the power to choose my doctor and my prescriptions for me (Medicare for All), and the power to tell me how much I can sell my house for and to whom (his housing proposal), and how much I can drive my car and when I can use my air conditioning (Green New Deal). With increased taxes and increased prices to go along with that.

That's not how we do things here in the US.

And then there is the social justice movement...

Trust me, millions of voters will cheerfully pick Trump over Sanders no matter how bad they think Trump is, and Trumpism will be permanently entrenched in American government.

Is that what you want?

You don't know anything. Bernie broke his 2016 record (he beat Obamas record) of 1 million individual donations at this point this early. Those who donate him WILL VOTE!! They are actual voters! Stop belittleling THEM! Dems didn't move to left (well socially but not economically).

Again: medicare for all: your taxes go up but yout premiums and copays go to zero that why you safe money and bureaucrats are not telling you anything. You see the doctor you want.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 23, 2019, 06:50:54 PM
Quote from: JBS on September 23, 2019, 05:58:02 PM
FYI, in that new Iowa poll,  Biden and Warren have about twice the number that Bernie has (11 percent for him). Buttigieg is not far behind Bernie, with 9 percent. Yang, it is true, is only at 3 percent. But unlike the rest of the rear tier, he has only positive reporting, nothing negative like Booker or Harris.

Being a European, you may underestimate the importance of identity politics. It got Obama elected. Millions of blacks voted for the first time because he was one of them, and they were proud of a black man getting to the White House. And millions of whites voted for him because he represented a repudiation of America's history of racism and it made them feel good to help in that repudiation.

Corporate media tries to create narrative of Bernies momentum being over. Well, if it's over for Bernie it's over for Kamala and others too. You can cherry pick polls. In many polls Bernie does well.

People being ignorant and into identity politics is a problem. Thats why I fight for Bernie. Bernie can WIN, but it's a fight to get the nomination. Head to head with Trump polls Bernie beats Trump in all, no problem. A lot of people who voted Trump in 2016 WOULD have voted for Bernie!!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on September 23, 2019, 06:55:04 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 23, 2019, 05:30:59 PM
People in New Zealand have the pony (single payer healthcare). Americans don't have it. 42 % of Americans who get cancer lose everything they own within 2 years. Does that happen in NZ?

That's not the pony I meant. Your Kyle thinks grandiose promises of free stuff alone makes Sanders obviously preferable to anyone not matching that rhetoric.

also: I don't think you have any understanding of the various pluses and minuses in the current state of healthcare in New Zealand.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 23, 2019, 07:03:02 PM
JBS makes me angry. I don't know what to do. JBS can belittle lefties, but lefty politics works brilliantly in Nordic Countries and in other places. There is a good reason to advocate lefty politics. It WORKS! It doesn't mean full socialism. It's capitalism, only regulated to avoid brutal system. The people in US has been brainwashed to think full capitalism is the best but it is not. The US has SERIOUS problems that do not exist in other developped countries. The US CAN FIX those problems because it's the richest country in the World. It takes total change of the system to end the oligarchy and corruption. Money out of politics so that not only the top 1 % is served. Everybody is served! That's democracy. That's how you build a good society. JBS makes me angry. JBS makes me angry. JBS makes me angry. BS makes me angry. JBS makes me angry. JBS makes me angry. Angry. But I try. I try I try to calm down and control myself. Difficult!!! I try! JBS makes me angry. JBS makes me angry. Some other people make me angry too. I am astonished how brainwashed by corporate media people here are. Astonishing! I though people would be smarter. Smarter classical fans! Smarter!!!! But no!! I read corporate media talking point all the time. Even Karl!! Amazing! JBS makes me angry.  I try to calm down. I don't know how to deal with this. Bernie needs to become the next president because  SERIOUS problems and he is THE man who brings the change! Amendment KING!! He wrote the damn Bill. he cares! But I am angry. Oh dear.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 23, 2019, 07:05:22 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 23, 2019, 06:35:42 PM
You don't know anything. Bernie broke his 2016 record (he beat Obamas record) of 1 million individual donations at this point this early. Those who donate him WILL VOTE!! They are actual voters! Stop belittleling THEM! Dems didn't move to left (well socially but not economically).

I am sure those million voters will vote. But lots of them live in blue states, so it doesn't matter, thanks to the Electoral College.

And Bernie has slain his thousands but Trump has slain his tens of thousands
QuoteThe Trump PACs get 47 percent of their contributions from small donations.

With Trump PACs included, small donations given for Trump total $115,697,683 for the 2020 election cycle, and large donations total $117,457,166.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/small-dollar-donations-trump-gop
Obviously a biased source, but then Kulinski is just as biased.

You need to get out of your head the idea that the number of Bernie supporters is important. It's not.

The crucial thing is the number of Republicans who dislike Trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 23, 2019, 07:09:34 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on September 23, 2019, 06:55:04 PM
That's not the pony I meant. Your Kyle thinks grandiose promises of free stuff alone makes Sanders obviously preferable to anyone not matching that rhetoric.

also: I don't think you have any understanding of the various pluses and minuses in the current state of healthcare in New Zealand.

There is no free staff. Someone pays everything. It a question of WHAT is the best way to pay for things.

I admit I don't know much about New Zealand, but I am sure people over there don't go bankrupt over medical bills. I also believe drugs are much cheaper, maybe even cheaper than in Canada? There is no question whether the US needs single payer healthcare. It's obvious.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 23, 2019, 07:13:54 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 23, 2019, 07:03:02 PM
JBS makes me angry. I don't know what to do. JBS can belittle lefties, but lefty politics works brilliantly in Nordic Countries and in other places. There is a good reason to advocate lefty politics. It WORKS! It doesn't mean full socialism. It's capitalism, only regulated to avoid brutal system. The people in US has been brainwashed to think full capitalism is the best but it is not. The US has SERIOUS problems that do not exist in other developped countries. The US CAN FIX those problems because it's the richest country in the World. It takes total change of the system to end the oligarchy and corruption. Money out of politics so that not only the top 1 % is served. Everybody is served! That's democracy. That's how you build a good society. JBS makes me angry. JBS makes me angry. JBS makes me angry. BS makes me angry. JBS makes me angry. JBS makes me angry. Angry. But I try. I try I try to calm down and control myself. Difficult!!! I try! JBS makes me angry. JBS makes me angry. Some other people make me angry too. I am astonished how brainwashed by corporate media people here are. Astonishing! I though people would be smarter. Smarter classical fans! Smarter!!!! But no!! I read corporate media talking point all the time. Even Karl!! Amazing! JBS makes me angry.  I try to calm down. I don't know how to deal with this. Bernie needs to become the next president because  SERIOUS problems and he is THE man who brings the change! Amendment KING!! He wrote the damn Bill. he cares! But I am angry. Oh dear.

Even if they work well in Nordic countries, they won't work here.

Medicare for all, for instance, will have a lot of the negative consequences you say it won't. Even now, under the current system, seniors can't always have the doctor they want. My primary criterion in picking an insurance plan is making sure it covers my doctor and prescriptions. Under Bernie's plan, I will just have to hope the government  includes them in the network.

You think America is run by an oligarchy? I assure you, Finland is too. That's how politics in the modern world.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 23, 2019, 07:14:57 PM
Quote from: JBS on September 23, 2019, 07:05:22 PM
I am sure those million voters will vote. But lots of them live in blue states, so it doesn't matter, thanks to the Electoral College.

And Bernie has slain his thousands but Trump has slain his tens of thousandshttps://www.foxnews.com/politics/small-dollar-donations-trump-gop
Obviously a biased source, but then Kulinski is just as biased.

You need to get out of your head the idea that the number of Bernie supporters is important. It's not.

The crucial thing is the number of Republicans who dislike Trump.

Bernie has great support on the important rust belt. Even in Texas Bernie is beating Trump!

Everyone is biased. The difference is Kyle Kulinski tells everyone how he is biased and WHY. He can justify his left-wing biases (they kick ass empirically eg. Nordic countries). Corporate media doesn't admit any bias and they definitely can't justify it so they SMEAR and LIE.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 23, 2019, 07:16:32 PM
Remember, 71db, a candidate can be great on policy, but if he/she can't beat Trump, it doesn't matter what their policies are.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 23, 2019, 07:17:16 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 23, 2019, 07:14:57 PM
Bernie has great support on the important rust belt. Even in Texas Bernie is beating Trump!

Everyone is biased. The difference is Kyle Kulinski tells everyone how he is biased and WHY. He can justify his left-wing biases (they kick ass empirically eg. Nordic countries). Corporate media doesn't admit any bias and they definitely can't justify it so they SMEAR and LIE.

People thought Beto could beat Cruz in Texas...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 23, 2019, 07:34:18 PM
Quote from: JBS on September 23, 2019, 07:13:54 PM
Even if they work well in Nordic countries, they won't work here.

Do you even WANT them to work? You are opposing these ideas on ideological reasons.

Quote from: JBS on September 23, 2019, 07:13:54 PMMedicare for all, for instance, will have a lot of the negative consequences you say it won't. Even now, under the current system, seniors can't always have the doctor they want. My primary criterion in picking an insurance plan is making sure it covers my doctor and prescriptions. Under Bernie's plan, I will just have to hope the government  includes them in the network.

You think America is run by an oligarchy? I assure you, Finland is too. That's how politics in the modern world.

There is no NETWORKS in medicare for all. It's one system covering and including everything. You LOSE your private insurance, but you get a much better healthcare insurance in return. It covers EVERYTHING apart from things like plastic surgery. The US has the worst healthcare system of all developped countries. Medicare for all would improve it significantly, cover everyone and save money. The fact that you keep insisting against these facts tell how brainwashed you are. My reason to advocate medicare for all for US is because I want Americans to have to better country and better healthcare. What is your reason to oppose it? Ignorance? Brainwashing? What?

The US is an oligarchy functioally. Almost all legistlation is done to serve the rich. Finland is not an oligarchy. Sure, there's some minor corruption in Finnish politics, but not even close to making the system oligarchy. Finland is one of the least corrupted countries in the World. I can understand you know NOTHING about distant and small Finland, but the ignorance you demonstrate of the political system of you own country is astonishing. It's as if you have just watched corporate media and that's it. You just believe their bs. Amazing.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 23, 2019, 07:37:11 PM
Quote from: JBS on September 23, 2019, 07:17:16 PM
People thought Beto could beat Cruz in Texas...

Beto is not Bernie... (if you didn't know, Beto is a fake-progressive who takes big donor money.)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 23, 2019, 07:45:03 PM
Quote from: JBS on September 23, 2019, 07:16:32 PM
Remember, 71db, a candidate can be great on policy, but if he/she can't beat Trump, it doesn't matter what their policies are.

Beating Trump is something we all agree about. Good. Now, Dems should nominate a candidate against Trump that has the best changes beating him. The poll tell us Biden and Bernie are the strongest against Trump, but if you understand politics you see Biden will come down. His Corn Pop stories aren't a match to Bernies and Warrens progressive message. What is Biden offering? Record players? He is a corporate candidate telling what can't be done instead of offering a vision for the country like Bernie and Warren do. The cold fact is that Bernie is the strongest against Trump and would beat him easily. Corporate media tries to maintain the opposite narrative. Don't be a fool who believes that. Believe the facts.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 23, 2019, 07:47:25 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 23, 2019, 07:34:18 PM
Do you even WANT them to work? You are opposing these ideas on ideological reasons.

There is no NETWORKS in medicare for all. It's one system covering and including everything. You LOSE your private insurance, but you get a much better healthcare insurance in return. It covers EVERYTHING apart from things like plastic surgery. The US has the worst healthcare system of all developped countries. Medicare for all would improve it significantly, cover everyone and save money. The fact that you keep insisting against these facts tell how brainwashed you are. My reason to advocate medicare for all for US is because I want Americans to have to better country and better healthcare. What is your reason to oppose it? Ignorance? Brainwashing? What?

The US is an oligarchy functioally. Almost all legistlation is done to serve the rich. Finland is not an oligarchy. Sure, there's some minor corruption in Finnish politics, but not even close to making the system oligarchy. Finland is one of the least corrupted countries in the World. I can understand you know NOTHING about distant and small Finland, but the ignorance you demonstrate of the political system of you own country is astonishing. It's as if you have just watched corporate media and that's it. You just believe their bs. Amazing.

Not as astonishing as your pontificating on the politics of the US. In every country politics serves the rich. If it were otherwise, there would be either no politics or no rich people.  Finns with money have more influence than Finns without money. It is possible Finns with money hide this better than Americans with money do. But politics is money.

In the US, networks are the heart of the insurance system. Go research in-network and out-of-network in US medical insurance, and then internalize the fact that Medicare for All means we Americans will have not have even the limited choice we have now.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 23, 2019, 07:49:45 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 23, 2019, 07:45:03 PM
Beating Trump is something we all agree about. Good. Now, Dems should nominate a candidate against Trump that has the best changes beating him. The poll tell us Biden and Bernie are the strongest against Trump, but if you understand politics you see Biden will come down. His Corn Pop stories aren't a match to Bernies and Warrens progressive message. What is Biden offering? Record players? He is a corporate candidate telling what can't be done instead of offering a vision for the country like Bernie and Warren do. The cold fact is that Bernie is the strongest against Trump and would beat him easily. Corporate media tries to maintain the opposite narrative. Don't be a fool who believes that. Believe the facts.

The facts say thar Bernie is a quasi communist and would lose in a landslide.

How many times do I need to explain to you that you are relying on Bogus Information.
Kulinski is an advocate, not a reporter of actual facts.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on September 23, 2019, 07:53:19 PM
Gawd, but Poju is even more tiresome than Trump.  Anyone who disagrees with him is "brainwashed," no one who disagrees with him is "sane," disagreement with him in reason is "BS." How he must love life in his bubble!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 23, 2019, 08:25:06 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 23, 2019, 07:53:19 PM
Gawd, but Poju is even more tiresome than Trump.  Anyone who disagrees with him is "brainwashed," no one who disagrees with him is "sane," disagreement with him in reason is "BS." How he must love life in his bubble!

Do you agree with what JBS says? IT IS NOT MY FAULT people here are so ignorant and brainwashed!! I try to educate and this is what I get?

Enjoy your life in the bubble where Bernie is a quasi communist and would lose to Trump in a landslide. I try to manage in the bubble where Bernie is a social democrat (supporter of regulated mixed economy of capitalist and socialism) and would WIN Trump in a landslide!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on September 23, 2019, 08:42:03 PM
How you define Sanders won't matter. There will be a relentless and deafening Red Scare campaign should he get the nomination. With every Fox host a McCarthy. Actual policy won't be mentioned outside of a reductio ad absurdum.

Does Kuliinski use the term "brainwashed" in his webcasts for those who disagree with him?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on September 24, 2019, 12:18:27 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 23, 2019, 07:53:19 PM
Gawd, but Poju is even more tiresome than Trump.  Anyone who disagrees with him is "brainwashed," no one who disagrees with him is "sane," disagreement with him in reason is "BS." How he must love life in his bubble!

Indeed.

Guys (I mean, JBS and SimonNZ), please, stop feeding him. Stop replying to his posts. Arguing with him is a huge waste of time.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 04:03:54 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on September 23, 2019, 08:42:03 PM
How you define Sanders won't matter. There will be a relentless and deafening Red Scare campaign should he get the nomination. With e dry Fox host a McCarthy. Actual olicy won't be mentioned outside of a reductio ad absurdum.

Such campaign may only help Bernie when people see through the lies. Campaigns against Trump helped Trump.

Quote from: SimonNZ on September 23, 2019, 08:42:03 PMDoes Kuliinski use the term "brainwashed" in his webcasts for those who disagree with him?

I think he uses terms "uninformed/misinformed" for those who can theoretically be brought to "his" side with reason/logic and the term TFG (too far gone) for those who are lost cases. Kyle Kulinski (and David Pakman for that matter) has "converted" lots of right-wing conservatives into left-wing progressives, saved them from right-wing echo chambers. Kyle Kulinski encourages his fans (who he calls politically supereducated) to spread the word because most people just don't pay much attention to politics and simply don't know much and the corporate media won't educate people.

Kyle Kulinski is a man of intellectual honesty and is ok with someone having right-wing opinions IF that person is intellectually honest. If you claim to be a pro-life person, you can't be just against abortion! You have to be ALSO against death penalty, wars etc. If you are only against abortion, you are a pro-fetus-person, NOT a pro-life person. Kulinski can't stand people on the right OR left (social justice warriors etc.) who defend freedom of speech only when it's about their ideology, but oppose when it's not. If you aren't for freedom of speech of those who disagree with you, you aren't for freedom of speech at all.

Kyle Kulinski is happy to debate anyone and can beat almost anyone. He can justify his positions. Good luck justifying yours. He is number #1 advocate of Bernie Sanders, a fanboy to almost comical levels, but he has criticism for even Bernie on some issues (Bernie is against BDS Movement and discrimination of ALL drugs, the "Portugal model").

I use the term "brainwashed" because I don't have the patience in me to be more polite and I think it's a valid term to describe people's political positions in many cases.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 04:06:41 AM
Quote from: Florestan on September 24, 2019, 12:18:27 AM
Indeed.

Guys (I mean, JBS and SimonNZ), please, stop feeding him. Stop replying to his posts. Arguing with him is a huge waste of time.

Great! You understood you can't attack me with facts and logic so you start labeling me a troll? Thank you sir, because the fewer replies I get to my post the less I need to waste MY time here.  ;)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on September 24, 2019, 04:28:44 AM
Quote from: JBS on September 23, 2019, 05:53:14 PM
That's not how we do things here in the US.

Noting that this is an argument of tradition, rather than principle or evidence that it's working.

I'm not particularly inclined to engage in the whole merits of one Democratic candidate over another (heck, there are number of Republican candidates I'd be happy with in comparison to the incumbent), but it does fascinate me that one of the chief criticisms of Bernie Sanders seems to be that he dares to look at policy options he got from other countries.

I mean, sometimes he gets his ideas from countries that consistently outperform the US on every global index of quality of life and general prosperity you can find. How dare he.

And this is the great price of American exceptionalism. Americans are exceptionally good at believing, despite evidence to the contrary, that they live in the best country in the world and could not possibly learn improvements from elsewhere.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 04:29:33 AM
Quote from: JBS on September 23, 2019, 07:49:45 PM
How many times do I need to explain to you that you are relying on Bogus Information.
Kulinski is an advocate, not a reporter of actual facts.

You seem to deny facts when they don't match your feelings. Kulinski doesn't use "made up" information. Open your eyes already. It's your beloved corporate medie who cherry-picks polls to create a narrative that Bernie is weaker than he is. Why is John Delaney polling at 1 % if even thay if right-wing politics is popular in the US? John Delaney is one of the most right-wing candidates in the race. If progressive ideas are so unpopular as you say how do you explain the fact that in the top 3 of current polls two are progressives? How is it that the only non-progressive in the top 3 is the one fading and losing support? Face the facts and chck how bogus YOUR information is.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 04:32:52 AM
Quote from: Madiel on September 24, 2019, 04:28:44 AM
It does fascinate me that one of the chief criticisms of Bernie Sanders seems to be that he dares to look at policy options he got from other countries. I mean, sometimes he gets his ideas from countries that consistently outperform the US on every global index of quality of life and general prosperity you can find. How dare he. And this is the great price of American exceptionalism. Americans are exceptionally good at believing, despite evidence to the contrary, that they live in the best country in the world and could not possibly learn improvements from elsewhere.

You nail it here! Bravo!  0:)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on September 24, 2019, 04:37:02 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 04:32:52 AM
You nail it here! Bravo!  0:)

Thank you. But don't mistake this for a general endorsement of your positions. You cut off the part of what I said that was generally not in favour of your whole "let's tell you why Elizabeth Warren is bad" angle.

EDIT: And don't mistake me for an Elizabeth Warren supporter either. Getting down to that level of detail between candidates makes no sense to me because I'm not American and can't vote. I just would like the leader of a large and influential country to be someone who isn't insane, profoundly incompetent or both.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on September 24, 2019, 05:27:08 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 04:06:41 AM
the fewer replies I get to my post the less I need to waste MY time here.  ;)

That's exactly the idea, to have you posting as little as possible here, ideally not at all.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on September 24, 2019, 06:46:39 AM
Quote from: Florestan on September 24, 2019, 12:18:27 AM
Indeed.

Guys (I mean, JBS and SimonNZ), please, stop feeding him. Stop replying to his posts. Arguing with him is a huge waste of time.

Can one argue with a cinder block?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on September 24, 2019, 06:53:10 AM
Quote from: Madiel on September 24, 2019, 04:28:44 AM
Noting that this is an argument of tradition, rather than principle or evidence that it's working.

Tradition and/or inertia. Even how to change it is a problem.

QuoteI'm not particularly inclined to engage in the whole merits of one Democratic candidate over another (heck, there are number of Republican candidates I'd be happy with in comparison to the incumbent), but it does fascinate me that one of the chief criticisms of Bernie Sanders seems to be that he dares to look at policy options he got from other countries.

Of course, neither JBS nor I object to that, per se; we're observing the state of the electorate.


And this is the great price of American exceptionalism. Americans are exceptionally good at believing, despite evidence to the contrary, that they live in the best country in the world and could not possibly learn improvements from elsewhere.
[/quote]

Personally, I'm not mad about that Golden Calf, either
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 07:18:38 AM
Quote from: Madiel on September 24, 2019, 04:37:02 AM
Thank you. But don't mistake this for a general endorsement of your positions. You cut off the part of what I said that was generally not in favour of your whole "let's tell you why Elizabeth Warren is bad" angle.

EDIT: And don't mistake me for an Elizabeth Warren supporter either. Getting down to that level of detail between candidates makes no sense to me because I'm not American and can't vote. I just would like the leader of a large and influential country to be someone who isn't insane, profoundly incompetent or both.

Elizabeth Warren is not a "bad" candidate. Joe Biden is a bad candidate. She is the second best after Bernie. The point of the Kyle Kulinski video was to illustrate the differences between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. They are not the same. Bernie Sanders is much more progressive than Elizabeth Warren. The point is that the US needs* huge structural changes, a political move toward "Nordic social democracy." Elizabeth Warren's progressiveness level may not be enough for that. The "best" is needed and that person happens to be Bernie Sanders. Elizabeth Warren has some great aspect to her (consumer protection agency, regulation on banks), but overall she is not on Bernie's level. We know Bernie is for medicare for all 1000 % while Elizabeth Warren is kind of wishy washy and talking about "access" which is corporate weasel word so she is something like 80 % for medicare for all which is not enough when you need to fight the insane Republicans wanting to repeal Obamacare and return to the most brutal free market healthcare where healthcare is a priviledge of the rich. You need that 1000 % dedication!!

* sadly four decades of oligarchy has led to a situation where Trump is the President. People are that desperate for change. They are willing to vote for anyone who looks an outsider of the Washington elite establishment. Trump might be a moron, but he is very talented in "reading the room" and he saw the US has moved to the age of political populism and took advantage of it. The antidote for Trump-type presidents is left-wing populism, progressive politics that improves people lives.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 07:33:58 AM
Quote from: Florestan on September 24, 2019, 05:27:08 AM
That's exactly the idea, to have you posting as little as possible here, ideally not at all.

Seems like my posts triggers some right wing snowflakes in search of a 71 dB-free safespace around here. Your post do make me angry, but it's about frustration of seeing ignorance of brainwashed people. I have no need to shut you up. Keep posting all you want. I am not scared. The facts are on my side. The best you have to offer to attack my claims are some extreme anecdotes about how horrible healthcare is in the UK as if a few anecdotes told us how healthcare system functions overall. We have horror stories in every country, but elsewhere these are anecdotes whereas in the US these horror stories is everyday life rather than anecdotes. Since you can't open your eyes to this reality, I have no option but to call you a person brainwashed by corporate media. Sorry.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on September 24, 2019, 07:43:24 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 07:33:58 AM
Seems like my posts triggers some right wing snowflakes in search of a 71 dB-free safespace around here. Your post do make me angry, but it's about frustration of seeing ignorance of brainwashed people. I have no need to shut you up. Keep posting all you want. I am not scared. The facts are on my side. The best you have to offer to attack my claims are some extreme anecdotes about how horrible healthcare is in the UK as if a few anecdotes told us how healthcare system functions overall. We have horror stories in every country, but elsewhere these are anecdotes whereas in the US these horror stories is everyday life rather than anecdotes. Since you can't open your eyes to this reality, I have no option but to call you a person brainwashed by corporate media. Sorry.

You confuse me for someone else. I don't live in the UK. I'm not even British.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 07:49:26 AM
Quote from: Florestan on September 24, 2019, 07:43:24 AM
You confuse me for someone else. I don't live in the UK. I'm not even British.

Nor are you American, but you still have strong opinions about American politics. Someone here justified opposing medicare for all telling some anecdotal horror stories of UK healthcare system (often ranked the best in the World). Sorry if it was someone else (JBS?)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on September 24, 2019, 07:58:51 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 07:49:26 AM
Nor are you American, but you still have strong opinions about American politics.

No, I don't. The only non-American here with strong opinions about American politics is you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 08:22:02 AM
Quote from: Florestan on September 24, 2019, 07:58:51 AM
No, I don't. The only non-American here with strong opinions about American politics is you.

Maybe. I feel many Americans here are clueless compared to me which is rather surprising for me. I think schnittkease one of the only ones demostrating the same level of understanding of the political system in the US as I do.

Mind you, three years ago I didn't know who Bernie Sanders is and I though Hillary will win Trump. I had no clue the Dems are almost as corrupt as the Republicans. I was the clueless one. Then Trump won and I was shocked and wanted to understand why. I found independent sources of information which helped me to understand what had happened and in the process I got hooked to US politics and learned a lot about the problems in the US society. I was surprised to learn for example that Americans are actually pretty left-leaning in economic issues as the common mantra in Europe is that Americans are just more right-wing, but that's not true. Americans are more right wing in social issues maybe, more religious and conservative ("family values"), but opposing abortion or gay marriage doesn't mean you want to lose everything you own just because you got sick one day.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on September 24, 2019, 08:43:53 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 08:22:02 AM
I think schnittkease one of the only ones demostrating the same level of understanding of the political system in the US as I do.

Only because he happens to agree with you. Had he disagreed with you, you'd have labelled him too "a brainwashed moron".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 09:45:38 AM
Quote from: Florestan on September 24, 2019, 08:43:53 AM
Only because he happens to agree with you. Had he disagreed with you, you'd have labelled him too "a brainwashed moron".

It depends how someone disagrees with me. Tell me something I don't know and I am impressed. Tell me typical corporate media talking points and I call you "a brainwashed moron".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on September 24, 2019, 09:54:10 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 09:45:38 AM
Tell me something I don't know and I am impressed.

You have been repeatedlly told things you didn't know --- and not only in this thread. You dismissed off hand every single one of them.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 24, 2019, 10:13:16 AM
Quote from: Madiel on September 24, 2019, 04:28:44 AM
Noting that this is an argument of tradition, rather than principle or evidence that it's working.

I'm not particularly inclined to engage in the whole merits of one Democratic candidate over another (heck, there are number of Republican candidates I'd be happy with in comparison to the incumbent), but it does fascinate me that one of the chief criticisms of Bernie Sanders seems to be that he dares to look at policy options he got from other countries.

I mean, sometimes he gets his ideas from countries that consistently outperform the US on every global index of quality of life and general prosperity you can find. How dare he.

And this is the great price of American exceptionalism. Americans are exceptionally good at believing, despite evidence to the contrary, that they live in the best country in the world and could not possibly learn improvements from elsewhere.

Saying "that isn't how it is done here" isn't meant as a defense, but rather a way of pointing out the immense skepticism that Bernie's proposals would meet among the American electorate. 

The problem with Bernie's ideas is not that they come from some other country (although I will note that often enough conservatives will argue, in effect, that quality of life measures are often cherry picked, or subjective, or both, and don't take into account other factors that might also be listed as quality of life). 

The problem with Bernie's ideas is that most of them have been tried on the local and state scales, and not worked really well.  Medicare for seniors has some important structural problems...many doctors refuse to take Medicare!....yet Bernie wants to impose that system on everyone, and not allow people to opt out of it.

Bernie is the most leftward of the major candidates, so it would be easy to depict him in a Red Scare sort of way.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 24, 2019, 10:14:47 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 07:33:58 AM
Seems like my posts triggers some right wing snowflakes in search of a 71 dB-free safespace around here. Your post do make me angry, but it's about frustration of seeing ignorance of brainwashed people. I have no need to shut you up. Keep posting all you want. I am not scared. The facts are on my side. The best you have to offer to attack my claims are some extreme anecdotes about how horrible healthcare is in the UK as if a few anecdotes told us how healthcare system functions overall. We have horror stories in every country, but elsewhere these are anecdotes whereas in the US these horror stories is everyday life rather than anecdotes. Since you can't open your eyes to this reality, I have no option but to call you a person brainwashed by corporate media. Sorry.

If you seriously think those horror stories are everyday life in the US, then you are seriously out of touch with reality--or dependent on sources that are seriously distorting reality.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 11:01:06 AM
Quote from: JBS on September 24, 2019, 10:14:47 AM
If you seriously think those horror stories are everyday life in the US, then you are seriously out of touch with reality--or dependent on sources that are seriously distorting reality.

In the US 2/3 of all bankrupcies are tied to medical issues. 530 000 Americans file for bankruptcy over medical bills every year. That's ~1400-1500 every day. 30.000-45.000 people die every year because they don't have access to basic healthcare. That's 80-120 people every day. That's on the ballpark of how many US solders died daily in WWII I believe. I think these numbers justify saying the horror stories are everyday life in the US. Just because you are wealthy enough to have your things in order doesn't mean everyone has. 10 % of Americans are not covered and milllions more are undercovered.

While the high cost of health care has historically been a trigger for bankruptcy filings, the research shows that the implementation of the Affordable Care Act has not improved things. What most people do not realize, according to one researcher, is that their health insurance may not be enough to protect them. To help combat this problem, Physicians for a National Health Program is advocating for a national Medicare for All program that would broaden insurance coverage for Americans.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/this-is-the-real-reason-most-americans-file-for-bankruptcy.html  (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/this-is-the-real-reason-most-americans-file-for-bankruptcy.html)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 24, 2019, 11:20:27 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 11:01:06 AM
In the US 2/3 of all bankrupcies are tied to medical issues. 530 000 Americans file for bankruptcy over medical bills every year. That's ~1400-1500 every day. 30.000-45.000 people die every year because they don't have access to basic healthcare. That's 80-120 people every day. That's on the ballpark of how many US solders died daily in WWII I believe. I think these numbers justify saying the horror stories are everyday life in the US. Just because you are wealthy enough to have your things in order doesn't mean everyone has. 10 % of Americans are not covered and milllions more are undercovered.

While the high cost of health care has historically been a trigger for bankruptcy filings, the research shows that the implementation of the Affordable Care Act has not improved things. What most people do not realize, according to one researcher, is that their health insurance may not be enough to protect them. To help combat this problem, Physicians for a National Health Program is advocating for a national Medicare for All program that would broaden insurance coverage for Americans.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/this-is-the-real-reason-most-americans-file-for-bankruptcy.html  (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/this-is-the-real-reason-most-americans-file-for-bankruptcy.html)

From your link

QuoteA new study from academic researchers found that 66.5 percent of all bankruptcies were tied to medical issues —either because of high costs for care or time out of work

Note that last phrase it. It doesn't mean people who can't afford their medical bills. It means people who can't pay their bills because illness keeps them from working.

Also note this
QuoteOther reasons include unaffordable mortgages or foreclosure, at 45 percent; followed by spending or living beyond one's means, 44.4 percent; providing help to friends or relatives, 28.4 percent; student loans, 25.4 percent; or divorce or separation, 24.4 percent.

Which figures add up to considerably more than 100 percent. 
In other words, most bankruptcies have multiple causes, and high medical bills are sometimes one of them.

If you want to convince me, find a source that shows how many people file bankruptcy solely because of medical bills, and no other reason.

I hope your source for the figure of people who die because they lack basic healthcare is of better quality.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on September 24, 2019, 11:51:44 AM
     I'm an average American with Medicare in a mutated form. I've seen different doctors since I got my coverage, primary care and specialists. Sometimes they charge for something not covered, just like with private insurance plans. Usually I haven't reached my deductible. If I did, more would be covered. That's how it works. That's how it will work if more people get it. People who have Acme Health will move to Acme Medicare Advantage, Acme will get the premium payments from Medicare. I envision that there could be a Medicare tax surcharge for people under retirement age. The usual copays and deductibles will also be paid by recipients. Job lock will be gone. If I had my way employers would be left out of the loop but the libraservative punishment regime might not allow that.

     A doctor that isn't in your Advantage network won't take your plan, or maybe no form of Medicare. I'd find a plan your doctor accepts, or find a doctor your plan recommends. In either case an associated group of specialists will also be available. If I change my plan it's possible I might work with a network based around Mass General instead of Mt. Auburn. What a terrible thing that would be! The 71 trolley goes right past Mt. Auburn, where all the clinics are.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 24, 2019, 11:57:24 AM
Quote from: drogulus on September 24, 2019, 11:51:44 AM
     I'm an average American with Medicare in a mutated form. I've seen different doctors since I got my coverage, primary care and specialists. Sometimes they charge for something not covered, just like with private insurance plans. Usually I haven't reached my deductible. If I did, more would be covered. That's how it works. That's how it will work if more people get it. People who have Acme Health will move to Acme Medicare Advantage, Acme will get the premium payments from Medicare. I envision that there could be a Medicare tax surcharge for people under retirement age. The usual copays and deductibles will also be paid by recipients. Job lock will be gone. If I had my way employers would be left out of the loop but the libraservative punishment regime might not allow that.

     A doctor that isn't in your Advantage network won't take your plan, or maybe no form of Medicare. I'd find a plan your doctor accepts, or find a doctor your plan recommends. In either case an associated group of specialists will also be available. If I change my plan it's possible I might work with a network based around Mass General instead of Mt. Auburn. What a terrible thing that would be! The 71 trolley goes right past my hospital where all the clinics are.

Under BernieCare, there will be no alternative plan, no alternative network. It will be whatever the government run bureaucrat chooses to include in the network.   At least with the current system there are alternative plans and networks. BernieCare doesn't allow that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on September 24, 2019, 12:04:23 PM
Quote from: JBS on September 24, 2019, 11:57:24 AM
Under BernieCare, there will be no alternative plan, no alternative network. It will be whatever the government run bureaucrat chooses to include in the network.   At least with the current system there are alternative plans and networks. BernieCare doesn't allow that.

     That's OK, too. As soon as open enrollment comes along I have to decide if I want to revert to plain vanilla Medicare. Advantage: no networks, all doctors and clinics that accept Medicare will take me. As for the doctors that don't, I don't care about them either.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 24, 2019, 12:07:20 PM
Quote from: drogulus on September 24, 2019, 12:04:23 PM
     That's OK, too. As soon as open enrollment comes along I have to decide if I want to revert to plain vanilla Medicare. Advantage: no networks, all doctors and clinics that accept Medicare will take me. As for the doctors that don't, I don't care about them either.

1)Ah, but BernieCare won't be like that.  There will be only One Plan...
2) And if the specialist that you have gone to for years for your condition is one of them,  you certainly will care.

You seem to be under the illusion that one doctor is as good as another.  I've been through the mill with them for myself and my parents enough times to realize that's no so.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on September 24, 2019, 12:17:23 PM
Quote from: JBS on September 24, 2019, 12:07:20 PM
1)Ah, but BernieCare won't be like that.  There will be only One Plan...
2) And if the specialist that you have gone to for years for your condition is one of them,  you certainly will care.

You seem to be under the illusion that one doctor is as good as another.  I've been through the mill with them for myself and my parents enough times to realize that's no so.

     You mean like Medicare before the other plans existed? Assuming the plan is an expansion of what I would have with Medicare plain, great.

     I have no intention of going to a specialist that doesn't accept public health insurance. I'll go to the best doctor that does if it's that serious. One day it will be, unless I'm struck by lightening.

     You may be in favor of more public health care choices than Bernie envisions. The days of waiting for the profiteers to offer such a plan are long over. Why would they start doing that? Are you going to make them?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 01:52:08 PM
Quote from: JBS on September 24, 2019, 11:20:27 AM
From your link

Note that last phrase it. It doesn't mean people who can't afford their medical bills. It means people who can't pay their bills because illness keeps them from working.

Also note this
Which figures add up to considerably more than 100 percent. 
In other words, most bankruptcies have multiple causes, and high medical bills are sometimes one of them.

If you want to convince me, find a source that shows how many people file bankruptcy solely because of medical bills, and no other reason.

I hope your source for the figure of people who die because they lack basic healthcare is of better quality.

Nordic social democracy: Paid time off because of sickness.

You are splitting hairs as if the problems disappears when you hide it amont other problems. You simply don't understand how different the US heathcare system is. It sucks and that's why many people want to reform it. Only people who benefit form it and are brainwashed oppose single payer.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 02:31:16 PM
People are talking whatever rubbish about medicare-for-all. Time for fact-check. I have bolded some key issues.

SOURCE: https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-healthcare/ (https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-healthcare/)

What is Medicare For All?

Bernie introduced the Medicare For All Act of 2019, which calls for significant healthcare reform to improve patient care, reduce costs, and provide healthcare to everyone.  Proving that single payer universal healthcare is no longer considered a "radical" idea, his bill has been cosponsored by 14 of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate. 

Medicare For All is a universal healthcare system, where everyone is covered for all necessary health services, with no deductibles or copays.  All healthcare providers and doctors will be in the network. Medicare for All will pay healthcare providers for visits, tests, and procedures according to a set schedule of prices.  We know this system works because that's how it works with the highly popular Medicare system that we have now. Medicare For All would use the same framework as Medicare, but expand it to cover more people and more health services. Private health insurers can offer coverage for services not covered by Medicare For All, such as elective cosmetic surgeries. Everyone will be covered and can get the care that they need when they need it.

How does Bernie's Medicare For All plan work?

Bernie's plan calls for a phased roll-out over 4 years, to expand and scale up our current Medicare system to be more comprehensive.  The phased timing will enable a smooth transition, until everyone is covered:

* Increase Access & Choice:  Patients can see the doctors they want, since the "out of network" limitations of a private system will vanish with single payer. 
* Increase Quality: Covers primary and preventive care, mental health care, reproductive care, vision, hearing and dental care, and prescription drugs, as well as long-term services for the disabled and elderly.  Allows doctors to make decisions in the best interest of patients, rather than based on complex private plans engineered to deliver profits.
* Reduce Prescription Drug Costs:  Lowers prices dramatically, by empowering the federal government to negotiate with pharmaceutical corporations.  Some brand-name prescription drugs will have a copay.
* Eliminate Out-Of-Pocket Costs:  No premiums, deductibles or copays for any medical services. 
* Empower People:  Separates health coverage from employment, so everyone will have more flexibility to change employers, or even consider starting their own business, without the risk and fear of losing their health benefits.

Wait a minute, this all sounds like magic. How are we going to pay for it?

Bernie's proposal would amend the tax code to create the American Health Security Trust Fund, which would be financed by various tax revenues, credits, and subsidies. It's not set in stone, but the tax revenues in the draft include a new healthcare income tax, an employer payroll tax, a surcharge on high-income individuals, and a tax on securities transactions. So, basically, it's not wishful thinking at all.

But, more importantly, single-payer healthcare controls costs and so would save us money in the long run. One study shows that Medicare For All would save $5.1 trillion over a ten-year period.

How much am I going to have to pay?

Most people will pay a lot less than they do now. There will be no deductibles or copays. The money and premiums you would have paid to an insurance company will instead be paid into the health security trust fund. This is what we do with Social Security, where all workers pay a portion of their wages and later use that money for retirement. 62 million people collected Social Security benefits in 2018.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on September 24, 2019, 03:00:25 PM
I don't entirely understand why Americans still talk about plans and networks when it comes to publicly funded health care.

We have a health system. It's actually called Medicare. We also have private health insurance, which will pay towards things that Medicare won't pay towards and would involve choice of doctor in certain situations such as in hospital. And private insurers can do deals with particular providers, for example I found a good local dentist where for some things I'll pay zero because she's done a deal with my insurer.

But Medicare is just... there. At it's heart it's not a deal with doctors, it's a deal with patients. We will pay this much towards such and such a service. The question of which doctor is providing the service doesn't come up, assuming of course you're going to an actual registered medical practitioner rather than some kind of hoaxer.

Talking about "there will only be one plan/network" as if that's something terrible just misses this point completely. If everyone is on the same generally available service, you don't need a choice between plans. People in the early days of telephones had to stress about which phone service they used because the different services were exclusive to each other, and stores would have several telephones installed so that customers could get in contact on any one of the town's 3 or 4 phone systems. "There will only be one plan/network" sounds like a grocer fretting that they'll only have one phone number.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 03:08:12 PM
To continue the theme of centrist/corporate lies about medicare-for-all:

Mayor Pete Buttigieg Takes Very Misleading & Silly Shots At Medicare For All

https://www.youtube.com/v/0KQitaBNtp8
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on September 24, 2019, 03:32:32 PM
It's probably worth noting, now that I've brought up Australian Medicare, that there was a period a few years ago where some American politicians were invoking our system. I think it was probably in the context of Obamacare and how awful it was going to be.

The point being, some of what they were saying was reported back here in Australia. And Australians basically said "WTF?" as what American politicians claimed to be our system bore zero resemblance to what actually happens.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 24, 2019, 04:42:37 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 02:31:16 PM
People are talking whatever rubbish about medicare-for-all. Time for fact-check. I have bolded some key issues.

SOURCE: https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-healthcare/ (https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-healthcare/)

What is Medicare For All?

Bernie introduced the Medicare For All Act of 2019, which calls for significant healthcare reform to improve patient care, reduce costs, and provide healthcare to everyone.  Proving that single payer universal healthcare is no longer considered a "radical" idea, his bill has been cosponsored by 14 of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate. 

Medicare For All is a universal healthcare system, where everyone is covered for all necessary health services, with no deductibles or copays.  All healthcare providers and doctors will be in the network. Medicare for All will pay healthcare providers for visits, tests, and procedures according to a set schedule of prices.  We know this system works because that's how it works with the highly popular Medicare system that we have now. Medicare For All would use the same framework as Medicare, but expand it to cover more people and more health services. Private health insurers can offer coverage for services not covered by Medicare For All, such as elective cosmetic surgeries. Everyone will be covered and can get the care that they need when they need it.

How does Bernie's Medicare For All plan work?

Bernie's plan calls for a phased roll-out over 4 years, to expand and scale up our current Medicare system to be more comprehensive.  The phased timing will enable a smooth transition, until everyone is covered:

* Increase Access & Choice:  Patients can see the doctors they want, since the "out of network" limitations of a private system will vanish with single payer. 
* Increase Quality: Covers primary and preventive care, mental health care, reproductive care, vision, hearing and dental care, and prescription drugs, as well as long-term services for the disabled and elderly.  Allows doctors to make decisions in the best interest of patients, rather than based on complex private plans engineered to deliver profits.
* Reduce Prescription Drug Costs:  Lowers prices dramatically, by empowering the federal government to negotiate with pharmaceutical corporations.  Some brand-name prescription drugs will have a copay.
* Eliminate Out-Of-Pocket Costs:  No premiums, deductibles or copays for any medical services. 
* Empower People:  Separates health coverage from employment, so everyone will have more flexibility to change employers, or even consider starting their own business, without the risk and fear of losing their health benefits.

Wait a minute, this all sounds like magic. How are we going to pay for it?

Bernie's proposal would amend the tax code to create the American Health Security Trust Fund, which would be financed by various tax revenues, credits, and subsidies. It's not set in stone, but the tax revenues in the draft include a new healthcare income tax, an employer payroll tax, a surcharge on high-income individuals, and a tax on securities transactions. So, basically, it's not wishful thinking at all.

But, more importantly, single-payer healthcare controls costs and so would save us money in the long run. One study shows that Medicare For All would save $5.1 trillion over a ten-year period.

How much am I going to have to pay?

Most people will pay a lot less than they do now. There will be no deductibles or copays. The money and premiums you would have paid to an insurance company will instead be paid into the health security trust fund. This is what we do with Social Security, where all workers pay a portion of their wages and later use that money for retirement. 62 million people collected Social Security benefits in 2018.

What that write up does not mention is the role of bureaucrats dictating what fees doctors can charge, how often patients  can see their doctors, when specialists can be used, what tests and operations will be allowed, etc.
IOW, all the things insurance company employees do now. Probably it will be the same people, just with new titles and government employed. Their main focus will be on rationing out the money Congress appropriates. Patient needs will take a lower priority. I know that's how it will be because that's how Medicare operates now. I don't need corporate media to tell me, I know it from my own experience.

Also, Bernie would have us paying premiums. He just doesn't call it premiums. His euphemism is "health security trust fund".

The reference to Social Security is dead wrong. Most people who collect Social Security collect much more than they put in. The difference is paid by contributions made by people who die before retirement and therefore collect nothing, contributions made by currently employed, who will have to depend on contributions by others to cover their SS payments, and whatever Congress throws into the pot, meaning zero.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 24, 2019, 04:57:50 PM
Quote from: Madiel on September 24, 2019, 03:00:25 PM
I don't entirely understand why Americans still talk about plans and networks when it comes to publicly funded health care.

We have a health system. It's actually called Medicare. We also have private health insurance, which will pay towards things that Medicare won't pay towards and would involve choice of doctor in certain situations such as in hospital. And private insurers can do deals with particular providers, for example I found a good local dentist where for some things I'll pay zero because she's done a deal with my insurer.

But Medicare is just... there. At it's heart it's not a deal with doctors, it's a deal with patients. We will pay this much towards such and such a service. The question of which doctor is providing the service doesn't come up, assuming of course you're going to an actual registered medical practitioner rather than some kind of hoaxer.

Talking about "there will only be one plan/network" as if that's something terrible just misses this point completely. If everyone is on the same generally available service, you don't need a choice between plans. People in the early days of telephones had to stress about which phone service they used because the different services were exclusive to each other, and stores would have several telephones installed so that customers could get in contact on any one of the town's 3 or 4 phone systems. "There will only be one plan/network" sounds like a grocer fretting that they'll only have one phone number.

Medicare may be publicly funded but it operates mainly the way you describe in the first paragraph. Medicare has an annual deductible, copayments, and doesn't cover a variety of things, some of which is not really elective even when Medicare pretends it is. Therefore private insurers offer Medigap insurance to cover the difference, and they have networks.
But Medicare sets fees, usually low, it pays providers. A doctor who thinks the fee level too low can either grit his teeth and charge other patients higher fees to make up the difference, or not take Medicare at all, telling patients to either find a different doctor or pay him themselves without benefit of insurance.

Quote from: Madiel on September 24, 2019, 03:32:32 PM
It's probably worth noting, now that I've brought up Australian Medicare, that there was a period a few years ago where some American politicians were invoking our system. I think it was probably in the context of Obamacare and how awful it was going to be.

The point being, some of what they were saying was reported back here in Australia. And Australians basically said "WTF?" as what American politicians claimed to be our system bore zero resemblance to what actually happens.

I don't remember anyone bringing up the Australian system during the Obamacare  debates. The British NHS was a frequent punching bag.

Be it noted that my criticism of MfA is not based on what I know/don't know about  other countries' systems. It's based on how Medicare operates now in the US, extrapolated to universal coverage.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on September 24, 2019, 04:59:45 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 02:31:16 PM
People are talking whatever rubbish about medicare-for-all. Time for fact-check. I have bolded some key issues.

SOURCE: https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-healthcare/ (https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-healthcare/)

What is Medicare For All?

Bernie introduced the Medicare For All Act of 2019, which calls for significant healthcare reform to improve patient care, reduce costs, and provide healthcare to everyone.  Proving that single payer universal healthcare is no longer considered a "radical" idea, his bill has been cosponsored by 14 of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate. 

Medicare For All is a universal healthcare system, where everyone is covered for all necessary health services, with no deductibles or copays.  All healthcare providers and doctors will be in the network. Medicare for All will pay healthcare providers for visits, tests, and procedures according to a set schedule of prices.  We know this system works because that's how it works with the highly popular Medicare system that we have now. Medicare For All would use the same framework as Medicare, but expand it to cover more people and more health services. Private health insurers can offer coverage for services not covered by Medicare For All, such as elective cosmetic surgeries. Everyone will be covered and can get the care that they need when they need it.

How does Bernie's Medicare For All plan work?

Bernie's plan calls for a phased roll-out over 4 years, to expand and scale up our current Medicare system to be more comprehensive.  The phased timing will enable a smooth transition, until everyone is covered:

* Increase Access & Choice:  Patients can see the doctors they want, since the "out of network" limitations of a private system will vanish with single payer. 
* Increase Quality: Covers primary and preventive care, mental health care, reproductive care, vision, hearing and dental care, and prescription drugs, as well as long-term services for the disabled and elderly.  Allows doctors to make decisions in the best interest of patients, rather than based on complex private plans engineered to deliver profits.
* Reduce Prescription Drug Costs:  Lowers prices dramatically, by empowering the federal government to negotiate with pharmaceutical corporations.  Some brand-name prescription drugs will have a copay.
* Eliminate Out-Of-Pocket Costs:  No premiums, deductibles or copays for any medical services. 
* Empower People:  Separates health coverage from employment, so everyone will have more flexibility to change employers, or even consider starting their own business, without the risk and fear of losing their health benefits.

Wait a minute, this all sounds like magic. How are we going to pay for it?

Bernie's proposal would amend the tax code to create the American Health Security Trust Fund, which would be financed by various tax revenues, credits, and subsidies. It's not set in stone, but the tax revenues in the draft include a new healthcare income tax, an employer payroll tax, a surcharge on high-income individuals, and a tax on securities transactions. So, basically, it's not wishful thinking at all.

But, more importantly, single-payer healthcare controls costs and so would save us money in the long run. One study shows that Medicare For All would save $5.1 trillion over a ten-year period.

How much am I going to have to pay?

Most people will pay a lot less than they do now. There will be no deductibles or copays. The money and premiums you would have paid to an insurance company will instead be paid into the health security trust fund. This is what we do with Social Security, where all workers pay a portion of their wages and later use that money for retirement. 62 million people collected Social Security benefits in 2018.

What would it take, should Sanders somehow win, for all that stuff to pass exactly as written there?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 24, 2019, 05:08:05 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 01:52:08 PM
Nordic social democracy: Paid time off because of sickness.

You are splitting hairs as if the problems disappears when you hide it amont other problems. You simply don't understand how different the US heathcare system is. It sucks and that's why many people want to reform it. Only people who benefit form it and are brainwashed oppose single payer.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

We have sick pay, too. But if you can't work for several months because of chemo, no employer will give you paid leave. You will have to depend on unemployment insurance and other forms of governmentally paid support.  People for whom that is not enough will eventually go bankrupt. But the bankruptcy would happen whether or not all their medical bills would be covered by insurance. How many people declare bankruptcy solely because they have been hit with impossibly high medical bills?

As for that study you link from the Harvard Gazette, that actually translates into "doctors decide 45,000 people die because they didn't see a doctor to treat a chronic condition that was not obvious to the general layman".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 24, 2019, 05:10:34 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on September 24, 2019, 04:59:45 PM
What would it take, should Sanders somehow win, for all that stuff to pass exactly as written there?

Most important thing of all: a Senate with no more than 39 GOP senators. Otherwise it would be killed by filibuster.

Alternate of course would be to kill the filibuster.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on September 24, 2019, 05:29:06 PM
Sure: but what I mean is: even with a landslide victory and a majority in congress and the senate these plans will still involve deal-making and compromise.

Could he even rely on Dem support in congress and the senate if funding a number of his plans is going to disrupt or alter the economies of their districts?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on September 24, 2019, 05:56:50 PM
Quote from: JBS on September 24, 2019, 04:57:50 PM
Medicare may be publicly funded but it operates mainly the way you describe in the first paragraph. Medicare has an annual deductible, copayments, and doesn't cover a variety of things, some of which is not really elective even when Medicare pretends it is. Therefore private insurers offer Medigap insurance to cover the difference, and they have networks.
But Medicare sets fees, usually low, it pays providers. A doctor who thinks the fee level too low can either grit his teeth and charge other patients higher fees to make up the difference, or not take Medicare at all, telling patients to either find a different doctor or pay him themselves without benefit of insurance.

I don't remember anyone bringing up the Australian system during the Obamacare  debates. The British NHS was a frequent punching bag.

Be it noted that my criticism of MfA is not based on what I know/don't know about  other countries' systems. It's based on how Medicare operates now in the US, extrapolated to universal coverage.

The part where you talk about a doctor "not taking Medicare at all" is where the 2 systems most clearly part company. That notion is simply unthinkable here. No doctor here would say to a patient that they will have to pay more because the doctor refuses to take government money.

Which may be because our system is based, at least notionally, on the money going to the patient to help them cover their medical costs. It's not the doctor's money to refuse.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 24, 2019, 06:05:04 PM
Quote from: Madiel on September 24, 2019, 05:56:50 PM
The part where you talk about a doctor "not taking Medicare at all" is where the 2 systems most clearly part company. That notion is simply unthinkable here. No doctor here would say to a patient that they will have to pay more because the doctor refuses to take government money.

Which may be because our system is based, at least notionally, on the money going to the patient to help them cover their medical costs. It's not the doctor's money to refuse.

To be clear, MDs who refuse to take Medicare are not refusing government money per se. They are refusing it on the grounds that the fee Medicare pays is too low, not enough to cover expenses, etc.  Medicare rates don't make doctors wealthy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 06:06:29 PM
THIS SHOULD END JOE BIDEN's CAMPAIGN

https://www.youtube.com/v/ndJQa4ttNmQ
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 24, 2019, 06:12:26 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 06:06:29 PM
THIS SHOULD END JOE BIDEN's CAMPAIGN

https://www.youtube.com/v/ndJQa4ttNmQ

Why do you have such a hard time recognizing propaganda?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on September 24, 2019, 06:17:03 PM
Quote from: JBS on September 24, 2019, 05:08:05 PM
We have sick pay, too. But if you can't work for several months because of chemo, no employer will give you paid leave. You will have to depend on unemployment insurance and other forms of governmentally paid support.  People for whom that is not enough will eventually go bankrupt. But the bankruptcy would happen whether or not all their medical bills would be covered by insurance.

Indeed, at this point, I am on an approved unpaid medical leave.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on September 24, 2019, 06:20:24 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on September 24, 2019, 05:29:06 PM
Sure: but what I mean is: even with a landslide victory and a majority in congress and the senate these plans will still involve deal-making and compromise.

Indeed.

And would Bernie compromise? Compare, say, our Poju's aptitude for compromise.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on September 24, 2019, 06:22:25 PM
Quote from: JBS on September 24, 2019, 06:12:26 PM
Why do you have such a hard time recognizing propaganda?

It's only propaganda, if it doesn't feed Poju's narrative.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 07:10:14 PM
Quote from: JBS on September 24, 2019, 06:12:26 PM
Why do you have such a hard time recognizing propaganda?

Okay, this is it. I give up with you and many other here. Harry is right. Trying to convince others is waste of time.
I tried. Didn't work. I'm out.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on September 24, 2019, 07:16:37 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on September 24, 2019, 07:10:14 PM
Okay, this is it. I give up with you and many other here. Harry is right. Trying to convince others is waste of time.
I tried. Didn't work. I'm out.

That makes as much sense as me saying that my failing to convince you means I have to leave.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on September 24, 2019, 07:22:21 PM
Quote from: JBS on September 24, 2019, 06:05:04 PM
To be clear, MDs who refuse to take Medicare are not refusing government money per se. They are refusing it on the grounds that the fee Medicare pays is too low, not enough to cover expenses, etc.  Medicare rates don't make doctors wealthy.

So are you saying that the doctor can't charge more than the Medicare rate?

Definitely not how it works here. Though there are some encouragements, that I won't go into the detail of, to only charge the amount the government will pay, there's absolutely nothing here to STOP doctors charging more, and in Canberra which is fairly affluent the great majority of GPs do charge more.

As I said, here the money is legally going to the patient. So the patient gets some government money, and if it's not enough to cover the bill then the patient has to have funds to cover the rest.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 24, 2019, 07:38:22 PM
Quote from: Madiel on September 24, 2019, 07:22:21 PM
So are you saying that the doctor can't charge more than the Medicare rate?

Definitely not how it works here. Though there are some encouragements, that I won't go into the detail of, to only charge the amount the government will pay, there's absolutely nothing here to STOP doctors charging more, and in Canberra which is fairly affluent the great majority of GPs do charge more.

As I said, here the money is legally going to the patient. So the patient gets some government money, and if it's not enough to cover the bill then the patient has to have funds to cover the rest.

There's this thing called "assignment". A doctor who agrees to accept Medicare as insurance must agree that he will charge that patient only what Medicare says is the proper fee. Deductibles and copays mean the  patient may pay some of that, but the doctor can not charge that patient anything above the approved rate.

He can of course charge more, but he will be paid more only if the patient is not using Medicare in the first place.

Hope that is a clear explanation.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on September 24, 2019, 10:23:24 PM
Quote from: JBS on September 24, 2019, 07:38:22 PM
There's this thing called "assignment". A doctor who agrees to accept Medicare as insurance must agree that he will charge that patient only what Medicare says is the proper fee. Deductibles and copays mean the  patient may pay some of that, but the doctor can not charge that patient anything above the approved rate.

He can of course charge more, but he will be paid more only if the patient is not using Medicare in the first place.

Hope that is a clear explanation.

It is. Thanks.

Hmm.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on September 25, 2019, 07:08:49 AM
     If Medicare isn't good enough for everyone, it isn't good enough for people who have it now. If SomethingCare is better, let's explore that, providing that it's understood that getting it universally accepted is unlikely to be easier than Medicare expansion as the program exists now.

     SomethingCare that addresses Medicare flaws will be more radical/progressive than BernieCare. There won't be any "it's only SomethingCare so it doesn't need to be fixed".

     The choices are to build on the Medicare base or the OCare base. The base the plan is built on comes with inherent flaws either way. Making the choice on which base to start from still leaves pathways that will converge.

     Medicare, mutated or not, is my best option as things stand. Presently I'm researching for info about MediGap plans, another Medicare mutation that costs more and covers more with no network restrictions.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on September 25, 2019, 04:48:07 PM
 
Quote from: schnittkease on September 24, 2019, 09:34:15 PM
Sanders has said that he will put intense political pressure on those who obstruct his agenda. This includes but is not limited to rallies in the politician's home state and endorsements of primary opponents.

That won't work on GOP senators, with a few exceptions.
After all,  in the current GOP, any senator who would not oppose any Democratic plan will be primaried.
In my own state, despite being the epitome of a swing state, Scott will gladly claim the status of opposing Democratcare.  He is actually more of an ass and more amoral and corrupt than Trump. (He managed the feat of getting a legislsture dominated by his own party to get angry with him.)
It might work on Rubio, if he could find cover (say, not supporting a filibuster but otherwise voting against the bill), or if the plan were some sort of public option a la Bidencare. He might be tempted to play the Great Compromiser but  he got burned badly the last time he did that, with immigration.
Sanders strategy could easily backfire on Democrats from swing states, who might easily find it more beneficial to be against Sanders when running against GOP opponents. (Think of Manchin as an extreme case of this.)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on September 26, 2019, 11:51:58 AM
Sleepy Joe and son Hunter going down fast...Pocahontas gaining...Wall Street dems not happy:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/wall-street-democratic-donors-may-back-trump-if-warren-is-nominated.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/wall-street-democratic-donors-may-back-trump-if-warren-is-nominated.html)

Wall Street Democratic donors warn the party: We'll sit out, or back Trump, if you nominate Elizabeth Warren

Democratic donors on Wall Street and in big business are preparing to sit out the presidential campaign fundraising cycle — or even back President Donald Trump — if Sen. Elizabeth Warren wins the party's nomination.

In recent weeks, CNBC spoke to several high-dollar Democratic donors and fundraisers in the business community and found that this opinion was becoming widely shared as Warren, an outspoken critic of big banks and corporations, gains momentum against Joe Biden in the 2020 race.....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on September 26, 2019, 12:55:20 PM
A Ukrainian village is missing its idiot.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on September 26, 2019, 02:15:46 PM
Quote from: Muzio on September 26, 2019, 11:51:58 AM
Sleepy Joe and son Hunter going down fast...Pocahontas gaining...Wall Street dems not happy:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/wall-street-democratic-donors-may-back-trump-if-warren-is-nominated.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/wall-street-democratic-donors-may-back-trump-if-warren-is-nominated.html)

Wall Street Democratic donors warn the party: We'll sit out, or back Trump, if you nominate Elizabeth Warren

Democratic donors on Wall Street and in big business are preparing to sit out the presidential campaign fundraising cycle — or even back President Donald Trump — if Sen. Elizabeth Warren wins the party's nomination.

In recent weeks, CNBC spoke to several high-dollar Democratic donors and fundraisers in the business community and found that this opinion was becoming widely shared as Warren, an outspoken critic of big banks and corporations, gains momentum against Joe Biden in the 2020 race.....


The irony is that the big financiers think this is some kind of threat, whereas large numbers of other people would be excited at the signs of how scared they are of Warren.

Nice of you by the way to adopt the President's insulting nickname.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on September 26, 2019, 04:36:32 PM
Quote from: Madiel on September 26, 2019, 02:15:46 PM
Nice of you by the way to adopt the President's insulting nickname.

The lying thing has only herself to blame.  :D

From HuffPo
"Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts senator and potential 2020 Democratic presidential contender, identified her race as "American Indian" on her 1986 State Bar of Texas registration card to practice law in the state, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.  The card, filled out in blue ink and dated April 1986, is the first reported document to show Warren declaring herself American Indian in her own handwriting."
-- -- -- --

Laura M. Padilla, Intersectionality and Positionality: Situating Women on Color in the Affirmative Action Dialogue, 66 Fordham L. Rev. 843 (1997).
(https://i.postimg.cc/d0KwSMtW/Pol-E-Warren-first-woman-of-color-at-Harvard-Law-text.jpg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on September 26, 2019, 05:12:04 PM
In you mind... how do you weigh that against Trump's ceaselessly growing mountain of blatant falsehoods?

also: what else have you got on Warren? Do you have an example no.2? Is there a pattern?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on September 26, 2019, 05:51:43 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on September 26, 2019, 05:12:04 PM
In you mind... how do you weigh that against Trump's ceaselessly growing mountain of blatant falsehoods?

also: what else have you got on Warren? Do you have an example no.2? Is there a pattern?
Well, she started living the "big lie" when she only 37.  There is a lot to unpack with that kind lie -- with all its insidious implications, and it will be exploited ad naseum if she is the dem nominee.

What about her leadership skills?  Tulsi Gabbard was interviewed on hill.tv today and pronounced that she is no fan of impeachment ("Gabbard decries calls for impeachment" was the headline).  Also this:

Question to Gabbard: "Do you believe that [Elizabeth Warren] is prepared to be commander-in-chief?"

Tulsi Gabbard: "I haven't seen much come from her in the way of what kind of leadership and decision making that she would bring ... as a soldier and an American that is very concerning"

BTW, Tulsi Gabbard will take part in the next dem debate after being excluded from the last one.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on September 26, 2019, 06:56:25 PM
Quote from: Muzio on September 26, 2019, 04:36:32 PM
The lying thing has only herself to blame.  :D

I'm not going to debate the facts with you because my whole fucking point is that the facts won't justify the fucking nickname.

Get it? Even if what you just posted about what Warren said and when is true, that's not the issue. The issue is why, as a fan of a man who I choose to call Trump rather than, say, Incompetent Orange Slimeball, you think it's okay to call Warren something other than Warren.

This is not the schoolyard, and it's about time both you and the President of the United States behaved accordingly.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on September 26, 2019, 07:02:15 PM
Quote from: Muzio on September 26, 2019, 05:51:43 PM
Well, she started living the "big lie" when she only 37.  There is a lot to unpack with that kind lie -- with all its insidious implications, and it will be exploited ad naseum if she is the dem nominee.

What about her leadership skills?  Tulsi Gabbard was interviewed on hill.tv today and pronounced that she is no fan of impeachment ("Gabbard decries calls for impeachment" was the headline).  Also this:

Question to Gabbard: "Do you believe that [Elizabeth Warren] is prepared to be commander-in-chief?"

Tulsi Gabbard: "I haven't seen much come from her in the way of what kind of leadership and decision making that she would bring ... as a soldier and an American that is very concerning"

BTW, Tulsi Gabbard will take part in the next dem debate after being excluded from the last one.

You ducked the question. If you're so offended by Warren's one "lie" then why not by Trump's tens of thousands?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on September 26, 2019, 07:33:56 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on September 26, 2019, 07:02:15 PM
You ducked the question. If you're so offended by Warren's one "lie" then why not by Trump's tens of thousands?

I did not "duck" your question.  I said leadership -- and I presented the fact that at least one other dem candidate sees the same deficit in Warren.

And why did you put quotes around the word "lie" -- you don't believe that Warren flat-out lied and has lived the last half of her life in borrowed robes?

And these ten thousand lies that Trump has told.  ::)  Please offer a couple of his largest lies that you can prove are lies.  (After all, I can prove Warren lied big time.)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on September 26, 2019, 08:31:21 PM
Quote from: Muzio on September 26, 2019, 07:33:56 PM
I did not "duck" your question.  I said leadership -- and I presented the fact that at least one other dem candidate sees the same deficit in Warren.

And why did you put quotes around the word "lie" -- you don't believe that Warren flat-out lied and has lived the last half of her life in borrowed robes?

And these ten thousand lies that Trump has told.  ::)  Please offer a couple of his largest lies that you can prove are lies.  (After all, I can prove Warren lied big time.)

Warren believed her family story, took a DNA test by choice, was honest about the result and apologised. Instead of endlessly doubling down the way Trump does.

I can't believe you really require examples of his lies. Unless you live in a Fox bubble. You needn't eyeroll at my saying tens of thousands. That's no hyperbole. It's even lowballing. And you know...it would be one thing if you were saying "he's a lying sack of shit, but he's MY lying sack of shit" but to say you're unaware of his lying...its like you spent the last three years (or decades) in a coma.

Or you're just trolling me.

And I'd have to ask what leadership skills you see in the revolving door circus that is now the white house and in all his failed businesses and bankruptcies, along with his inability to understand the complexities of the job and his lack of desire to learn, and to choose "loyalists" over people of skill and experience. Unless you think "leadership" is synonymous with hubris and arrogance, in which case, no, Warren doesn't have it. (Amusing that a rival she's leading criticised her lack of leadership)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on September 27, 2019, 04:11:07 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on September 26, 2019, 08:31:21 PM
Warren believed her family story, took a DNA test by choice, was honest about the result and apologised. Instead of endlessly doubling down the way Trump does.

I can't believe you really require examples of his lies. Unless you live in a Fox bubble. You needn't eyeroll at my saying tens of thousands. That's no hyperbole. It's even lowballing. And you know...it would be one thing if you were saying "he's a lying sack of shit, but he's MY lying sack of shit" but to say you're unaware of his lying...its like you spent the last three years (or decades) in a coma.

Or you're just trolling me.

And I'd have to ask what leadership skills you see in the revolving door circus that is now the white house and in all his failed businesses and bankruptcies, along with his inability to understand the complexities of the job and his lack of desire to learn, and to choose "loyalists" over people of skill and experience. Unless you think "leadership" is synonymous with hubris and arrogance, in which case, no, Warren doesn't have it. (Amusing that a rival she's leading criticised her lack of leadership)

This is suppose to be a thread about dem 2020 contenders, not another Trump-bashing free-for-all.  But c'mon, bub...just a few of the biggest whoppers from President Trump...that you can prove to be lies.  I'm not going to engage in a tit-for-tat insult trade with you.  You made the charge that Trump is a hardcore serial liar, now back it up with some, in your words, readily available examples.   :)

TD...
Another potential dem candidate?  Well, a lot of people have suggested all along that Hillary will be the "compromise" choice and will run again against Trump.  Michael M. Grynbaum, a media correspondent for The New York Times, noted in an ominous (I thought) tweet, "Hillary Clinton is doing CBS Sunday Morning, Stephen Colbert, and The View over the next week..."  ???

And don't forget what I said about Gabbard several pages ago.  She is the most interesting one to watch right now.  In dem circles, she is the voice of rationality and reason that is badly needed to counter The Squad's socialist extremism.  I admit, I'm a tiny bit concerned about a Gabbard vs. Trump run.  I'll be a little relieved when she drops out, fingers crossed.   :blank:
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on September 27, 2019, 05:07:07 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on September 26, 2019, 08:31:21 PM


Yes, he's just a troll, my advice is to stop feeding him.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on September 27, 2019, 05:48:08 AM
(Bloomberg) -- Elizabeth Warren used her first rally as a front-runner in the Democratic presidential race to assure a crowd in a small New Hampshire town that her brand of progressive politics made her the most viable candidate.

There's a whole bunch of core issues, like raising the minimum wage, and giving unions more power, and more regulations over financial institutions, and canceling student loan debt, and a wealth tax, that the majority of Americans — not just the majority of Democrats, the majority of Americans — are on board," Warren said in Keene on Wednesday.  Polls this week showed her leading in the Granite State as well as Iowa and California, and one survey found her narrowly displacing Joe Biden at the head of the Democratic pack nationally.
(...)
Her rise could also expose her to attacks from rivals that she has largely avoided. She used the event at Keene State College to counter questions about her viability in a general election, a concern that nags many Democrats, who worry that she would be carved up by President Donald Trump.
(...)
"She's the person that Trump would like for an opponent," said Greg Griffin of Anamosa, Iowa, who attended an event for Pete Buttigieg in that state this week. "He'll jump all over her."


ARTICLE HERE: https://news.yahoo.com/warren-highlights-electability-democratic-front-004458975.html
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on September 27, 2019, 06:41:35 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 27, 2019, 05:07:07 AM
Yes, he's just a troll, my advice is to stop feeding him.
Thanks, Karl, you good thing you.  As always, derivative and glib.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on September 27, 2019, 06:44:25 AM
Quote from: Muzio on September 27, 2019, 06:41:35 AM
Thanks, Karl, you good thing you.  As always, derivative and glib.

Says the person who adopts Trump's insulting nicknames and who uses a smiley to justify it. Do you really think you're in a position to describe others as derivative and glib? Those are exactly the adjectives you should be staying the hell away from.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on September 27, 2019, 07:06:01 AM
@Mandiel, your wise counsel is always appreciated, but I'd like to help keep this thread about the 2020 dem contenders for the nomination.

Elizabeth Warren Doesn't Know If Biden's Corruption Would Violate Her Ethics Plan

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) appeared flustered Wednesday when asked whether her ethics proposal unveiled this month would prohibit her vice president's son from serving on the board of a foreign company, as was the case under President Barack Obama.

"Could you say whether or not, under a Warren administration, would your vice president's child be allowed to serve on the board of a foreign company?" asked a reporter following the Massachusetts senator's speech at a New Hampshire rally.

"No," Warren initially answered. Then she backtracked. "I don't know. I mean I'd have to go back and look at the details."


Some speculate that she back-peddled because her initial "no" could have been seen as a criticism of opponent Joe Biden and his current problems.

Article here: https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/26/elizabeth-warren-doesnt-know-if-bidens-corruption-would-violate-her-ethics-plan/ (https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/26/elizabeth-warren-doesnt-know-if-bidens-corruption-would-violate-her-ethics-plan/)

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on September 27, 2019, 11:00:00 AM
Well, I'll be...Tulsi Gabbard now supports the dem impeachment "inquiry."  Can't make this stuff up.

"Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, has changed course on her opinion of the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump.

Up until Friday, Gabbard was one of the few House Democrats to oppose her caucus' move to begin a formal impeachment inquiry, sparked by a whistleblower complaint against the president regarding his interactions with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky.

In a statement, Gabbard said that she has changed her mind after reviewing the latest developments in the Ukraine story, including the release of a summary of the phone call Trump had with Zelensky and the declassified whistleblower complaint."


SMH...thought she was going to be different...Oh, foolish me...

Edit: the side panel of my browser:
(https://i.postimg.cc/90kzxgqb/Pol-Tulsi-Gabbard-changes-mind.jpg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on September 27, 2019, 04:22:03 PM
Reviewing Hunter Biden's resume...

(https://i.postimg.cc/3RtghHqF/Pol-lets-review-Hunter-Biden-s-resume.jpg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on September 27, 2019, 04:41:00 PM
Folks, there are times when I really appreciate this forum's block function.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on September 27, 2019, 05:56:20 PM
Quote from: Madiel on September 27, 2019, 04:41:00 PM
Folks, there are times when I really appreciate this forum's block function.

I Feel ya
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on September 28, 2019, 05:58:00 AM
Quote from: Muzio on September 27, 2019, 04:22:03 PM
Reviewing Hunter Biden's resume...

(https://i.postimg.cc/3RtghHqF/Pol-lets-review-Hunter-Biden-s-resume.jpg)

     I agree with the cartoon point. Hunter apparently broke no Uke law, and what he did would be legal here, too. Sometimes what is legal is as bad as what isn't.

     I think what matters is if his dad interfered with an investigation into his activities, which is the charge Trump is making. He didn't, because the investigation into the gas company concerned events that supposedly occurred before Hunter Biden joined the board. That investigation was later closed.

     Trump wants to reopen an investigation into the Bidens, but there was none. The facts make it clear the Ukes have nothing to work with. When they ask for info upon which such an investigation might be based, which they have done, they get nothing. What are they supposed to do? The reform government is far less corrupt than Trump and his minions.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 02, 2019, 07:40:00 PM
On the Bernie front
https://www.apnews.com/eab21e66d7734867b8620fe9efaeb8a2
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on October 03, 2019, 02:39:39 PM
You Know What Liz Warren Was Missing? SEXY. Thanks Jacob Wohl And The Other One! (https://www.wonkette.com/wingnut-grifters-hold-stupid-presser-about-liz-warrens-marine-boy-toy-lets-laugh-at-them)

"Rightwing conspira-fraudsters Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman held a great big press conference today in a ludicrous attempt to smear Elizabeth Warren, and it was very, very entertaining. There were two big surprises: 1) Warren's alleged rental boy-toy, an absolutely legitimate "former Marine sex worker," actually showed up for the event, and B) Burkman's little dachshund, Jack Jr., wasn't audible, at least not in the Periscope video stream I watched.

The allegations of a months-long series of kinky rentboy sexual encounters from the supposed Marine, one "Kelvin Whelly," didn't so much elicit gasps as guffaws, because nobody's stupid enough to take Wohl and Burkman seriously anymore. Nope, not even Wohl's former employer, the Stupidest Man on the Internet, bothered to give it the time of day."

Whelly said he had been hired by Warren through an online escort service, and that she flew him out to Massachusetts for the first time in August, 2018. In the very best Penthouse Forum prose, Whelly asserts that before their rendezvous at the Hilton in Woburn, he was a little nervous, because "I had spent time with older women before, but never a woman older than 60."

And oh, my, he assets that Warren was an absolute maniac, who "wanted not just rough sex but extensive BDSM play." Uh huh. And we bet she asked him to dress up like Jamie Dimon so she could spank him with a copy of the Sherman Antitrust Act, too.

Whelly purports to have been "shocked" by just how violent Warren liked to do sex, and that while he generally doesn't ask his clients if they're married, this time he just happened to, and Warren casually revealed the SHOCKING TRUTH. Here is the very realistic dialogue she said to him:

"Yes, I am married My husband and I are in an open relationship [...] In my line of work, this is a fairly common arrangement. You wouldn't believe how many studs like you show up to the Congressional retreats."
Look, if you wanted to make it really sound like Elizabeth Warren, you could have at least had her say something about taxing Wall Street -- sinfully.

Poor Whelly couldn't even keep a straight face when he got to the bit about Warren supposedly having a lesbionic threesome with him and a young lady friend of his, "using a lime green strap-on dildo" new from the box.

Also, for some reason, they want us to think Warren confessed to having a secret illegitimate daughter named "Lisa," born after a one-night stand 37 years ago. Because hoor.

It was pathetic. Wohl and Burkman had the dude take off his shirt to show the supposed scars from Warren's whippings with a cat o' nine tails, although that fell apart pretty quickly -- someone immediately found old Instagram photos of the welts, which he said he'd gotten when he was hit by a chain while disassembling an old swing. Or an old swinger, amIright?

Wohl, the original lime green strap-on dildo, also took pains to explain why he was bringing all this forward: "We all know women are more hormonal than men," and he just wanted to save America the grief that would come from electing Warren and then having a "hormonally unstable" sex fiend in the White House. Because he cares. Also, NORMAL women take their husbands' last name when they get married, so Warren is an abnormal sex fiend, QED.

Another Update: How could I forget this? At one point, a heckler asked Wohl if he was on psychiatric medication. Swear to god, he invoked HIPAA and said his medical records were private.

Warren seems not to recognize her political career is over, oddly enough."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 03, 2019, 03:43:29 PM
     The Warren plan is not designed to prevent the children of prominent politicians from serving on corporate boards. It would be unfair in that it would discriminate against those who got there on merit, both of them.

     It also strikes me as assuming too much to say that making her plan tougher would implicitly criticize Biden, whose most recent adventure in the realm of corruption was trying to end it in Ukraine.

     What's in the plan is more interesting than what isn't:

     End self-dealing in the White House by applying conflict of interest laws to the President and Vice President

     That's soooo radical.

     Disclose tax returns of federal candidates and officeholders to the public automatically.

     Don't ask me, I think tax returns should be public for all government officials above the grade of bagman.

     Force senior government officials to divest from privately-owned assets that could present conflicts of interest

     I'd exempt trophy consorts.

     Completely ban the practice of government officials trading individual stocks while in office

     I'd exempt buying Raytheon before bombing Iran.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 04, 2019, 04:23:50 PM
I guess you really should pay attention if you feel the bern in your chest!

One less clown in the Dem circus, and good news for Goofy Elizabeth Warren.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 04, 2019, 05:05:57 PM
Fabulators gonna fabulate...

Warren Said She Was Once Fired For Being Pregnant. That's Not What She Said Before.

Presidential contender Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has highlighted the supposed hardships of women in the workplace by claiming she was fired from a teaching job after she became "visibly pregnant." But the senator, who has been plagued by her own wildly overstated claims of Native American heritage, told a different story about how she lost her teaching job in the past.

"I loved it, and I would probably still be doing it today but back in the day, before unions, the principal, by the time we got to the end of the first year, I was visibly pregnant," Warren said while on the campaign trail in May, as reported by Jeryl Bier on Wednesday. "And the principal did what principals did in those days: they wished you luck, showed you the door, and hired someone else for the job. And there went my dream."

Similarly, in April, the Democrat said at Al Sharpton's National Action Network convention: "Teaching special needs kids is a calling. But I finished out the year visibly pregnant and didn't get invited back. Those were the days."

However, as highlighted by Bier, during an interview in 2007, Warren recalled leaving her teaching job because she did not have requisite qualifications  — a far cry from claiming to be have been canned by a male principal for being with child. 

"At UC Berkeley in 2007 as part of a series called 'Conversations with History,' Warren was asked about her pursuit of a career helping special needs children," Bier reported. "Her answer at the time made no mention of losing her job due to her pregnancy. Instead, she spoke of trying to further her education because she lacked some education courses that had required her to rely on an 'emergency certificate' to teach that first year. While pursuing those courses, she said she realized, 'I don't think this is going to work out for me.' She and her husband then decided she would stay at home for the time being."

"I was married at nineteen and graduated from college after I'd married, and my first year post-graduation I worked in a public school system with the children with disabilities," Warren said at the time. "I did that for a year, and then that summer I didn't have the education courses, so I was on an 'emergency certificate,' it was called. I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, 'I don't think this is going to work out for me.' I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, 'What am I going to do?' My husband's view of it was, 'Stay home. We have children, we'll have more children, you'll love this.' And I was very restless about it."

According to Bier, "The earliest version of Warren's story that includes the principal explicitly dismissing her appears to be in her autobiography 'A Fighting Chance' in 2014."

Article: https://jerylbier.blogspot.com/2019/10/elizabeth-warren-fired-from-teaching.html (https://jerylbier.blogspot.com/2019/10/elizabeth-warren-fired-from-teaching.html)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 04, 2019, 07:23:16 PM


Quote
"I loved it, and I would probably still be doing it today but back in the day, before unions, the principal, by the time we got to the end of the first year, I was visibly pregnant," Warren said while on the campaign trail in May, as reported by Jeryl Bier on Wednesday. "And the principal did what principals did in those days: they wished you luck, showed you the door, and hired someone else for the job. And there went my dream."

Similarly, in April, the Democrat said at Al Sharpton's National Action Network convention: "Teaching special needs kids is a calling. But I finished out the year visibly pregnant and didn't get invited back. Those were the days."




      Where did the story come from that she was fired?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 05, 2019, 06:00:28 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 04, 2019, 07:23:16 PM
      Where did the story come from that she was fired?

To be clear, are you specifically referring to the use of the word "fired" rather than "not asked back", etc.?  Or are you asking for links to videos and/or articles?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 05, 2019, 06:11:30 AM
BTW, the two explanations are not only compatible but complementary: one explains why she lost that first job, the other explains why she didn't pursue other teaching jobs and left the profession.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 05, 2019, 06:40:33 AM
Quote from: Muzio on October 05, 2019, 06:00:28 AM
To be clear, are you specifically referring to the use of the word "fired" rather than "not asked back", etc.?  Or are you asking for links to videos and/or articles?

     No, I understand the use of "fired". Did Warren say she was fired?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 05, 2019, 06:46:41 AM
Quote from: JBS on October 05, 2019, 06:11:30 AM
BTW, the two explanations are not only compatible but complementary: one explains why she lost that first job, the other explains why she didn't pursue other teaching jobs and left the profession.

     Warren had trouble starting her career in a way that is typical for young women juggling a career, parenting, pregnancy and moving for her husband's job. That explains her position on family leave.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 05, 2019, 07:41:21 AM
     Are Dems Really Nominating Another Massachusetts Liberal? (https://www.thedailybeast.com/are-democrats-really-going-to-nominate-another-massachusetts-liberal-in-elizabeth-warren?ref=scrolll)

     In politics, "another" isn't a big factor. Some of my reservations about Warren have been pacified. I saw her as too hot for TV and too inquisitorial in a way that voters would see as angry. To my slight surprise voters see her not only in a positive light, but as something of an optimist. Voters tend to like a "happy warrior".

     The ideological straitjackets of pundits do not measure what people want. It's no good to tell people how progressive they shouldn't be or mistakenly are. Many voters really don't care if a proposal is conservative as much as if it will be good for them and there's a chance it can happen if they vote for someone who can happen it. If they think Warren is a better happener than Sanders I don't have much of an argument to put up to the contrary. I will say Biden would be an even better happener if he wanted to happen things.

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 05, 2019, 08:24:57 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 05, 2019, 06:40:33 AM
     No, I understand the use of "fired". Did Warren say she was fired?
Yes.  The "jerylbier.blogspot.com" article I linked to before contained a link to an article in the Independent.  The Independent article stated,
Quote

...But, standing in that union hall on a recent rainy afternoon in front of all those teachers, Ms Warren had a story to tell that's more than just her policies.

"I had this dream I wanted to be a public school teacher. And, so, like a lot of Americans, I have a story that kind of twists and turns. It doesn't take a straight line," she said, describing her "first love" in life: teaching.

"I loved it, and I would probably still be doing it today but back in the day, before unions, the principal, by the time we got to the end of the first year, I was visibly pregnant," she said. "And the principal did what principals did in those days: they wished you luck, showed you the door, and hired someone else for the job.

"And there went my dream."

She said that her principal showed her the door after wishing her luck.  Showing someone the door means "you're fired."

Independent article link: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/elizabeth-warren-background-teacher-harvard-university-2020-campaign-election-democrat-a8919381.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/elizabeth-warren-background-teacher-harvard-university-2020-campaign-election-democrat-a8919381.html)

(Note:There are also videos, which Trump will, of course, use to grind her bones, should she become the nominee.)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 05, 2019, 08:46:04 AM

     I don't get where she said the principal showing her the door meant she was fired. I think she would have said she was fired if she meant that. It would have helped her narrative.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 05, 2019, 09:10:52 AM
You must discount Muzio as a Trumpkin troll. He's not interested in discussion.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 05, 2019, 10:13:31 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 05, 2019, 08:46:04 AM
     I don't get where she said the principle showing her the door meant she was fired. I think she would have said she was fired if she meant that. It would have helped her narrative.
Hmmm...I have to admit, now that you mention it, to 'show someone the door' is most ambiguous.  It could mean lots of things, depending on context.  Why, thesaurus.com, for example, lists all kinds of possible synonyms.  I guess, darn it, we'll never know what Pocahontas really meant.  :laugh:

(https://i.postimg.cc/kXs5bPvL/Pol-show-the-door.jpg)

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 05, 2019, 10:18:08 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 05, 2019, 09:10:52 AM
You must discount Muzio as a Trumpkin troll. He's not interested in discussion.

"Polly wants a cracker?"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 05, 2019, 12:15:16 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 05, 2019, 09:10:52 AM
You must discount Muzio as a Trumpkin troll. He's not interested in discussion.

    I don't have to do anything! (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/angry.gif)

    I let him do it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 05, 2019, 02:07:43 PM
Quote from: drogulus on October 05, 2019, 12:15:16 PM
    I don't have to do anything! (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/angry.gif)

    I let him do ir.

Very true.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on October 05, 2019, 03:52:37 PM
Quote from: Muzio on October 05, 2019, 10:13:31 AM
Pocahontas

groan...

You know why Trump calls her that? Because the joke was "Faux-cahontas" and he was incapable of mastering the joke.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on October 05, 2019, 03:55:03 PM
Quote from: drogulus on October 05, 2019, 07:41:21 AM
     Are Dems Really Nominating Another Massachusetts Liberal? (https://www.thedailybeast.com/are-democrats-really-going-to-nominate-another-massachusetts-liberal-in-elizabeth-warren?ref=scrolll)


https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/1988/07/02
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 05, 2019, 04:13:16 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on October 05, 2019, 03:55:03 PM
https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/1988/07/02

     (http://marroa2018.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/2/0/26200284/9776120.jpg?266)

     Come home, America.

     (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ma/i-90/w17_1.jpg)

     No, I didn't mean my home.....there's no room.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 05, 2019, 04:22:05 PM
Some complimentary remarks about Warren from a conservative reporter in The American Thinker:
QuoteIt's always useful to know what a campaign is like, the lay of the land, so to speak, the supporters, the campaign operation, the candidate herself.

Here in San Diego, Elizabeth Warren paid a visit Thursday, so I went, taking my elderly mother, blending into the crowd to learn how things looked from the Democrat side.

The most obvious takeaway is that Warren is rising.  Based on her own energetic appearance and stump speech, she's now begun campaigning as if she's got the Democratic nomination in the bag, and she's now attempting to move to the center.

That signals a swift campaign response to the de facto collapses of her Democratic rivals, which seem to be happening.  Joe Biden is imploding over the massive corruption of his family political machine.  Bernie Sanders is effectively out based on his age-related medical issues.  Kamala Harris has been a goner ever since Rep. Tulsi Gabbard excoriated her in the second Democratic debate over her appalling record as a prosecutor.  The rest are pipsqueaks.  Neither Warren nor her campaign operatives mentioned any of that, but her San Diego stop showed pretty clearly that the Democrats are consolidating, and Warren is attempting to move toward the center as Trump's likeliest opponent...
The article is longer, but is worth a read.  It does not get into policy discussions and the author, as I said, has several nice things to say about the candidate.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/what_i_saw_at_the_elizabeth_warren_rally.html
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 05, 2019, 04:44:20 PM
Quote from: Muzio on October 05, 2019, 04:22:05 PM
Some complimentary remarks about Warren from a conservative reporter in The American Thinker:The article is longer, but is worth a read.  It does not get into policy discussions and the author, as I said, has several nice things to say about the candidate.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/what_i_saw_at_the_elizabeth_warren_rally.html

     The reporter doesn't seem very much like a conservative in the American democratic tradition. The references to Trump and Putin suggest something different.

     I'm probably about as corrupt as Biden, though I don't have a ne'er-do-well son to embarrass me.

     Correction: The article about Putin and Trump was a different author.

     I don't think Warren is far enough from the center that she needs to strain herself to move towards it. The reporter thinks her positions are extreme and that she was hiding them by not going into specifics which are in his words "socialist". Not knowing the difference between social democratic reformism and socialism is now common on both the left and right, so a history minded person like me feels irritated. Most voters are younger than me and aren't interested in the old distinctions except the old people don't like that dirty word so it's cool.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 05, 2019, 06:35:47 PM
Quote from: Muzio on October 05, 2019, 04:22:05 PM
Some complimentary remarks about Warren from a conservative reporter in The American Thinker:The article is longer, but is worth a read.  It does not get into policy discussions and the author, as I said, has several nice things to say about the candidate.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/what_i_saw_at_the_elizabeth_warren_rally.html

I found it interesting that the writer who wrote this
QuoteShe broke that into three easily bite-sized pieces, speaking first of corruption in the system, second of the need to reform government, and third, of the need to protect democracy. They were actually all vaguely stated and full of euphemisms and packaging, so as to not expose them as the raw socialism they are.

Thinks that "draining the swamp" is a socialist idea.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 05, 2019, 07:21:51 PM
Quote from: JBS on October 05, 2019, 06:35:47 PM
I found it interesting that the writer who wrote this
Thinks that "draining the swamp" is a socialist idea.

     The writer is vague about what's socialist. It's as if we'll all in on his own distinctions. Is that weak thinking or is he hiding his evil designs?

     This "typecasting" of political programs wasn't all that good to distinguish varieties of democratic economic systems in the Cold War era, now it's approaching parody.

     The Progressive Era dates to the 1890's and people still don't get how capitalist reform has outperformed socialism by stealing its best ideas while rejecting its worst.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 05, 2019, 08:00:34 PM
Quote from: drogulus on October 05, 2019, 07:21:51 PM
The writer is vague about what's socialist.

Lots of people are. 

Add to that how the definition that an American writer would give to the word is frequently at odds with how people elsewhere in the world would conceive it, and it's rarely a useful label.

EDIT: https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/the-many-tangled-american-definitions-of-socialism

SECOND EDIT: When people manage to apply the same label to Venezuela and to Norway, it's fairly obvious they're not really identifying something significant to a country's prospects.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 05, 2019, 08:58:38 PM
Quote from: Madiel on October 05, 2019, 08:00:34 PM
Lots of people are. 

Add to that how the definition that an American writer would give to the word is frequently at odds with how people elsewhere in the world would conceive it, and it's rarely a useful label.

EDIT: https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/the-many-tangled-american-definitions-of-socialism

SECOND EDIT: When people manage to apply the same label to Venezuela and to Norway, it's fairly obvious they're not really identifying something significant to a country's prospects.

     It's possible that people who aren't interested in identifying something significant to a country's prospects can find beliefs to help them not do that. What else are the beliefs for?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 05, 2019, 08:59:04 PM
Quote from: drogulus on October 05, 2019, 08:58:38 PM
     It's possible that people who aren't interested in identifying something significant to a country's prospects can find beliefs to help them not do that. What else are the beliefs for?

True.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 06, 2019, 01:05:23 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 05, 2019, 08:00:34 PM
the definition that an American writer would give to the word [socialism] is frequently at odds with how people elsewhere in the world would conceive it, and it's rarely a useful label.

Yes, and the same applies to "liberal".  :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 06, 2019, 01:48:09 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 06, 2019, 01:05:23 AM
Yes, and the same applies to "liberal".  :)

I very nearly added that.

It's especially bad in Australia where the more right wing of our 2 main parties is called the Liberals. This confuses the hell out of anyone overseas.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 06, 2019, 05:28:40 AM
It doesn't matter how Socialism is defined.  People can go on about definitions online, on talk shows, etc, forever.  That doesn't matter.  Let me break this down for campaign purposes:

Socialism is bad. 

Socialists are bad. 

The Soviets were Socialist. 

Elizabeth Warren is a Socialist. 

See how it works?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 06, 2019, 05:30:26 AM
Yes, I understand perfectly how it works.

Quote"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."

Which does not mean I have to be impressed by it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 06, 2019, 05:33:46 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 06, 2019, 05:30:26 AM
Yes, I understand perfectly how it works.


I expect much discussion on this forum on this topic for the next year, as though something may change.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 06, 2019, 05:39:24 AM
    None of the Dem candidates is an ideal fit for me on economic policy. How far left or right each one is from an arbitrary point doesn't count for much of an explanation.

    For reasons only the gods could know political discourse assumes the static nature of ideologies and political platforms and treats the evolving nature of societies as either sinister or teleological.

     
     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 06, 2019, 05:40:41 AM
Quote from: Todd on October 06, 2019, 05:33:46 AM

I expect much discussion on this forum on this topic for the next year, as though something may change.

Much of this forum is dedicated to discussions of music written by dead people and recordings that were made decades ago that keep getting reissued.

These don't change either. I don't recall this being a problem for you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 06, 2019, 05:56:24 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 06, 2019, 05:40:41 AM
Much of this forum is dedicated to discussions of music written by dead people and recordings that were made decades ago that keep getting reissued.

These don't change either. I don't recall this being a problem for you.


I believe this is a false equivalence, as well as just generally illogical and inane.  It doesn't matter, of course. 

I have no problem with the endless prattling on this forum on matters political.  No, it is a source of free entertainment, as lefties virtue signal endlessly and simultaneously carry on about their superior intelligence and knowledge on every topic under the sun.  It's especially amusing when non-Americans discuss American politics.  All the while, nothing changes.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 06, 2019, 05:58:39 AM
Well, most of THAT response was quite illogical and based on some alternate version of reality from the one I was participating in.

But it's not worth explaining at this time of night all the odd assumptions you've made. It's time for bed here in non-America.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 06, 2019, 06:00:04 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 06, 2019, 05:58:39 AM
Well, most of THAT response was quite illogical and based on some alternate version of reality from the one I was participating in.

But it's not worth explaining at this time of night all the odd assumptions you've made. It's time for bed here in non-America.


Okie Dokie.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 06, 2019, 06:00:15 AM
From the failing New York Times: Biden Faced His Biggest Challenge, and Struggled to Form a Response (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/05/us/politics/biden-trump-ukraine.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage)

The sub-headline: As Trump made unfounded allegations about Biden and his son, the former vice president was torn over what to do. He now looks more vulnerable than at any point in the campaign.

A lot of people are talking about it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 06, 2019, 07:00:46 AM
     Campaign rhetoric may not change, while what's it's supposed to be about, like how socialist everyone is compared to everyone else, changes slowly enough that it looks like it's not changing at all to people who focus on the rhetoric. But, I wonder (he lied) what for does one focus on campaign rhetoric?

     I just came over from my investment site. Some news-lettery guy says:

Our biggest concern remains business and consumer confidence.

     This sort of thing, markety "campaign rhetoric" doesn't change, therefore there are no changes in the real environment the "confidence game" is supposed to be about.

     If a good description of how the world changes can't be found in campaign rhetoric, look for a better way of describing it. I'll bet that "business confidence" and "socialist" are inadequate, but you could have a discussion that includes the terms and useful information, too.
     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 06, 2019, 07:09:19 AM
Love the use of quotation marks.  It lends gravity and thoughtfulness to the scribbling, or some such.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 06, 2019, 07:12:13 AM


     So do "I".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 06, 2019, 09:41:15 AM

     The Hunter Biden story is a troubling tale of privilege (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-hunter-biden-story-is-a-troubling-tale-of-privilege/2019/10/04/8ad20988-e46e-11e9-b403-f738899982d2_story.html)

In sum, the story of the Bidens, father and son, is more pathetic than nefarious. Yet it might do damage anyway. Less privileged Americans can't be faulted if they wonder why their addicted loved ones are on the streets or in the morgue while the vice president's son is blessed with diamonds and sinecures. Multitudes locked up for years under Joe Biden's crime bill might ask why the author's son traveled the world scot-free. And sober working people making $50,000 a year may be skeptical of a system in which a vice president's addicted son reportedly collected that sum every month.

   
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 06, 2019, 10:08:33 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 05, 2019, 08:00:34 PM
Lots of people are. 

Add to that how the definition that an American writer would give to the word is frequently at odds with how people elsewhere in the world would conceive it, and it's rarely a useful label.

EDIT: https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/the-many-tangled-american-definitions-of-socialism

SECOND EDIT: When people manage to apply the same label to Venezuela and to Norway, it's fairly obvious they're not really identifying something significant to a country's prospects.

In the USA, it is less a useful label, and more a register of prejudicial scorn.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 06, 2019, 10:09:08 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 06, 2019, 01:05:23 AM
Yes, and the same applies to "liberal".  :)


Ayyup!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 06, 2019, 10:18:59 AM
CNBC youtube video...5 minutes long...

"Elizabeth Warren is running as an advocate for the middle class and a critic of the wealthy. But the senator has amassed some wealth of her own too. Warren and her husband Bruce Mann's tax returns and Senate financial disclosure forms show the couple is worth millions. Here's where all that money came from..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=309&v=3qW1PrlqBUM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=309&v=3qW1PrlqBUM)

(When I tried to use the Flash controls, the finished page said, "Plug-in not supported.")
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 06, 2019, 10:21:49 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 06, 2019, 01:48:09 AM
I very nearly added that.

It's especially bad in Australia where the more right wing of our 2 main parties is called the Liberals. This confuses the hell out of anyone overseas.

The same here in Romania: the National Liberal Party --- which I vote by default --- is center-right, member of the European's People Party.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 06, 2019, 01:05:42 PM
Quote from: Muzio on October 06, 2019, 10:18:59 AM
CNBC youtube video...5 minutes long...

"Elizabeth Warren is running as an advocate for the middle class and a critic of the wealthy. But the senator has amassed some wealth of her own too. Warren and her husband Bruce Mann's tax returns and Senate financial disclosure forms show the couple is worth millions. Here's where all that money came from..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=309&v=3qW1PrlqBUM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=309&v=3qW1PrlqBUM)



     Warren criticizes tax policy. Many rich people are aware that there isn't much in tax policy likely to hurt them, and some even know why, though it's enough to know that the rich are never taxed into poverty or even the dreaded middle class.

     Warren thinks money comes from rich people, a little less fiercely than Bernie and a little less stupidly than a Repub ''''"job creator"'''. To me it looks like money goes to rich people and rich means that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 06, 2019, 01:36:36 PM
I'm a relatively wealthy person. I'm annoyed when I'm taxed less.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 06, 2019, 03:09:49 PM
Quote from: Madiel on October 06, 2019, 01:36:36 PM
I'm a relatively wealthy person. I'm annoyed when I'm taxed less.

     (https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/godfather/images/c/cc/Vlcsnap-2010-07-08-20h00m26s9.png/revision/latest?cb=20170805123843)

     For years I paid my people extra so they wouldn't do that kind of business (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 06, 2019, 04:19:58 PM
Quote from: Madiel on October 06, 2019, 01:36:36 PM
I'm a relatively wealthy person. I'm annoyed when I'm taxed less.

This is a Christian nation: God wants us to amass material wealth.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 06, 2019, 04:44:14 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 06, 2019, 04:19:58 PM
This is a Christian nation: God wants us to amass material wealth.

I know you're being ironic, but we could spend pages unpacking what's wrong with both halves of that sentence!  :laugh:
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 06, 2019, 05:12:21 PM
Quote from: Florestan on October 06, 2019, 01:05:23 AM
Yes, and the same applies to "liberal".  :)

That's because the reference point for the term has changed.

In the 19th century, the liberals were people who held the economic and political views we now call freemarket, small government, capitalist, libertarian. They were anti-capitalists, but coming from a different point of view than those who were the forerunners and founders of socialism.
The liberal ideas slowly gained ascendancy in the 19th century, until they became the standard position political conservatives took, at least in the Anglo-American sphere. In recognition of this, many people use the term "classical liberalism" to distinguish it from modern liberalism of the Left. It is now represented in its purest form by people like George Will, the Never Trumpers.

However, what the 19th century would call "conservative" did not disappear. It allied itself with classical liberalism, but not always peacefully and equally. It is best represented now in American politics by Trump's supporters.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 06, 2019, 05:14:01 PM
Quote from: Muzio on October 06, 2019, 10:18:59 AM
CNBC youtube video...5 minutes long...

"Elizabeth Warren is running as an advocate for the middle class and a critic of the wealthy. But the senator has amassed some wealth of her own too. Warren and her husband Bruce Mann's tax returns and Senate financial disclosure forms show the couple is worth millions. Here's where all that money came from..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=309&v=3qW1PrlqBUM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=309&v=3qW1PrlqBUM)

(When I tried to use the Flash controls, the finished page said, "Plug-in not supported.")

Let's see, what political figure hasn't released his tax returns ? Isn't he named Donald Trump?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 06, 2019, 05:19:49 PM
Quote from: Todd on October 06, 2019, 05:56:24 AM

I believe this is a false equivalence, as well as just generally illogical and inane.  It doesn't matter, of course. 

I have no problem with the endless prattling on this forum on matters political.  No, it is a source of free entertainment, as lefties virtue signal endlessly and simultaneously carry on about their superior intelligence and knowledge on every topic under the sun.  It's especially amusing when non-Americans discuss American politics.  All the while, nothing changes.

Just curious.

I realize you think you'll be fine while America's political system and power disintegrate around you. But have you, loving parent that you are, ensured that your children will likewise be insulated in a world where  Chinese currency has become the global standard, and even basic services like police and water can't be guaranteed against civic default?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 06, 2019, 05:45:08 PM
Quote from: JBS on October 06, 2019, 05:19:49 PM
I realize you think you'll be fine while America's political system and power disintegrate around you. But have you, loving parent that you are, ensured that your children will likewise be insulated in a world where  Chinese currency has become the global standard, and even basic services like police and water can't be guaranteed against civic default?


I've insulated my children by teaching them to mock, mercilessly as needed, and dismiss alarmist types and to approach changes in the world system with a more calculating eye.  For instance, I have made sure to tell them to not fall prey to an outlook that requires the next seventy years to be like the last seventy years, with a hegemon reaching global dominance, but rather to understand that the world is in the process of reverting to a multi-polar world where several great powers will compete in a manner as in centuries and millenia past.  (Hence the need to destroy the EU; better to deal with multiple smaller powers than one effectively big one.)  I fret not about Chinese currency achieving the same degree of significance that the US dollar had and currently has.  Also, I'm not worried about default in a monetarily sovereign nation.  Individual tax authorities may flail about, but that's always been the case.  In addition, I've taught my children to appreciate the value of two oceans and a powerful nuclear arsenal.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on October 06, 2019, 06:46:19 PM
Its strange you don't hear that on Sesame Street.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 06, 2019, 06:53:44 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on October 06, 2019, 06:46:19 PM
Its strange you don't hear that on Sesame Street.


Good work.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 06, 2019, 07:10:34 PM
Quote from: Todd on October 06, 2019, 05:45:08 PM
In addition, I've taught my children to appreciate the value of two oceans and a powerful nuclear arsenal.

This kind of feels like the nationwide equivalent of "stay off my lawn".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 06, 2019, 07:37:27 PM
Quote from: Todd on October 06, 2019, 05:45:08 PM

I've insulated my children by teaching them to mock, mercilessly as needed, and dismiss alarmist types and to approach changes in the world system with a more calculating eye.  For instance, I have made sure to tell them to not fall prey to an outlook that requires the next seventy years to be like the last seventy years, with a hegemon reaching global dominance, but rather to understand that the world is in the process of reverting to a multi-polar world where several great powers will compete in a manner as in centuries and millenia past.  (Hence the need to destroy the EU; better to deal with multiple smaller powers than one effectively big one.)  I fret not about Chinese currency achieving the same degree of significance that the US dollar had and currently has.  Also, I'm not worried about default in a monetarily sovereign nation.  Individual tax authorities may flail about, but that's always been the case.  In addition, I've taught my children to appreciate the value of two oceans and a powerful nuclear arsenal.

A dysfunctional political system will negate most of those advantages including monetary sovereignty.

Look I am Jewish. I've seen everyone from Assyria onwards strut their stuff across the stage and disappear. But I am also American, which means I think American hegemonship a good thing...or more precisely a thing that is good for me. And if America can not maintain its status as hegemon indefinitely I want at least a situation where America is not reduced to the status of a has been power...which, if your desired goals are realized, is just where we will be.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 06, 2019, 07:39:01 PM
   
     
Quote from: JBS on October 06, 2019, 05:19:49 PM
Just curious.

I realize you think you'll be fine while America's political system and power disintegrate around you. But have you, loving parent that you are, ensured that your children will likewise be insulated in a world where  Chinese currency has become the global standard, and even basic services like police and water can't be guaranteed against civic default?

     Russia has an oil curse economy the size of Italy. China is the biggest factory in American history. The EU is on a pseudo gold standard.

     China has a strong military until it fights. They can't even take Taiwan. Yes, they are a real threat and can do enormous damage to several counties before being completely destroyed.

     It would be a boon to the U.S. if we could arrange a little more as if multipolarity, sort of like the European and Asian alliance system. Where should we put it?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 06, 2019, 07:49:04 PM
Quote from: JBS on October 06, 2019, 07:37:27 PM


Look I am Jewish. I've seen everyone from Assyria onwards strut their stuff across the stage and disappear. But I am also American, which means I think American hegemonship a good thing...or more precisely a thing that is good for me. And if America can not maintain its status as hegemon indefinitely I want at least a situation where America is not reduced to the status of a has been power...which, if your desired goals are realized, is just where we will be.

     Insulate yourself from such notions or be mocked. American fascism is an inevitable reversion to Confederate family values because nothing ever changes.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 06, 2019, 08:30:13 PM
Quote from: Madiel on October 06, 2019, 07:10:34 PM
This kind of feels like the nationwide equivalent of "stay off my lawn".


I can understand how someone who lives in a small, weak country thinks so. 


Quote from: JBS on October 06, 2019, 07:37:27 PMI've seen everyone from Assyria onwards . . .


No, you haven't.  You're a middle aged dude.  Any supposed special historical insight you believe you gain from being Jewish is hokum.

Also, US monetary sovereignty will not be negated by current politics, even if it lasts for decades.


Quote from: drogulus on October 06, 2019, 07:39:01 PMThe EU is on a pseudo gold standard.


This is certainly one of the two or three dumbest posts about economics you've written, and that is saying a lot.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 06, 2019, 09:02:45 PM
Quote from: Todd on October 06, 2019, 08:30:13 PM

I can understand how someone who lives in a small, weak country thinks so. 


:laugh:  Oh FFS, just put your genitals away and zip up your pants. And then hop back to the 1980s where you'll be happier.

The quality of life in this small, weak country is measurably better in any number of ways. As it is in a number of other small, weak countries that time and again score above your big, tough country.  You know, I'm projected to live longer than you simply by virtue of where I was born?

One of the most amusing thing about Americans is when they act as if other countries want to destroy the American way of life. I'm not at all jealous of your way of life, and Americans are doing a superb job of destroying it all by themselves. Nuclear weapons aren't going to protect you from what actually ails your country.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 07, 2019, 01:12:43 AM
Quote from: Todd on October 06, 2019, 08:30:13 PM
I can understand how someone who lives in a small, weak country thinks so. 

Countries can be weak or strong in many ways and all countries have weaknesses and strenghts. For example the US is weak on gun safety. The US is weak on workers rights. The US has the worst healthcare system of all developped countries. The US is weak on healthy eating habits avoiding obesity. The US is weak on recycling. The US has a weak education system. The US is weak on equality before the law. Your country is very strong on some things, especially military force, but has a lot of weaknesses too and the US doesn't rank very favorably on things regarding the quality of life despite of being the richest country on the planet.

I don't know where you got your silly arrogance, but it shows stunning ignorance of the World and life. You could try opening your eyes sir. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on October 07, 2019, 02:24:21 AM
So, Bernie seems politically done, Biden too, will anyone else challenge Warren? For all her faults, she seems more substantive than some of the others. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 07, 2019, 04:52:48 AM
Quote from: Todd on October 06, 2019, 08:30:13 PM
Also, US monetary sovereignty will not be negated by current politics, even if it lasts for decades.

This is certainly one of the two or three dumbest posts about economics you've written, and that is saying a lot.


     You put both of these judgements in the same comment. Do you know anything at all about money sovereignty?

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 07, 2019, 05:01:28 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 06, 2019, 09:02:45 PM
:laugh:  Oh FFS, just put your genitals away and zip up your pants. And then hop back to the 1980s where you'll be happier.

The quality of life in this small, weak country is measurably better in any number of ways. As it is in a number of other small, weak countries that time and again score above your big, tough country.  You know, I'm projected to live longer than you simply by virtue of where I was born?

One of the most amusing thing about Americans is when they act as if other countries want to destroy the American way of life. I'm not at all jealous of your way of life, and Americans are doing a superb job of destroying it all by themselves. Nuclear weapons aren't going to protect you from what actually ails your country.

     I'm particularly amused by the idea that the world cooperator alliance system is under attack and how that, or a mystery something, proves it's worthless.

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 07, 2019, 05:17:46 AM
Quote from: milk on October 07, 2019, 02:24:21 AM
So, Bernie seems politically done, Biden too, will anyone else challenge Warren? For all her faults, she seems more substantive than some of the others. 

     She is in the lead at the moment. Biden is as bad at running for President as he's been for decades. Bernie is not running against a single establishment candidate.

     Warren appeals to policy geeks and people who like her spirited way of campaigning. It's an interesting combination. The geek is the one that's supposed to put most voters to sleep.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 07, 2019, 05:25:04 AM
Quote from: milk on October 07, 2019, 02:24:21 AM
So, Bernie seems politically done, Biden too, will anyone else challenge Warren? For all her faults, she seems more substantive than some of the others.
Are they gonna hand it to Warren, just like that??  NOT SO FAST, says Willie Brown, well-known San Fran dem, and HeelsUp Harris' former married lover.

QuoteWillie Brown: Democrats 'Depressing,' Only Hillary Clinton Can Beat Trump

Former San Francisco mayor and California State Assembly speaker Willie Brown has declared that only Hillary Clinton can defeat President Donald Trump in 2020 — and that the current candidates left him with "depression."  "Depression over the current field was swirling through my head the other day," Brown wrote in his latest column Saturday for the San Francisco Chronicle, before a portrait of Muhammad Ali had him thinking about a "rematch."

"Think about it. Hillary is still the smartest of the bunch. She's also better known than any of the candidates, so she doesn't need a lot of money," Brown argued.

"Clinton is the only candidate short of Barack Obama who has the brains, the battle-tested brawn and the national presence to take out Trump. And Obama can't run." he said.

Brown's latest vote of no confidence in the current Democratic field echoes his earlier pronouncements. In February, he had already declared that none of the candidates — including his former girlfriend, Kamala Harris — could beat Trump.

The Democratic candidates "all have impressive credentials, winning personalities and positive messages, but none displays the "people personality" that our media-savvy president has mastered," Brown wrote at the time.

The most recent Public Policy Institute of California poll showed Harris in a distant fourth among likely Democratic primary voters in her home state, while former Vice President Joe Biden and Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) were locked in a dead heat for first place.

"However, among voters with a candidate preference, more than half (53%) would consider supporting another candidate," the PPIC poll added.


(https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2019/10/06/willie-brown-democrats-depressing-only-hillary-clinton-can-beat-trump/ (https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2019/10/06/willie-brown-democrats-depressing-only-hillary-clinton-can-beat-trump/))

(https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/williesworld/article/Who-should-run-against-Trump-How-about-Hillary-14494201.php (https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/williesworld/article/Who-should-run-against-Trump-How-about-Hillary-14494201.php))
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 07, 2019, 05:47:16 AM

     The supermarket tabloids say Hillary will run, get a disease that makes her fall down, divorce Big Bill, go full lesbionic at the convention, and be abducted by aliens just before her coronation.

     I believe all this because it's so interesting and fun, the pseudo gold standard for truth.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 07, 2019, 06:09:47 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 06, 2019, 09:02:45 PM:laugh:  Oh FFS, just put your genitals away and zip up your pants. And then hop back to the 1980s where you'll be happier.

The quality of life in this small, weak country is measurably better in any number of ways. As it is in a number of other small, weak countries that time and again score above your big, tough country.  You know, I'm projected to live longer than you simply by virtue of where I was born?

Your response perfectly exemplifies the type of GMG Big Brain response I find so amusing.  (You're an attorney, so you are a Big Brain.)  I'm guessing you don't see the incongruity between the first part of the response and the second.


Quote from: Madiel on October 06, 2019, 09:02:45 PMOne of the most amusing thing about Americans is when they act as if other countries want to destroy the American way of life.

It would quite helpful if you could point out where I used the phrase "American way of life".  Ever.  You are responding to what you wish I had written, not to what I wrote.


Quote from: Madiel on October 06, 2019, 09:02:45 PMNuclear weapons aren't going to protect you from what actually ails your country.


Deterrence is a complicated concept, so I get why you are confused.


Quote from: drogulus on October 07, 2019, 04:52:48 AM
     You put both of these judgements in the same comment. Do you know anything at all about money sovereignty?



For starters, I know it's called monetary sovereignty.  You can't even get the basic terminology correct.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 07, 2019, 06:54:07 AM
Quote from: Todd on October 07, 2019, 06:09:47 AM




For starters, I know it's called monetary sovereignty.  You can't even get the basic terminology correct.

     That's neither here nor there.

     What is sovereign money? (https://sovereignmoney.site/what-is-sovereign-money)

For a better understanding of what sovereign money is and what it implies, it is useful to compare it with bankmoney, i.e. the present system of fractional reserve banking. Normally, bankmoney is as liquid as sovereign money, i.e. available any time on demand. But sovereign money does in fact exist; it is the safe property of the customer who owns the money. Bankmoney, by contrast, is not money proper, not legal tender, but just a claim on money, a claim on having paid out cash, or having transferred such 'deposits' on demand. Bankmoney is but a balance-sheet item of a bank, thus basically unsafe and unstable. In a banking crisis, money in a bank account might disappear. Bankmoney, as monetary theory rightly states in this regard, is but a money surrogate we use as if it were money, in fact a cash debt, a liability of the bank to the customer.

     This relation is sometimes called vertical (sovereign) and horizontal (bank). I've read a little of the economist associated with this depiction, maybe a single paper, but mostly know it from references in post-Keynesian economic discussions.

     Monetary sovereignty:

     1. Issues its own currency exclusively
     2. Requires all taxes and related obligations to be extinguished in that currency
     3. Can purchase anything that is for sale in that currency at any time it chooses, without financial constraints. That includes all idle labor.
     4. Its central bank sets the interest rate
     5. The currency floats
     6. The Government does not borrow in any currency other than its own.

     This is subject to caveats. A central bank might even find it useful to own some gold! A monetarily sovereign currency issuer might fiddle uselessly with exchange rates. Sovereignty doesn't forbid external debt.

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 07, 2019, 07:02:12 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 07, 2019, 06:54:07 AMI've read a little of the economist associated with this depiction, maybe a single paper, but mostly know it from references in post-Keynesian economic discussions.


I see.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 07, 2019, 08:22:23 AM

     What I read was about a book Basil Moore wrote, not by Basil Moore:

     Basil J. Moore's Horizontalists and Verticalists: an appraisal 25 years later (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272872943_Basil_J_Moore's_Horizontalists_and_Verticalists_an_appraisal_25_years_later)

     

     

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 07, 2019, 08:56:31 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 07, 2019, 08:22:23 AM
     What I read was about a book Basil Moore wrote, not by Basil Moore:

     Basil J. Moore's Horizontalists and Verticalists: an appraisal 25 years later (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272872943_Basil_J_Moore's_Horizontalists_and_Verticalists_an_appraisal_25_years_later)


Well, there you go.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 07, 2019, 09:20:38 AM
Saying only Hillary Clinton could beat Trump takes a special kind of "out of touch" ignorance. Somehow such ignorance is shockingly common in the establishment circles. We just witnessed in 2016 how royally HC lost to Trump so telling she is the only one who could beat Trump is moronic to say the least. She has got the brains? What? Since when? She was totally clueless in 2016 how to beat Trump and I haven't heard or seen anything from her to indicate she has learned anything since.

It takes "out of touch" ignorance to not see how strong Bernie Sanders would be against Trump. Even in Texas Bernie could possibly beat Trump! Texas! Not to mention the rust belt were Bernie would wipe the floor with Trump. However, you are ignorant of these things if you watch corporate media. They tell Bernie is over. That's the lies millions of americans believe and we non-americans need to expose the truth.  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 07, 2019, 09:28:52 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 07, 2019, 09:20:38 AMIt takes "out of touch" ignorance to not see how strong Bernie Sanders would be against Trump. Even in Texas Bernie could possibly beat Trump! Texas! Not to mention the rust belt were Bernie would wipe the floor with Trump. However, you are ignorant of these things if you watch corporate media. They tell Bernie is over. That's the lies millions of americans believe and we non-americans need to expose the truth.


Meanwhile, back in the real world, Bernie had a heart attack.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 07, 2019, 09:36:33 AM
Quote from: Todd on October 07, 2019, 09:28:52 AM

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Bernie had a heart attack.

Corporate media takes everything out of it and paints it much more dramatic than it was.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 07, 2019, 09:39:09 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 07, 2019, 09:36:33 AM
Corporate media takes everything out of it and paints it much more dramatic than it was.


It was a heart attack.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 07, 2019, 09:46:02 AM
Quote from: Todd on October 07, 2019, 09:39:09 AM

It was a heart attack.

Bernie is feeling well now. His medical issue was dealth with. The same operation was done to Bill Clinton when he was 58 and to my knowledge Bill Clinton is doing fine. Having a heart attack doesn't mean you are over.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 07, 2019, 09:54:16 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 07, 2019, 09:46:02 AM
Bernie is feeling well now. His medical issue was dealth with. The same operation was done to Bill Clinton when he was 58 and to my knowledge Bill Clinton is doing fine. Having a heart attack doesn't mean you are over.


It was a heart attack.  Bernie is 78.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 07, 2019, 10:05:16 AM
It's amusing how the hope of beating the 73yo Trump seem to lie with the 78yo Sanders or the 76yo Biden. They make Warren, at only 70, look like a breeze of fresh air.  :laugh:

I don't know if the US is an oligarchy but it seems obviously well on the way to becoming a gerontocracy.  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 07, 2019, 10:10:09 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 07, 2019, 10:05:16 AMI don't know if the US is an oligarchy but it seems obviously well on the way to becoming a gerontocracy.


Indeed.  Actually, if Bernie did win, at his age and with his heart condition, there is a good probability that he would die in office.  That would be a true LMAO moment.  (Bernie's toast, but don't tell 71 dB that.)

VP candidates are more important than normal for 2020.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 07, 2019, 10:10:52 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 07, 2019, 09:46:02 AM
Bernie is feeling well now. His medical issue was dealth with. The same operation was done to Bill Clinton when he was 58 and to my knowledge Bill Clinton is doing fine. Having a heart attack doesn't mean you are over.

     Voters will decide what it means. I would probably not be swayed by a couple of stents. They work.

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 07, 2019, 10:15:27 AM

     A youngish Veep would be a good idea. I think Mayor Pete can wait. Dems should be thinking about a strong bench going forward.

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 07, 2019, 10:28:39 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 07, 2019, 10:10:52 AM
     Voters will decide what it means.   

True story: a few years ago in a Romanian village the incumbent mayor died a few days before the election day, yet a majority of inhabitants voted for him nevertheless.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 07, 2019, 10:32:23 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 07, 2019, 10:28:39 AM
True story: a few years ago in a Romanian village the incumbent mayor died a few days before the election day, yet a majority of inhabitants voted for him nevertheless.


That happens in the US from time to time.  John Ashcroft lost his senatorial bid to a corpse in 2000. 

One extremely entertaining scenario would be if Bernie won the election in November but died before the Electoral College convened.  That would be awesome!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 07, 2019, 10:35:34 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 06, 2019, 04:44:14 PM
I know you're being ironic, but we could spend pages unpacking what's wrong with both halves of that sentence!  :laugh:

Verily,  verily.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 07, 2019, 10:40:33 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 07, 2019, 10:10:52 AM
     Voters will decide what it means. I would probably not be swayed by a couple of stents. They work.

     

I am grateful that mine works!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 07, 2019, 10:42:00 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 07, 2019, 10:28:39 AM
True story: a few years ago in a Romanian village the incumbent mayor died a few days before the election day, yet a majority of inhabitants voted for him nevertheless.

Do I correctly recall that this was true of rather a recent U.S. Senator?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 07, 2019, 10:44:56 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 07, 2019, 10:42:00 AM
Do I correctly recall that this was true of rather a recent U.S. Senator?

According to Todd, you do.

The villagers might have had a point, actually: a dead mayor is not likely to do any harm, while a living one can be hell on earth.  :laugh:

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on October 07, 2019, 10:56:13 AM
What if Hillary said screw it and decided to deliberately copy all of Trumps ideas and political stances? Since what she did before didn't work. Would she win this time?

It would also be interesting to see what CNN would think about it. They might spontaneously combust from confusion.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 07, 2019, 11:30:42 AM
Quote from: greg on October 07, 2019, 10:56:13 AM
What if Hillary said screw it and decided to deliberately copy all of Trumps ideas and political stances? Since what she did before didn't work. Would she win this time?



    Not only would she win, she'd attain the stature of a goddess, an evil one if that matters, but certainly at least semi-divine.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on October 07, 2019, 12:00:31 PM
Quote from: greg on October 07, 2019, 10:56:13 AM
What if Hillary said screw it and decided to deliberately copy all of Trumps ideas and political stances? Since what she did before didn't work. Would she win this time?

It would also be interesting to see what CNN would think about it. They might spontaneously combust from confusion.

Its the gameshow schtick that sells Trump to his supporters, not his " ideas and political stances", of which he has few beyond what plays well in a rally setting and what-did-Obama-do?-then-lets-do-the-opposite.

Anyone who thinks Hilary wants to get back in race or that she could win in 2020 needs to put down the crack pipe. it's as idiotic as idiotic Michael Moore saying Michelle Obama should run.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 07, 2019, 12:07:27 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on October 07, 2019, 12:00:31 PM
Its the gameshow schtick that sells Trump to his supporters, not his " ideas and political stances", of which he has few beyond what plays well in a rally setting and what-did-Obama-do?-then-lets-do-the-opposite.

Anyone who thinks Hilary wants to get back in race or that she could win in 2020 needs to put down the crack pipe. it's as idiotic as idiotic Michael Moore saying Michelle Obama should run.

It wouldn't surprise me if Hillary does want to get back in the race....based on how she's been acting lately and her general attitude. "Yoohoo, I'm over here, just in case you guys are ready to admit you were wrong about me the first time."

If she were the Democratic nominee, she probably has as a good chance as anyone running against Trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 07, 2019, 01:01:15 PM
Quote from: greg on October 07, 2019, 10:56:13 AM
What if Hillary said screw it and decided to deliberately copy all of Trumps ideas and political stances? Since what she did before didn't work. Would she win this time?

It would also be interesting to see what CNN would think about it. They might spontaneously combust from confusion.

What exactly would be the POINT of winning by that method?

The second most depressing thing about politics is that it has become the art of winning power rather than the art of governing.

The most depressing thing about politics is that voters are so willing to reward this behaviour.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 07, 2019, 02:31:03 PM
I great video about the corporate media bias against Bernie Sanders.
If you wonder why I am so pro-Bernie, this is why.

https://www.youtube.com/v/ApGHzpGgSN8

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on October 07, 2019, 03:20:30 PM
Quote from: Madiel on October 07, 2019, 01:01:15 PM
What exactly would be the POINT of winning by that method?
For her, becoming president.

For us, showing how bleak and hopeless reality is.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 07, 2019, 04:12:45 PM
Quote from: greg on October 07, 2019, 03:20:30 PM
For her, becoming president.

For us, showing how bleak and hopeless reality is.


     Or it would show how purple and dodecahedral reality is. The evidence points both ways.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 08, 2019, 12:10:15 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 07, 2019, 01:01:15 PM
The second most depressing thing about politics is that it has become the art of winning power rather than the art of governing.

The most depressing thing about politics is that voters are so willing to reward this behaviour.

And the third most depressing thing about politics is that the proposed solutions are either utopian or worse than the problem itself.

I'd say that complete cynicism about politics and politicians is fully justified and so is complete indifference about them.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 08, 2019, 12:30:55 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 08, 2019, 12:10:15 AM
I'd say that complete cynicism about politics and politicians is fully justified and so is complete indifference about them.

In a democratic system, the politicians are selected by you.

Except if you don't turn up to vote. Then they're picked by those who do turn up.

And that is why I don't find either of those responses particularly advisable.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 08, 2019, 02:35:57 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 08, 2019, 12:30:55 AM
In a democratic system, the politicians are selected by you.

If they were selected by me, they would perhaps be better than the current ones, but then the system would certainly not be democratic anymore.  :laugh:

In a democratic system politicians are selected by the majority of voters. And as you correctly pointed out, the majority of voters tend to reward power-grabbing more than governing.

As for myself, I'm neither completely cynical nor completely indifferent and I regularly fulfill my civic duty to vote, but I must say than in 30 years of voting I have never been completely or even moderately happy with the results, even when my vote happened to be in the majority.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 08, 2019, 05:14:01 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 08, 2019, 02:35:57 AM


As for myself, I'm neither completely cynical nor completely indifferent and I regularly fulfill my civic duty to vote, but I must say than in 30 years of voting I have never been completely or even moderately happy with the results, even when my vote happened to be in the majority.



     My choice is to hit goals and if that fails establish a trend that heads in that direction. I want the government to send more income into the economy and invest in the big projects that will make us substantially richer than we are today. These projects are called "problems".

   

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 08, 2019, 05:20:02 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 08, 2019, 02:35:57 AM...In a democratic system politicians are selected by the majority of voters. And as you correctly pointed out, the majority of voters tend to reward power-grabbing more than governing...

In the US, as you know, politician #1 -- the President -- is selected through the electoral college (thanks to our ingenious Founding Fathers) to avoid 'the tyranny of the majority.' 

I feel moved to post one of my favorite photos of the God Emperor of the United States at His Inauguration in Washington, DC.  O, Blessings from Heaven!


(https://i.postimg.cc/MT7B70Bp/Pol-GEOTUS-Italy-parade.jpg)

Thread duty:

(https://i.postimg.cc/HsDYDGFR/Pol-twitter-Hillary-thinking-about-running-2020.jpg)


Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 08, 2019, 07:53:54 AM

      Hillary and Biden are poor candidates who would make decent Presidents. They would top up the alliance system TrumPutin thinks important enough to be worth destroying. They would probably get Congress to adopt an economic program that builds things, which will be green or at least green-ish. Everyone could then complain about how much/little is done.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 08, 2019, 08:48:50 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 08, 2019, 12:10:15 AM


I'd say that complete cynicism about politics and politicians is fully justified and so is complete indifference about them.

    Most Ukrainians would disagree. Certainly cynicism and indifference benefited the Putinist kleptocrats.

    So, what's cynicism and indifference for? What does it do?

    The best realists have a little optimism in them. If I do something it will matter, if only a little. If I don't try I won't be able to take heath insurance away from millions of people and the Deep State will win.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 08, 2019, 08:56:26 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 08, 2019, 08:48:50 AM
       So, what's cynicism and indifference for? What does it do?

Cynicism protects one from being duped by unscrupulous, unprincipled and untrustful politicians (are there any other?) posing as honest, principled and trustworthy ones.

Indifference protects one from wringing one's hands and losing sleep over matters which are far beyond one's control.

They might not be the best antidotes to the extreme politicization of just about everything, but certainly yields better results than having confidence in politicians and passionately following their (mis)deeds.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 08, 2019, 08:59:17 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 08, 2019, 08:56:26 AM
Cynicism protects one from being duped by unscrupulous, unprincipled and untrustful politicians (are there any other?) posing as honest, principled and trustworthy ones.

Indifference protects one from wringing one's hands and losing sleep over matters which are far beyond one's control.

They might not be the best antidotes to the extreme politicization of just about everything, but certainly yields better results than having confidence in politicians and passionately following their (mis)deeds.

     You don't need that kind of protection and you'll abandon it right away when something bigger than usual scares you straight.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 08, 2019, 09:05:02 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 08, 2019, 08:59:17 AM
     You don't need that kind of protection and you'll abandon it right away when something bigger than usual scares you straight.

Personally, I vote in every election. Usually I am moderately interested in politics and policies. When the events accelerate I am massively interested in them. All I say is that I can very well see where cynics and indifferents are coming from.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 08, 2019, 09:27:47 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 08, 2019, 09:05:02 AM
Personally, I vote in every election. Usually I am moderately interested in politics and policies. When the events accelerate I am massively interested in them. All I say is that I can very well see where cynics and indifferents are coming from.

     Yes, the "coming from" isn't mysterious at all. The mask of cynicism and indifference slips easily.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 08, 2019, 11:09:11 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 08, 2019, 09:05:02 AM
Personally, I vote in every election. Usually I am moderately interested in politics and policies. When the events accelerate I am massively interested in them. All I say is that I can very well see where cynics and indifferents are coming from.

And then there are the onanist cynics who exult in a president who flouts the Law.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 08, 2019, 11:57:21 AM

     People who have a healthy emotional response to events don't pretend they don't matter. It's healthy to panic and virtue signal, within reason.

     It's good to want to promote values, even your own. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)

     I depart somewhat from my philosophical semi-hero A. J. Ayer who said that values propositions are like the barking of dogs. I think it's more like the barking of an intelligent dog aware of its own reasons. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on October 08, 2019, 03:19:04 PM
Quote from: Muzio on October 08, 2019, 05:20:02 AM
In the US, as you know, politician #1 -- the President -- is selected through the electoral college (thanks to our ingenious Founding Fathers) to avoid 'the tyranny of the majority.' 
Well, the tyranny of the big cities/states. The whole system is conceptualized wrong... it's more like community vs. community (rural vs. urban). Not individual vote vs. individual vote.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 08, 2019, 03:49:58 PM
Bernie Sanders to scale back campaign schedule in the wake of heart attack (https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics/bernie-sanders-heart-attack-symptoms/index.html)

It's CNN, so it's fake news.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 08, 2019, 04:15:01 PM
Quote from: greg on October 08, 2019, 03:19:04 PM
Well, the tyranny of the big cities/states. The whole system is conceptualized wrong... it's more like community vs. community (rural vs. urban). Not individual vote vs. individual vote.

     The big cities and states are on the losing side. The empty zones rule. Wyoming has the same number of Senators as California.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 08, 2019, 04:25:15 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 08, 2019, 11:09:11 AM
And then there are the onanist cynics who exult in a president who flouts the Law.
Totally agree, man.  Thank God the Obama years are over!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 08, 2019, 04:30:13 PM
     After consulting with a psychic I have determined that Million Dollar Man does want to testify.

     He has a lawyer. This lawyer is very OK. He doesn't even a little bit work for Trump, or Pompeo, or Barr.

     The lawyer says don't get in trouble for these people who don't have your best interests at heart. You want to have a life when this is all over. As soon as a court says you have to testify, do so and with righteous vengeance take these fuckers down.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on October 08, 2019, 10:36:04 PM
Quote from: Muzio on October 08, 2019, 04:25:15 PM
Totally agree, man.  Thank God the Obama years are over!
There's still fluoride in the water so the jokes on you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 09, 2019, 03:18:29 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 08, 2019, 09:05:02 AM
Personally, I vote in every election.

Lest I be misunderstood I must add: the fact that I vote does not mean I entertain any hopes or illusions about the outcome, irrespective whether my vote is in the majority or in the minority. I have long since ceased to believe that the grave problems that plague Romania can be fixed by the very same people who created them in the first place. My vote has one, and only one, goal: to limit the power of the Socialists by voting for the party which has either the best chances to defeat them (this is a rare occurence, though) or the best chances to come second. Usually, this means the National Liberal Party --- but given that just a few years ago they were allied with the socialists in the government and are thus directly responsible for the abovementioned problems, I vote for them without any conviction that they are really better and more competent. The only field where they are clearly superior to the Socialists is that they are less corrupt and do not wage war on the independence of justice.

To sum it up, the Romanian government is indeed by the people, with the people, for the people. The problem is that they are always the same people.  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 09, 2019, 03:20:07 AM
Quote from: milk on October 08, 2019, 10:36:04 PM
There's still fluoride in the water so the jokes on you.
Sorry, I have a private well.  My fluoride is in my toothpaste.

(https://i.postimg.cc/KvwDrdD8/evil-smile.gif)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 09, 2019, 05:18:28 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 09, 2019, 03:18:29 AM
Lest I be misunderstood I must add: the fact that I vote does not mean I entertain any hopes or illusions about the outcome, irrespective whether my vote is in the majority or in the minority.

     Way to think outside the box! No, you are not misunderstood. It doesn't matter what hopes or illusions you think those other people entertain. They vote for practical reason not unlike your own, even if they sometimes get a little too hopey for your refined sensibilities. I do, too, by the way. I have illusions about more health insurance under Obama than before he was elected. If you have illusions about the recent past it's not too hard to imagine similar illusions in the near future.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 09, 2019, 05:20:28 AM
Quote from: Muzio on October 09, 2019, 03:20:07 AM
Sorry, I have a private well.  My fluoride is in my toothpaste.

(https://i.postimg.cc/KvwDrdD8/evil-smile.gif)

     I have distilled water in my bomb shelter. I'm not the least bit sorry.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 10, 2019, 01:26:48 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 09, 2019, 05:20:28 AM
     I have distilled water in my bomb shelter. I'm not the least bit sorry.

I see.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 10, 2019, 04:48:12 AM

     If I support a candidate that wants to change things a little more than average, a critical interpretation of my position could include my supposed lack of realism about what could be accomplished by a leftish President. The assumption must be that a realist would be someone who supported a candidate guaranteeing that little would be attempted. That seems to me like fatalism more than realism.

     A more sophisticated form of realism would include all the factors. In order to achieve something you try to achieve more than something. How things work is how things have worked. Where did Social Security come from, eh? Was it a Martian virus? Did nobody want it into existence? Was it unrealistic?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 10, 2019, 01:54:44 PM
Quote from: Todd on October 08, 2019, 03:49:58 PM
Bernie Sanders to scale back campaign schedule in the wake of heart attack (https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics/bernie-sanders-heart-attack-symptoms/index.html)

It's CNN, so it's fake news.

Actually:

CNN Caught Doctoring Photos & Video Of Bernie Sanders.

https://www.youtube.com/v/iuHlWe_aydE
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on October 10, 2019, 04:06:31 PM
There are probably other, and better, Sanders spokespeople you can be following and quoting.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on October 10, 2019, 04:27:44 PM
That's not what the CNN article above does. Its not even what the title says.


If Sanders gets the nomination the Trump people will now be saying "heart attack" a thousand times a day. And, frankly, battling whatever smear campaigns they have waiting for him would have to be stress enough to strain even the healthiest person.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 11, 2019, 03:36:17 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on October 10, 2019, 04:27:44 PM
That's not what the CNN article above does. Its not even what the title says.


If Sanders gets the nomination the Trump people will now be saying "heart attack" a thousand times a day. And, frankly, battling whatever smear campaigns they have waiting for him would have to be stress enough to strain even the healthiest person.

Would be quite ironic if one heart attack prevented the US finally join the rest of the developped World and give all people healthcare as a human right.

Clearly you don't believe in Bernie, but I do, because I know he is a fighter and thanks to this operation feeling now better than for years (so that CNN manipulates video and pictures of him to make him look worse) and I also understand how important it is to have this man as the next president of the USA.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 11, 2019, 07:45:18 AM


     There is not enough "believe in" in the solar system to make Bernie President. He has an outside chance if Trump implodes and the front runner Dems all grow horns, not just little bumps like they probably have now.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 11, 2019, 08:18:41 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 11, 2019, 07:45:18 AM

     There is not enough "believe in" in the solar system to make Bernie President.

I believe you're right.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 11, 2019, 12:23:41 PM
Quote from: drogulus on October 11, 2019, 07:45:18 AM

     There is not enough "believe in" in the solar system to make Bernie President. He has an outside chance if Trump implodes and the front runner Dems all grow horns, not just little bumps like they probably have now.

So in your opinion Bernie collecting more money than anybody else in Q3 and having more individual donors (1.4 million) than others and polling at third of the democratic candidates and having one of the highest vs Trump polling means nothing? You believe what you want, but the facts don't care about your feelings.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 11, 2019, 04:32:51 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 11, 2019, 12:23:41 PM
So in your opinion Bernie collecting more money than anybody else in Q3 and having more individual donors (1.4 million) than others and polling at third of the democratic candidates and having one of the highest vs Trump polling means nothing? You believe what you want, but the facts don't care about your feelings.

It's not the people who will vote for Bernie that are important. It's the people who won't vote for him.

I have said this before. Any candidate you think is good on policy will lose to Trump because of their policies.Trump is closer to the center of American policies than any current Democrat.  It's an unfortunate fact, but it's a fact.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 11, 2019, 04:39:52 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 11, 2019, 12:23:41 PM
So in your opinion Bernie collecting more money than anybody else in Q3 and having more individual donors (1.4 million) than others and polling at third of the democratic candidates and having one of the highest vs Trump polling means nothing? You believe what you want, but the facts don't care about your feelings.

     I'm not good at believing stuff and having feelings like that. Something is always getting in the way.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 11, 2019, 05:37:22 PM
For benefit of 71db, the problems with Medicare for All he won't hear from Kyle & Co.
https://reason.com/2019/10/09/why-the-failure-of-vermonts-single-payer-plan-is-the-best-argument-against-medicare-for-all/

As I said before, don't expect the majority of the American public to support a program that will result in worse health care for the majority of the American public.

The "corporate oligarchy proposals" at least focus on the most immediate problem: getting health insurance to people who can't get it now.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: musicrom on October 11, 2019, 07:07:21 PM
Quote from: JBS on October 11, 2019, 04:32:51 PM
It's not the people who will vote for Bernie that are important. It's the people who won't vote for him.

I have said this before. Any candidate you think is good on policy will lose to Trump because of their policies.Trump is closer to the center of American policies than any current Democrat.  It's an unfortunate fact, but it's a fact.

That's based on your gut feel, and not fact. Look at polling on nearly any issue, and you'll find the opposite result.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 03:08:20 AM
Quote from: JBS on October 11, 2019, 04:32:51 PM
It's not the people who will vote for Bernie that are important. It's the people who won't vote for him.

I have said this before. Any candidate you think is good on policy will lose to Trump because of their policies.Trump is closer to the center of American policies than any current Democrat.  It's an unfortunate fact, but it's a fact.

Bernie's challenge is getting the democratic nomination. Elizabeth Warren is leading and attracts a lot of left-leaning people and people don't know well enough there is significant differences between the two. Beating Trump is easy for Bernie. Trump is very far from Americans. Last time he was able to fool people with his fake economical populism, but is he able to fool again those truck drivers his policies have hurt? Or those millions of people who have lost their healtcare under Trump?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 03:13:06 AM
Quote from: JBS on October 11, 2019, 05:37:22 PM
For benefit of 71db, the problems with Medicare for All he won't hear from Kyle & Co.
https://reason.com/2019/10/09/why-the-failure-of-vermonts-single-payer-plan-is-the-best-argument-against-medicare-for-all/

As I said before, don't expect the majority of the American public to support a program that will result in worse health care for the majority of the American public.

The "corporate oligarchy proposals" at least focus on the most immediate problem: getting health insurance to people who can't get it now.

I don't know the details of Vermont single payer, but the article is a clear hit piece against medicare for all in order to protect the financial interests of Big Pharma and insurance companies. I assume the problems in Vermont are about duplicate care, in other words private insurers cherry pick good customers and leave bad customers to single payer, but as I said I don't know the details.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 12, 2019, 04:47:09 AM
Quote from: JBS on October 11, 2019, 04:32:51 PM
I have said this before. Any candidate you think is good on policy will lose to Trump because of their policies.Trump is closer to the center of American policies than any current Democrat.  It's an unfortunate fact, but it's a fact.

Very, very true!  It is not even close.  Hence, "muh Russia" and now "muh impeachment."

Of course, I think that it is a fortunate fact.


(https://i.postimg.cc/8k6Jkv5P/Pol-cmon-do-something-impeachment.jpg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 12, 2019, 06:33:32 AM
Quote from: Muzio on October 12, 2019, 04:47:09 AM
Very, very true!  It is not even close.  Hence, "muh Russia" and now "muh impeachment."

Of course, I think that it is a fortunate fact.


(https://i.postimg.cc/8k6Jkv5P/Pol-cmon-do-something-impeachment.jpg)

     Impeachment is driven by different priorities than electioneering, though in some minds they overlap. In most minds they conflict. I'm probably in the majority when I say that impeachment is mandatory but might be unhelpful electorally. The mandatory is in plain sight, the possible election effects unknown.

     There is the possibility that impeachment would damage Trump with his own voter base. There's some indication in polling that a growing but still small percentage of Trumpists are "pre-voting" against Trump by supporting impeachment. One should ask what a 2-3% decline in the Trump vote would mean in swing states.

     What's the likelihood of a sympathy/backlash vote for Trump? How many undecided would rush to his banner because Dems treated him very unfairly?

     Most Americans didn't like TrumPutin 2016 and seeing it confirmed by TrumPutin 2020 exposing the links to a continuous effort to rig U.S. elections, they have had enough. But they have had enough with or without impeachment, which will end up being a trial of the Congress and the courts as much as it will the Evil and Insane One.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 12, 2019, 07:23:57 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 03:08:20 AM
Bernie's challenge is getting the democratic nomination. Elizabeth Warren is leading and attracts a lot of left-leaning people and people don't know well enough there is significant differences between the two. Beating Trump is easy for Bernie. Trump is very far from Americans. Last time he was able to fool people with his fake economical populism, but is he able to fool again those truck drivers his policies have hurt? Or those millions of people who have lost their healtcare under Trump?

     Let me try to have an opinion and feelings, see how it goes:

     (https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/10/11/us/democratic-candidates-campaigns-promo-1570844437650/democratic-candidates-campaigns-promo-1570844437650-threeByTwoMediumAt2X.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale&width=1100)

 

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 12, 2019, 09:57:56 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 03:08:20 AM
Bernie's challenge is getting the democratic nomination. Elizabeth Warren is leading and attracts a lot of left-leaning people and people don't know well enough there is significant differences between the two. Beating Trump is easy for Bernie. Trump is very far from Americans. Last time he was able to fool people with his fake economical populism, but is he able to fool again those truck drivers his policies have hurt? Or those millions of people who have lost their healtcare under Trump?

What if you are mistaken, and Warren is a superior nominee to Bernie?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 12, 2019, 10:00:28 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 12, 2019, 07:23:57 AM
     Let me try to have an opinion and feelings, see how it goes:

     (https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/10/11/us/democratic-candidates-campaigns-promo-1570844437650/democratic-candidates-campaigns-promo-1570844437650-threeByTwoMediumAt2X.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale&width=1100)

 

     

Warren outnumbers Bernie 19 to 9? That doesn't sound like Bernie is awash in resources, not to me...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 12:59:50 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 12, 2019, 09:57:56 AM
What if you are mistaken, and Warren is a superior nominee to Bernie?

Superior in what way? Warren is not as progressive as Bernie. Bernie is 1000 % behind medicare for all, Warren is 80 %. Bernie wants to elimininate all student loan debt, Warren wants to eliminate some of it and so on.

As for who wins I don't know, but if the US wants real change it better be Bernie.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 12, 2019, 01:00:03 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 12, 2019, 09:57:56 AM
What if you are mistaken...?

You kidding? How could a disciple of Kyle Kulinski ever be mistaken?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 01:07:39 PM
Quote from: Florestan on October 12, 2019, 01:00:03 PM
You kidding? How could a disciple of Kyle Kulinski ever be mistaken?

In 2016 I didn't follow US politics and I didn't listen to Kyle Kulinski. That's why I didn't believe Trump could win. Had I listened to him I would have learned before Trump won Republican nomination (and even a lot of Republicans didn't believe in Trump's chances) that Trump CAN not only win the Republican nomination but ALSO become the president! Kyle Kulinski knew that and warned people about it. How did he knew? He analysed the facts as he always does.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 12, 2019, 01:13:39 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 12:59:50 PM
Superior in what way? Warren is not as progressive as Bernie. Bernie is 1000 % behind medicare for all, Warren is 80 %. Bernie wants to elimininate all student loan debt, Warren wants to eliminate some of it and so on.

As for who wins I don't know, but if the US wants real change it better be Bernie.

See, all your comparisons are about wanting rather than about RESULTS.

Ever heard the phrase "the perfect is the enemy of the good"? You are currently sounding like the kind of person who would reject, say, the partial elimination of student debt because it isn't total elimination of student debt, and end up getting no elimination of student debt at all.

Politics is the art of the possible. We are talking about a system where the President doesn't get to just achieve whatever they want. So if you want a possible reason Warren is superior (and I'm not deciding this, just raising it with you), it could be along the lines of wanting change that is achievable rather than wanting "real change" that will be too much for some.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 12, 2019, 01:19:00 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 12:59:50 PM
Superior in what way?

     In any way, like the ability to produce more change than change talk. My goal is not to get the most ideologically compatible person nominated. It's not that simple. I want to see someone nominated that will be able to effect desirable change if elected. In some countries with a parliamentary system you can support the party and know what you'll get. Our system isn't like that. We may only have unified government for 2 years and time for one big change, like OCare.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 01:20:58 PM
If you are a right-winger, the lefties attack you online
If you are a lefty, the right-wingers attack you online
If you are ignorant, smart people attack you online
If you are smart, ignorant people attack you online
No matter who or what you are, someone will attack you online

Don't want to be attacked? Just get offline...  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 01:26:04 PM
Quote from: Madiel on October 12, 2019, 01:13:39 PM
See, all your comparisons are about wanting rather than about RESULTS.

Ever heard the phrase "the perfect is the enemy of the good"? You are currently sounding like the kind of person who would reject, say, the partial elimination of student debt because it isn't total elimination of student debt, and end up getting no elimination of student debt at all.

Politics is the art of the possible. We are talking about a system where the President doesn't get to just achieve whatever they want. So if you want a possible reason Warren is superior (and I'm not deciding this, just raising it with you), it could be along the lines of wanting change that is achievable rather than wanting "real change" that will be too much for some.

Republicans don't come to your side. If you start from half-point you get nothing. You have to start from the furthest left position. Bernie has the plan, how to remove money from politics and restore democracy, how to have grassroot movement, people on street to demand change.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 12, 2019, 01:28:01 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 01:26:04 PM
Republicans don't come to your side. If you start from half-point you get nothing. You have to start from the furthest left position. Bernie has the plan, how to remove money from politics and restore democracy, how to have grassroot movement, people on street to demand change.

But Bernie would lose to Trump. Thereby rendering all that irrelevant.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 12, 2019, 01:28:57 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 01:26:04 PMYou have to start from the furthest left position.


Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama all disagree with you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 01:29:26 PM
Quote from: drogulus on October 12, 2019, 01:19:00 PM
     In any way, like the ability to produce more change than change talk. My goal is not to get the most ideologically compatible person nominated. It's not that simple. I want to see someone nominated that will be able to effect desirable change if elected. In some countries with a parliamentary system you can support the party and know what you'll get. Our system isn't like that. We may only have unified government for 2 years and time for one big change, like OCare.

You can vote for anyone you want. I have my FAVORITE ok?. I can't even vote so my opinion is harmless to rich Americans.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 01:31:08 PM
Quote from: Todd on October 12, 2019, 01:28:57 PM

Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama all disagree with you.

So? The US needs a real progressive instead of a corporate centrist. Trump is a desperate symptom of that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 12, 2019, 01:32:08 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 01:31:08 PM
So?


They won.  They know US politics.  You are an ignorant non-American beholden to irrelevant and foolish ideas.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 01:33:24 PM
Quote from: Todd on October 12, 2019, 01:32:08 PM

They won.  They know US politics.  You are an ignorant non-American beholden to irrelevant and foolish ideas.

They won? Yes, but it didn't help regular americans at all. It helped the top 1 %.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 12, 2019, 01:35:21 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 01:33:24 PM
They won? Yes, but it didn't help regular americans at all. It helped the top 1 %.


Incorrect.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 12, 2019, 01:41:02 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 01:31:08 PM
So? The US needs a real progressive instead of a corporate centrist. Trump is a desperate symptom of that.

Which is preferable? A progressive who would implement radical change but has no real chance of being elected, or a centrist who will implement smaller changes but has a good chance of being elected?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 01:47:34 PM
Quote from: Todd on October 12, 2019, 01:35:21 PM

Incorrect.

So why did Trump win? Why would people vote for an "outsider" for an desparate attempt to have change if corporate centrists govern so well? Wouldn't corporate centrist Hillary Clinton have been a much "safer" option? Kind of the same as Obama, only a woman. Maybe people hated Hillary because they are sick and tired of the corruption and they were disappointed to Obama who wasn't lefty enough (Obama campaigned as a lefty, but governed as a centrist and couldn't do even public option with super majority, instead did Republican healthcare plan to secure the interests of insurance companies).

Why has the salaries stagnated for 40 years? Why does the richest people have lower tax rate than middle class? Why do millions of people lack healthcare coverage and be underinsured? Why does half of American make $30.000 or less in the richest country in the world? Perhaps these are the reasons why Trump's fake populism resonated with the voters?

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 01:52:32 PM
Quote from: JBS on October 12, 2019, 01:41:02 PM
Which is preferable? A progressive who would implement radical change but has no real chance of being elected, or a centrist who will implement smaller changes but has a good chance of being elected?

The top three at the moment includes two progressives and one centrist. Could it be a sign of the frustration people have for incrementalism? If people preferred smaller changes surely candidates like Kamala Harris would poll much higher? Only the former VP is high in the polls and even he is in danger of losing support when people realize how bad candidate he is.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 12, 2019, 01:53:17 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 01:47:34 PM
So why did Trump win? Why would people vote for an "outsider" for an desparate attempt to have change if corporate centrists govern so well? Wouldn't corporate centrist Hillary Clinton have been a much "safer" option? Kind of the same as Obama, only a woman. Maybe people hated Hillary because they are sick and tired of the corruption and they were disappointed to Obama who wasn't lefty enough (Obama campaigned as a lefty, but governed as a centrist and couldn't do even public option with super majority, instead did Republican healthcare plan to secure the interests of insurance companies).

Why has the salaries stagnated for 40 years? Why does the richest people have lower tax rate than middle class? Why do millions of people lack healthcare coverage and be underinsured? Why does half of American make $30.000 or less in the richest country in the world? Perhaps these are the reasons why Trump's fake populism resonated with the voters?


You do not see and cannot understand that this list of irrelevant though supposedly thoughtful questions does not obscure the fact that your prior assertion was completely, factually wrong.  Also, this question begging reinforces the obvious reality that you know nothing about US politics, despite your protests to the contrary.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 01:57:56 PM
Quote from: Todd on October 12, 2019, 01:53:17 PM

You do not see and cannot understand that this list of irrelevant though supposedly thoughtful questions does not obscure the fact that your prior assertion was completely, factually wrong.  Also, this question begging reinforces the obvious reality that you know nothing about US politics, despite your protests to the contrary.

You can say 1000 times I don't know anything, but you can still be wrong. Let's see who is right in this election. I follow Kyle Kulinski (he is American so you can't call him a non-american ignoramus) and I am confident I get good insight. You don't follow him. You follow more corporate sources. Let's see which one of us knows better!  ;)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 12, 2019, 01:58:45 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 01:47:34 PM
So why did Trump win? Why would people vote for an "outsider" for an desparate attempt to have change if corporate centrists govern so well? Wouldn't corporate centrist Hillary Clinton have been a much "safer" option? Kind of the same as Obama, only a woman. Maybe people hated Hillary because they are sick and tired of the corruption and they were disappointed to Obama who wasn't lefty enough (Obama campaigned as a lefty, but governed as a centrist and couldn't do even public option with super majority, instead did Republican healthcare plan to secure the interests of insurance companies).

Why has the salaries stagnated for 40 years? Why does the richest people have lower tax rate than middle class? Why do millions of people lack healthcare coverage and be underinsured? Why does half of American make $30.000 or less in the richest country in the world? Perhaps these are the reasons why Trump's fake populism resonated with the voters?

Hillary lost because she was corrupt and arrogant and completely lacking in charisma. She didn't lose because of her policies.

Obama actually campaigned as a centrist and then tried to govern as a leftist in domestic policy.

Trump's racism and social conservatism  resonated with a large segment of economically stagnant whites. His economic populism was just icing on the cake
Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 01:52:32 PM
The top three at the moment includes two progressives and one centrist. Could it be a sign of the frustration people have for incrementalism? If people preferred smaller changes surely candidates like Kamala Harris would poll much higher? Only the former VP is high in the polls and even he is in danger of losing support when people realize how bad candidate he is.

You mistake popularity with progressive activists for popularity with actual voters.  The key ingredient to Sanders, Warren and Biden being top tier is that they are already well known to the public, unlike the rest.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 12, 2019, 02:00:42 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 01:57:56 PM
You can say 1000 times I don't know anything, but you can still be wrong. Let's see who is right in this election. I follow Kyle Kulinski (he is American so you can't call him a non-american ignoramus) and I am confident I get good insight. You don't follow him. You follow more corporate sources. Let's see which one of us knows better!  ;)

I am right. Todd is right. You are wrong. The reason: we know our sources are propaganda and calibrate accordingly. You don't.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 02:02:49 PM
I can't change anyones mind.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 02:05:10 PM
Quote from: JBS on October 12, 2019, 02:00:42 PM
I am right. Todd is right. You are wrong. The reason: we know our sources are propaganda and calibrate accordingly. You don't.

DO you think I am right about anything or am I wrong about everything? Why do you think I am wrong?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 02:06:06 PM
It suck to be called ignorant. I follow politics HOURS daily!!! IT MUST GIVE KNOWLEDGE!!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 02:06:35 PM
HOW MUCH DO YOU??????
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 02:09:14 PM
Don't you think about my feelings? why are you so unfriendly? I am friendly just frustrated of people's ignorance.
I understand so much more than you so this is frustrating. I think I know more than anyone here, american or non-american.
I follow so much. That's why I know and it's frustrating to see ignorant posts.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 12, 2019, 02:10:54 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 02:05:10 PM
DO you think I am right about anything or am I wrong about everything? Why do you think I am wrong?

You are wrong about US politics because you have mistaken advocacy of leftist positions for an impartial source.
The Young Turks are biased, present only what is favorable to their side, and are merely propagandists.

OTOH, you are right about Elgar.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 02:16:36 PM
Quote from: JBS on October 12, 2019, 01:58:45 PM
Hillary lost because she was corrupt and arrogant and completely lacking in charisma. She didn't lose because of her policies.
Her policies also sucked. She was very bad overall.

Quote from: JBS on October 12, 2019, 01:58:45 PMObama actually campaigned as a centrist and then tried to govern as a leftist in domestic policy.

No, he campaigned more left than governed.

Quote from: JBS on October 12, 2019, 01:58:45 PMTrump's racism and social conservatism  resonated with a large segment of economically stagnant whites. His economic populism was just icing on the cake

Yes, but he got more non-racist votes and those where away from Hillary. That's why Hillary lost in the rust belt. Trump talked about bringing jobs back, Hillary didn't.

Quote from: JBS on October 12, 2019, 01:58:45 PMYou mistake popularity with progressive activists for popularity with actual voters.  The key ingredient to Sanders, Warren and Biden being top tier is that they are already well known to the public, unlike the rest.

Activist are people too. At least Bernie has got tons of activists. How about Klobuchar? Progressives have a message thar resonates to people.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 02:24:31 PM
Quote from: JBS on October 12, 2019, 02:10:54 PM
You are wrong about US politics because you have mistaken advocacy of leftist positions for an impartial source.
The Young Turks are biased, present only what is favorable to their side, and are merely propagandists.

OTOH, you are right about Elgar.

Yes, The Young Turks are biased and they say it themselves! Their bias is what's best for regular people instead of what good for the rich (corporate media bias). Corporate media never admits their bias and that's where YOU go wrong. You don't realize how unreliable corporate media is. Also, you don't realize how far right the Overton Window has been pushed, so right that even MSNBC opposes Trump from the RIGHT when Trump does something that the establishment doesn't like.

I am right about Elgar? In what way?  :o
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 12, 2019, 02:29:03 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 01:20:58 PM
If you are a right-winger, the lefties attack you online
If you are a lefty, the right-wingers attack you online
If you are ignorant, smart people attack you online
If you are smart, ignorant people attack you online
No matter who or what you are, someone will attack you online

Don't want to be attacked? Just get offline...  ::)

By all means, please do.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 12, 2019, 02:34:09 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 02:09:14 PM
Don't you think about my feelings?

Just what have your feelings got to do with American politics, or any politics at all for that matter?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 02:38:16 PM
Quote from: Florestan on October 12, 2019, 02:34:09 PM
Just what have your feelings got to do with American politics, or any politics at all for that matter?

Politics does make me VERY nervous. When democracy doesn't work, politicians make decisions that are catastrophic to regular people.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 12, 2019, 02:40:43 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 02:38:16 PM
Politics does make me VERY nervous.

Make love, not war politics.

No, really, sex is gonna make you feel calmer and happier. Try it just for once.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 12, 2019, 03:08:48 PM
Quote from: Florestan on October 12, 2019, 01:00:03 PM
You kidding? How could a disciple of Kyle Kulinski ever be mistaken?


That's pretty much the reply I am expecting from him.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 12, 2019, 03:11:46 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 01:57:56 PMYou can say 1000 times I don't know anything, but you can still be wrong.


True, but in this case I am not wrong: you are an ignorant non-American.

Also, Bernie's candidacy is toast.  The last presidential level candidate to politically survive a heart attack was LBJ.  Bernie is not LBJ.  You are spluttering on about a has-been.  That is what ignorant people do.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 12, 2019, 03:13:12 PM
Quote from: JBS on October 12, 2019, 02:10:54 PM
You are wrong about US politics because you have mistaken advocacy of leftist positions for an impartial source.
The Young Turks are biased, present only what is favorable to their side, and are merely propagandists.

OTOH, you are right about Elgar.

Well, the "vibrational fields" wheeze was an amusing diversion.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 03:57:54 PM
Quote from: Todd on October 12, 2019, 03:11:46 PM

True, but in this case I am not wrong: you are an ignorant non-American.

Also, Bernie's candidacy is toast.  The last presidential level candidate to politically survive a heart attack was LBJ.  Bernie is not LBJ.  You are spluttering on about a has-been.  That is what ignorant people do.

In the age of internet, information is not limited to certain geographical location. So, it doesn't matter where I live as long as I have internet access. In fact when it comes to politics, I think average Europeans know more than average Americans.

We see about Bernie. I believe in him and so does many more. He is feeling better than he did. Corporate media tells otherwise, even tinkers with photos and video to advance their narrative bacause they hate Bernie. You can believe corporate media if you want, but you are a fool if you do.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 12, 2019, 04:07:11 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 03:57:54 PM
In the age of internet, information is not limited to certain geographical location. So, it doesn't matter where I live as long as I have internet access.

Internet access, ie an idiot plus Google.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 12, 2019, 04:24:32 PM
Quote from: Florestan on October 12, 2019, 04:07:11 PM
Internet access, ie an idiot plus Google.

Yes, his internet access is not merely the equivalent, but superior to JBS's and my being here when Obama was campaigning....  :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 12, 2019, 04:43:34 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 12, 2019, 04:24:32 PM
Yes, his internet access is not merely the equivalent, but superior to JBS's and my being here when Obama was campaigning....  :P

He is actually half correct about Obama, since in foreign policy O campaigned as a moderate leftist but kept most of the centrist policies the Left hates.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 12, 2019, 05:16:12 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 03:57:54 PMIn the age of internet, information is not limited to certain geographical location.


That's not true; that's a platitude.  There are literally millions/billions/trillions of pages (no one actually knows) of documentation that have not been digitized and are not available online.  It exists at all governmental levels, and in private entities.  It is not at all uncommon for information to be withheld from the internet.

Beyond that, as your posts and the sources you cite show, not all information available online is of equal value.  You rely on shit sources, and your writing reflects that.


Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 03:57:54 PMI think average Europeans know more than average Americans.


It would be dandy if you could provide some verifiable evidence supporting this assertion. 


Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 03:57:54 PMYou can believe corporate media if you want, but you are a fool if you do.


This has become a religious belief for you. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 05:50:09 PM
Quote from: Todd on October 12, 2019, 05:16:12 PM

That's not true; that's a platitude.  There are literally millions/billions/trillions of pages (no one actually knows) of documentation that have not been digitized and are not available online.  It exists at all governmental levels, and in private entities.  It is not at all uncommon for information to be withheld from the internet.

Are you saying you have access to these millions/billions/trillions of non-digitized pages? If not then you have the same internet I have. What if John Iadarola of TYT reads some of these pages and speaks about them on TYT video I watch on Youtube? What if Bernie Sanders has used these documents while "writing the damn healthcare bill"? Sure, there are tons of classified information that is kept from the public, but why should you have any more access to that information than I do?

Quote from: Todd on October 12, 2019, 05:16:12 PMBeyond that, as your posts and the sources you cite show, not all information available online is of equal value.  You rely on shit sources, and your writing reflects that.
My sources are good and your silly opinions don't change that. Your shitty corporate sources thought Klobuchar and other corporate hacks would have a change. My good sources laughed at that and how is Klobuchar doing? Polling at 1 %. Only Biden is doing well of the corporate hacks. That's weak "default" support from older people who don't follow politics intensively and support Biden because he is a familiar face/name and former VP of the Obama years which look golden in the Trump era. However, in time many of these people will realize Biden is a bad candidate suffering not only from mental decline but also from political agenda that doesn't really offer anything to regular people. "Nothing will chance" message resonates only for those who have it good right now, the top 5 % or so. So, Biden will come down and then we see who gets his supporters.

Quote from: Todd on October 12, 2019, 05:16:12 PMBIt would be dandy if you could provide some verifiable evidence supporting this assertion. 

Europeans wouldn't have elected Trump. Not even close.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 12, 2019, 06:04:39 PM
You're mistaking the Democratic Party for the general electorate. Winning the first but not the second means Trump gets re-elected. A real progressive won't win the general precisely because they are a real progressive. When the Young Turks tell you otherwise, they aren't being accurate.
Klochubar is at one percent not because she's a centrist but because no one outside her hime state knows who she is.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 12, 2019, 06:17:40 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 05:50:09 PMAre you saying you have access to these millions/billions/trillions of non-digitized pages?


No, of course not, and that's not what I claimed.  I have read internal, local political documents that purposely were not placed online, and every day I work with documents that would be illegal to put online.  The clear, simple point is that not everything is available online.


Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 05:50:09 PMMy sources are good


No, they are not.


Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 05:50:09 PMYour shitty corporate sources thought Klobuchar and other corporate hacks would have a change.


You'd have to point me to sources that stated Ms Klobuchar had a good chance.  The corporate sources I rely on always characterized her as a long shot, and most questioned her personality and electability.  This represents a case where you, being a gullible and ignorant non-American, were bamboozled by your shit sources.


Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 05:50:09 PMEuropeans wouldn't have elected Trump. Not even close.


So no, you are not capable of providing verifiable evidence for your prior assertion. 

In any event, various Yurpeans have elected, directly or indirectly, in the recent past (as in immediate past or not too many years ago) Viktor Orbán, Sebastian Kurz, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Silvio Berlusconi, and Nicolas Sarkozy.  I know there are others, but I can't be bothered to even use Google to look up irrelevant Yurpean leaders.  Oh, and Yurpeans still have a shit-ton of royalty.  So the headline evidence conclusively refutes your nonsense.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 12, 2019, 08:21:35 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 01:20:58 PM
If you are a right-winger, the lefties attack you online
If you are a lefty, the right-wingers attack you online
If you are ignorant, smart people attack you online
If you are smart, ignorant people attack you online
No matter who or what you are, someone will attack you online

Don't want to be attacked? Just get offline...  ::)

I'm a lefty, you're a lefty. How does THAT fit in with your attempts to box everyone?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 12, 2019, 08:24:43 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 02:06:06 PM
It suck to be called ignorant. I follow politics HOURS daily!!! IT MUST GIVE KNOWLEDGE!!

It must give information. It might give knowledge. The more important question is whether it gives wisdom.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on October 12, 2019, 09:47:54 PM
Quote from: Madiel on October 12, 2019, 01:13:39 PM
See, all your comparisons are about wanting rather than about RESULTS.

Ever heard the phrase "the perfect is the enemy of the good"? You are currently sounding like the kind of person who would reject, say, the partial elimination of student debt because it isn't total elimination of student debt, and end up getting no elimination of student debt at all.
Exactly what I've noticed, especially with regards to "progressivism" in general.



Quote from: 71 dB on October 12, 2019, 01:26:04 PM
Republicans don't come to your side. If you start from half-point you get nothing. You have to start from the furthest left position. Bernie has the plan, how to remove money from politics and restore democracy, how to have grassroot movement, people on street to demand change.
That's completely the wrong approach to things in general.
Basic psychological explanation, since that may be your weak point.

When you want something to go a certain way (regarding people especially), you do only two things: 1) apply a little bit of force slowly and gradually, or 2) apply enough force to kill.

When you apply force and do not kill, you ALWAYS create a pushback and resentment. Even if you are morally "right," you will be resented for being an asshole and people will magnifying the downsides to your ideas (yes, there's downsides to literally everything).

The correct approach (which yes, unfortunately requires patience):

Quote
The boiling frog is a fable describing a frog being slowly boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is put suddenly into boiling water, it will jump out, but if the frog is put in tepid water which is then brought to a boil slowly, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 13, 2019, 03:09:13 AM
Quote from: JBS on October 12, 2019, 06:04:39 PM
You're mistaking the Democratic Party for the general electorate. Winning the first but not the second means Trump gets re-elected. A real progressive won't win the general precisely because they are a real progressive. When the Young Turks tell you otherwise, they aren't being accurate.
Klochubar is at one percent not because she's a centrist but because no one outside her hime state knows who she is.

Do you really think TYT lies? Sure, they have their bias and covers things from their perspective, but they still try to tell it how it is. Corporate media does that and smears things. TYT tells it how it is and admits when they predicted wrong, something that happens to anyone. Google yourself some polls of Bernie vs Trump and see. All the top three Warren, Biden and Bernie are +6 to +10 percentage points over Trump at the moment, althou I think Biden would be in bigger trouble against Trump than people think, but that's what the polls tell. Further analyse tells Bernie is strong in the important rust belt and that's why the left says Bernie would wipe the floor with Trump in the general. Winning the Democratic Party nomination is much harder for Bernie than beating Trump and that's what Bernie supporters are doing at the moment, trying to convince people that Bernie is the best candidate by far.

Sure, Klobuchar isn't well known, but so wasn't Andrew Yang who is polling at 8 % I believe, because Andrew Yang has actually a vision for the country unlike Klobuchar. Yang is for UBI, whereas Klobuchar is for nothing if you don't count "change nothing that could hurt my filthy rich donors." Biden has reserved most of those votes. Corporate media didn't say in the beginning Klobuchar has no change. The lefty Youtubers said and laughed at Klobuchar ever since she announced. Corporate media likes candidates like Klobuchar who they know won't rock the boat of oligarchy so they covered her favorably while pushing a narrative that "crazy" Bernie is a has-been with no change. Well, Bernie isn't polling 1 %, Klobuchar is.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 13, 2019, 03:20:28 AM
Quote from: greg on October 12, 2019, 09:47:54 PM
Exactly what I've noticed, especially with regards to "progressivism" in general.


That's completely the wrong approach to things in general.
Basic psychological explanation, since that may be your weak point.

When you want something to go a certain way (regarding people especially), you do only two things: 1) apply a little bit of force slowly and gradually, or 2) apply enough force to kill.

When you apply force and do not kill, you ALWAYS create a pushback and resentment. Even if you are morally "right," you will be resented for being an asshole and people will magnifying the downsides to your ideas (yes, there's downsides to literally everything).

The correct approach (which yes, unfortunately requires patience):

Well, people get sick today and need healthcare today, not in 100 years. American's have waited improvements for decades and it isn't working. When Democrats are in power you take one step forward (ObamaCare) and then you have Republicans in power and you take one step back (ObamaCare repeal). Once medicare for all is in place, nobody can take it away, because healthcare has become a human right. So, while your philosophy works in many areas of life, the US has come to a point where more radical solutions are needed.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 13, 2019, 04:50:10 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 13, 2019, 03:20:28 AM
Well, people get sick today and need healthcare today, not in 100 years.

In that case you should tell medical science it has to find the cure for everything now.

Seriously, do you have any idea how stupid this sounds? Nope, you won't accept incremental change because it won't save EVERYBODY. Well guess what? Incremental change is how the science progresses, never mind the politics.  A few decades ago HIV infection was completely untreatable. Then there were treatments that could prolong patient's lives, and you would have looked down your nose at those treatments and said "it's not a cure".

We still don't HAVE a cure. What we have are treatments good enough to mean that people who keep taking their pills don't get sick and don't have a detectable viral load. But they have to keep taking pills their entire lives.

QuoteWhen Democrats are in power you take one step forward (ObamaCare) and then you have Republicans in power and you take one step back (ObamaCare repeal). Once medicare for all is in place, nobody can take it away, because healthcare has become a human right.

That last sentence is so utterly absurd as to barely dignify a response. Medicare for all could be repealed in exactly the same way any other healthcare package could be. You clearly have no understanding of human rights.

Maybe you should hold off posting long-distance and rejoin the conversation when you've arrived back in the real world.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 13, 2019, 06:02:30 AM
Hunter Biden stepping down from Chinese firm, vows no foreign work if father wins in 2020 (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/465563-hunter-biden-stepping-down-from-chinese-firm-vows-no-foreign-work-if-father)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 13, 2019, 06:30:23 AM

     (https://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/baseofsupport.png)

     Ordinary Americans can be herded into strict conformation with ideological categories. They don't always do it to themselves. Pundits want people to observe distinctions that flatter the punditry, while many Americans don't even know what that means, or if they do, care.

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 13, 2019, 07:44:12 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 13, 2019, 04:50:10 AM
In that case you should tell medical science it has to find the cure for everything now.
What?

Current system in the US: You get help IF you are covered and IF the cure exists.
Medicare for all: You get help IF the cure exists, because everyone is covered.

Quote from: Madiel on October 13, 2019, 04:50:10 AMSeriously, do you have any idea how stupid this sounds? Nope, you won't accept incremental change because it won't save EVERYBODY. Well guess what? Incremental change is how the science progresses, never mind the politics.  A few decades ago HIV infection was completely untreatable. Then there were treatments that could prolong patient's lives, and you would have looked down your nose at those treatments and said "it's not a cure".

It's not like incremental change is the only option available. The US population can vote for Bernie as the next president and have radical systematic change long overdue. I take incremental change any day if that's the best we can have, but there is also Bernie. Even in science you sometimes have radical advancements such as Einstein theory of relativity. Looks like you have totally misunderstood my point. I am not against incrementalism in general, everywhere. I am against corporate centrist incrementalism of the Democrats in the US. It led to Trump and keeps oligarchy in place.

Quote from: Madiel on October 13, 2019, 04:50:10 AMWe still don't HAVE a cure. What we have are treatments good enough to mean that people who keep taking their pills don't get sick and don't have a detectable viral load. But they have to keep taking pills their entire lives.

How is this related to the subject? I didn't talk about medical research in Germany or Australia. I was talking about Democratic politics in the US, and in THAT context radical solutions are favorable because of what the political system has been for decades.

Quote from: Madiel on October 13, 2019, 04:50:10 AMThat last sentence is so utterly absurd as to barely dignify a response. Medicare for all could be repealed in exactly the same way any other healthcare package could be. You clearly have no understanding of human rights.

The price of repealing human rights is much higher. Once it's in place, people take it for granted and almost nobody dear to question it. Fire department is a human right in the US. Your house is on fire? Nobody asks if you have a fire plan and which rooms your plan covers. Oh, kitchen is on fire? Sorry, your silver plan doesn't cover kitchen! You need our golden plan for that and it costs $500 more than your $1000 silver plan. They come and put it out for you. Rich, poor, doesn't matter. Everyone things it's how it should be and even Republicans are not repealing it. However, when it comes to healthcare, the corporate media brainwashes people to think this kind of insurance policy makes sense in healthcare. Despite of this brainwashing most americans understand medicare for all is the way to go. So, radical change has been ordered by the people. Bernie is the one who can deliver.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on October 13, 2019, 08:01:02 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 13, 2019, 03:20:28 AM
Well, people get sick today and need healthcare today, not in 100 years. American's have waited improvements for decades and it isn't working. When Democrats are in power you take one step forward (ObamaCare) and then you have Republicans in power and you take one step back (ObamaCare repeal). Once medicare for all is in place, nobody can take it away, because healthcare has become a human right. So, while your philosophy works in many areas of life, the US has come to a point where more radical solutions are needed.
It won't take 100 years, but if the US can make this work, it will only work after some time and state testing, in the same exact way that marijuana legalization is growing state by state (and people are realizing it's a good thing overall, so federal legalization is just a matter of time).

But I think we already discussed this before...

Patience.

(ironic, coming from me, the king of impatience)  :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 13, 2019, 08:58:20 AM
Quote from: greg on October 13, 2019, 08:01:02 AM
It won't take 100 years, but if the US can make this work, it will only work after some time and state testing, in the same exact way that marijuana legalization is growing state by state (and people are realizing it's a good thing overall, so federal legalization is just a matter of time).

But I think we already discussed this before...

Patience.

(ironic, coming from me, the king of impatience)  :P

Patience was ok in the 1980's and that's when the Republicans were as right as the corporate Dems are today. I believe Hillary Clinton supported medicare for all in the early 90's before she got more corrupt. If 30,000-45,000 people die each year because they don't have access to basic healthcare it means something like a million people have died so that Big Pharma and insurance company CEOs can buy more yachts. The years of patience are long gone. Obama had the change to do at least public option, but he was too corrupt even for that. Bernie's plan takes four years. That's it. If the US can concur the Moon, it can definitely do this. It's time to finally act. Otherwise it's endless Republican repeals of Democratic increments add nauseum while people keep dying...

8 out of 10 Democrats want Medicare for All to be an 'extremely important priority' (https://www.nationofchange.org/2019/01/09/8-out-of-10-democrats-want-medicare-for-all-to-be-an-extremely-important-priority/)

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 13, 2019, 09:44:45 AM
Quote from: JBS on October 12, 2019, 04:43:34 PM
He is actually half correct about Obama, since in foreign policy O campaigned as a moderate leftist but kept most of the centrist policies the Left hates.

Fair enow.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 13, 2019, 11:09:52 AM
Quote from: greg on October 13, 2019, 08:01:02 AM
It won't take 100 years, but if the US can make this work, it will only work after some time and state testing

     Probably not for health care, unless the federal gov't wants it work like that, which would require the kind of cost shifting the federal level exists to do.

     No test will be required. There's nothing to "not work". It's a matter of getting it running and modifying it on the fly.

     Interlude:

Fredkin, sitting on a white sofa, is talking about an interesting characteristic of some computer programs, including many cellular automata: there is no shortcut to finding out what they will lead to. This, indeed, is a basic difference between the "analytical" approach associated with traditional mathematics, including differential equations, and the "computational" approach associated with algorithms. You can predict a future state of a system susceptible to the analytic approach without figuring out what states it will occupy between now and then, but in the case of many cellular automata, you must go through all the intermediate states to find out what the end will be like: there is no way to know the future except to watch it unfold.

This indeterminacy is very suggestive. It suggests, first of all, why so many "chaotic" phenomena, like smoke rising from a cigarette, are so difficult to predict using conventional mathematics. (In fact, some scientists have taken to modeling chaotic systems with cellular automata.) To Fredkin, it also suggests that even if human behavior is entirely determined, entirely inevitable, it may be unpredictable; there is room for "pseudo free will" in a completely mechanistic universe. But on this particular evening Fredkin is interested mainly in cosmogony, in the implications of this indeterminacy for the big question: Why does this giant computer of a universe exist?

It's simple, Fredkin explains: "The reason is, there is no way to know the answer to some question any faster than what's going on."


     You do things to find out how, because there is no shortcut.

   
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on October 13, 2019, 02:19:27 PM
Quote from: drogulus on October 13, 2019, 11:09:52 AM
No test will be required. There's nothing to "not work". It's a matter of getting it running and modifying it on the fly.
Uh.

I'm not even going to say anything about this...

edit: Unless you conceive of the idea of "testing" in a different way.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 13, 2019, 03:50:23 PM
Quote from: greg on October 13, 2019, 02:19:27 PM
Uh.

I'm not even going to say anything about this...

edit: Unless you conceive of the idea of "testing" in a different way.

     What would you be testing? Would it be if health care for everyone would work? There will be no test, it will be do or don't and fix it, fix it again, fix it again, forever, just like everything we do now.

     I comment on an investment site where a certain kind of weak minded individual talks about how some object of worry means that a situation will not "end well". I have replied to the effect that I disagreed, not about well, or badly, but about end. It's end that doesn't happen.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on October 13, 2019, 04:42:41 PM
 https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/elizabeth-warren-is-jussie-smollett/ (https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/elizabeth-warren-is-jussie-smollett/) Here's the conservative hit on Warren from the National Review. Every candidate has their flaws and Warren has made some annoying choices at times. Yet, she seems smart and affable. What say ye? How big are her flaws? Is there any real alternative? To me, Biden, Sanders, Harris and Klobuchar are no-goes.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on October 13, 2019, 05:37:33 PM
Quote from: drogulus on October 13, 2019, 03:50:23 PM
What would you be testing? Would it be if health care for everyone would work?
There's almost always unforeseen issues in anything new.

Start in a small area. Once the bad effects are known, people can decide on whether the trade-off is still a net gain. Then gradually expand if it all goes well.

Society is a lot like software. Fix one thing and usually you'll end up causing many issues you wouldn't have thought of. Blind optimism isn't helpful.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 13, 2019, 05:47:43 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 13, 2019, 07:44:12 AM
Fire department is a human right in the US. Your house is on fire? Nobody asks if you have a fire plan and which rooms your plan covers. Oh, kitchen is on fire? Sorry, your silver plan doesn't cover kitchen! You need our golden plan for that and it costs $500 more than your $1000 silver plan. They come and put it out for you. Rich, poor, doesn't matter. Everyone things it's how it should be and even Republicans are not repealing it.

See, you talk about this like it's just a fact. Not a situation that took a long, long time to develop.

Because when fire departments started, they operated by people subscribing to them. You paid a premium so that you were on the list of properties they would come and extinguish fires at. Your neighbour might not have a fire service, or they might have a different fire service to you.

Have a read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_insurance_mark

I'm not arguing with you that the current system of fire departments is undoubtedly better. But talking about it as if it's just some inevitable way of working shows no awareness that that isn't historically how they worked.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 13, 2019, 06:45:30 PM
Quote from: greg on October 13, 2019, 05:37:33 PM
Fix one thing and usually you'll end up causing many issues you wouldn't have thought of.

    Medicare has been subjected to plenty of tests. The basic structure exists. Private insurance is shrinking as more employees are priced out.

    Employer/employee based insurance is an affront to capitalism. It suppresses employment, wages and profits, kills innovation with job lock, and will never offer stability.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 14, 2019, 04:35:05 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 13, 2019, 05:47:43 PM
See, you talk about this like it's just a fact. Not a situation that took a long, long time to develop.

Because when fire departments started, they operated by people subscribing to them. You paid a premium so that you were on the list of properties they would come and extinguish fires at. Your neighbour might not have a fire service, or they might have a different fire service to you.

Have a read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_insurance_mark

I'm not arguing with you that the current system of fire departments is undoubtedly better. But talking about it as if it's just some inevitable way of working shows no awareness that that isn't historically how they worked.

That's correct. the US had "fire department for profit" and it didn't work out so they moved to "fire department for all" and it works better.

What this tells us is that "for profit" model doesn't work in everything. It doesn't work in things like fire department and healthcare because the financial incentives become crazy. "for profit" model works in many other things like for example "coffee for profit" (Starbucks) and "iPhone for profit" (Apple). "Coffee for all" on the other hand hasn't been a successful model except on Finnish workplaces, but that's Finland.  ;D   
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 14, 2019, 05:03:05 AM
I have free coffee at my work and I'm not in Finland.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 14, 2019, 05:12:43 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 14, 2019, 05:03:05 AM
I have free coffee at my work and I'm not in Finland.

In some Romanian companies you can have free coffee, gym, English lessons etc etc etc.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 14, 2019, 06:58:38 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 14, 2019, 04:35:05 AM
That's correct. the US had "fire department for profit" and it didn't work out so they moved to "fire department for all" and it works better.

What this tells us is that "for profit" model doesn't work in everything. It doesn't work in things like fire department and healthcare because the financial incentives become crazy. "for profit" model works in many other things like for example "coffee for profit" (Starbucks) and "iPhone for profit" (Apple). "Coffee for all" on the other hand hasn't been a successful model except on Finnish workplaces, but that's Finland.  ;D   

     You're right. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

     Arguments from high principle are as consequentialist as overtly pragmatic ones. You are supposed to be flummoxed by their awesomeness.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on October 14, 2019, 09:41:51 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 13, 2019, 06:45:30 PM
Employer/employee based insurance is an affront to capitalism. It suppresses employment, wages and profits, kills innovation with job lock, and will never offer stability.
That's definitely the big problem. Shouldn't have to rely on what is usually a bigger company to have decent health insurance. Would be nice to be self-employed and not have to worry about it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 14, 2019, 10:06:08 AM
Quote from: greg on October 14, 2019, 09:41:51 AM
That's definitely the big problem. Shouldn't have to rely on what is usually a bigger company to have decent health insurance. Would be nice to be self-employed and not have to worry about it.

    Don't worry, for profit health care is a labyrinthine cancer eating away at the economy and now itself.

    There is a view that people like their employer health care. Very few who have it do. I didn't. It was only better than having no insurance.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 14, 2019, 10:26:36 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 14, 2019, 04:35:05 AM
That's correct. the US had "fire department for profit" and it didn't work out so they moved to "fire department for all" and it works better.

What this tells us is that "for profit" model doesn't work in everything. It doesn't work in things like fire department and healthcare because the financial incentives become crazy. "for profit" model works in many other things like for example "coffee for profit" (Starbucks) and "iPhone for profit" (Apple). "Coffee for all" on the other hand hasn't been a successful model except on Finnish workplaces, but that's Finland.  ;D

Surprise! I work at a job where there's free coffee every morning! Here in the US!

The problem with for profit health care (and fire departments) is not the financial incentive, but the built in lack of price comparitive shopping. When your house is in fire, you don't have time to find the lowesr price available. When you've got a health emergency or sudden illness, you likewise don't have the chance to check on who offers the lowest fees. In a true emergency you don't even get to pick the ambulance, or the hospital and doctors they take to.

Right wing ideas pretend you can price shop all the time, which suggests they live in fantasy land.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 14, 2019, 11:48:08 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 14, 2019, 10:06:08 AM
    Don't worry, for profit health care is a labyrinthine cancer eating away at the economy and now itself.

    There is a view that people like their employer health care. Very few who have it do. I didn't. It was only better than having no insurance.

Yes.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on October 14, 2019, 02:37:45 PM
Quote from: JBS on October 14, 2019, 10:26:36 AM
Surprise! I work at a job where there's free coffee every morning! Here in the US!

The problem with for profit health care (and fire departments) is not the financial incentive, but the built in lack of price comparitive shopping. When your house is in fire, you don't have time to find the lowesr price available. When you've got a health emergency or sudden illness, you likewise don't have the chance to check on who offers the lowest fees. In a true emergency you don't even get to pick the ambulance, or the hospital and doctors they take to.

Right wing ideas pretend you can price shop all the time, which suggests they live in fantasy land.
I guess it's obvious that the whole discussion coming from the right is dishonest. BTW: I live in Japan where everyone is required to be covered but it's NOT single-payer. If you're not in a company system, which I am thankfully, there's another public system you must get. It doesn't change anything about the doctors you can access, Just how it's paid. Everyone is covered.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 14, 2019, 03:22:19 PM
Quote from: milk on October 14, 2019, 02:37:45 PM
I guess it's obvious that the whole discussion coming from the right is dishonest. BTW: I live in Japan where everyone is required to be covered but it's NOT single-payer. If you're not in a company system, which I am thankfully, there's another public system you must get. It doesn't change anything about the doctors you can access, Just how it's paid. Everyone is covered.

     In America doctors outrank patients like you wouldn't believe how much.

     I haven't yet met my doctor. He's busy with important things.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 14, 2019, 03:53:34 PM
Quote from: milk on October 14, 2019, 02:37:45 PM
I guess it's obvious that the whole discussion coming from the right is dishonest. BTW: I live in Japan where everyone is required to be covered but it's NOT single-payer. If you're not in a company system, which I am thankfully, there's another public system you must get. It doesn't change anything about the doctors you can access, Just how it's paid. Everyone is covered.

That sort of system is the one I prefer, and which would both mesh best with the current system and be most politically palatable.

One question about the Japanese system: is there any tendency for companies to push people in one way or another off their own and into the public system? And if so, how is it dealt with?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 14, 2019, 07:22:27 PM
Of course, at present, I am at home, on disability. But at the office, we have free coffee, too.

Finland's advantage there appears to have been exaggerated....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: North Star on October 14, 2019, 10:27:17 PM
It should be pointed out that in Finland, the occupational health care is significant too - mandatory to provide even if you just have one employee, the costs are compensated by the government. The employer may acquire occupational health care services from occupational health care units at public health centres, municipal enterprises and companies providing occupational health care, occupational health care centres jointly operated by several employers (occupational health care associations), or occupational health care units at private medical centres - or provide it in-house (https://www.tyosuojelu.fi/web/en/occupational-health/occupational-health-care). And there's also a separate student healthcare system founded by the Finnish university students' union in 1954 that recently expanded to cover students in universities of applied sciences too, not just university students. (you pay something like 80 dollars for it at the start of the school year to be covered).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on October 15, 2019, 04:30:34 AM
Quote from: JBS on October 14, 2019, 03:53:34 PM
That sort of system is the one I prefer, and which would both mesh best with the current system and be most politically palatable.

One question about the Japanese system: is there any tendency for companies to push people in one way or another off their own and into the public system? And if so, how is it dealt with?
I should be able to answer this with 100% confidence but I sometimes get confused by this kind of thing. I think companies over a certain size, and that employ you on a regular full-time contract, have to enroll you. It used to be that Japan offered most people lifetime full-time careers. Over the last decade or so, this has been eroded and more temporary contracts have been used. Recently, the government passed new labor provisions like requiring companies to make contracts permanent after a certain number of years. Unlike the U.S., there is not effective enforcement and litigation does not lead to quick and punitive results. Some companies have taken to skirting the law by deception, asserting some kinds of exceptions or have just tried ignoring it. Unions have taken it to court but that process is slow. In the end, the unions are basically prevailing but companies not yet sued are still dragging it out without the kind of fear of punishment you see in the States. Even some big private universities have acted duplicitously and lost court cases.
I think this system basically works and I think the government will end up forcing companies to cover people. Either way, there are premiums, but much less than the U.S. I think. Other problems in Japan come up tangentially like the sharply aging population contributing to Japan having the largest debt in the developed world (relative to GDP) and old people abusing the system by hanging out in hospitals as if it were a social club. Japan delivers pretty good quality medicine relatively efficiently although everything in Japan has aspects that are inefficient due to institutional "culture."
Just as an anecdote: I see a neurologist once every few months for migraines; He prescribes medicine I take daily; the visit costs about 4-5 dollars and the medicine for 3 months costs about 15-20$ total. I could change doctors if I wanted by just making an appointment somewhere else. We also are having our second baby in February and that's another thing I could describe but we can go to any hospital we want and it's relatively easy. As for premiums I'm not sure what they cost because my job deducts it and contributes but for my 3-person family I'm thinking it's maybe 2 or 3 hundred dollars a month. Something like that.
The only thing that worries me is I float between the two systems due to the nature of my contract. Knock on wood I can stay in the company system. I believe if I get kicked onto the independent worker system I wold see premiums double, perhaps. I don't like how the poorer you are the more you pay. That part leads me to think the European single-payer systems are better but, on the other hand, this system works pretty well and it's probably more palatable in the U.S. perhaps. You do pay for it individually.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 15, 2019, 04:48:28 AM

     The Swiss have private health insurance for everyone. Government spending is relatively low, instead costs are controlled. A variety of means are used to keep quality up.

     The big difference is there is no employer insurance. Insurance is individual and the penalty is high if you refuse to get it.

     Cross subsidy of rich and poor, healthy and sick is total, everyone is in, just as every health care expert insists is necessary.

     I see no need to prefer well run systems of one general type to another. Repubs oppose well run, not just a type. OCare should have been their chance to prevent care from being socialist, but it turned out that any system that was too good for too many was intolerable.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 15, 2019, 05:47:47 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 15, 2019, 04:48:28 AM
     The Swiss have private health insurance for everyone. Government spending is relatively low, instead costs are controlled. A variety of means are used to keep quality up.

     The big difference is there is no employer insurance. Insurance is individual and the penalty is high if you refuse to get it.

     Cross subsidy of rich and poor, healthy and sick is total, everyone is in, just as every health care expert insists is necessary.

     I see no need to prefer well run systems of one general type to another. Repubs oppose well run, not just a type. OCare should have been their chance to prevent care from being socialist, but it turned out that any system that was too good for too many was intolerable.

You just have to be rich, losers!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 15, 2019, 08:17:20 AM


    My Medicare Advantage provider just mailed me a notice of benefit improvements for 2020.

    I will keep my plan, I think. I'm trading off no networking for a slightly richer benefit package. I can keep my hypothetical doctor if he doesn't run away to join the circus.
     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 15, 2019, 08:18:21 AM
Swiss healthcare system is the closest of all developped countries to the US healthcare system, but it works somewhat reasonably because it's so heavily regulated. It's the second most expensive system after the US.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 15, 2019, 08:46:13 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 15, 2019, 08:18:21 AM
Swiss healthcare system is the closest of all developped countries to the US healthcare system, but it works somewhat reasonably because it's so heavily regulated. It's the second most expensive system after the US.

     If you look at the plans and ways costs are paid it comes out like this:

     (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EF8mCAcWsAE_Dcg?format=png&name=small)

     We have high costs and poor outcomes. I prefer high costs and good outcomes, though the world and I agree that good outcomes should come first.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 15, 2019, 09:58:25 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 15, 2019, 08:46:13 AM
     We have high costs and poor outcomes.

Exactly. That's why you need Bernie Sanders to become the next oval office occupant.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 15, 2019, 10:07:32 AM
Quote from: North Star on October 14, 2019, 10:27:17 PM
It should be pointed out that in Finland, the occupational health care is significant too - mandatory to provide even if you just have one employee, the costs are compensated by the government. The employer may acquire occupational health care services from occupational health care units at public health centres, municipal enterprises and companies providing occupational health care, occupational health care centres jointly operated by several employers (occupational health care associations), or occupational health care units at private medical centres - or provide it in-house (https://www.tyosuojelu.fi/web/en/occupational-health/occupational-health-care). And there's also a separate student healthcare system founded by the Finnish university students' union in 1954 that recently expanded to cover students in universities of applied sciences too, not just university students. (you pay something like 80 dollars for it at the start of the school year to be covered).

The occupational health care sounds like what we in the US call workmen's compensation, but much more robust and much more proactive than our version (which kicks in only after the injury occurs or the illness starts, and it's usually up to the employee to prove it's work related if there's any doubt).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 15, 2019, 10:10:23 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 15, 2019, 09:58:25 AM
Exactly. That's why you need Bernie Sanders to become the next oval office occupant.

So we can have high costs and poor outcomes under a Democratic president?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 15, 2019, 10:17:43 AM
Quote from: milk on October 15, 2019, 04:30:34 AM
I should be able to answer this with 100% confidence but I sometimes get confused by this kind of thing. I think companies over a certain size, and that employ you on a regular full-time contract, have to enroll you. It used to be that Japan offered most people lifetime full-time careers. Over the last decade or so, this has been eroded and more temporary contracts have been used. Recently, the government passed new labor provisions like requiring companies to make contracts permanent after a certain number of years. Unlike the U.S., there is not effective enforcement and litigation does not lead to quick and punitive results. Some companies have taken to skirting the law by deception, asserting some kinds of exceptions or have just tried ignoring it. Unions have taken it to court but that process is slow. In the end, the unions are basically prevailing but companies not yet sued are still dragging it out without the kind of fear of punishment you see in the States. Even some big private universities have acted duplicitously and lost court cases.
I think this system basically works and I think the government will end up forcing companies to cover people. Either way, there are premiums, but much less than the U.S. I think. Other problems in Japan come up tangentially like the sharply aging population contributing to Japan having the largest debt in the developed world (relative to GDP) and old people abusing the system by hanging out in hospitals as if it were a social club. Japan delivers pretty good quality medicine relatively efficiently although everything in Japan has aspects that are inefficient due to institutional "culture."
Just as an anecdote: I see a neurologist once every few months for migraines; He prescribes medicine I take daily; the visit costs about 4-5 dollars and the medicine for 3 months costs about 15-20$ total. I could change doctors if I wanted by just making an appointment somewhere else. We also are having our second baby in February and that's another thing I could describe but we can go to any hospital we want and it's relatively easy. As for premiums I'm not sure what they cost because my job deducts it and contributes but for my 3-person family I'm thinking it's maybe 2 or 3 hundred dollars a month. Something like that.
The only thing that worries me is I float between the two systems due to the nature of my contract. Knock on wood I can stay in the company system. I believe if I get kicked onto the independent worker system I wold see premiums double, perhaps. I don't like how the poorer you are the more you pay. That part leads me to think the European single-payer systems are better but, on the other hand, this system works pretty well and it's probably more palatable in the U.S. perhaps. You do pay for it individually.

Thanks. You'd probably pay about the same premium as an employee in a US employer provided plan.
I would amend you "unlike the US". Companies kicking employees off health plans has been a trend for almost 30 years now, and there's been no government attempt to stop it. In fact, Obamacare actually encouraged it, since employers could claim employees had an alternative.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 15, 2019, 10:44:57 AM
Quote from: JBS on October 15, 2019, 10:10:23 AM
So we can have high costs and poor outcomes under a Democratic president?

     Poor outcomes are choices, mostly inconsistent with Medicare. The collapse of private insurance will help pave the way for Medicare phase in.

     I'll take a tax over a premium, even a super subsidized one like the Swiss use for low incomes. But really the cost argument is a McGuffin in this drama, it's about covering everyone and improving outcomes, especially for those getting the worst outcomes presently.

     You can ask me what the odds are that Medicare will be degraded by expanding it. Certainly I'd worry if it was likely. It's not likely.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 15, 2019, 10:50:19 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 15, 2019, 10:44:57 AM
     Poor outcomes are choices, mostly inconsistent with Medicare. The collapse of private insurance will help pave the way for Medicare phase in.

     I'll take a tax over a premium, even a super subsidized one like the Swiss use for low incomes. But really the cost argument is a McGuffin in this drama, it's about covering everyone and improving outcomes, especially for those getting the worst outcomes presently.

     You can ask me what the odds are that Medicare will be degraded by expanding it. Certainly I'd worry if it was likely. It's not likely.

Medicare is not in such great shape to begin with.

Medicare for All would improve outcomes for those now getting bad outcomes, but it  lead to somewhat worse outcomes for the rest.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 15, 2019, 11:05:20 AM
Quote from: JBS on October 15, 2019, 10:50:19 AM
Medicare is not in such great shape to begin with.

Medicare for All would improve outcomes for those now getting bad outcomes, but it  lead to somewhat worse outcomes for the rest.

     I think both are false. Trust funds are a sham. There is no program that's universal that will make my Medicare worse. It doesn't matter how many are added to it. We are using available resources, not dividing up dollars.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 15, 2019, 11:29:30 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 15, 2019, 11:05:20 AM
     I think both are false. Trust funds are a sham. There is no program that's universal that will make my Medicare worse. It doesn't matter how many are added to it. We are using available resources, not dividing up dollars.

Dollars are bookkeeping shorthand for resources. Dividing up dollars is allocating resources.
You are right, trust funds are a sham. And there are not enough dollars/available resources to stretch Medicare to cover everyone at the current levels it now offers to Medicarees. But by worse outcomes I was referring to those under 65 now covered by company plans or private plans.  They will almost all pay more and get less.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 15, 2019, 11:57:50 AM
Quote from: JBS on October 15, 2019, 11:29:30 AM
Dollars are bookkeeping shorthand for resources. Dividing up dollars is allocating resources.
You are right, trust funds are a sham. And there are not enough dollars/available resources to stretch Medicare to cover everyone at the current levels it now offers to Medicarees. But by worse outcomes I was referring to those under 65 now covered by company plans or private plans.  They will almost all pay more and get less.

     Dollar run outs are policy, they don't "run out" on their own, there's no such thing. The difference between resource run outs and dollar run outs that leave resources idle is stark and unmistakable. 

     It's always a choice what we wish to run out of dollars for and how much idleness we impose upon the economy to "save dollars" in Nowheresville instead of bank accounts.

     Dollars are shorthand for resources we are using and not for resources we don't want to use for whatever shrinky dinky reason.

     For reasons only the gods could possibly understand somebody decided that there was a "too much" level for health care spending, without much in the way of guidance about what the right level should be. It's a riddle encased in a dilemma surrounded by total bullshit. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)

     We don't spend 50% of GDP on defense any more, it's a small fraction of that. Are we supposed to believe that a much higher percentage of the budget going to improving the lives of everyone is a poor use of dollars? Poor compared to what? Who says?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on October 15, 2019, 01:15:05 PM
Quote from: drogulus on October 14, 2019, 10:06:08 AM
    There is a view that people like their employer health care. Very few who have it do. I didn't. It was only better than having no insurance.
Mine is much better than having no insurance but the problem is what exactly do I compare it to? I don't even know what constitutes "good."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 15, 2019, 01:41:09 PM
Bernie Sanders' medicare for all plan is better than any current private insurance plan. It covers more. So, you get more. Not only that, but for about 95 % of people it is effectively a tax cut, because healthcare private taxes (premiums and copays) are gone and the tax raise to compensate it is less so there is net savings. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 15, 2019, 02:17:36 PM
Quote from: greg on October 15, 2019, 01:15:05 PM
Mine is much better than having no insurance but the problem is what exactly do I compare it to? I don't even know what constitutes "good."

    Good is you're fired and you still have it. Good is it follows you wherever you go. Good is you aren't lucky to have it because everyone does.

Quote from: 71 dB on October 15, 2019, 01:41:09 PM
Bernie Sanders' medicare for all plan is better than any current private insurance plan. It covers more. So, you get more. Not only that, but for about 95 % of people it is effectively a tax cut, because healthcare private taxes (premiums and copays) are gone and the tax raise to compensate it is less so there is net savings. 

     That's a bit optimistic on what a plan would be like at the outset. It would make sense for taxation to be as progressive as income tax, and better yet to use no separate tax at all. We don't tax for aircraft carriers and then subject ourselves to threats that starting in 2025 they will be 20% smaller. It seems dollars we fictionally don't have are good for almost everything, while only dollars we fictionally do have are good for others. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 15, 2019, 02:26:58 PM
Quote from: drogulus on October 15, 2019, 02:17:36 PM
    Good is you're fired and you still have it. Good is it follows you wherever you go. Good is you aren't lucky to have it because everyone does.

     That's a bit optimistic on what a plan would be like at the outset. It would make sense for taxation to be as progressive as income tax, and better yet to use no separate tax at all. We don't tax for aircraft carriers and then subject ourselves to threats that starting in 2025 they will be 20% smaller. It seems dollars we fictionally don't have are good for almost everything, while only dollars we fictionally do have are good for others. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)

Good luck trying to talk sense to him!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on October 15, 2019, 03:41:39 PM
Quote from: JBS on October 15, 2019, 10:17:43 AM
Thanks. You'd probably pay about the same premium as an employee in a US employer provided plan.
I would amend you "unlike the US". Companies kicking employees off health plans has been a trend for almost 30 years now, and there's been no government attempt to stop it. In fact, Obamacare actually encouraged it, since employers could claim employees had an alternative.
Yes, my only point is that there is often an option to sue in the U.S. - for anything people think is illegal. The risk of losing is high. In Japan, whatever happens, people don't win frighteningly big payouts. Take the university in Japan that systematically and secretly lowered women's scores, for years, on medical school entrance exams. I think in the U.S., women would have sued that university out of existence since they basically stole women's entire lives. But in Japan, they just bow deeply, shuffle some people around, and carry on.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 15, 2019, 03:53:46 PM
Quote from: drogulus on October 15, 2019, 11:57:50 AM
     Dollar run outs are policy, they don't "run out" on their own, there's no such thing. The difference between resource run outs and dollar run outs that leave resources idle is stark and unmistakable. 

     It's always a choice what we wish to run out of dollars for and how much idleness we impose upon the economy to "save dollars" in Nowheresville instead of bank accounts.

     Dollars are shorthand for resources we are using and not for resources we don't want to use for whatever shrinky dinky reason.

     For reasons only the gods could possibly understand somebody decided that there was a "too much" level for health care spending, without much in the way of guidance about what the right level should be. It's a riddle encased in a dilemma surrounded by total bullshit. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)

     We don't spend 50% of GDP on defense any more, it's a small fraction of that. Are we supposed to believe that a much higher percentage of the budget going to improving the lives of everyone is a poor use of dollars? Poor compared to what? Who says?

To be blunt, your economic ideas are based on a rubbish theory that is based on an idea that works out to the proposition that "money has no value".

Given that, there's no response to be made to the above other than to note that it is based on nonsense.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 15, 2019, 04:50:46 PM
Quote from: JBS on October 15, 2019, 03:53:46 PM
To be blunt, your economic ideas are based on a rubbish theory that is based on an idea that works out to the proposition that "money has no value".



    The value it has is what it buys, the whole GDP. I think what you mean is what the cost is to produce dollars, which is zero. Dollars have price, not cost.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 15, 2019, 05:00:37 PM
A prince, who should enact that a certain proportion of his taxes should be paid in
a paper money of a certain kind, might thereby give a certain value to this paper
money. (Smith, 1776, p. 312)


     A tax driven currency has negligible inherent cost. That is not the same as a loan cost.

     The Natural Rate of Interest is Zero (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=2ahUKEwio_Z-QyZ_lAhVJvFkKHWuaARgQFjACegQIARAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cfeps.org%2Fpubs%2Fwp-pdf%2FWP37-MoslerForstater.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2_sClFXdvNihO0I7FShXBg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 16, 2019, 12:38:13 AM
Did anyone follow the latest debate?

Reporting I've seen down here suggests that it was good for Warren (not least because other candidates basically treated her like the frontrunner), also positive for Sanders and Buttgieg, and poor for Biden.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 16, 2019, 04:12:49 AM
The President's tweets after the Oct. 15, 2019, dem debate...with love.   :-* :-*

(https://i.postimg.cc/5tDWZgyV/Pol-Trump-tweets-after-Oct-15-2019-dem-debate.jpg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on October 16, 2019, 04:26:16 AM
Quote from: Muzio on October 16, 2019, 04:12:49 AM
The President's tweets after the Oct. 15, 2019, dem debate...with love.   :-* :-*

(https://i.postimg.cc/5tDWZgyV/Pol-Trump-tweets-after-Oct-15-2019-dem-debate.jpg)
We love the donald here, especially is fine tweets. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 16, 2019, 04:51:33 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 16, 2019, 12:38:13 AM
Did anyone follow the latest debate?

Reporting I've seen down here suggests that it was good for Warren (not least because other candidates basically treated her like the frontrunner), also positive for Sanders and Buttgieg, and poor for Biden.

      Warren was rattled and it was her worst performance, Biden did very well IMO. It was pointed out that he doesn't need to shine in debates like an underdog. Mayor Pete was the best of the rest.

      I watched Buttigieg in a post-debate interview and I noticed he is smart, almost to the point that he can extemporize his whole campaign on the spot.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 16, 2019, 05:15:05 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 15, 2019, 05:00:37 PM
A prince, who should enact that a certain proportion of his taxes should be paid in
a paper money of a certain kind, might thereby give a certain value to this paper
money. (Smith, 1776, p. 312)


I'm not sure what you mean with this quote. At the currently set value of the dollar, you can buy X gallons of oil with one dollar. Do you infer from that quote, or imply it yourself, that the government, by fiat, can decree that starting today at midnight the value of the dollar will be such that you can buy 2X gallons of oil with one dollar?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 16, 2019, 05:34:01 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 16, 2019, 05:15:05 AM
I'm not sure what you mean with this quote. At the currently set value of the dollar, you can buy X gallons of oil with one dollar. Do you infer from that quote, or imply it yourself, that the government, by fiat, can decree that starting today at midnight the value of the dollar will be such that you can buy 2X gallons of oil with one dollar?

     A currency monopolist doesn't decree, it uses fiscal and monetary operations to move the price, though price is not the goal, it comes out of the goal the operations are for, providing the government with goods and services it deems necessary and by that provisioning the economy with the currency it needs to operate within the range policy sets.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 16, 2019, 05:37:57 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 16, 2019, 05:34:01 AM
     A currency monopolist doesn't decree, it uses fiscal and monetary operations to move the price, though price is not the goal, it comes out of the goal the operations are for, providing the government with goods and services it deems necessary and by that provisioning the economy with the currency it needs to operate within the range policy sets.

This doesn't answer my question. Here it is, again: can a government manipulate the currency into having whatever value they deem it should shave? A simple yes or no would suffice, thank you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 16, 2019, 05:39:47 AM
Quote from: milk on October 16, 2019, 04:26:16 AM
We love the donald here, especially is fine tweets. 

Donald J. Shrivelpecker
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 16, 2019, 06:09:27 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 16, 2019, 05:37:57 AM
This doesn't answer my question. Here it is, again: can a government manipulate the currency into having whatever value they deem it should shave? A simple yes or no would suffice, thank you.

     No.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 16, 2019, 06:11:09 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 16, 2019, 06:09:27 AM
     No.

Thanks. I agree. The reason I asked is that Smith quote, which taken at its face value could suggest otherwise.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 16, 2019, 06:14:25 AM
     A government is responsible to the economy through how the money system is operated, there it can't choose arbitrary money targets.

Quote from: Florestan on October 16, 2019, 06:11:09 AM
Thanks. I agree. The reason I asked is that Smith quote, which taken at its face value could suggest otherwise.

     That's a weird reading. Smith says the issuer controls the value via the tax, it says nothing about choosing values for reasons that are arbitrary or functionally looney.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 16, 2019, 06:16:19 AM
Ernie, yes, Pete is sharp.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 16, 2019, 06:23:47 AM

     The government has the power to destroy the money system by taxing back everything it has provided. No one bothers asking whether in can "in principle" do this.

     Here's why it never gets that far. Ask people if they would like to eliminate the national debt and they say yes. Ask people if they want to eliminate the dollar savings and they don't know what to say, maybe "why are you asking?". Then you explain it's the same thing and the discussion mercifully ends.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 16, 2019, 06:27:29 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 16, 2019, 06:14:25 AM
          That's a weird reading. Smith says the issuer controls the value via the tax, it says nothing about choosing values for reasons that are arbitrary or functionally looney.

I must have misunderstood it then,
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 16, 2019, 07:09:55 AM

     What I take from the debate is that Mayor Pete has a shot at Top 4 status, an outside chance. The Top 3 are secure for now. Bernie is good to go, as I expected. Biden may have more of an age-related problem than the other dinosaurs. Is Warren my age, really?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 16, 2019, 08:19:39 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 16, 2019, 07:09:55 AM
     What I take from the debate is that Mayor Pete has a shot at Top 4 status, an outside chance. The Top 3 are secure for now. Bernie is good to go, as I expected. Biden may have more of an age-related problem than the other dinosaurs. Is Warren my age, really?

Right, only an outside chance at the nomination this go, but solid groundwork for the future.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 16, 2019, 08:50:33 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 16, 2019, 08:19:39 AM
Right, only an outside chance at the nomination this go, but solid groundwork for the future.

     I don't know what will open up for him in the near future, possibly a slot in the Dem administration if that happens. Indiana is tough for Dems.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 16, 2019, 12:45:48 PM
Quote from: Florestan on October 16, 2019, 05:15:05 AM
I'm not sure what you mean with this quote. At the currently set value of the dollar, you can buy X gallons of oil with one dollar. Do you infer from that quote, or imply it yourself, that the government, by fiat, can decree that starting today at midnight the value of the dollar will be such that you can buy 2X gallons of oil with one dollar?

Many countries have done exactly that in the past.

It works for about 5 minutes, but it does work.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 16, 2019, 03:15:16 PM
     How Much Will Medicare for All Cost? (https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-will-medicare-all-cost)

      The article compares estimated costs of different Medicare For All plans.

      Though the article is slightly illuminating on the difference between a federal outlay and projected health care expenditures, it falls short in the dynamic effects on the economy as a whole.

      Since the Great Recession the government has spent great sums into the economy, not especially great or the recovery wouldn't have been half strength. Still, this fiscal expansion has caused a 60% increase in the tax back, roughly. More money out, more money back.

      Oh, you don't remember paying a giant tax increase? You did, you just didn't pay higher rates. When the economy expands it can't help sending more tax back unless a determined effort is made to cut taxes enough to prevent it from happening.

      These Medicare plans are going to send huge increases of spending into the economy and the expansion tax back is estimated at ZERO!

      Trillions with a T in additional payments are supposed to be paid in and no one gets any income that would be taxed. That's how the budgeteers see it.

      The budgeteers are not tracing the spending all the way to the tax, they are starting with the taxing like it's collected before anything can be spent!

      So they never get to the question of how much bigger the economy would have to be to send all those trillions back, because they assume it will be the same size and super giant rates would have to be used to hit a tax target.

      Back on Earth, we might ask how much the tax/GDP ratio would have to change under a Sanders type plan. Some additional taxation might help keep inflation at bay since such a big plan would certainly be demand intensive.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 16, 2019, 03:46:57 PM
Medicare for all costs $32 Trillion over 10 year period, much less than current system.
For most people Medicare for all means tax cut, because public taxes rise less than people save paying zero private healthcare taxes.
Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who can deliver Medicare for all. AOC and Ilhan Omar have now endorsed Bernie.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 16, 2019, 03:55:50 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 16, 2019, 03:46:57 PM
Medicare for all costs $32 Trillion over 10 year period, much less than current system.
For most people Medicare for all means tax cut, because public taxes rise less than people save paying zero private healthcare taxes.
Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who can deliver Medicare for all. AOC and Ilhan Omar have now endorsed Bernie.


     I quarrel with the logic of how estimates are made. I wonder also who will get $32T in increased income. Has GDP=GDI been repealed? This is bizarre.

     Miscalculating Medicare-for-all (http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2018/08/miscalculating-medicare-for-all.html)

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on October 16, 2019, 05:32:49 PM
Quote from: drogulus on October 15, 2019, 02:17:36 PM
Good is you're fired and you still have it.
Depends on if it negatively affects quality of insurance during employment, since for the vast majority of most people's lives they will be working.

Of course no one would oppose medicare for all if there were no downsides at all. The question remains, what will the downsides be? Will it be a net loss for some people?

I pretty much don't advocate many things with much enthusiasm and don't understand why people do. There's always a major downside to everything, and people like to pretend they don't exist in order to be decisive. Especially things like exuberant crowds at presidential rallies- completely alien stuff.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 16, 2019, 06:32:28 PM
Quote from: greg on October 16, 2019, 05:32:49 PM
Depends on if it negatively affects quality of insurance during employment, since for the vast majority of most people's lives they will be working.

Of course no one would oppose medicare for all if there were no downsides at all. The question remains, what will the downsides be? Will it be a net loss for some people?

I pretty much don't advocate many things with much enthusiasm and don't understand why people do. There's always a major downside to everything, and people like to pretend they don't exist in order to be decisive. Especially things like exuberant crowds at presidential rallies- completely alien stuff.

     That's what "radical" is for, to convince you that unintended consequences should prevent things being done. Yet, they're done and most consequences are the intended ones. Millions were insured by OCare, people hated it for an unintended thing then want to protect it because of the intended thing and once it was radical and now the next thing is radical and be really scared of that. Is that OK with you?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 16, 2019, 08:22:31 PM
Greg, what are the UPsides of employer-based insurance?

I've never really understood why it's done, unless it's just a reflection of American insurance costs being too much for individuals.

And I've certainly never understood why, if collective action is needed, Americans seem more willing to hand things over to corporations than to the governments they get to vote on.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 16, 2019, 11:16:53 PM
Quote from: greg on October 16, 2019, 05:32:49 PM
Depends on if it negatively affects quality of insurance during employment, since for the vast majority of most people's lives they will be working.

Of course no one would oppose medicare for all if there were no downsides at all. The question remains, what will the downsides be? Will it be a net loss for some people?

I pretty much don't advocate many things with much enthusiasm and don't understand why people do. There's always a major downside to everything, and people like to pretend they don't exist in order to be decisive. Especially things like exuberant crowds at presidential rallies- completely alien stuff.

Medicare for all is generally a negative thing to the richest people, insurance companies and Big Pharma, but it's about unrigging a system that has given these people insane advantage compared to the rest of the people. It's about 95 % of population finally getting in a democracy what's good for them instead always the richest people who can buy the politicians. Even for the richest people it's not the end of the World. Medicare for all covers at least as much if not more healthcare services than their platinum healthcare plans did, but they pay a little more taxes (for the wealthiest people the increase in public taxes is more than what they save on not paying private taxes) which they can afford to do. Rich people can also get, if they want, suplemental private healthcare coverage for things medicare for all doesn't cover, such as plastic surgery.

The US healthcare system is really bad. It cost more and gives poor results (millions of people have no access). The US has problems other countries don't have (lack of access, medical bankruptcies etc) because of for-profit healthcare system tailored to protect the profits of insurance companies rather than providing best possible healthcare with the least possible costs. That's why so many advocate medicare for all. The US needs it badly. To not recognize this fact is a sign of political and social ignorance or victimhood of corporate media misinformation.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 17, 2019, 04:50:36 AM
     I don't think Medicare For All in any of its forms is bad for rich people. I know what Bernie and many other progressives think. They are wrong.

     The rich get their share of increases of national income no matter how it's delivered. Income flows up or there would be no "rich". It flows up because the base of the pyramid has lots of income and when they spend the money goes to the business owners, under any tax scheme.

     When my income goes up I pay more tax. I pay tax on the increase. When the income of the country goes up it pays more tax. The rich get a piece at any tax rate they pay.

     As former Bernie advisor Stephanie Kelton says "Money doesn't grow on rich people". Bernie doesn't understand. He's a fiscal conservative like most left wingers.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 17, 2019, 08:50:05 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 17, 2019, 04:50:36 AM
     I don't think Medicare For All in any of its forms is bad for rich people. I know what Bernie and many other progressives think. They are wrong.

     The rich get their share of increases of national income no matter how it's delivered. Income flows up or there would be no "rich". It flows up because the base of the pyramid has lots of income and when they spend the money goes to the business owners, under any tax scheme.

     When my income goes up I pay more tax. I pay tax on the increase. When the income of the country goes up it pays more tax. The rich get a piece at any tax rate they pay.

     As former Bernie advisor Stephanie Kelton says "Money doesn't grow on rich people". Bernie doesn't understand. He's a fiscal conservative like most left wingers.

The problem is when too much money has flown up the economy collapses because regular people have lost all purchasing power. (Great Depression of 1930 happened because of this). It is unsustainable. That's why we have to regulate the money flow up by taxation and other means such as living wage. Kylie Jenner earns a million dollars for posting one tweet. Regular people have to work for decades for such money.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 17, 2019, 08:57:15 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 17, 2019, 08:50:05 AM
The problem is when too much money has flown up the economy collapses because regular people have lost all purchasing power. (Great Depression of 1930 happened because of this). It is unsustainable. That's why we have to regulate the money flow up by taxation and other means such as living wage. Kylie Jenner earns a million dollars for posting one tweet. Regular people have to work for decades for such money.

Correction: Regular people have to work all their lives for such money.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 17, 2019, 10:01:01 AM
AOC, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib all endorse Bernie Sanders.

Now Elizabeth Warren knows how progressives felt when she didn't endorse Bernie in 2016.  :-X
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 17, 2019, 10:03:15 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 17, 2019, 10:01:01 AM
AOC, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib all endorse Bernie Sanders.

Now Elizabeth Warren knows how progressives felt when she didn't endorse Bernie in 2016.  :-X

She doesn't care about your personal grievance, does that burn you, too?  :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 17, 2019, 10:06:54 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 17, 2019, 10:03:15 AM
She doesn't care about your personal grievance, does that burn you, too?  :P

I wasn't aware of her endorsement until recently as I didn't follow US politics closely before Trump won. However, I know lefties and progressives were upset for that (Elizabeth Warren is politically much closer to Bernie than Hillary) for a good reason. EW made an bad political calculation thinking Hillary would win AND take her as the VP.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 17, 2019, 11:03:48 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 17, 2019, 08:50:05 AM
The problem is when too much money has flown up the economy collapses because regular people have lost all purchasing power. (Great Depression of 1930 happened because of this). It is unsustainable. That's why we have to regulate the money flow up by taxation and other means such as living wage. Kylie Jenner earns a million dollars for posting one tweet. Regular people have to work for decades for such money.

     I think you can increase the flow at the base. Some increased progressivity would be good for efficiency. Many on the left don't like efficiency arguments because they think it works against them, while I think an economy run for optimal output would reduce inequality. The important point is a stronger base means money does good work before it reaches the top level, the opposite of supply side tax cuts where the work it does is minimal.

     Your purchasing power argument is correct and it's the way capitalism is undercut by its own propagandists, who are mendacious and dumb to boot.

     I'll add this, the Founders feared that dynastic wealth would destroy liberty, the real thing not the religion, so it would be permissible to tax very large inheritances higher than we do. On the whole, though, I'm with Kelton that we don't need the money the rich have to do stuff.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on October 17, 2019, 12:12:54 PM
Quote from: Madiel on October 16, 2019, 08:22:31 PM
Greg, what are the UPsides of employer-based insurance?
Hard to say as the only thing I can compare it to is not having insurance.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 17, 2019, 12:33:36 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 17, 2019, 10:01:01 AM
AOC, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib all endorse Bernie Sanders.

Now Elizabeth Warren knows how progressives felt when she didn't endorse Bernie in 2016.  :-X

Only because she's American. The whole importance of endorsement escapes me. As far as I can make out, it only works as a system because lots of Americans are willing to follow the instruction of a celebrity (whether a politician or otherwise) and this is the extent of their engagement with the political process.

Then again, as previously discussed the whole elaborate process of each party choosing a presidential candidate is also foreign to me.

Some segment of America believes on democratic principle that people ought to vote on a myriad of things. That segment hasn't noticed that people are exhausted by this.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 17, 2019, 03:08:18 PM
     Bernie and AOC makes sense, they want the same things done. They differ on the how. Bernie want a punitive raid on great fortunes. That's where the money is, he thinks. AOC knows money isn't a "where it is" kind of thing until it's spent. Then it is where. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 17, 2019, 04:51:35 PM
Quote from: drogulus on October 17, 2019, 03:08:18 PM
     Bernie and AOC makes sense, they want the same things done. They differ on the how. Bernie want a punitive raid on great fortunes. That's where the money is, he thinks. AOC knows money isn't a "where it is" kind of thing until it's spent. Then it is where. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)

The way you speak about money is pretty weird...  :-\
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 17, 2019, 06:53:16 PM
Quote from: Madiel on October 16, 2019, 08:22:31 PM
Greg, what are the UPsides of employer-based insurance?

I've never really understood why it's done, unless it's just a reflection of American insurance costs being too much for individuals.

And I've certainly never understood why, if collective action is needed, Americans seem more willing to hand things over to corporations than to the governments they get to vote on.

1) Traditionally, employers paid at least part of the insurance premium as an employee benefit.
2) Usually the corporations can offer a larger group of insured, allowing premiums to be spread out, etc. Also, larger corporations can negotiate better for lower premiums and more benefits.

Hence in theory the employee can get better and/or cheaper insurance than he would as an individual.
Practice will be quite different, of course.  A large driver of the "gig economy" and part time employment is the fact that companies don't need to offer outside contractors, temporary workers, and part time employees employee benefits, so they try to not hire full time employees when possible.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 17, 2019, 06:57:39 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 17, 2019, 04:51:35 PM
The way you speak about money is pretty weird...  :-\

He adheres to a crank theory about money that has no relation to reality. It seems to say that governments can issue unlimited amounts of money to pay for services, and the whole idea of tax revenue, national debt, and budgets is really a mass delusion.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 17, 2019, 07:30:07 PM
Quote from: JBS on October 17, 2019, 06:53:16 PM
1) Traditionally, employers paid at least part of the insurance premium as an employee benefit.
2) Usually the corporations can offer a larger group of insured, allowing premiums to be spread out, etc. Also, larger corporations can negotiate better for lower premiums and more benefits.

Hence in theory the employee can get better and/or cheaper insurance than he would as an individual.
Practice will be quite different, of course.  A large driver of the "gig economy" and part time employment is the fact that companies don't need to offer outside contractors, temporary workers, and part time employees employee benefits, so they try to not hire full time employees when possible.

Well yes, that last aspect is one of the reasons it seems like a bad system. Along with the general impediment on people changing jobs or starting their own business for fear of losing health benefits.

As for corporations having more power to negotiate prices than individuals do, I think that's true but this is where I'm fascinated by the American preference for relying on a corporation rather than a government to do this kind of work. A government purchasing healthcare and medicine for the whole population is arguably in an even better negotiating position than a corporation doing it for employees.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 17, 2019, 07:38:27 PM
Quote from: JBS on October 17, 2019, 06:57:39 PM
He adheres to a crank theory about money that has no relation to reality. It seems to say that governments can issue unlimited amounts of money to pay for services, and the whole idea of tax revenue, national debt, and budgets is really a mass delusion.



    It a description of how money works that differs in being frank. Of course the currency issuer can issue up to practical limits because that is exactly what we do. Paul Samuelson admitted in an interview that the debt mania was a superstition, Fed chairmen (Greenspan, Bernanke) explain it to Congress and you can watch them on YT. You can't be a working economist without understanding what I'm saying is correct. Knowledge of how money works is popular among fund managers (Warren Mosler speaks their language). It doesn't surprise me that practitioners are catching on and that academic economists are still stuck on models that explain nothing that actually happens.

    Yes, the revenue theory of taxation is obsolete. The NY Fed Chairman said so in 1946. It's not coming back, it applies to users like states that don't have their own money.

    We created as much money to fight WWII as we needed to deploy every resource possible and produced the richest grandkids in world history. When was the last time you moaned about the crushing debt burden from all those B-17s and 8 million GIs? Talk about delusions!!

   
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 17, 2019, 07:47:15 PM
Quote from: Madiel on October 17, 2019, 07:30:07 PM
Well yes, that last aspect is one of the reasons it seems like a bad system. Along with the general impediment on people changing jobs or starting their own business for fear of losing health benefits.

As for corporations having more power to negotiate prices than individuals do, I think that's true but this is where I'm fascinated by the American preference for relying on a corporation rather than a government to do this kind of work. A government purchasing healthcare and medicine for the whole population is arguably in an even better negotiating position than a corporation doing it for employees.

The preference is sort the reverse: a resistance to the idea that government bureaucrats set benefits and rates that providers are paid, because they will be more focused on staying with budgets than obtaining quality care.  Given how current Medicare for seniors and Medicaid operate, that idea is very plausible.  IOW, government will get us lower premiums, but at the cost of lesser quality of care.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 17, 2019, 07:56:07 PM
Quote from: drogulus on October 17, 2019, 07:38:27 PM
    It a description of how money works that differs in being frank. Of course the currency issuer can issue up to practical limits because that is exactly what we do. Paul Samuelson admitted in an interview that the debt mania was a superstition, Fed chairmen (Greenspan, Bernanke) explain it to Congress and you can watch them on YT. You can't be a working economist without understanding what I'm saying is correct. Knowledge of how money works is popular among fund managers (Warren Mosler speaks their language). It doesn't surprise me that practitioners are catching on and that academic economists are still stuck on models that explain nothing that actually happens.

    Yes, the revenue theory of taxation is obsolete. The NY Fed Chairman said so in 1946. It's not coming back, it applies to users like states that don't have their own money.

    We created as much money to fight WWII as we needed to deploy every resource possible and produced the richest grandkids in world history. When was the last time you moaned about the crushing debt burden from all those B-17s and 8 million GIs? Talk about delusions!!

   

No one complains about WWII debt becausd it was paid off within 10-15 years

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/US_Debt_Held_by_Public.png/800px-US_Debt_Held_by_Public.png)
By about 1960 the debt was down to about Great Depression levels, and it went even lower into the 1970s.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 17, 2019, 08:09:00 PM
Quote from: JBS on October 17, 2019, 07:56:07 PM
No one complains about WWII debt becausd it was paid off within 10-15 years

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/US_Debt_Held_by_Public.png/800px-US_Debt_Held_by_Public.png)
By about 1960 the debt was down to about Great Depression levels, and it went even lower into the 1970s.

     None of it was paid off. You're looking at a ratio of Debt to GDP. The debt is rolled over, old debt paid and new debt issued. What happens is that debt rises and falls relative to the size of GDP while both grow. Nominal debt continues to rise with short interruptions which if they go on long enough crash the economy.

     The national debt will never be paid. We pay the bills, not the debt. The debt is all the net financial savings in the economy and it will never, ever be taxed back.
     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 17, 2019, 08:13:16 PM
Quote from: drogulus on October 17, 2019, 08:09:00 PM
     None of it was paid off. You're looking at a ratio of Debt to GDP. The debt is rolled over, old debt paid and new debt issued. What happens is that debt rises and falls relative to the size of GDP while both grow. Nominal debt continues to rise with short interruptions which if they go on long enough crash the economy.

     The national debt will never be paid. We pay the bills, not the debt. The debt is all the net financial savings in the economy and it will never, ever be taxed back.
   

As I said, a theory with no relation to reality.  Your last sentence doesn't even mean anything...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 17, 2019, 08:32:42 PM
     There something a little odd about the debt/GDP chart above, the projection look like something Ken Rogoff would come up with. For the first time a debt bulge will not be followed by a growth explosion that reduces debt/GDP like in the past (Civil War, WWI, depression/WWII). From a mainstream comfortably wrong perspective I get it, but then that's why I don't listen to people like that.

     
Quote from: JBS on October 17, 2019, 08:13:16 PM
As I said, a theory with no relation to reality.  Your last sentence doesn't even mean anything...

     Where do you think the money to pay the tax would come from?  Do you know what paying a debt is? It extinguishes the money and the debt together. No debt, no money for the whole system. What use is a money system with no money in it?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 17, 2019, 08:51:11 PM
Quote from: JBS on October 17, 2019, 07:47:15 PM
The preference is sort the reverse: a resistance to the idea that government bureaucrats set benefits and rates that providers are paid, because they will be more focused on staying with budgets than obtaining quality care.  Given how current Medicare for seniors and Medicaid operate, that idea is very plausible.  IOW, government will get us lower premiums, but at the cost of lesser quality of care.

Half the problem with the American system is that you frequently have a higher standard of care then everyone really needs, and then people have to pay for it.

It's like going to the local car yard and discovering that only Porsches and BMWs are in stock, and being told that this is great because you have the best cars anywhere. Never mind that many customers will go bankrupt buying a Porsche because they really need transportation.

Some time ago I referred to a podcast episode about why someone was charged over $600 for what ended up being no more than a band-aid for a child's injury. The answer is essentially that each hospital and medical service in the USA prides itself on stocking absolutely everything that anyone could possibly need, which is arguably great if you have some incredibly rare problem, but also means that the huge cost of that has to be covered by those with far more mundane problems. The balance of cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment is shifted way off in the direction of covering every risk no matter what the cost and however infrequent the benefit.

So yeah, you have the best quality of care in the world. And it's horrifically expensive. And in terms of OUTCOMES, it doesn't actually deliver better results than a cheaper, lower quality system of care. Many countries spend far less on healthcare and get the same results or better.

My car gets me around, it's reliable and quite comfortable. I don't need it to have gold wheels.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 17, 2019, 11:31:37 PM
Quote from: Madiel on October 17, 2019, 08:51:11 PM
So yeah, you have the best quality of care in the world.

I think Israel is at least as good.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 18, 2019, 01:53:51 AM
Quote from: JBS on October 17, 2019, 06:57:39 PM
He adheres to a crank theory about money that has no relation to reality. It seems to say that governments can issue unlimited amounts of money to pay for services, and the whole idea of tax revenue, national debt, and budgets is really a mass delusion.

The US controls it's own currency, USD, so the US government can issue "unlimited amounts of money" if it wants. It has ramifications of course such as inflation, but it can be done. For a country like the US national debt is not as serious as Republicans make it to be to block any policy that would help regular people, but conveniently forget when it's about tax cuts for the rich etc.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 18, 2019, 02:19:11 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 17, 2019, 08:51:11 PMSo yeah, you have the best quality of care in the world.

The US doesn't have the best quality of care in the world overall. Rich people can have quality with cash, but regular people don't have that option. When comparing the US to other countries, the quality of care in the US is about the same, nothing that outshines other countries. Each country has it's stronger and weaker areas depending on how resources have been targeted.

The US has "average" quality of care. It is not an issue. The problems are the overall costs (highest in the World) lack of access to care, medical bankruptcies and employer based coverage that weakens freedom and gives the employer additional leverage against employees.  Medicare for all system fixes those problems.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 18, 2019, 04:33:16 AM
If people could read all of what I wrote instead of ripping one sentence out of context and misconstruing it, that would be great. Thanks.

I would have thought the car yard analogy would have helped make the point. As would have specifically indicating the difference between quality of care notionally available and actual outcomes.

I mean, anyone actually reading what I've written, not just in that post but previous ones but that post alone is sufficient, would understand that I think the American healthcare system is pretty shit and I'm explaining what's wrong with it. It's a system that offers outstanding care that hardly anyone needs and hardly anyone can afford.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 18, 2019, 05:58:46 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 18, 2019, 01:53:51 AM
The US controls it's own currency, USD, so the US government can issue "unlimited amounts of money" if it wants. It has ramifications of course such as inflation, but it can be done. For a country like the US national debt is not as serious as Republicans make it to be to block any policy that would help regular people, but conveniently forget when it's about tax cuts for the rich etc.

     Exactly, it's not a crackpot theory, it's common practice. Repubs use it for one thing, Dems use it for the other thing, and both use dollar run out theory against the choices their opponents make.

     It's possible to know the difference between paying off a credit card balance and paying a small amount while the balance stays the same for years.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 18, 2019, 07:54:02 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 18, 2019, 04:33:16 AM
think the American healthcare system is pretty shit and I'm explaining what's wrong with it. It's a system that offers outstanding care that hardly anyone needs and hardly anyone can afford.

Sorry if I took your words out of context, I totally agree with this.  ;)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 18, 2019, 09:46:22 AM

    It's unlikely that any universal scheme will reduce the level of service for those getting good service now. It will be a high priority to prevent that from happening, and not hard to figure out how.

    We can game the approach as a phase in plan where more and more people abandon the sinking premium ship for the public ship run on the fiscal balance, with tax change deferred to when we have a better idea if changes should be made. An expanding economy pays more tax back, a big expansion more than that. I'm wary of efforts to Robin Hood the balances like Bernie wants.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 18, 2019, 10:43:33 AM
Quote from: Muzio on August 26, 2019, 03:47:35 PM
I say, keep Tulsi Gabbard in mind.  IMO, she is going to play a much bigger role in the primaries than most people think.  She is not going to allow the DNC to shove her aside so inofficiously and discourteously after she performed the surgical takedown of Heels-up Harris.  Some suggest she may threaten to run as an independent, or worse yet (better yet?) endorse our current sublime President...

Yes, I remind you to keep your eye on the Tulsi....

Quote
Hillary Clinton Suggests Tulsi Gabbard Is A 'Russian Asset'

Former first lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested that 2020 hopeful Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is a Russian asset, in an interview with Campaign HQ's podcast. Moreover, Clinton blamed Russia for her failure to win the 2016 election against Donald Trump.

"I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and they're grooming her to be the third party candidate," Clinton told host David Plouffe.

"She's a favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far and that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she is also a Russian asset."

"They know they can't win without a third-party candidate, and so I do not know who it is going to be but I can guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most need it," Clinton concluded.

Ahead of this week's Democratic presidential debate, The New York Times published a piece that painted Gabbard as a tool of the Russians. The paper cited she's gained support "from online bot activity and the Russian news media." On the debate stage, Gabbard acknowledged it as a "smear."

https://saraacarter.com/hillary-clinton-suggests-tulsi-gabbard-is-a-russian-asset/ (https://saraacarter.com/hillary-clinton-suggests-tulsi-gabbard-is-a-russian-asset/)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 18, 2019, 11:02:21 AM
Quote from: Muzio on October 18, 2019, 10:43:33 AM
Yes, I remind you to keep your eye on the Tulsi....
https://saraacarter.com/hillary-clinton-suggests-tulsi-gabbard-is-a-russian-asset/ (https://saraacarter.com/hillary-clinton-suggests-tulsi-gabbard-is-a-russian-asset/)

     Mrs. Beast would know more than I do about that. Of course Tulsi arouses suspicions of a Jill Stein-ish variety. The pre-positioning for a 3rd party run raises eyebrows.

     If I see a troll push for her my view will develop some. Evidently there is one. I haven't seen it yet.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 18, 2019, 01:15:03 PM
Tulsi brings the heat back to Hillary...(twitter, 1:20 PM - 18 Oct 2019)

Quote
Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain.

From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.

It's now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don't cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.

BTW, my condolences to Tulsi and her family.... :(
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 18, 2019, 02:07:10 PM

     From Feb. this year:

     Russia's propaganda machine discovers 2020 Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261)

Since Gabbard announced her intention to run on Jan. 11, there have been at least 20 Gabbard stories on three major Moscow-based English-language websites affiliated with or supportive of the Russian government: RT, the Russian-owned TV outlet; Sputnik News, a radio outlet; and Russia Insider, a blog that experts say closely follows the Kremlin line. The CIA has called RT and Sputnik part of "Russia's state-run propaganda machine."

All three sites celebrated Gabbard's announcement, defended her positions on Russia and her 2017 meeting with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, and attacked those who have suggested she is a pawn for Moscow. The coverage devoted to Gabbard, both in news and commentary, exceeds that afforded to any of the declared or rumored Democratic candidates despite Gabbard's lack of voter recognition.


     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on October 18, 2019, 03:15:19 PM
Would Tulsi Gabbard as a third party candidate be taking votes away from the Ds or the Rs? if Muzio is an indication it would be the latter.

Do it, Tulsi. Dooo eeet.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 18, 2019, 03:40:19 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on October 18, 2019, 03:15:19 PM
Would Tulsi Gabbard as a third party candidate be taking votes away from the Ds or the Rs? if Muzio is an indication it would be the latter.

Do it, Tulsi. Dooo eeet.

     Putin thinks she would take votes from Dems. I think the idea is that there are these Obama-Trump Dems disillusioned with Trump who want a better Russia backed alternative. Who can say? It sounds cuckoo but then Trump is President.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 18, 2019, 05:08:40 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on October 18, 2019, 03:15:19 PM
Would Tulsi Gabbard as a third party candidate be taking votes away from the Ds or the Rs? if Muzio is an indication it would be the latter.
Do it, Tulsi. Dooo eeet.

Dems are afraid that Tulsi would split the dem vote and secure a victory for Our President Trump.

While I'm at it, allow me to share with you a beautiful autumn photo from the USA:


(https://i.postimg.cc/R0KhC3VW/Pol-Trump-rally-Dallas-Oct-17-2019.jpg)
(Trump rally, Oct. 17, 2019...)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on October 18, 2019, 05:27:41 PM
Quote from: drogulus on October 18, 2019, 03:40:19 PM
     Putin thinks she would take votes from Dems. I think the idea is that there are these Obama-Trump Dems disillusioned with Trump who want a better Russia backed alternative. Who can say? It sounds cuckoo but then Trump is President.
my far-left friends on FB have been anti-anti-tump all along and pushing Tulsi from the start. I'm not totally unsympathetic to some of the stuff they bring up. Some of it. But it's the top of the rock. Again, not that they don't have their points.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on October 18, 2019, 05:34:22 PM
Quote from: milk on October 18, 2019, 05:27:41 PM
my far-left friends on FB have been anti-anti-tump all along and pushing Tulsi from the start. I'm not totally unsympathetic to some of the stuff they bring up. Some of it. But it's the top of the rock. Again, not that they don't have their points.

Really? What do they see as her merits?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 18, 2019, 05:40:00 PM
Quote from: Muzio on October 18, 2019, 05:08:40 PM
Dems are afraid that Tulsi would split the dem vote and secure a victory for Our President Trump.

While I'm at it, allow me to share with you a beautiful autumn photo from the USA:


(https://i.postimg.cc/R0KhC3VW/Pol-Trump-rally-Dallas-Oct-17-2019.jpg)
(Trump rally, Oct. 17, 2019...)

But here is another take I saw on twitter:

Peter Paschal
@PeterPaschal7
2 hours ago
I think Hillary is subliminally provoking Gabbard to run as a 3rd party candidate, thinking that it will hurt Trump more than the Dem nominee.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 18, 2019, 06:54:12 PM


     Putin Chaos theory is what I call Helter Skelter in honor of the American political philosopher C. Manson.

     I wanted to see troll push, here now is troll, pushing.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on October 18, 2019, 07:53:11 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on October 18, 2019, 05:34:22 PM
Really? What do they see as her merits?
They think she's anti-imperialism and anti war. They hate America. They think the HK protesters are just CIA stooges and that Putin is no worse, perhaps better, than any American president. They think Tulsi is the true progressive. They think Obama and Clinton were just as bad if not worse than tump. They link to fringe websites everyday, like world socialist something-or-other. It makes me laugh when conservatives called Obama a socialist. They should have a word with these people. One of these guys I knew in college. I'm surprised that some people kind of keep the same thinking for 30 years.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on October 18, 2019, 08:04:22 PM
Quote from: milk on October 18, 2019, 07:53:11 PM
They think she's anti-imperialism and anti war. They hate America. They think the HK protesters are just CIA stooges and that Putin is no worse, perhaps better, than any American president. They think Tulsi is the true progressive. They think Obama and Clinton were just as bad if not worse than tump. They link to fringe websites everyday, like world socialist something-or-other. It makes me laugh when conservatives called Obama a socialist. They should have a word with these people. One of these guys I knew in college. I'm surprised that some people kind of keep the same thinking for 30 years.

Bloody hell. That's the kind of "far left" on those circular graphs where they travel around into the far right.

Weren't there over a quarter million HK protesters? How are they "CIA stooges"?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on October 18, 2019, 08:36:15 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on October 18, 2019, 08:04:22 PM
Bloody hell. That's the kind of "far left" on those circular graphs where they travel around into the far right.

Weren't there over a quarter million HK protesters? How are they "CIA stooges"?
Well, there's a germ of truth in everything they say. It's true some American NGOs receive funding from the State Dept. and support organizations in HK under the guise of promoting democracy. I live in Asia, I've met HK students; I try to tell these people on FB that they're not "stooges" of anybody. I'm just searching for a link to show you though you don't actually need to waste your time with it. But just to show I'm not crazy. Here's someone they like who often appears on RT (of course) and has a book too. Danny Haiphong. I'll summarize: he thinks HK protests are CIA and they exist because capitalists are afraid of China's state run successes. I know, it sounds like a joke but they believe it.
https://youtu.be/8yMgft7p46M (https://youtu.be/8yMgft7p46M)
Tulsi has had their attention for some time. I wonder what goes on in her head. I guess I should read more of what she's saying. She's a bit odd. For some reason, I kind of trust Bernie Sanders even though I think he can't win and his supporters can be annoying. Those friends of mine on FB generally like him too. But Gabbard has a weird conspiracy vibe about her. I can't put my finger on it. Maybe it's the people she meets with like the Modi from India. He's a creep. Maybe her virulently anti-gay family background. Where the Hmmm... emoji?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 19, 2019, 04:13:31 AM
Tulsi Gabbard is a pretty good candidate, but she is polling at 0.8 % I believe.
Tulsi's role in this election has been shaming war friendly corporate hacks and bringing them down in the debates.
Maybe she get's a position in Bernie's admistration? Bernie and Tulsi are both anti-war.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 19, 2019, 05:43:18 AM
I was surprised to see that Tulsi has managed to stick around to this point.  You go girl, and all that.  She'd better hope she doesn't lose her House seat due to neglect. 

She's too young and too non-Christian to be president.  Also, she's not white.  Her beauty is insufficient to overcome her political weaknesses.  Dems would be wise to select someone who can win.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 19, 2019, 05:55:34 AM
Quote from: Todd on October 19, 2019, 05:43:18 AM
She's too young and too non-Christian to be president.

What does her age or religion matter? Are you that much into identity politics? The US is not a Christian theoracy. It is a secular country with freedom of religion, separation of church and state and all that. She is also old enough to legally run for president. You keep telling us non-Americans we don't know anything while demonstrating stunning ignorance yourself of what kind of country you are living in.  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 19, 2019, 06:03:33 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 19, 2019, 05:55:34 AM
What does her age or religion matter?

I can hardly wait for Finns electing their 30yo Muslim woman president.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 19, 2019, 06:11:42 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 19, 2019, 06:03:33 AM
I can hardly wait for Finns electing their 30yo Muslim woman president.

It depends completely on the politics of said woman. Politics matter.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 19, 2019, 06:21:31 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 19, 2019, 05:55:34 AM
What does her age or religion matter? Are you that much into identity politics? The US is not a Christian theoracy. It is a secular country with freedom of religion, separation of church and state and all that. She is also old enough to legally run for president. You keep telling us non-Americans we don't know anything while demonstrating stunning ignorance yourself of what kind of country you are living in.  ::)


Age, religion, race, sexuality, and gender are important to many voters.  Large swathes of voters take those factors into account, and a large number rely on them to inform their decision making process.  Pretty much every politician, political strategist, and pundit knows it and comments on it and/or writes about it.  Politicians and their teams formulate electoral strategies taking these factors into consideration.

Your comment on age offers yet another example of your profound ignorance and stupidity (ie, the inability to comprehend the few facts you do know).  Yes, Ms Gabbard is over 35.  She meets the age criterion set forth in Article II.  She is too young to be president.  So is Mr Buttigieg.  Polling and electoral history in the United States very clearly demonstrate that most voters prefer more generally experienced candidates.

In short, you are a moron.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 19, 2019, 06:22:39 AM
Guys -- Guys -- Guys!!!!!  It's Happening!!!!!  Big News!!!  From Twitter:

Quote
LOUISIANA ELECTION.  Exit polls and post election surveys are in. Republicans received 25% of the Black vote. GOP Black voters was 291% over 2015.  #1 issue for Conservative voting Black Voters was Democrats attacking President Trump.

12:25 AM - 18 Oct 2019


I recently read some analysis of the black Dem vote in America.  If just a small fraction chooses to vote for R, it has the power to easily shift the national outcomes in a yuuge way.  And this is not a small shift in Louisiana.  It indicates that perhaps something big is happening!!!  O Happy We!!!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 19, 2019, 06:24:40 AM
Quote from: Muzio on October 19, 2019, 06:22:39 AMIt indicates that perhaps something big is happening!!!  O Happy We!!!


It's the Kanye factor.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 19, 2019, 07:34:41 AM
Quote from: Muzio on October 19, 2019, 06:22:39 AM
Guys -- Guys -- Guys!!!!!  It's Happening!!!!!  Big News!!!  From Twitter:

I recently read some analysis of the black Dem vote in America.  If just a small fraction chooses to vote for R, it has the power to easily shift the national outcomes in a yuuge way.  And this is not a small shift in Louisiana.  It indicates that perhaps something big is happening!!!  O Happy We!!!

Gerrymandering is working out for GOP?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 19, 2019, 07:38:27 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 19, 2019, 07:34:41 AM
Gerrymandering is working out for GOP?


So much for the feted Finnish education system.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 19, 2019, 07:41:15 AM
Quote from: Todd on October 19, 2019, 06:21:31 AM

Age, religion, race, sexuality, and gender are important to many voters.  Large swathes of voters take those factors into account, and a large number rely on them to inform their decision making process.  Pretty much every politician, political strategist, and pundit knows it and comments on it and/or writes about it.  Politicians and their teams formulate electoral strategies taking these factors into consideration.

Your comment on age offers yet another example of your profound ignorance and stupidity (ie, the inability to comprehend the few facts you do know).  Yes, Ms Gabbard is over 35.  She meets the age criterion set forth in Article II.  She is too young to be president.  So is Mr Buttigieg.  Polling and electoral history in the United States very clearly demonstrate that most voters prefer more generally experienced candidates.

In short, you are a moron.

Trump is president too and he is mentally 10 years old. Tulsi has 0.8 % support, so it doesn't matter. She doesn't have a chance.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 19, 2019, 07:43:28 AM
Quote from: Todd on October 19, 2019, 07:38:27 AM

So much for the feted Finnish education system.

Yeah, Finnish education system didn't tell me about gerrymandering...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 19, 2019, 07:44:55 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 19, 2019, 07:41:15 AMTrump is president too and he is mentally 10 years old.


So much for the feted Finnish education system.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 19, 2019, 01:19:43 PM
Quote from: milk on October 18, 2019, 07:53:11 PM
They think she's anti-imperialism and anti war. They hate America. They think the HK protesters are just CIA stooges and that Putin is no worse, perhaps better, than any American president.

     She's a good fit, then. I just took a little tour of Sputnik News, yesterday in fact. Apparently Hillary and Tulsi are the most important Americans alive, locked in a deathmatch.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 19, 2019, 02:18:44 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on October 19, 2019, 01:34:44 PMYou're a lost cause...


Now that's compelling.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 19, 2019, 02:32:54 PM


     After rumination on the meaning of life for minutes I have decided that 71dB is one of the most valuable contributors here. I say this with malice towards not many, and in disagreement with plenty that our hero says, some of which is naive and utopian. Also, I intuit that he likes animals.

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 19, 2019, 02:55:42 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on October 19, 2019, 01:34:44 PM
You're a lost cause if you can't see that equating a Finn's English grammar (for whom it is a second language, mind you) with the quality of his country's education system is stupid.

Grammar? What? I thought the problem was my "ignorance", not grammar.  :P

Yes, my English is not perfect*, but I think it's good enough for people to understand what I say.

* Up until the mid 90's I was really bad at English, but my university studies and internet made me learn it and become much better in it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 19, 2019, 03:03:37 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 19, 2019, 02:55:42 PM
Up until the mid 90's I was really bad at English, but my university studies and internet made me learn it and become much better in it.

So you went to a Finnishing School?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 19, 2019, 03:06:52 PM
Quote from: drogulus on October 19, 2019, 02:32:54 PM

     After rumination on the meaning of life for minutes I have decided that 71dB is one of the most valuable contributors here. I say this with malice towards not many, and in disagreement with plenty that our hero says, some of which is naive and utopian. Also, I intuit that he likes animals.


Well, thank you! Your own posts tend to feel thoughtful even if I don't always agree 100 %.

Who doesn't like animals? I like (recommend) this Youtube channel (TYR The White Fox):

https://www.youtube.com/v/x3EQaXUO5K0
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 19, 2019, 03:11:00 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 19, 2019, 07:43:28 AM
Yeah, Finnish education system didn't tell me about gerrymandering...
Gerrymandering in the presidential election is not possible. Only in the House of Reps.

EDIT: This is something I've had to point out to left-leaning American friends who keep pointing out that Hillary Clinton won the national vote, as if that matters. Winning a contest that didn't exist is irrelevant. It's like declaring that your favourite tennis player won a match because they won more points overall while ignoring the actual scoring system of tennis.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 19, 2019, 03:20:47 PM
Quote from: Muzio on October 19, 2019, 03:03:37 PM
So you went to a Finnishing School?

Hahaah. I think one of my problems was I wasn't much into music until in high-school and musical activity is said to develop the areas of the brain that are linked to learning languages. My ears got "trained" starting from high school years and during the university years I noticed how learning English became increasingly easy. My childhood was so unmusical that only now at age of 48 have I gotten properly into music theory and it's awesome to be able to finally create music that makes (musical) sense! It all came to me pretty suddenly after pondering the mysteries for decades in despair. Jake Lizzio, the best music theory teacher of Youtube made it happen, gave me the insight I was missing.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 19, 2019, 03:27:25 PM
Quote from: Madiel on October 19, 2019, 03:11:00 PM
Gerrymandering in the presidential election is not possible. Only in the House of Reps.

That's true, thanks for pointing it out

Quote from: Madiel on October 19, 2019, 03:11:00 PMEDIT: This is something I've had to point out to left-leaning American friends who keep pointing out that Hillary Clinton won the national vote, as if that matters. Winning a contest that didn't exist is irrelevant. It's like declaring that your favourite tennis player won a match because they won more points overall while ignoring the actual scoring system of tennis.

Yeah, you need to win the real contest and Hillary Clinton was unable to do that. It matters to have a candidate who can. That's just one reason why I endorse Bernie Sanders.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on October 19, 2019, 03:33:17 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 19, 2019, 02:55:42 PM
Grammar? What? I thought the problem was my "ignorance", not grammar.  :P

Yes, my English is not perfect*, but I think it's good enough for people to understand what I say.

* Up until the mid 90's I was really bad at English, but my university studies and internet made me learn it and become much better in it.

I thought it was a grammar thing!  :-\
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on October 19, 2019, 03:43:58 PM
Quote from: Madiel on October 19, 2019, 03:11:00 PM
Gerrymandering in the presidential election is not possible. Only in the House of Reps.

EDIT: This is something I've had to point out to left-leaning American friends who keep pointing out that Hillary Clinton won the national vote, as if that matters. Winning a contest that didn't exist is irrelevant. It's like declaring that your favourite tennis player won a match because they won more points overall while ignoring the actual scoring system of tennis.

That's a good analogy - but it does matter if there's going to be a lot of loose talk later about "the will of the people" and "real Americans" etc.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 19, 2019, 04:02:48 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on October 19, 2019, 03:43:58 PM
That's a good analogy - but it does matter if there's going to be a lot of loose talk later about "the will of the people" and "real Americans" etc.

Absolutely. It doesn't matter which side of politics it is, mention of having a "mandate" makes me want to slap them.

I did enjoy a couple of Australian elections ago when the Prime Minister started talking about having a mandate and how the government had been elected, and the Leader of the Opposition pointed out that every single person on his side of the chamber had also been elected.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 20, 2019, 05:21:11 AM
Good Sunday Morning to everyone except the losers and navel-pickers who are off topic.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Dy9mg5HJ/Pol-Tulsi-Gabbard-tweet-great-thank-you-hillary-clinton.jpg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on October 20, 2019, 05:50:06 AM
Quote from: Muzio on October 20, 2019, 05:21:11 AM
Good Sunday Morning to everyone except the losers...
:o
THIS thread is OFF
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 20, 2019, 06:42:52 AM

     Tulsi can do the Putiny thing and run as a Baathist. If she doesn't, what is she for?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 20, 2019, 10:21:34 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 20, 2019, 06:42:52 AM
     Tulsi can do the Putiny thing and run as a Baathist. If she doesn't, what is she for?
Through her severe and well-publicized denunciations, Tulsi can finally destroy, for all practical purposes, Hillary Clinton.  In doing so, she gives credibility to what DJT has been saying about Hillary all along.  Thus, she helps, in some incremental way, DJT in 2020.  At this point, increments (increased DJT support from Blacks, Hispanics, white women, Centrist Dems) are very important.

Hence, victory.
   :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on October 20, 2019, 02:55:56 PM
Quote from: Muzio on October 20, 2019, 10:21:34 AM
she gives credibility to what DJT has been saying...   :)
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 20, 2019, 03:20:19 PM
This a thread about Democratic candidates. Clinton isn't running, and to think destroying Clinton is an important goal is very weird.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 20, 2019, 03:42:43 PM
Quote from: Muzio on October 20, 2019, 10:21:34 AM
Through her severe and well-publicized denunciations, Tulsi can finally destroy, for all practical purposes, Hillary Clinton.

     It won't have any effect on H. Bitch. As for Putin, Hillary doesn't scare him, he's moved on.

     (https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/mjY6AwzwfwecGBvbCilNxIfnlOQ=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/QMC7XGHEKEI6PAZ7CVIDCVMP6Q.jpg)

    Here we see Tulsi Mk I with Michael Flynn and the Boss, discussing Green adoption energy and Turkish adoption.
     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 20, 2019, 04:17:58 PM
Quote from: Muzio on October 20, 2019, 10:21:34 AM
Through her severe and well-publicized denunciations, Tulsi can finally destroy, for all practical purposes, Hillary Clinton.  In doing so, she gives credibility to what DJT has been saying about Hillary all along.  Thus, she helps, in some incremental way, DJT in 2020.  At this point, increments (increased DJT support from Blacks, Hispanics, white women, Centrist Dems) are very important.

Hence, victory.
   :)

You don't seem to understand. What she calls corruption and rot is not what Donald the Great and Terrible calls corruption and rot.

She's saying the same things that 71db (and others) has been saying: that she is a "corporarist", a non-progressive. She's saying that Hillary is not leftist enough.

Which btw is itself evidence that she is insincere: if she really thought that, she'd be working for Bernie or Sanders, not running against them.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 20, 2019, 05:30:45 PM
Quote from: Madiel on October 20, 2019, 03:20:19 PM
This a thread about Democratic candidates. Clinton isn't running, and to think destroying Clinton is an important goal is very weird.

Yes, that is a die-hard obsession of the wackadoodle right.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 20, 2019, 06:36:27 PM
Hey, guys, here is what I'm seeing:

Tulsi Gabbard Elevated in Iowa By Clinton Spat*
AP
October 19, 2019, 8:00 PM EDT Updated on October 19, 2019, 9:05 PM EDT


* Except it ain't no spat.  The game is changing for (stealth 'compromise') candidate H. Clinton.  I been told you...don't underrate what Tulsi can do.  My hope is she'll bring it home to DJT before giving it up to the dem quagmire.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 20, 2019, 06:41:28 PM
When you are polling at less than 1%, almost any change can only be for the better.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 20, 2019, 07:22:13 PM
Quote from: JBS on October 20, 2019, 06:41:28 PM
When you are polling at less than 1%, almost any change can only be for the better.

Escaping the margin of error would be quite something, yes.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 21, 2019, 10:54:23 AM
Doesn't the Washington Post realize they're supposed to be biased against Bernie?!

Right now, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) leads the Democratic field in net favorability among Democrats and Democratic leaners with 55 percent. He is followed by former vice president Joe Biden with 46 percent and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) with 43 percent, then Sen. Kamala D. Harris (31 percent).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 21, 2019, 10:54:48 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 20, 2019, 07:22:13 PM
Escaping the margin of error would be quite something, yes.

(* chortle *)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 21, 2019, 11:13:45 AM
Bernie Rally at Queens Draws Huge Crowd (25,872) Topping Every Candidate

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 21, 2019, 10:54:23 AM
Doesn't the Washington Post realize they're supposed to be biased against Bernie?!

Right now, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) leads the Democratic field in net favorability among Democrats and Democratic leaners with 55 percent. He is followed by former vice president Joe Biden with 46 percent and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) with 43 percent, then Sen. Kamala D. Harris (31 percent).

Sometimes you just can't smear the facts no matter how much you want...  :P

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 21, 2019, 03:16:53 PM

     I worked in Queens 50 years ago on 164th St in Flushing, as a clerk in the NY Telephone construction department. Sometimes I worked the trouble desk (sb/sb, sheath break/squirrel bite).

     I have a feeling that many of the Bernie crowd came from Brooklyn, cutting holes in the barbed wire fence between the guard towers.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 21, 2019, 05:30:17 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 21, 2019, 11:13:45 AMSometimes you just can't smear the facts no matter how much you want...  :P

"Oh, Heavenly One, if you can hear my prayer, I beseech you with my outstretched palms.  I only want what 71 dB wants.  Grant us both the gift of Bernie as the dem Presidential candidate for 2020.  Amen."

(https://i.postimg.cc/SNFCZkHG/Meme-two-raccoons-praying.jpg)

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 21, 2019, 05:47:38 PM
CNN is reporting that President Trump has been notified that he will be impeached.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 22, 2019, 02:37:34 AM
Quote from: Muzio on October 21, 2019, 05:47:38 PM
CNN is reporting that President Trump has been notified that he will be impeached.

Well, Republicans have been turning against Trump recently...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 22, 2019, 04:02:38 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 22, 2019, 02:37:34 AM
Well, Republicans have been turning against Trump recently...

Not true...Never Trumpers, etc., have always been against the President.  His rank and file support has never been stronger.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 22, 2019, 06:22:55 AM
Quote from: Muzio on October 21, 2019, 05:47:38 PM
CNN is reporting that President Trump has been notified that he will be impeached.

That is an error. Though it is certainly true that he tweets out of his persecution complex daily.

Listen to that stuck pig squeal.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on October 22, 2019, 09:14:51 AM
Did he say mean things again or was he found guilty of a crime?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 22, 2019, 11:08:15 AM
Trump compared his impeachment to lynching.  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 22, 2019, 03:01:14 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 22, 2019, 06:22:55 AM
That is an error...

Sorry, not CNN.  It was reported by someone named Nicolle Wallace on MSNBC.

Video at this link: https://saraacarter.com/nicolle-wallace-trump-was-notified-the-house-dems-will-impeach-him/ (https://saraacarter.com/nicolle-wallace-trump-was-notified-the-house-dems-will-impeach-him/)

Nicole sez:
Quote"Donald Trump has been told by close associates that at least one outside adviser that he will be impeached and the only thing standing between him and removal from office is those 53 Republican senators. That's according to a trump ally and outside adviser in contact with this white house, who describes trump's small inner circle as quietly coming to grips with the reality that impeachment is happening and a majority of Americans support it."



Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on October 22, 2019, 03:21:23 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 22, 2019, 11:08:15 AM
Trump compared his impeachment to lynching.  ::)

And that's not even the craziest part of that tweet:

"So some day, if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights. All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here - a lynching. But we will WIN!"

Without due process or fairness or any legal rights??
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on October 22, 2019, 03:23:10 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 22, 2019, 11:08:15 AM
Trump compared his impeachment to lynching.  ::)
Hyperbolic comparison, but (in the scenario hasn't done anything illegal) anyone would be annoyed if people kept trying to make up reasons to fire them.

I mean, if he did something illegal, fine, but if he didn't, it's obvious they are trying to do that because they have no chance next election. Whoever is doing this is trying to undermine the authority of voters.


Quote from: SimonNZ on October 22, 2019, 03:21:23 PM
"So some day, if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights. All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here - a lynching. But we will WIN!"
Oh, right. Metaphors are shocking.  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 22, 2019, 03:40:12 PM
Bad news for both Warren and the "It's got to be Bernie! contingent:

In sum, Democrats do need to excite their base. However, with 33 percent of voters deciding their vote based on who Democrats nominate, 50 percent of Republicans willing to consider another candidate and 54 percent of voters worried about terrorism, Democrats would be wise to nominate someone credible on national security and not considered politically extreme. Democrats should choose very wisely.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/21/democrats-cannot-win-merely-by-turning-out-base/
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 22, 2019, 03:49:27 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 22, 2019, 03:40:12 PM
Bad news for both Warren and the "It's got to be Bernie! contingent:

In sum, Democrats do need to excite their base. However, with 33 percent of voters deciding their vote based on who Democrats nominate, 50 percent of Republicans willing to consider another candidate and 54 percent of voters worried about terrorism, Democrats would be wise to nominate someone credible on national security and not considered politically extreme. Democrats should choose very wisely.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/21/democrats-cannot-win-merely-by-turning-out-base/

All of this post is of course nonsense. What created terrorism? Interventionism. So how is anti-interventionism bad in regards of terrorism? Wapo wants corporate candidate so they craft these nonsense articles.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 22, 2019, 04:00:44 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 22, 2019, 03:49:27 PM
All of this post is of course nonsense. What created terrorism? Interventionism. So how is anti-interventionism bad in regards of terrorism? Wapo wants corporate candidate so they craft these nonsense articles.

Very sad that you are so blinkered.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 22, 2019, 04:03:05 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 22, 2019, 03:49:27 PM
All of this post is of course nonsense. What created terrorism? Interventionism. So how is anti-interventionism bad in regards of terrorism? Wapo wants corporate candidate so they craft these nonsense articles.

Because terrorism may have been catalyzed by interventionism, but it won't stop just because interventionism stops.

You do know that the largest number of victims of Islamic terrorism are Muslims killed in their home countries?

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 22, 2019, 04:50:58 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 22, 2019, 11:08:15 AM
Trump compared his impeachment to lynching.  ::)

The President was exactly correct.

But before you get too full of moral outrage about the term "lynching," remember that it was used repeatedly by the dems (both black and white) during the Clinton impeachment.  Videos abound.  A few of the comments:

Joe Biden: "Even if the President should be impeached, history is going to question whether or not this was just a partisan lynching..."

Dem. Rep. Gregory Meeks on Bill Clinton's impeachment in 1998: "What we are doing here is not a prosecution, it is a persecution and indeed it is a political lynching."

"I will not vote for this Lynching in the People's house"

Jim McDermott: "We're taking a step down the road to becoming a political Lynch Mob... We are going to find a rope find a tree and ask a bunch of questions later.."

Democrats are outraged about Trump comparing impeachment to lynching, but Nadler in 1998 accused Republicans of "running a lynch mob."

During the Benzhazi hearings, CNN referred to "The high-tech lynching of Hillary Clinton..."

ETC., ETC.....
  :D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 22, 2019, 05:19:50 PM
*yawn*
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 22, 2019, 05:46:46 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 22, 2019, 05:19:50 PM
*yawn*
Exactly, right?  I mean, come on, that was so 1998.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 22, 2019, 05:54:20 PM
Did someone cut the cheese?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on October 22, 2019, 06:29:37 PM
Quote from: Muzio on October 22, 2019, 05:46:46 PM
Exactly, right?  I mean, come on, that was so 1998.

Well Trump's clearly forgotten - he's asking us to imagine an alternate universe where a Democrat gets impeached.

Also: does Trump look like a "strong leader" to you when he's continually whining poor me so unfair into twitter?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 22, 2019, 06:42:41 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 22, 2019, 05:54:20 PM
Did someone cut the cheese?
That?  Nah, someone's just playing Karl's music.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on October 23, 2019, 02:18:00 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 22, 2019, 03:40:12 PM
Bad news for both Warren and the "It's got to be Bernie! contingent:

In sum, Democrats do need to excite their base. However, with 33 percent of voters deciding their vote based on who Democrats nominate, 50 percent of Republicans willing to consider another candidate and 54 percent of voters worried about terrorism, Democrats would be wise to nominate someone credible on national security and not considered politically extreme. Democrats should choose very wisely.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/21/democrats-cannot-win-merely-by-turning-out-base/
I worry about Biden. I think it's a bad idea for a Lot of reasons. Yet I do not think Bernie Sanders is the right or realistic choice. I still think Warren can appeal to the middle. But I'm not totally sold because she also has big flaws. My cards on the table: I dislike Klobuchar and Harris. I like Booker but wonder why he's still hanging around. It's not gonna be Sanders and I'm hoping it's not Biden. Dems could lose if their candidate can't appeal to working class economic concerns.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 23, 2019, 05:35:21 AM
Quote from: milk on October 23, 2019, 02:18:00 AM
I worry about Biden. I think it's a bad idea for a Lot of reasons. Yet I do not think Bernie Sanders is the right or realistic choice. I still think Warren can appeal to the middle. But I'm not totally sold because she also has big flaws. My cards on the table: I dislike Klobuchar and Harris. I like Booker but wonder why he's still hanging around. It's not gonna be Sanders and I'm hoping it's not Biden. Dems could lose if their candidate can't appeal to working class economic concerns.

     Dems don't need a flawless candidate that appeals to everyone. Obama wasn't one. What they need is a happy warrior with a good campaign focusing on the battleground states that HRC took for granted.

     I think the Putin vote won't decide things. Jill Stein has said "no puppet", but that isn't necessarily up to her.

     From 2016:

     Russian Environmentalists Brand U.S. Green Party Putin 'Accomplices' (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Y5hvY8vd4wIJ:https://www.newsweek.com/russian-green-activists-brand-us-green-party-accomplice-putin-496359+&cd=27&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

"How is it possible to have a discussion with Mr. Putin and not mention, not even once, the fate of Russian political prisoners, or the attacks against Russian journalists, artists, and environmentalists? Is it fair to speak with him about 'geopolitics' and not mention new Russian laws against freedom of speech, restrictions on NGOs and activists, or the shameful law that forbids 'homosexual propaganda'?"

The pair also demanded that the U.S. Green Party clarify its position on Putin, to demonstrate it is opposed to the "anti-democratic and anti-environmental" aspects of the Russian administration.

A Green Party spokesman, brushed off the criticism, telling Radio Liberty that he thinks "the letter exaggerates Dr. Stein's alleged deference to President Putin."


     So, environmental activists have to flee Russia. Jill Stein is not knowing about it very strongly.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 23, 2019, 06:29:18 AM
Quote from: milk on October 23, 2019, 02:18:00 AM
I worry about Biden. I think it's a bad idea for a Lot of reasons. Yet I do not think Bernie Sanders is the right or realistic choice. I still think Warren can appeal to the middle. But I'm not totally sold because she also has big flaws. My cards on the table: I dislike Klobuchar and Harris. I like Booker but wonder why he's still hanging around. It's not gonna be Sanders and I'm hoping it's not Biden. Dems could lose if their candidate can't appeal to working class economic concerns.

Quote from: drogulus on October 23, 2019, 05:35:21 AM
     Dems don't need a flawless candidate that appeals to everyone. Obama wasn't one. What they need is a happy warrior with a good campaign focusing on the battleground states that HRC took for granted.


I suppose it does not absolutely count  Warren out, but ....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 23, 2019, 08:33:34 AM
     HRC assumed she would be elected and sat on a lead while it evaporated. No Dem will do that this time. There are polls right now saying Trump will win.

     Michael Moore predicted Trump would win in 2016. He's from Michigan. He knows tone ground level working class politics in battleground states. What he knew is now widely known.

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 23, 2019, 09:48:31 AM
Quote from: milk on October 23, 2019, 02:18:00 AM
Yet I do not think Bernie Sanders is the right or realistic choice.

Why do you think that? Bernie does well in the polls, has larger grassroot movement than anybody else and gets more donations than even Elizabeth Warren. So what makes Bernie unrealistic? The answer is not Bernie is too left. HE IS NOT TOO LEFT!! Only the moronic elite thinks that!
He is the ONLY one left enough for regular americans, what struggling americans and the whole damn country NEED!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 23, 2019, 10:05:06 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 23, 2019, 09:48:31 AM
Why do you think that? Bernie does well in the polls, has larger grassroot movement than anybody else and gets more donations than even Elizabeth Warren. So what makes Bernie unrealistic? The answer is not Bernie is too left. HE IS NOT TOO LEFT!! Only the moronic elite thinks that!
He is the ONLY one left enough for regular americans, what struggling americans and the whole damn country NEED!

     How will you explain it if Bernie comes in 4th in early states?

     If it's all brainwashing there's no hope and we might as well let Bashar Gabbard run everything, providing she promises not to bomb hospitals.

     I'm not big on the brainwashing explanation. I think people choose to hold narrow views and let emotions get the best of them, especially under economic stress.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 23, 2019, 10:16:48 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 23, 2019, 10:05:06 AM
      How will you explain it if Bernie comes in 4th in early states?

Something very unexpected has to happen for Bernie to not be in top 3 in early states. So, that unexpected thing will be the explanation.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 23, 2019, 10:37:40 AM

     Bernie is good to keep pressure on from the left, forcing Dems to advocate Dem programs, maybe more popular versions but recognizably what Dem voters and lots of other people would like to see.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 23, 2019, 11:04:50 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 23, 2019, 10:37:40 AM
     Bernie is good to keep pressure on from the left, forcing Dems to advocate Dem programs, maybe more popular versions but recognizably what Dem voters and lots of other people would like to see.

Bernie's influence can be seen in how medicare for all isn't considered anymore a "fringe" idea (as if a system that every other country has is "fringe". No, the for profit system in the US is the "fringe" one.)    Many candidates have advocated some kind of Medicare-for-"all" system to get support among voters because about 85 % of Democratic voters support medicare-for-all and it's a winning issue, but they have also backpedaled (even Warren is a bit wishy washy) a bit to not scare their billionaire donors away. Pete Buttigieg for example has his version where you have current system co-existing with medicare for all system, but that IS NOT single payer system and doesn't have the cost benefits of single payer! It woulf lead to cherry picking of the private sector while driving ill people to the public sector ruining the whole idea of flattened risk pool. The donors like that, because it keeps the mafia aka health insurance companies in place, but that's not a winning stragedy!

Bernie's problem is corporate media which hates him and covers him negatively and dishonestly and also older people. Among young voters he dominates massively (he's support among young voters is ~45%, as much as the next three candidates, Warren, Biden and Buttigieg combined). Young voters can make Bernie the next president. All they have to do is vote!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 23, 2019, 11:25:18 AM
Here is one example of how the corporate media covers Bernie Sanders dishonestly:

CNN: Is Bernie's Campaign "Too Urban"?

https://www.youtube.com/v/vN1fPs6kVjE

In 2016 Bernie's support was "too white and male". Now when he has the endorsement of the likes of AOC and Ilhan Omar it's too "urban".  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 23, 2019, 11:43:03 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 23, 2019, 11:04:50 AM


Bernie's problem is corporate media which hates him and covers him negatively and dishonestly and also older people. Among young voters he dominates massively (he's support among young voters is ~45%, as much as the next three candidates, Warren, Biden and Buttigieg combined). Young voters can make Bernie the next president. All they have to do is vote!

    The media have a love/hate thing going on with him. They like to put on on a serious responsible face and say these kids today don't know how politics works. And it's somewhat true and isn't much of a disadvantage. You just go ahead and fight for what you want. That's how "nothing ever" changes happen.

     Sometimes a fight is worth it even if you lose. Bernie is changing the landscape for everyone and has been doing it for years. His influence is much bigger than his own Presidential prospects IME.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on October 23, 2019, 12:15:17 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 23, 2019, 11:25:18 AM
Here is one example of how the corporate media covers Bernie Sanders dishonestly:



Can you give an example or two of criticism of Sanders you thought might have been justified, or of specific aspects of his policies you're less inclined towards, or of a time you thought he might have misspoken or made a gaffe?

Is is this picture completely rose-tinted? Is any and all criticism "corporate dishonesty"?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 23, 2019, 12:51:02 PM
Quote from: drogulus on October 23, 2019, 10:37:40 AM
     Bernie is good to keep pressure on from the left, forcing Dems to advocate Dem programs, maybe more popular versions but recognizably what Dem voters and lots of other people would like to see.

Yokay.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 23, 2019, 02:04:12 PM
If you look at recent national polling for the Democratic presidential contest, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is either a few points ahead or about 10 points behind former vice president Joe Biden.

Look at Iowa polling, however, and you will see a very different story. The USA Today/Suffolk University poll released on Monday showed, "Biden (18 percent) led Warren (17 percent), [Pete] Buttigieg (13 percent), Bernie Sanders (9 percent), with Tom Steyer, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar and Tulsi Gabbard tied with 3 percent each." Considering Sanders won more than 49 percent of the vote in the 2016 Iowa caucuses, his current standing suggests that the 2020 Sanders campaign is a pale imitation of its 2016 incarnation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/22/all-eyes-iowa/

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 23, 2019, 02:06:05 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 23, 2019, 02:04:12 PM
If you look at recent national polling for the Democratic presidential contest, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is either a few points ahead or about 10 points behind former vice president Joe Biden.

Look at Iowa polling, however, and you will see a very different story. The USA Today/Suffolk University poll released on Monday showed, "Biden (18 percent) led Warren (17 percent), [Pete] Buttigieg (13 percent), Bernie Sanders (9 percent), with Tom Steyer, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar and Tulsi Gabbard tied with 3 percent each." Considering Sanders won more than 49 percent of the vote in the 2016 Iowa caucuses, his current standing suggests that the 2020 Sanders campaign is a pale imitation of its 2016 incarnation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/22/all-eyes-iowa/



Buttigieg may not possess Obama's soaring rhetoric, but as Obama did in 2016, Buttigieg has a fresh face, a preternaturally calm demeanor and a talent for challenging rivals without sounding nasty. As Buttigieg assumes the role of the straight-talking moderate willing to call foul when super-progressive candidates over-promise what they cannot deliver, he may benefit from a wide divide among Iowa voters on the electability vs. "shares my values" question. A remarkable 58 percent of respondents in the USA Today/Suffolk University poll say the "most important thing for Democrats is to nominate a presidential candidate who can defeat Donald Trump" while only 35 percent say it is more important thing that Democrats "nominate a presidential candidate who reflects my priorities and values."

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 23, 2019, 02:08:03 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on October 23, 2019, 12:15:17 PM
Can you give an example or two of criticism of Sanders you thought might have been justified, or of specific aspects of his policies you're less inclined towards, or of a time you thought he might have misspoken or made a gaffe?

Is is this picture completely rose-tinted? Is any and all criticism "corporate dishonesty"?

There are some things that Bernie can be blamed for that are justified critisism. Kyle Kulinski for example has criticised Bernie for not supporting BDS. If you criticize Bernie for these justified reasons you doing good journalism, but the corporate media doesn't do that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 23, 2019, 02:12:53 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 23, 2019, 02:04:12 PM
If you look at recent national polling for the Democratic presidential contest, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is either a few points ahead or about 10 points behind former vice president Joe Biden.

Look at Iowa polling, however, and you will see a very different story. The USA Today/Suffolk University poll released on Monday showed, "Biden (18 percent) led Warren (17 percent), [Pete] Buttigieg (13 percent), Bernie Sanders (9 percent), with Tom Steyer, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar and Tulsi Gabbard tied with 3 percent each." Considering Sanders won more than 49 percent of the vote in the 2016 Iowa caucuses, his current standing suggests that the 2020 Sanders campaign is a pale imitation of its 2016 incarnation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/22/all-eyes-iowa/

More corporate smearing. 2016 there were MUCH fewer candidates so of course nobody gets 49 % at the moment. Also, corporate media cherry picks polls were Bernie does poorly. Why poorly? Often because landline has been used meaning more old people and less young people (where most of Bernies support is). So they can plant the narrative to people's head that Bernie is a has been. He IS NOT!!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 23, 2019, 02:15:17 PM
CNN Poll: Biden's lead in Democratic primary hits widest margin since April

Former Vice President Joe Biden continues to hold a comfortable lead in the Democrat presidential primary field, according to a CNN poll released Wednesday.
Biden has 34 percent support among Democrats/Democrat-leaning independents who are registered to vote while Sen. Elizabeth Warren only registers 19 percent support. Sen. Bernie Sanders has 16 percent while Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Kamala Harris only have six percent support each. Sen. Amy Klobuchar and former Rep. Beto O'Rourke end up with three percent support.

Political analysts believed the fourth Democrat debate hosted by CNN would shake up the race, as Biden continued to deliver an underwhelming performance and other candidates targeted Sen. Elizabeth Warren. And respondents seemed to agree with this assessment. When asked "which candidate do you think did the best job in the debate?" Warren was ranked number one with 28%, Biden second at 15%, and Bernie Sanders third at 13%.

Yet Biden's support jumped ten points from the last poll taken in September, from 24 percent to 34 percent. Warren only increased her support by one percent.


Article and video: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/23/politics/cnn-poll-biden-lead-increases/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/23/politics/cnn-poll-biden-lead-increases/index.html)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 23, 2019, 02:32:58 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 23, 2019, 02:06:05 PM
Buttigieg may not possess Obama's soaring rhetoric, but as Obama did in 2016, Buttigieg has a fresh face, a preternaturally calm demeanor and a talent for challenging rivals without sounding nasty. As Buttigieg assumes the role of the straight-talking moderate willing to call foul when super-progressive candidates over-promise what they cannot deliver, he may benefit from a wide divide among Iowa voters on the electability vs. "shares my values" question. A remarkable 58 percent of respondents in the USA Today/Suffolk University poll say the "most important thing for Democrats is to nominate a presidential candidate who can defeat Donald Trump" while only 35 percent say it is more important thing that Democrats "nominate a presidential candidate who reflects my priorities and values."



     You can choose what you think is most important while supporting any of the candidates. I can think Biden reflects my values or has the best chance to beat Trump, one or both.

     I like Mayor Pete, while also liking over-promisers because what their promises say about what they will try to accomplish. While there is no exact ratio between what's attempted and what's accomplished, I'm looking for even a small advantage swinging for the fences might get. It might result in getting everything Mayor Pete wants instead of what Mayor Pete would get. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 23, 2019, 04:40:11 PM
"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), unabashed in his democratic socialist agenda, has the support of Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), three of the most liberal new members of Congress. Some polls show him beating Trump in key states, though many Democrats are skeptical."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 23, 2019, 06:11:38 PM
Lying conservative news site Breitbart cannot conceive of publishing anything containing a kernel of truth, according to the GMG intelligentsia.  Thus, I leave the following for its entertainment value:

Exclusive — Impeachment Backfiring: GOP Polling Memo Shows Public Turning Against Democrat Efforts to Oust Trump

A memo by the Republican National Committee (RNC) that contains internal GOP polling data shows the American public, even Democrat voters, are turning against the Democrat Party's "impeachment inquiry" into President Donald Trump.

The memo, obtained exclusively by Breitbart News, shows independent voters nationwide en masse oppose impeachment—with 54 percent opposed and only 34 percent in favor.


Complete set of lies found here: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/23/impeachment-backfiring-gop-polling-memo-shows-public-turning/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191023&utm_content=Final (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/23/impeachment-backfiring-gop-polling-memo-shows-public-turning/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191023&utm_content=Final)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 23, 2019, 06:23:51 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 23, 2019, 11:04:50 AM
Bernie's influence can be seen in how medicare for all isn't considered anymore a "fringe" idea (as if a system that every other country has is "fringe". No, the for profit system in the US is the "fringe" one.)    Many candidates have advocated some kind of Medicare-for-"all" system to get support among voters because about 85 % of Democratic voters support medicare-for-all and it's a winning issue, but they have also backpedaled (even Warren is a bit wishy washy) a bit to not scare their billionaire donors away. Pete Buttigieg for example has his version where you have current system co-existing with medicare for all system, but that IS NOT single payer system and doesn't have the cost benefits of single payer! It woulf lead to cherry picking of the private sector while driving ill people to the public sector ruining the whole idea of flattened risk pool. The donors like that, because it keeps the mafia aka health insurance companies in place, but that's not a winning stragedy!

Bernie's problem is corporate media which hates him and covers him negatively and dishonestly and also older people. Among young voters he dominates massively (he's support among young voters is ~45%, as much as the next three candidates, Warren, Biden and Buttigieg combined). Young voters can make Bernie the next president. All they have to do is vote!

Actually AOC has done much more to make MfA a focus of progressives than Bernie.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 23, 2019, 06:25:57 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 23, 2019, 02:12:53 PM
More corporate smearing. 2016 there were MUCH fewer candidates so of course nobody gets 49 % at the moment. Also, corporate media cherry picks polls were Bernie does poorly. Why poorly? Often because landline has been used meaning more old people and less young people (where most of Bernies support is). So they can plant the narrative to people's head that Bernie is a has been. He IS NOT!!

Older people are more likely to vote than young people. Therefore polls should have a heavier proportion of older respondents.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 23, 2019, 06:27:35 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 23, 2019, 02:08:03 PM
There are some things that Bernie can be blamed for that are justified critisism. Kyle Kulinski for example has criticised Bernie for not supporting BDS. If you criticize Bernie for these justified reasons you doing good journalism, but the corporate media doesn't do that.

Since BDS is simply the latest iteration of antiSemitism, that's a case of Kulinski being wrong and Sanders being right.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on October 23, 2019, 06:41:46 PM
Quote from: Muzio on October 23, 2019, 06:11:38 PM
Lying conservative news site Breitbart cannot conceive of publishing anything containing a kernel of truth, according to the GMG intelligentsia.  Thus, I leave the following for its entertainment value:

Exclusive — Impeachment Backfiring: GOP Polling Memo Shows Public Turning Against Democrat Efforts to Oust Trump

A memo by the Republican National Committee (RNC) that contains internal GOP polling data shows the American public, even Democrat voters, are turning against the Democrat Party's "impeachment inquiry" into President Donald Trump.

The memo, obtained exclusively by Breitbart News, shows independent voters nationwide en masse oppose impeachment—with 54 percent opposed and only 34 percent in favor.


Complete set of lies found here: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/23/impeachment-backfiring-gop-polling-memo-shows-public-turning/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191023&utm_content=Final (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/23/impeachment-backfiring-gop-polling-memo-shows-public-turning/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191023&utm_content=Final)


Now google "impeachment poll" and see how that aligns with every other one.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 23, 2019, 06:45:05 PM
I'm sure that's what "internal GOP polling data" shows.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 23, 2019, 06:47:46 PM
The troll doesn't appear to realize that the other thread is for Donald J. Shrivelpecker
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on October 23, 2019, 09:08:40 PM
Quote from: JBS on October 23, 2019, 06:23:51 PM
Actually AOC has done much more to make MfA a focus of progressives than Bernie.

According to who?

Quote from: JBS on October 23, 2019, 06:25:57 PM
Older people are more likely to vote than young people.

Historically, yes, but I believe that this cycle will be different.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 24, 2019, 01:16:14 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 23, 2019, 06:47:46 PM
The troll doesn't appear to realize that the other thread is for Donald J. Shrivelpecker

It's rare that the term "troll" is thoroughly apt, but in this case the behaviour is demonstrating its aptness.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 24, 2019, 03:44:46 AM
Quote from: JBS on October 23, 2019, 06:23:51 PM
Actually AOC has done much more to make MfA a focus of progressives than Bernie.

Bernie was the one who inspired AOC to get into politics.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 24, 2019, 03:48:58 AM
Quote from: JBS on October 23, 2019, 06:25:57 PM
Older people are more likely to vote than young people. Therefore polls should have a heavier proportion of older respondents.

That's how it has been, but it's about how much you can inspire people. The US has extremely low turnout in elections because most people are not inspired because most of the time politicians don't give anything to vote for.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 24, 2019, 03:54:11 AM
Quote from: JBS on October 23, 2019, 06:27:35 PM
Since BDS is simply the latest iteration of antiSemitism, that's a case of Kulinski being wrong and Sanders being right.

BDS is "the latest iteration of antiSemitism" for dumb people brainwashed by the corporate media. For non-brainwashed people it's about the human rights of Palestinians. It is actions against the GOVERNMENT of Israel, not Israel as a country, people of Israel or Jews. People who were against the Obama administration were not anti-USA. They were anti-Obama.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 24, 2019, 04:55:50 AM


     The Wall Streeters who actually like Elizabeth Warren (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/23/20916138/wall-street-elizabeth-warren-supporters-donald-trump)

Supporters also trust her in the event of a potential recession. They see her as an experienced economic hand who would seek to spend more money at the lower ends of the economic spectrum rather than at the top, and they assume the deficit is going to continue to balloon whoever the next president is, Republican or Democrat. "At the macro level, the redistribution of wealth back into consumer's pockets will positively impact equity markets," said a State Street vice president. "It's just what side of the ledger you want to look at."

     Yes, Wall Streeters speak crackpotese. It came from one of their own and now it's going back to them. The money system should feed customers first, and through them the capitalists, while a better regulated financial sector profits from the increase with less vampirism.

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 24, 2019, 06:05:32 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 24, 2019, 03:54:11 AM
BDS is "the latest iteration of antiSemitism" for dumb people brainwashed by the corporate media.

I let the Israeli Government itself brainwash me.


TERRORISTS IN SUITS
The Ties Between NGOs promoting BDS and Terrorist Organizations

February 2019

How terrorists came to hold key positions in NGOs promoting the Boycott Divestment and Sanction (BDS) campaign against the State of Israel; and how, through these NGOs, they exploit Western  governmental  funding,  philanthropic  foundations,  financial platforms and civil society to advance their goal of dismantling the State of Israel.

In  this  report,  the  Ministry  of  Strategic  Affairs  and  Public  Diplomacy exposes the ties between 13 European, Palestinian, American and South African NGOs and the designated terror organizations Hamas and The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Hamas  and  PFLP  operatives  have  infiltrated  and  adopted  seemingly  benign  NGOs  for  the  purpose  of  advancing  their  ideological goal: the elimination of the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

Concealing ties to terrorist organizations has often led Western authorities, especially in Europe, to view former and current terrorist operatives and the NGOs of which they are part of as legitimate civil society actors. This report aims to expose the terrorists working for the anti-Israel BDS campaign.

The  State  of  Israel  calls  upon  Western  countries,  financial  institutions,  NGOs,  and  private  philanthropic  foundations  to  examine  the  activities  of  such  NGOs  and  activists  and terminate any funding granted to them
(https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/generalpage/terrorists_in_suits/en/De-Legitimization%20Brochure.pdf)

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 24, 2019, 06:48:04 AM
     Bibi has Israel firmly planted in the TrumPutin "Axis". If war comes to Israel it will be through Iran, and so an insurance policy is required.

     The Palestinians are as much a football for the main players as the Kurds are. The rights they have are subject to the same national interests as control the fate of Kurds who also desire a state, only Palestinians get more support from Arab/Muslim exploiters while the Kurds are ethnic and religious pariahs.

     I opposed the Biden scheme for Iraq at the time. An independent Kurdish state seemed more risky than an Iraq jealous enough of its own sovereignty to impose limits on Iranian encroachment. Kurdistan could be another Israel everyone would go to war against on religious and ethnic grounds. Was Sleepy Joe right?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 24, 2019, 07:02:35 AM

     Say this for Biden, not only does he know foreign policy, he spearheaded the Obama anti-corruption drive in Ukraine. Everything he did was consistent with U.S. national interests and fully coordinated with State Dept. efforts.

     Trump has defunded anti-corruption efforts. He doesn't care about corruption, he cares about Biden and a nonexistent server.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 24, 2019, 07:46:23 AM
     Will Democrats Become Born-Again Neocons?
(https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/opinion/democrats-neocons.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage)

     That's not how I would put it, or how Dems will put it. Internationalism will be different with plenty of cross pollination.

On America's global role, Obama was lauded by Democrats for pursuing geopolitical "retrenchment" for the sake of "nation-building at home." Trump has made the identical false promise in the name of "America First." Only now it's being condemned as a derogation of America's global responsibilities.

All of this raises the possibility — faintly — that while Trump steers the American right toward a foreign policy of retreat, appeasement, and non-intervention, liberals might rediscover their Trumanesque faith in the necessity of Pax Americana. The world quickly becomes unsafe in the absence of U.S. power and will. Ceding ground to dictators is destined to work about as well today as it did when it was last tried in the 1930s.


     History is available to all who wish to draw on its lessons. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 24, 2019, 06:03:06 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 24, 2019, 03:54:11 AM
BDS is "the latest iteration of antiSemitism" for dumb people brainwashed by the corporate media. For non-brainwashed people it's about the human rights of Palestinians. It is actions against the GOVERNMENT of Israel, not Israel as a country, people of Israel or Jews. People who were against the Obama administration were not anti-USA. They were anti-Obama.

BDS is a movement that advocates on behalf of entities whose goal is ethnically cleansing "Palestine" of Jews, or even in the case of Hamas outright genocide, and whose preferred method of operation of killing Jews. The BDS movement not only condones or outright supports this, it claims Israel has no right to defend itself.  The aim of BDS is not to support the human rights of Palestinians. That is easy to demonstrate, since it supports the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, which suppress human rights in all areas they control to a far greater extent than anything the Israeli government does.

But if a movement supports organizations dedicated to killing Jews because they are Jews,  anti-Semitism is an accurate description.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Daverz on October 24, 2019, 07:47:50 PM
Quote from: JBS on October 24, 2019, 06:03:06 PM
BDS is a movement that advocates on behalf of entities whose goal is ethnically cleansing "Palestine" of Jews, or even in the case of Hamas outright genocide, and whose preferred method of operation of killing Jews. The BDS movement not only condones or outright supports this, it claims Israel has no right to defend itself.  The aim of BDS is not to support the human rights of Palestinians. That is easy to demonstrate, since it supports the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, which suppress human rights in all areas they control to a far greater extent than anything the Israeli government does.

But if a movement supports organizations dedicated to killing Jews because they are Jews,  anti-Semitism is an accurate description.

Where do you get this crap?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 24, 2019, 11:24:09 PM
Quote from: JBS on October 24, 2019, 06:03:06 PM
the Palestinian Authority and Hamas... suppress human rights in all areas they control to a far greater extent than anything the Israeli government does.

Excellent observation.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on October 25, 2019, 12:03:52 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 24, 2019, 11:24:09 PM
Excellent observation.
I often feel I'm in the very middle of everything on these issues. I don't agree with BDS, don't agree with efforts to ban or sanction people who DO agree with it, and DO feel Israel operates outside of human rights norms - So do many groups opposing Israel BTW. And the idea of eliminating Israel as the entity it is, and I know many many people around me who want to do just that, is counterproductive, a fantasy, and a disaster of an idea. These voices criticizing Israel are often right about Israel's moral and legal, from an international law perspective, failures. Yet those people, like Roger Waters, Brian Eno and AOC, who agree with BDS, have moved things in a very dangerous and sad direction. They've been aided by Netanyahu types too. The two extremes act in concert almost like a conspiracy, driving the debate to an extreme place where a solution seems less and less likely. The only sensible solution is a negotiated two-state agreement. And also BTW, I'm giving my two cents here but I really try my best to avoid thinking or caring too much about that region of the world. I was once told by someone who DID care that I had some kind of duty to be involved in that particular issue. It's fine for people to speak out as they believe they should.
Yet there are some people who are so arrogant that they think no other place or issue matters and there are also people who can't get their minds off Jews no matter where in the world they are or what the issue happens to be. Anyway, this high horse of thinking that it's racist to have ANY Jewish state there will never accept peace and the Israeli right wing is also fast missing the boat by not trying to find ways making an agreement, even if it comes to naught.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 25, 2019, 02:28:26 AM
Quote from: milk on October 25, 2019, 12:03:52 AM
don't agree with efforts to ban or sanction people who DO agree with it

The BDS is just a facade for good-willed but ill-informed Western people.

https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/generalpage/terrorists_in_suits/en/De-Legitimization%20Brochure.pdf (https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/generalpage/terrorists_in_suits/en/De-Legitimization%20Brochure.pdf)

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 25, 2019, 08:20:35 AM
     The problem with ethnic states is there's no universalist argument for them, and no universalist argument to destroy them. All of the arguments must presuppose the possibility of agreement, the recognition of a form of superseding principle such as those governing open societies with rights that don't depend on ethnic or religious identity. If that is deemed unsuitable it's a matter of might makes right. The possibility of settlement by common values is rejected in favor of non-negotiable claims.

     One hopes people decide on pragmatic grounds to adopt identities flexible enough for government work, keeping religious and ethnic identities under control. Jews and Muslims do that in the U.S. and elsewhere without abandoning their identities. So do Christians. It's common for people to have multiple identities running at once. I'm only an atheist when I want to discuss it, the rest of the time I maintain recognizably human form. Sometimes I'm an American in the English language philosophical tradition. I live a few miles from where the American branch was born.

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 25, 2019, 08:23:46 AM
Quote from: Daverz on October 24, 2019, 07:47:50 PM
Where do you get this crap?

AIPAC-friendly corporate media perhaps?  :-X

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 25, 2019, 10:30:17 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 25, 2019, 08:23:46 AM
AIPAC-friendly corporate media perhaps?  :-X



     There's more to an argument than where it comes from. Satan told me that. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 25, 2019, 11:28:13 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 25, 2019, 10:30:17 AM
     There's more to an argument than where it comes from. Satan told me that. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)

Dude, were you inviting him actually to read, and to address the issue?!

It is to laugh!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 25, 2019, 12:40:42 PM
Quote from: milk on October 25, 2019, 12:03:52 AM
I often feel I'm in the very middle of everything on these issues. I don't agree with BDS, don't agree with efforts to ban or sanction people who DO agree with it, and DO feel Israel operates outside of human rights norms - So do many groups opposing Israel BTW. And the idea of eliminating Israel as the entity it is, and I know many many people around me who want to do just that, is counterproductive, a fantasy, and a disaster of an idea. These voices criticizing Israel are often right about Israel's moral and legal, from an international law perspective, failures. Yet those people, like Roger Waters, Brian Eno and AOC, who agree with BDS, have moved things in a very dangerous and sad direction. They've been aided by Netanyahu types too. The two extremes act in concert almost like a conspiracy, driving the debate to an extreme place where a solution seems less and less likely. The only sensible solution is a negotiated two-state agreement. And also BTW, I'm giving my two cents here but I really try my best to avoid thinking or caring too much about that region of the world. I was once told by someone who DID care that I had some kind of duty to be involved in that particular issue. It's fine for people to speak out as they believe they should.
Yet there are some people who are so arrogant that they think no other place or issue matters and there are also people who can't get their minds off Jews no matter where in the world they are or what the issue happens to be. Anyway, this high horse of thinking that it's racist to have ANY Jewish state there will never accept peace and the Israeli right wing is also fast missing the boat by not trying to find ways making an agreement, even if it comes to naught.

I would contend that Israel actually stays well within the norms of human rights....but otherwise I think that's a fair and reasonable statement.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 25, 2019, 12:43:33 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 25, 2019, 11:28:13 AM
Dude, were you inviting him actually to read, and to address the issue?!

It is to laugh!

     Uhh....maybe?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 25, 2019, 12:47:00 PM
Quote from: Daverz on October 24, 2019, 07:47:50 PM
Where do you get this crap?

Reality.
The BDS movement operates merely as a channel for Palestinian propaganda. To the best of my knowledge, BDSers have never challenged Palestinian terrorism and incitement of violence, never challenged Hamas's dictatorial rule over Gaza, never challenged the PA's suppression of rights in the areas it controls. They always seem to condone  or even outright apologize for those things.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 25, 2019, 01:43:47 PM
Quote from: JBS on October 25, 2019, 12:47:00 PM
Reality.
The BDS movement operates merely as a channel for Palestinian propaganda. To the best of my knowledge, BDSers have never challenged Palestinian terrorism and incitement of violence, never challenged Hamas's dictatorial rule over Gaza, never challenged the PA's suppression of rights in the areas it controls. They always seem to condone  or even outright apologize for those things.

     That's why I think a human rights campaign directed equally at all violators and promoting democracy throughout Israel and the territories would be effective.

     Muslim supporters of Israel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_supporters_of_Israel)

     There are even Muslim Zionists in Israel and around the world.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 25, 2019, 02:48:39 PM
Quote from: JBS on October 25, 2019, 12:40:42 PM
I would contend that Israel actually stays well within the norms of human rights....but otherwise I think that's a fair and reasonable statement.

I don't think it's normal, when someone commits a crime, to demolish the family's house.

EDIT: Nor frankly is it a sensible strategy, as it just creates a sense of grievance.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 25, 2019, 04:00:25 PM
Quote from: drogulus on October 25, 2019, 01:43:47 PM
     That's why I think a human rights campaign directed equally at all violators and promoting democracy throughout Israel and the territories would be effective.

     Muslim supporters of Israel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_supporters_of_Israel)

     There are even Muslim Zionists in Israel and around the world.

Agreed.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on October 25, 2019, 06:14:41 PM
Quote from: Madiel on October 25, 2019, 02:48:39 PM
I don't think it's normal, when someone commits a crime, to demolish the family's house.

EDIT: Nor frankly is it a sensible strategy, as it just creates a sense of grievance.
I have to agree with this. I don't understand the case for Israel is "within the norms of human rights," but I don't follow the issue hardly at all. I can't get myself to carry the ball for Israel just as I can't get interested in the boycott bunch. It's hard to see anything else for the region other than more of the same. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 25, 2019, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: Madiel on October 25, 2019, 02:48:39 PM
I don't think it's normal, when someone commits a crime, to demolish the family's house.

EDIT: Nor frankly is it a sensible strategy, as it just creates a sense of grievance.

It works well, I understand.  It is not unusual for parents to turn in a child who is planning to carry out a terrorist act.  The parents don't want to lose their home.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 25, 2019, 06:50:00 PM
Quote from: Muzio on October 25, 2019, 06:26:46 PM
It works well, I understand.  It is not unusual for parents to turn in a child who is planning to carry out a terrorist act.  The parents don't want to lose their home.

We have laws about being an accessory to a crime, which require proof. You can only turn someone in (whether they are your relative or not) if you know what they are planning.

Meanwhile, here in the real world, huge numbers of the people who went to join ISIS managed to completely hide their intentions from their innocent and shocked families.

Presumably, as a fan of guilt by association, you also think that that this notorious event in my own country's political history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhamed_Haneef) was fine and dandy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 25, 2019, 06:55:55 PM
Maybe you'd like to demolish this man's house as well (https://www.thejournal.ie/jihad-jake-australian-schoolboy-islamic-state-2007737-Mar2015/).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 25, 2019, 07:05:37 PM
Quote from: Muzio on October 25, 2019, 06:26:46 PM
It works well, I understand.  It is not unusual for parents to turn in a child who is planning to carry out a terrorist act.  The parents don't want to lose their home.

     One study in Israel said it had a temporary effect, another said it was counterproductive.

     Only some demolishing is done for reasons of national security. Many are for building code violations or houses built without permits it's impossible for Palestinians to get.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 26, 2019, 12:15:11 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 25, 2019, 06:55:55 PM
Maybe you'd like to demolish this man's house as well (https://www.thejournal.ie/jihad-jake-australian-schoolboy-islamic-state-2007737-Mar2015/).

You cannot compare Israel to Australia. The former lives under constant danger of terrorist attacks while in the latter such heinous acts have been few and far between. Moreover, it's not unfrequently that houses of dead or convicted terrorists are turned into shrines for their "martyrdom" and propaganda hubs for their deeds. Last but not least, the shock that the Australian schoolteacher felt on hearing his son joined iSIS is quite different from what some Palestinian parents feel about their sons' joining PFLP or Hamas, which is often pride and encouragement.



Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 26, 2019, 12:51:56 AM
Quote from: JBS on October 25, 2019, 12:47:00 PM
Reality.
The BDS movement operates merely as a channel for Palestinian propaganda. To the best of my knowledge, BDSers have never challenged Palestinian terrorism and incitement of violence, never challenged Hamas's dictatorial rule over Gaza, never challenged the PA's suppression of rights in the areas it controls. They always seem to condone  or even outright apologize for those things.

I have provided a link which documents the numerous connections between NGOs supporting BDS and terrorist organizations such as PFLP and Hamas. There are literally dozens of individuals belonging to both the former and latter, many of whom had already been convicted, and served time in prison, more than once in more cases, for terrorism. Nobody seems interested in learning, let alone commenting upon, these facts. Audiatur et altera pars is dead and burried.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on October 26, 2019, 01:20:13 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 26, 2019, 12:51:56 AM
I have provided a link which documents the numerous connections between NGOs supporting BDS and terrorist organizations such as PFLP and Hamas. There are literally dozens of individuals belonging to both the former and latter, many of whom had already been convicted, and served time in prison, more than once in more cases, for terrorism. Nobody seems interested in learning, let alone commenting upon, these facts. Audiatur et altera pars is dead and burried.
I'm sympathetic. And I think we live in an age in which everyone is outdoing themselves in woke-ness and hard left types like AOC will tell you you're a racist if you disagree on this issue. If one is on social media there will always be someone to call one the worst. I never thought I would turn into the crotchety uncle because I came up through left-wing milieux all the way, even up through my M.A. and my current job. My heart is still on the left but there's that faction that kind of leaves me shell-shocked. I had a "conversation" recently with a 3rd-wave feminist who nearly called me a rape apologist for AGREEING with Margaret Atwood about #metoo (heavens forbid I admit that I agree with a recent Don Jr tweet - I'm still having cognitive dissonance over that one). Anyway, sorry for my digressions.
I do understand why some of my friends support BDS though. I think many have basically good motives and Israel does a lot of bad stuff. As a NY Jew, I got kind pissed at Israelis with the way they treated Obama; Jews like my parents sent them tons of money over the decades to make their country and they were very disrespectful. Sometimes they act as if they're entitled to U.S. support. They are not; it is a privilege. On the other hand, 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 26, 2019, 01:35:24 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 26, 2019, 12:15:11 AM
You cannot compare Israel to Australia. The former lives under constant danger of terrorist attacks while in the latter such heinous acts have been few and far between. Moreover, it's not unfrequently that houses of dead or convicted terrorists are turned into shrines for their "martyrdom" and propaganda hubs for their deeds. Last but not least, the shock that the Australian schoolteacher felt on hearing his son joined iSIS is quite different from what some Palestinian parents feel about their sons' joining PFLP or Hamas, which is often pride and encouragement.

If the claim is about operating within human rights norms, then yes I absolutely can compare Israel to Australia. Because one of the fundamental points of human rights is that they are universal.

So if you're going to say that it's compatible with human rights to destroy the property of a person who has not committed a crime because someone else in their family committed a crime, you are saying that that is compatible with human rights everywhere in the world. Israel, Australia, Romania, USA. Doesn't matter. That's the whole point of human rights, and that's the whole reason why a system of human rights was even set up in the first place. The entire REASON for that system was that people could not constantly say "oh, but in these circumstances it's justified".

So choose. Either you accept that the demolition of houses of family members is acceptable as a matter of principle, or you don't. If you think it's acceptable as a matter of principle, THEN you can get into why it's only done to brown people in far away places instead of nice white schoolteachers, and why they can't think of any other less drastic measure to deal with shrines like... oh I don't know, banning/demolishing actual shrines instead of existing living quarters.

Because if there's one thing that characterises the state of Israel, it's a kind of PTSD-induced desire to crack every threatening walnut with a sledgehammer. The conversation is always about the existence of the threat (which is real), and never about whether the response is in proportion or even effective.

Mind you, other parts of the world are trying to head down the same path.

And you really don't impress me in the slightest using the behaviour of "some Palestinian parents" as a justification for putting the homes of ALL such parents at risk. You just show me that either you're not paying attention or you want to evade the point by using a generalisation of "some". Are you really not able to grasp that I'm specifically talking about families who haven't done anything wrong, who've never been charged with anything never mind convicted? The whole point of this discussion is that the house is not flattened because of what the parents have done. It's not based on any kind of assessment of their individual culpability.

So let's try that again, recognising that the shock that the Australian schoolteacher felt on hearing his son joined iSIS is exactly the same as what some Palestinian parents feel about their sons' joining PFLP or Hamas, and then you can tell me whether those Palestinian parents ought to lose their house because you can talk about them as generalisations, as if they also live in some kind of collective abstract notional dwelling.

I'm sure some Mexicans are drug dealers, and some are gang members. I'm sure some Muslims are dangerous. I'm sure some men are rapists. I'm sure some Romanians miss the Communist days. I know that some gay men have HIV.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on October 26, 2019, 02:22:48 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 26, 2019, 01:35:24 AM
If the claim is about operating within human rights norms, then yes I absolutely can compare Israel to Australia. Because one of the fundamental points of human rights is that they are universal.

So if you're going to say that it's compatible with human rights to destroy the property of a person who has not committed a crime because someone else in their family committed a crime, you are saying that that is compatible with human rights everywhere in the world. Israel, Australia, Romania, USA. Doesn't matter. That's the whole point of human rights, and that's the whole reason why a system of human rights was even set up in the first place. The entire REASON for that system was that people could not constantly say "oh, but in these circumstances it's justified".

So choose. Either you accept that the demolition of houses of family members is acceptable as a matter of principle, or you don't. If you think it's acceptable as a matter of principle, THEN you can get into why it's only done to brown people in far away places instead of nice white schoolteachers, and why they can't think of any other less drastic measure to deal with shrines like... oh I don't know, banning/demolishing actual shrines instead of existing living quarters.

Because if there's one thing that characterises the state of Israel, it's a kind of PTSD-induced desire to crack every threatening walnut with a sledgehammer. The conversation is always about the existence of the threat (which is real), and never about whether the response is in proportion or even effective.

Mind you, other parts of the world are trying to head down the same path.

And you really don't impress me in the slightest using the behaviour of "some Palestinian parents" as a justification for putting the homes of ALL such parents at risk. You just show me that either you're not paying attention or you want to evade the point by using a generalisation of "some". Are you really not able to grasp that I'm specifically talking about families who haven't done anything wrong, who've never been charged with anything never mind convicted? The whole point of this discussion is that the house is not flattened because of what the parents have done. It's not based on any kind of assessment of their individual culpability.

So let's try that again, recognising that the shock that the Australian schoolteacher felt on hearing his son joined iSIS is exactly the same as what some Palestinian parents feel about their sons' joining PFLP or Hamas, and then you can tell me whether those Palestinian parents ought to lose their house because you can talk about them as generalisations, as if they also live in some kind of collective abstract notional dwelling.

I'm sure some Mexicans are drug dealers, and some are gang members. I'm sure some Muslims are dangerous. I'm sure some men are rapists. I'm sure some Romanians miss the Communist days. I know that some gay men have HIV.
Even if someone in the house DID agree with the guilty party's behavior I don't see knocking down the family home as right or smart policy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 26, 2019, 02:31:56 AM
Quote from: milk on October 26, 2019, 02:22:48 AM
Even if someone in the house DID agree with the guilty party's behavior I don't see knocking down the family home as right or smart policy.

Agreed. Because the right to have an opinion is actually one of the recognised human rights. We don't punish people simply for what they think of another person's actions, and I shudder to think what could happen to the political process if we did.

We have laws about being an accessory to a crime when someone was actually involved in a meaningful way.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 26, 2019, 04:55:10 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 26, 2019, 01:35:24 AM
if you're going to say that it's compatible with human rights to destroy the property of a person who has not committed a crime because someone else in their family committed a crime

I'm not going to say nor did I actually say that, because it's clearly incompatible with human rights. It's another poster, not I, who said Israel operates within the norms of human rights.

What I said, though, and I maintain, is that Israel is not your normal state living in normal conditions. It's a state that ever since its foundation has been hated and reviled by any and all of his neighbours (and by a good portion of the international community), has been under constant threat of war and under constant threat of terrorist attacks. Their civilian citizens have been constantly killed and maimed by terrorist orrganizations which do not recognize Israel's right to exist as a state at all and which regularly reiterate their intention to destroy it. In these conditions it's understandable (for me, at least) they (Israel, I mean) developed a "besieged city" mentality (which in their case is actually a daily reality) and try hard to protect their very existence and the lives of their citizens, sometimes (probably most of the times) at the cost of violating the rights of their enemies, real or perceived. It's understandable (for me, at least) that their national security trumps any human rights considerations. And while clearly violating human rights, I don't think Israel's record is worse than China's, Iran's or Saudi Arabia's (which can't even claim such a special status as Israel: they tramp under foot the human rights of their citizens without any real or potential threat from the latter) --- yet I've never heard a BDS organization ever calling for the boycott of those countries.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 26, 2019, 05:02:41 AM
I have no intention of getting involved in the whole BDS discussion.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 26, 2019, 05:33:22 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 26, 2019, 05:02:41 AM
I have no intention of getting involved in the whole BDS discussion.

Given that BDS is the current discussion, you have already got yourself involved in it --- but I have no problem with your calling it quits.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on October 26, 2019, 05:34:46 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 26, 2019, 04:55:10 AM
I'm not going to say nor did I actually say that, because it's clearly incompatible with human rights. It's another poster, not I, who said Israel operates within the norms of human rights.

What I said, though, and I maintain, is that Israel is not your normal state living in normal conditions. It's a state that ever since its foundation has been hated and reviled by any and all of his neighbours (and by a good portion of the international community), has been under constant threat of war and under constant threat of terrorist attacks. Their civilian citizens have been constantly killed and maimed by terrorist orrganizations which do not recognize Israel's right to exist as a state at all and which regularly reiterate their intention to destroy it. In these conditions it's understandable (for me, at least) they (Israel, I mean) developed a "besieged city" mentality (which in their case is actually a daily reality) and try hard to protect their very existence and the lives of their citizens, sometimes (probably most of the times) at the cost of violating the rights of their enemies, real or perceived. It's understandable (for me, at least) that their national security trumps any human rights considerations. And while clearly violating human rights, I don't think Israel's record is worse than China's, Iran's or Saudi Arabia's (which can't even claim such a special status as Israel: they tramp under foot the human rights of their citizens without any real or potential threat from the latter) --- yet I've never heard a BDS organization ever calling for the boycott of those countries.
I wish I was comfortable with that kind of argument because from childhood we had a kind of affinity with Israel - growing up in Jewish America. But, I always wanted, at that time, it to be better than those other places. I don't care much now and would never visit that part of the world. It's a mess on all sides. I've wondered why, at times, that people I know are obsessed with Israel. At times it's bled over into obsession with Jews and, at best, tone deafness as they should realize that we are not there (I live in Japan). Yet, I can't really say that Brian Eno or Roger Waters are doing something bad by focusing on that issue, if that's what they care about. It's not necessarily wrong - if that particular injustice is in their hearts. People grow up in Israel; so they don't want to die or give up their country. Other people were kicked out and that memory lives on in their families. It's a terrible shame that human beings are the way they are. I admire people who can take up these kinds of problems and I used to be more interested in that kind of work. Good luck to them. I'll throw my two cents in on the internet but, other than that, leave me out of it. 
I do sympathize with you a bit now as we see Saudia Arabia defended by woke-sters while Israel is the greatest threat to Earthlings. Some of my old college friends on Facebook (Tulsi Gabbard fans - thread duty!) even defend China and call HK students CIA stooges. Go figure.   
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 26, 2019, 05:44:28 AM
Quote from: milk on October 26, 2019, 05:34:46 AM
from childhood we had a kind of affinity with Israel - growing up in Jewish America.

I am not Jewish. My maternal grandmother's brother-in-law was, and his son lives in Tel Aviv with his family.

Quote
But, I always wanted, at that time, it to be better than those other places. I don't care much now and would never visit that part of the world. It's a mess on all sides.

I wouldn't mind visiting Israel, I just had no opportunity for the time being.

And I tell you honestly: were I forced at the point of a gun to take my permanent residence in a Middle Eastern country of my choice, it would be Israel hands down.

Quote from: milk on October 26, 2019, 05:34:46 AM
I do sympathize with you a bit now as we see Saudia Arabia defended by woke-sters while Israel is the greatest threat to Earthlings. Some of my old college friends on Facebook (Tulsi Gabbard fans - thread duty!) even defend China and call HK students CIA stooges. Go figure.   

I'm not surprised in the least.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on October 26, 2019, 05:57:24 AM
Quote from: Florestan on October 26, 2019, 05:44:28 AM
I am not Jewish. My maternal grandmother's brother-in-law was, and his son lives in Tel Aviv with his family.

I wouldn't mind visiting Israel, I just had no opportunity for the time being.

And I tell you honestly: were I forced at the point of a gun to take my permanent residence in a Middle Eastern country of my choice, it would be Israel hands down.

I'm not surprised in the least.
Yeah, I meant "we" in the sense of how the community of NY Jews felt. My grandparents and parents, who have virtually no political interests and were not particularly religious, bought Israel bonds and stuff. Like a lot of Jewish kids, we were offered a summer on a kibbutz instead of a bar mitzvah party (I took the party - I had no interest in waking up at 4am to plant potatoes in a desert).
If I had to live over there, I think I'd have no choice but Israel. Can't imagine that!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 26, 2019, 05:59:42 AM
Quote from: milk on October 26, 2019, 05:57:24 AM
Yeah, I meant "we" in the sense of how the community of NY Jews felt.

I got it alright. I specified that I am not Jewish lest I be accused of in-built bias.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 26, 2019, 06:02:09 AM

     To be progressive is to shoulder more responsibility for values construction, it's not an escape clause when you extinguish values absolutism.

     You are the caretaker. It isn't even possible for you to not be the caretaker. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 26, 2019, 06:18:02 AM

     Values universalism allows people to transcend absolutist claims. That's why we have such ideas.

     What things are is what they do.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 26, 2019, 07:31:22 AM
The staggering cost of Elizabeth Warren's plans: $4.2 trillion per year (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-staggering-cost-of-elizabeth-warrens-plans-42-trillion-per-year-161552386.html)

Ethically quoting from the article:

Quote from: Some dude at Yahoo!Altogether, the Massachusetts senator's agenda would require $4.2 trillion per year in new federal spending, and a like amount in new taxes, if she paid for everything without issuing new debt. The federal government currently spends about $4.4 trillion per year, so Warren's plans would nearly double federal spending.

Don't know if this has been posted and carefully and thoughtfully considered, as is the custom of members of the GMG Big Brain Brigade, and yes, I know it's from Yahoo!, but the numbers are quite delightful.  No doubt there are mush-brained lefties, including some on this very forum, who will believe that such idiocy has a chance of becoming law.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 26, 2019, 07:40:18 AM
Well, I did not take the time to read the stuff about Australia.  Why?  I'm not particularly interested.  Let Aus. be Aus.  Same with Israel.  It is situational.  I happy that they do what they need to do for their own survival.

Israel is a shining city in the desert.  The Palestinians, bless their war-mongering hearts, can't even properly feed themselves.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 26, 2019, 09:01:24 AM
Quote from: Todd on October 26, 2019, 07:31:22 AM
The staggering cost of Elizabeth Warren's plans: $4.2 trillion per year (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-staggering-cost-of-elizabeth-warrens-plans-42-trillion-per-year-161552386.html)

Ethically quoting from the article:

Don't know if this has been posted and carefully and thoughtfully considered, as is the custom of members of the GMG Big Brain Brigade, and yes, I know it's from Yahoo!, but the numbers are quite delightful.  No doubt there are mush-brained lefties, including some on this very forum, who will believe that such idiocy has a chance of becoming law.

     It is idiocy and won't become law. An expanding economy, however it's done, can't help sending more tax back. Most analysis assumes a big tax will be imposed to shrink the economy before any spending is done to expand it. That's not how it's usually done. We want to know how much tax will come back from income spent into the economy. A big spend means a big tax return. That's how we got a ~60% increase in "revenue" since the GR. Did anyone see a 60% tax rate increase?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 26, 2019, 09:32:55 AM
Quote from: Muzio on October 26, 2019, 07:40:18 AM

The Palestinians, bless their war-mongering hearts, can't even properly feed themselves.


     This is true in Gaza.

     One million face hunger in Gaza after US cut to Palestine aid (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/15/1-million-face-hunger-in-gaza-after-us-cut-to-palestine-aid)

The UNRWA, created in 1949 to provide short-term relief for Palestinian refugees after the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict, runs schools, hospitals and social services in five areas including the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

It is largely propping up Gaza, subject to a total blockade by air, land and sea since 2007. Political stalemate, conflict with Israel and divisions among Palestinian factions have left the territory an economic ruin, without health and social services and with almost no access to clean water and only four or five hours of electricity a day.


     Many Gazans would take jobs in Israel if they could, and then be able to feed themselves, and the money would be spent on into the local economy, lifting the standard of living.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 26, 2019, 10:43:41 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 26, 2019, 09:01:24 AM
     It is idiocy and won't become law. An expanding economy, however it's done, can't help sending more tax back. Most analysis assumes a big tax will be imposed to shrink the economy before any spending is done to expand it. That's not how it's usually done. We want to know how much tax will come back from income spent into the economy. A big spend means a big tax return. That's how we got a ~60% increase in "revenue" since the GR. Did anyone see a 60% tax rate increase?


(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nHKZXeIbnpE/UdX-YWdiaJI/AAAAAAAAQCs/9FK8mot8PX0/s616/Gabby_Johnson_Blazing_Saddles.JPG)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 26, 2019, 12:46:17 PM
     Since Hamilton it's been understood that large projects by the money sovereign would not be paid for with old dollars but by new issuance. Taxing old dollars back would destroy the economy.

Debt Decline Years    Debt Decline    Depression Start
1817–1821               29%            1819
1823–1836    Debt eliminated    1837
1852 to 1857               59%            1857
1867 to 1873               27%            1873
1880 to 1893              >50%             1893
1920–1930    Approx 33%             1929

     The interesting thing is not just that debt reduction causes depressions, even more interesting is that these are the only depressions we've had. I suggest that attempting to pay for a big program like Medicare for All by taxing away old money would be insane. Why do something insanely when we could easily sanely do it by not raising taxes? Create the dollars and tax back for inflation if it shows up. In the meantime watch the tax come roaring back on its own, like it does with no one lifting a finger.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on October 26, 2019, 12:46:48 PM
Quote from: Todd on October 26, 2019, 07:31:22 AM
[
Ethically quoting


Worried much about the copyright on the cover art you post in the Listening thread?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on October 26, 2019, 12:52:39 PM
Kamala Harris skipping South Carolina forum over Trump award (https://www.apnews.com/e0b6a1005252446cbc6b84872ec6e418)

"Democratic presidential hopeful Kamala Harris is pulling out of a South Carolina criminal justice forum over organizers' handling of President Donald Trump's appearance.

Soon after her announcement, the mayor of South Carolina's capital city, Columbia, and a co-host of the event said he was organizing an alternative forum at Benedict College, a historically black college, for any candidates who wished to participate, with Harris' campaign confirming she would be among them.

"I honestly wanted to give everyone else another option," Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin told The Associated Press about his event, which will be held with the theme "Students First" in a college chapel.

As of Friday night, Benjamin said Cory Booker and Joe Biden, and likely Bernie Sanders, planned to attend his event, as well as the original forum.

Earlier Friday, Harris' campaign said she would skip the 20/20 Bipartisan Justice Center event Saturday in objection to the group's decision to give Trump its Bipartisan Justice Award, which she received in 2016.

"Donald Trump is a lawless President," the California senator said in a statement. "Not only does he circumvent the laws of our country and the principles of our Constitution, but there is nothing in his career that is about justice, for justice, or in celebration of justice."

Trump received the award Friday for his work on criminal justice reform with the First Step Act, which has allowed thousands of nonviolent offenders to gain early release from federal prison.

Harris had been among 10 Democrats expected at the forum over the weekend.

She also complained that only a handful of Benedict students were ticketed for Trump's appearance. Most seats were occupied by administration officials and Trump supporters."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 26, 2019, 01:34:57 PM


     'We're Asking You to Dig Deep': Biden Seeks to Steady Finances as Allies Fret (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/us/politics/joe-biden-campaign-fundraising.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage)

     I didn't anticipate Biden having money problems. How does he raise less money than Mayor Pete?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 26, 2019, 02:54:35 PM
Biden appears to drop his opposition to a super PAC
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-appears-to-drop-his-opposition-to-a-super-pac/2019/10/24/c93e7b2a-f693-11e9-a285-882a8e386a96_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-appears-to-drop-his-opposition-to-a-super-pac/2019/10/24/c93e7b2a-f693-11e9-a285-882a8e386a96_story.html)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on October 26, 2019, 02:55:20 PM
Quote from: drogulus on October 26, 2019, 12:46:17 PM
     Since Hamilton it's been understood that large projects by the money sovereign would not be paid for with old dollars but by new issuance. Taxing old dollars back would destroy the economy.

Debt Decline Years    Debt Decline    Depression Start
1817–1821               29%            1819
1823–1836    Debt eliminated    1837
1852 to 1857               59%            1857
1867 to 1873               27%            1873
1880 to 1893              >50%             1893
1920–1930    Approx 33%             1929

     The interesting thing is not just that debt reduction causes depressions, even more interesting is that these are the only depressions we've had. I suggest that attempting to pay for a big program like Medicare for All by taxing away old money would be insane. Why do something insanely when we could easily sanely do it by not raising taxes? Create the dollars and tax back for inflation if it shows up. In the meantime watch the tax come roaring back on its own, like it does with no one lifting a finger.


A Battle of Chattanooga level victory in your ongoing war on syntax.


Quote from: SimonNZ on October 26, 2019, 12:46:48 PM
Worried much about the copyright on the cover art you post in the Listening thread?


A slightly better than mediocre deflection.  For you, that rates as a solid A.  Good job!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 26, 2019, 03:40:55 PM


     Depressions cause the debt to explode. It kind of makes you wonder if they are worth it.

     Undoubtedly Warren will bow to the inevitable and do a howyougonna for the media. That will get her over a pointless "rite of passage" hurdle.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 27, 2019, 04:05:43 PM


     Stop fearmongering about 'Medicare for All.' Most families would pay less for better care. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/10/22/medicare-all-simplicity-savings-better-health-care-column/4055597002/)

Pediatrician Donald M. Berwick, president emeritus and senior fellow at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, is a lecturer and former faculty member at the Harvard Medical School and was administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the Obama administration.

     My observations assumed net positive costs IOW expansionary. Along comes this guy who is good at knowing how costs shift and he says it's not net positive, not even a fake problem. Should I stand my ground and insist that yes, it will be a fake problem? 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 28, 2019, 02:28:59 AM
Republican Bill Weld who is running for President was in the meet and greet of Politicon, but didn't have nearly as much people in line than the guy next to him and that guy was Kyle Kulinski.  ;D

Quote from: drogulus on October 27, 2019, 04:05:43 PM

     Stop fearmongering about 'Medicare for All.' Most families would pay less for better care. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/10/22/medicare-all-simplicity-savings-better-health-care-column/4055597002/)

Pediatrician Donald M. Berwick, president emeritus and senior fellow at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, is a lecturer and former faculty member at the Harvard Medical School and was administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the Obama administration.

     My observations assumed net positive costs IOW expansionary. Along comes this guy who is good at knowing how costs shift and he says it's not net positive, not even a fake problem. Should I stand my ground and insist that yes, it will be a fake problem?

Medicare-for-all is a real problem for Big Pharma and insurance companies because it ends their ability to act as a greedy mafia. That's why there is all this fearmongering in the first place. Big Pharma and insurance companies have bought politicians (and corporate media) to do that fearmongering instead of doing what's good for regular americans. The least corrupt of the candidates is Bernie Sanders and surprise surprise he is the one advocating medicare-for-all the most.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 28, 2019, 06:02:13 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/6QjMkWxp/Meme-if-you-like-subpoena-coladas-joe-biden.jpg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 28, 2019, 07:26:12 AM
(*yawn*)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 28, 2019, 08:38:55 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 28, 2019, 07:26:12 AM
(*yawn*)

     It doesn't seem to work. The public is getting the Trump story and it says he's trying to frame Sleepy Joe for what his son did, get paid for his last name. It's an easy story to understand, and based on recent polling it's understood. Hunter is an embarrassment to his father. That's it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on October 28, 2019, 02:14:40 PM
Quote from: Muzio on October 28, 2019, 06:02:13 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/6QjMkWxp/Meme-if-you-like-subpoena-coladas-joe-biden.jpg)

Oh the irony

Because I know someone who really is getting subpoena coladas for getting caught in Ukraine

And has only half a brain. And clearly isn't into yoga.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Christabel on October 28, 2019, 02:40:38 PM
The tread title is accurate;  they must certainly are off.  Very off.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 28, 2019, 05:15:57 PM
Quote from: drogulus on October 28, 2019, 08:38:55 AM
     It doesn't seem to work. The public is getting the Trump story and it says he's trying to frame Sleepy Joe for what his son did, get paid for his last name. It's an easy story to understand, and based on recent polling it's understood. Hunter is an embarrassment to his father. That's it.
Quote from: SimonNZ on October 28, 2019, 02:14:40 PM
Oh the irony.  Because I know someone who really is getting subpoena coladas for getting caught in Ukraine  And has only half a brain. And clearly isn't into yoga.

:laugh: :laugh: You guys are totally clueless, but provide an always-on laughtrack!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 29, 2019, 03:24:54 AM
Quote from: Muzio on October 28, 2019, 05:15:57 PM
:laugh: :laugh: You guys are totally clueless, but provide an always-on laughtrack!

The topic of American politics and the fact that during the recent years I have gotten much better grasp of it has revealed to me that GMG members are not all-knowing super-geniuses. For some reason we enjoy classical music, but apparently that doesn't mean everyone is able to notice things like political corruption, oligarchy, brainwashing etc.

What if the same is true with classical music? What if some opinions shared here are similarly ignorant? Well, at least my opinions have been called ignorant and silly, but maybe I have taken that criticism too seriously? I have feared so much being wrong, but what if being wrong isn't that serious because we all are often wrong?

So, instead of having an intellectual debate over politics we have posts like this by Muzio. When you don't have anything substantive to say you can call others clueless and discredit everything they say by telling how good laughs they provide.

Biden and Trump are BOTH utterly corrupt. The fact that the former has been the VP for 8 years and the latter is the president tells a lot about how corruption has taken hold of American politics. The solution is to vote out such scum and instead elect people who are not corrupt. That's why Bernie Sanders 2020.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 29, 2019, 03:37:58 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 28, 2019, 08:38:55 AM
     It doesn't seem to work. The public is getting the Trump story and it says he's trying to frame Sleepy Joe for what his son did, get paid for his last name. It's an easy story to understand, and based on recent polling it's understood. Hunter is an embarrassment to his father. That's it.

Except father Joe needs to be corrupt for the idea to give a well-paying job to son Hunter to work. Ukraina knows Joe is corrupt and can be bought this way. If Joe was principled he would have said Hunter he can't accept the job offer because it looks bad and is effectively corruption. He didn't as far as we know, did he?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 29, 2019, 04:37:43 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 29, 2019, 03:37:58 AM
Except father Joe needs to be corrupt for the idea to give a well-paying job to son Hunter to work. Ukraina knows Joe is corrupt and can be bought this way. If Joe was principled he would have said Hunter he can't accept the job offer because it looks bad and is effectively corruption. He didn't as far as we know, did he?

     Biden made enemies in Ukraine because his anti-corruption drive was aimed at them. Kleptocrats are endangered and enraged by the noncorrupt.

     Ukrainian Oligarch Seethed About 'Overlord' Biden for Years (https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukrainian-oligarch-dmytro-firtash-seethed-about-overlord-joe-biden-for-years)

Biden has touted his leverage over Kyiv, including successfully pushing for the ouster of the country's then-chief prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. Biden wasn't the only one pushing for Shokin to leave as part of Ukraine's anti-corruption efforts. The prosecutor had put in anemic performance charging powerful and well-connected kleptocrats while in office and the IMF, the European Union, and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists all urged his ouster.

Shokin had also scrutinized a gas company whose board included Biden's son Hunter Biden, a fact that Trump and his allies have cited as evidence of corruption. They note that Shokin's replacement wasn't much better. But the reporter who broke the Hunter Biden story years ago reported that Joe Biden's overall anti-corruption push in Ukraine likely endangered the company his son was linked to.


     A Russian linked Ukrainian oligarch is targeting Biden and using Americans linked to the WH to do it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 29, 2019, 06:49:26 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 29, 2019, 04:37:43 AM
     Biden made enemies in Ukraine because his anti-corruption drive was aimed at them. Kleptocrats are endangered and enraged by the noncorrupt.

Witness Trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 29, 2019, 11:43:52 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 29, 2019, 03:24:54 AM
Biden and Trump are BOTH utterly corrupt.

Putting a word in capital letters doesn't make it more convincing.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 29, 2019, 01:05:05 PM
Quote from: Madiel on October 29, 2019, 11:43:52 AM
Putting a word in capital letters doesn't make it more convincing.

Nope. And if he cannot perceive the differences between the former Vice President, and Trump, he's one sorry puppy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 29, 2019, 01:48:17 PM
Is Joe Biden not corrupt at all?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 29, 2019, 02:01:39 PM
Quote from: Florestan on October 29, 2019, 01:48:17 PM
Is Joe Biden not corrupt at all?

     He is slightly evil in a way that's hard to pin down.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 29, 2019, 02:06:52 PM
Quote from: drogulus on October 29, 2019, 02:01:39 PM
     He is slightly evil in a way that's hard to pin down.

Why, of course, their corrupt guys are so much worse than ours...

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 29, 2019, 02:09:17 PM
Hatred that blinds...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 29, 2019, 03:10:25 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 29, 2019, 01:05:05 PM
Nope. And if he cannot perceive the differences between the former Vice President, and Trump, he's one sorry puppy.

Calling both Biden and Trump corrupt doesn't mean they are corrupt the same way or degree. If you don't understand that you are one sorry puppy yourself.

The US system is so messed up it allows LEGALLY massive corruption, systemic corruption. You do it you don't break the law, but you are corrupt anyway. You take someone's money and do their bidding. That is corruption, legal or not.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 29, 2019, 03:31:22 PM
Quote from: Florestan on October 29, 2019, 02:09:17 PM
Hatred that blinds...


     I guess I was unintelligible. I was saying a nice thing about Sleepy Joe. He's not a favorite by any means. He exudes an air of goofy normalcy like a !950s sitcom dad.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 29, 2019, 04:10:29 PM
Quote from: Florestan on October 29, 2019, 01:48:17 PM
Is Joe Biden not corrupt at all?


He's no Trump. But, why do I endeavor to discuss it with you? Like Trump, you deride critics as "haters."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 29, 2019, 04:13:30 PM
Quote from: Florestan on October 29, 2019, 02:09:17 PM
Hatred that blinds...


What will be left for you to do when you see genuine hatred? Your latest Johnny one-note wheeze is wicked as well as undiscerning.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 29, 2019, 05:29:03 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 29, 2019, 03:10:25 PM
Calling both Biden and Trump corrupt doesn't mean they are corrupt the same way or degree. If you don't understand that you are one sorry puppy yourself.

The US system is so messed up it allows LEGALLY massive corruption, systemic corruption. You do it you don't break the law, but you are corrupt anyway. You take someone's money and do their bidding. That is corruption, legal or not.

By that measure every political system is hopelessly corrupt. Every politician too. Bernie and AOC take the money of their donors and do their donors's bidding.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 30, 2019, 02:24:23 AM
Quote from: JBS on October 29, 2019, 05:29:03 PM
By that measure every political system is hopelessly corrupt. Every politician too. Bernie and AOC take the money of their donors and do their donors's bidding.

I knew some blockhead here would bring this up.

Yeah, they take because if you don't take any money you can win any election ever. Who is talking about removing the influence of money from politics? Taking the money from your regular people who vote for you means you do the bidding of the regular people who voted for you. Isn't that kind of the idea? That's why their money is less harmless. If only those billionaires who donate to Biden voted for Biden it wouldn't be a problem.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Jo498 on October 30, 2019, 02:36:02 AM
I don't think what Joe and Hunter Biden tried to pull off (or did) in the Ukraine is covered by taking money from US donors to finance one's campaign. They were in bed with kleptokrats and if one believes otherwise one is as naive as many Trump supporters.
But of course, the US system is particularly problematic because usually one has to be a multi-millionaire or needs very potent donors to even run for office. Now one could say that the good thing about this is that it is more in the open. In countries like Germany it is different (and maybe not quite on the US or Ukraine level). Politicians here want to be rewarded after they held offices, so they get some well paid industry/PR job afterwards (or sometimes parallel to office but there are some rules against that).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 30, 2019, 02:47:09 AM
New CNN likely New Hamphire voters poll:

Sanders 21 %
Warren 18 %
Biden 15 %
Buttigieg 10 %
Others under 10 %

How did CNN write about this poll? They wrote 5 articles none of which says in the headline Bernie is leading in NH:

1) "Sanders and Warren sit at top in New Hampshire, but there's no clear front-runner"
2) "A disappointing poll for Biden"
3) "Early state primary voters much more undecided than voters nationally"
4) "This is a historically unprecedented New Hampshire mess"
5) "Buttigieg in fourth, but a strong fourth"

Admittedly the first headline is somewhat fair to Bernie, but isn't it funny how it's easier for CNN to say Buttigieg is a strong fourth than saying Bernie is leading? Do you think corporate media would ever write "Bernie is a strong fourth" when Bernie IS fourth? Never! This is the corporate media bias I have been talking all the time. This is why corporate media sucks and people go watch the likes of Kyle Kulinski to get more objective take of the facts.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 30, 2019, 03:00:41 AM
 :laugh: :laugh: Bernie and 'friend' discussing the benefits of socialism!  Can't make this stuff up!  :D ;D :laugh:

(https://i.postimg.cc/KjDjkJyp/Pol-bread-line-bernie-and-another-socialist-with-empty-shelves.jpg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 30, 2019, 03:09:23 AM
Quote from: Muzio on October 30, 2019, 03:00:41 AM
:laugh: :laugh: Bernie and 'friend' discussing the benefits of socialism!  Can't make this stuff up!  :D ;D :laugh:

(https://i.postimg.cc/KjDjkJyp/Pol-bread-line-bernie-and-another-socialist-with-empty-shelves.jpg)

I admit this is unintentionally funny. This is the video the screenshot is from:

https://www.youtube.com/v/qFKzxkTzbtY

Bernie and Rashida Tlaib Visit Food Pantry
That's food shortage in Trump's America, "fruits" of not-so-well-regulated capitalism.
For reality check this is what grocery stores in "socialist" Finland look like:

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 30, 2019, 03:24:19 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 29, 2019, 03:10:25 PM
You do it you don't break the law, but you are corrupt anyway. You take someone's money and do their bidding. That is corruption, legal or not.

Clearly we have different definitions of "corruption". Because I consider "legal corruption" to be a contradiction in terms. Like "lawful murder".

I mean, I pay people all the time to do my bidding. I pay a plumber, he fixes my plumbing. It's called providing a service. So you're clearly being a little imprecise there.

I know you're claiming that a politician ought not to be taking someone's money and then doing their bidding. And one level I agree. The problem is, you're throwing rule of law out the window and deciding that what matters here is your opinion, or my opinion. I don't know exactly what laws the USA does and does not have on corruption, but the whole point of laws is they represent what a SOCIETY has decided is and isn't okay.

And frankly, substituting the opinion of a Finn or an Australian as the standard for how an American politician is required to behave to avoid being labelled with a pejorative term like "corrupt" makes zero sense to me. Because I believe in actual trials. Not trials by social media, or in the court of public opinion, but actual trials based on laws that were written down so that the expected standards were known and defined.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 30, 2019, 03:26:32 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 29, 2019, 03:10:25 PM
Calling both Biden and Trump corrupt doesn't mean they are corrupt the same way or degree. If you don't understand that you are one sorry puppy yourself.

And now I'm going call you out on this. You didn't call them both corrupt. You called them both UTTERLY CORRUPT.

Do you actually understand what "utterly" means?

Read your own words, and don't blame other people for reading them. If you meant that Biden was not as corrupt as Trump, then saying "they are BOTH utterly corrupt" was a complete failure on your part to convey your meaning.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 30, 2019, 03:52:57 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 30, 2019, 03:24:19 AM
Clearly we have different definitions of "corruption". Because I consider "legal corruption" to be a contradiction in terms. Like "lawful murder".

Corruption can be legal or illegal depending how the law is written. Legal corruption is moral problem that can (and often does) lead to problems in society. For example the US has an unnecessory opioid crisis because Big Pharma legally bought the politicians.

Quote from: Madiel on October 30, 2019, 03:24:19 AMI mean, I pay people all the time to do my bidding. I pay a plumber, he fixes my plumbing. It's called providing a service. So you're clearly being a little imprecise there.

Yeah, but it is YOUR plumber doing YOUR house. Other people pay their plumbers to do their pipes. What if you bought ALL plumbers? Your house would the the only one taken care of. Are you that dumb to not see it is a problem when billionaires buy politicians who SHOULD be serving everyone?

Quote from: Madiel on October 30, 2019, 03:24:19 AMI know you're claiming that a politician ought not to be taking someone's money and then doing their bidding. And one level I agree. The problem is, you're throwing rule of law out the window and deciding that what matters here is your opinion, or my opinion. I don't know exactly what laws the USA does and does not have on corruption, but the whole point of laws is they represent what a SOCIETY has decided is and isn't okay.

The law in the US in this regard is very relaxed and it's practically an open auction for rich people and corporations. For example NRA has bought the whole Republican party and that's why there's never stricter gun laws happening despite of 97 % of Americans wanting some gun reform. NRA itself has been bribed by the gun manufacturers. The society as a whole has NOT decided this. The rich have. That's the problem. The rich replaced democracy with oligarchy and it happened in the 70's/80's, because Americans were too stupid to fight back in time. Bernie Sanders is one of the only ones who have been fighting back all the time.

Quote from: Madiel on October 30, 2019, 03:24:19 AMAnd frankly, substituting the opinion of a Finn or an Australian as the standard for how an American politician is required to behave to avoid being labelled with a pejorative term like "corrupt" makes zero sense to me. Because I believe in actual trials. Not trials by social media, or in the court of public opinion, but actual trials based on laws that were written down so that the expected standards were known and defined.

Corruption is equally harmful in the US, Australia or Finland. Greed is the same everywhere. The only difference is how well democracy functions. You don't have to be a criminal to be a bad politician and legal corruption makes bad politicians.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 30, 2019, 03:58:21 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 30, 2019, 03:52:57 AM
You don't have to be a criminal to be a bad politician and legal corruption makes bad politicians.

I said nothing about whether or not a politician was bad. But as far as I'm concerned "bad" and "corrupt" are not synonyms. This is the difference between value judgements and legal ones.

The rest of your post is either making the same point I was making, or just missing the point I was making because nuance is lost on you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 30, 2019, 04:01:26 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 30, 2019, 03:26:32 AM
And now I'm going call you out on this. You didn't call them both corrupt. You called them both UTTERLY CORRUPT.

Do you actually understand what "utterly" means?

Read your own words, and don't blame other people for reading them. If you meant that Biden was not as corrupt as Trump, then saying "they are BOTH utterly corrupt" was a complete failure on your part to convey your meaning.

Both of them are utterly corrupt, but not exactly the same way. Neither of them would ever improve the lives or regular Americans in the expense of the rich and that makes them utterly corrupt. If they were only corrupt they would sometimes improve the lives or regular Americans. If Biden is elected and he improves ObamaCare A LOT then I am ready to admit he is only corrupt, not UTTERLY corrupt, but nothing indicates he would do that. He has promised the rich nothing will change, so how can you improve healthcare a lot without changing anything?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 30, 2019, 04:04:03 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 30, 2019, 04:01:26 AM
Both of them are utterly corrupt, but not exactly the same way. Neither of them would ever improve the lives or regular Americans in the expense of the rich and that makes them utterly corrupt. If they were only corrupt they would sometimes improve the lives or regular Americans. If Biden is elected and he improves ObamaCare A LOT then I am ready to admit he is only corrupt, not UTTERLY corrupt, but nothing indicates he would do that. He has promised the rich nothing will change, so how can you improve healtcare a lot without changing anything?

Oh FFS, I'm not trying to have a policy debate right now. Just make up your mind what your position is. You can either say they are both utterly corrupt, or you can tell people that one of them is less corrupt than the other.

What you cannot do is berate people for not understanding your apparent claim that one might be less "utterly corrupt" than the other.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 30, 2019, 04:12:31 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 30, 2019, 03:58:21 AM
I said nothing about whether or not a politician was bad. But as far as I'm concerned "bad" and "corrupt" are not synonyms. This is the difference between value judgements and legal ones.

The rest of your post is either making the same point I was making, or just missing the point I was making because nuance is lost on you.

"Bad" and "corrupt" are not synonyms, but there's a correlation between the two. That's why legal and value based judgements have a connection and why even the US has laws against corruption, althou weak. Some "bad" things are illegal because they are considered bad. If "bad" things didn't exist, nothing would have to be illegal. Law would be pointless.

Sorry if I missed your point/nuance. Perhaps for Americans Biden is not that corrupt, but for my Finnish eyes he is utterly corrupt because I live in one of the least corrupt countries in the World. In Finland Both Biden and Trump would have been sent to prison decades ago.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 30, 2019, 04:15:27 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on October 30, 2019, 02:36:02 AM
I don't think what Joe and Hunter Biden tried to pull off (or did) in the Ukraine is covered by taking money from US donors to finance one's campaign. They were in bed with kleptokrats and if one believes otherwise one is as naive as many Trump supporters.


     What Joe Biden was doing was to lead the anti-corruption drive in Ukraine, which was official U.S. policy as well as the policy of the EU and the (intellectually corrupt?) IMF. In the process he might have put his son in danger. The prosecutor Biden got fired was doing nothing. Why not leave him there?

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 30, 2019, 04:17:21 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 30, 2019, 04:04:03 AM
Oh FFS, I'm not trying to have a policy debate right now. Just make up your mind what your position is. You can either say they are both utterly corrupt, or you can tell people that one of them is less corrupt than the other.

What you cannot do is berate people for not understanding your apparent claim that one might be less "utterly corrupt" than the other.

Are you saying I can't call both Walton family and Jeff Bezos FILTHY rich? Do I have to say Walton family is less rich than Jeff Bezos? No! Both both Walton family and Jeff Bezos are UTTERLY rich and that doesn't mean their net worth is the same to a penny! Any billionaire is UTTERLY rich!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on October 30, 2019, 04:23:51 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 29, 2019, 04:13:30 PM
What will be left for you to do when you see genuine hatred? Your latest Johnny one-note wheeze is wicked as well as undiscerning.

I apologize, Karl. I was in a bad mood yesterday and had a momentary lapse of reason. Those posts were stupid. I'm really sorry.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 30, 2019, 04:29:04 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 30, 2019, 04:17:21 AM
Are you saying I can't call both Walton family and Jeff Bezos FILTHY rich? Do I have to say Walton family is less rich than Jeff Bezos? No! Both both Walton family and Jeff Bezos are UTTERLY rich and that doesn't mean their net worth is the same to a penny! Any billionaire is UTTERLY rich!

All you're doing is demonstrating that you don't understand what "utterly" means. It does not function the same way as "filthy" does (I don't even know why you're raising the word "filthy" when it hasn't come up before, no, I'm not saying you can't call them both filthy rich, I would have hoped that when you go to the EFFORT of putting WORDS in CAPITALS you might NOTICE that they're actually two DIFFERENT words, that is a TERRIBLE way to CONSTRUCT an ARGUMENT, ACTING as if FILTHY and UTTERLY are the SAME WORD).

And "utterly rich" is simply not a term in use. Describing someone as "very" rich or "extremely" rich works, but describing someone as "utterly" rich sounds weird because someone can always be richer.

I would be quite happy saying that all billionaires are extremely rich. Because that allows that one billionaire is even richer than another (note the difference between using rich/richer). The word "utterly" does not permit this kind of comparison. You cannot have degrees of "utterly" in the way that you are claiming. It is the end point. "Utterly corrupt" does not admit of the possibility that someone else is more corrupt. It means completely, absolutely corrupted. If you want degrees, use "quite", "rather", "very", "extremely".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 30, 2019, 04:47:28 AM
I am "utterly" fed up with this discussion.

If you don't believe the corruption in the US is bad then have at it. What do I care?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 30, 2019, 04:51:40 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 30, 2019, 04:47:28 AM
I am "utterly" fed up with this discussion.
That's viable.

Quote
If you don't believe the corruption in the US is bad then have at it. What do I care?

That wasn't the question. The question was whether there was any difference between Trump and Biden. The reaction you got was because many of us think claiming there is no difference is absurd.

We can only go by what you actually say. Not what you had in your head.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 30, 2019, 04:56:40 AM
Quote from: Madiel on October 30, 2019, 04:51:40 AM
The question was whether there was any difference between Trump and Biden.

Of course there is diffrence! Rapers and bank robbers are very different criminals, but might end up sharing the prison cell.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on October 30, 2019, 05:11:27 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 30, 2019, 04:56:40 AM
Of course there is diffrence! Rapers and bank robbers are very different criminals, but might end up sharing the prison cell.

The point is that, whether you meant to or not, YOU wrote something that said to us THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE.

And then got cranky when people responded to what you had written.

Okay? Don't go saying "of course" when it's your own words that created the opposite impression. At no stage in this have you admitted even the possibility that you fucked up your English. No, instead it's all my fault for trying to go through the boring task of explaining to you the difference between what you said and what you apparently meant.

It's YOUR fault. YOU misspoke.

Goodnight.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 30, 2019, 05:41:48 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 29, 2019, 04:13:30 PM
What will be left for you to do when you see genuine hatred? Your latest Johnny one-note wheeze is wicked as well as undiscerning.

And what will you do, young man, when you see genuine wickedness?  Physician, heal you-know-who.  :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 30, 2019, 09:56:48 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on October 30, 2019, 04:47:28 AM
I am "utterly" fed up with this discussion.

Then why cannot you keep your own damned "resolve" to participate in other threads instead?

Why, unless you are determined to make yourself serially ridiculous?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on October 30, 2019, 12:18:35 PM
Meanwhile Bernie seems to have decided to outflank everyone else on the Palestinian issue
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/bernie-sanders-u-s-should-withhold-military-aid-unless-israel-fundamentally-changes-its-relationship-with-people-of-gaza/

Mind you, reducing aid to Israel is not a new idea, or even one that's confined to the US Left.  What is new is the idea of the US giving money to Gaza directly.  That means, as long as Hamas controls Gaza, giving money to Hamas which Hamas then diverts from humanitarian uses to its campaign of violence against Israel. So Bernie is proposing we actually finance terrorism.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on October 30, 2019, 12:31:28 PM
The Onion... :laugh:

(https://i.postimg.cc/tJjXcQhT/Meme-cash-strapped-Biden-selling-hand-shaken-by-obama.jpg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on October 30, 2019, 02:52:34 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 30, 2019, 09:56:48 AM
Then why cannot you keep your own damned "resolve" to participate in other threads instead?

Why, unless you are determined to make yourself serially ridiculous?

I am fed up with this nonsense of the meaning of the word "utterly." English is not my first language. I'm not a linguistic expert of the semantics of English words. I am here to talk about The Democratic Candidates.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on October 30, 2019, 03:01:35 PM
Quote from: JBS on October 30, 2019, 12:18:35 PM
Meanwhile Bernie seems to have decided to outflank everyone else on the Palestinian issue
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/bernie-sanders-u-s-should-withhold-military-aid-unless-israel-fundamentally-changes-its-relationship-with-people-of-gaza/

Mind you, reducing aid to Israel is not a new idea, or even one that's confined to the US Left.  What is new is the idea of the US giving money to Gaza directly.  That means, as long as Hamas controls Gaza, giving money to Hamas which Hamas then diverts from humanitarian uses to its campaign of violence against Israel. So Bernie is proposing we actually finance terrorism.

It will be interesting to see if that arises in a debate.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on October 30, 2019, 03:05:49 PM
Quote from: JBS on October 30, 2019, 12:18:35 PM
Meanwhile Bernie seems to have decided to outflank everyone else on the Palestinian issue
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/bernie-sanders-u-s-should-withhold-military-aid-unless-israel-fundamentally-changes-its-relationship-with-people-of-gaza/

Mind you, reducing aid to Israel is not a new idea, or even one that's confined to the US Left.  What is new is the idea of the US giving money to Gaza directly.  That means, as long as Hamas controls Gaza, giving money to Hamas which Hamas then diverts from humanitarian uses to its campaign of violence against Israel. So Bernie is proposing we actually finance terrorism.

     It might be a better option than U.N. aid to the populace for the U.S. to provide direct aid. The problem I see would be Hamas would be smart enough to refuse it. If aid is the tool of imperialist oppression the left thinks it is, let's imperially oppress.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 01, 2019, 02:54:19 PM
Beto dropped out! Good riddance!  $:)

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 01, 2019, 03:49:46 PM
Paul Krugman: Did Warren Pass the Medicare Test? I Think So (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/opinion/did-warren-pass-the-medicare-test-i-think-so.html)

"Last week I worried that Elizabeth Warren had painted herself into a corner by endorsing the Sanders Medicare-for-all plan. It was becoming obvious that she couldn't stay vague about the details, especially how to pay for it; and some studies, even by center-left think tanks, suggested that any plan along these lines would require large tax hikes on the middle class. So what would she come up with?

Well, the Warren plan is now out. And I'd say that she passed the test. Experts will argue for months whether she's being too optimistic — whether her cost estimates are too low and her revenue estimates too high, whether we can really do this without middle-class tax hikes. You might say that time will tell, but it probably won't: Even if Warren becomes president, and Dems take the Senate too, it's very unlikely that Medicare for all will happen any time soon.

Nonetheless, Warren needed to show that she was working the problem. And she did. She brought in real experts like Donald Berwick, who ran Medicare during the Obama years, and Betsey Stevenson, former chief economist at the Labor Department. And they have produced a serious plan. As I said, experts will argue with the numbers, but this is the real thing — not some left-leaning version of voodoo economics.

How does the Warren plan expand Medicare to cover everyone without raising taxes on the middle class? There are four main components."[...]
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 01, 2019, 04:48:35 PM
middle-class tax hikes are a great thing when you don't need to pay premiums, co-pays, deductibles etc. private crap and save tons of money in the process. This fearmongering of taxes is so old by now... ...come on!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 02, 2019, 05:52:01 AM
Quote from: George "Silver Foot in His Mouth" HW BushRead my lips: no new taxes (1988).

Quote from: Barry OIf you like the plan you have, you can keep it.  If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. (2009)

Quote from: Goofy Elizabeth WarrenWe don't need to raise taxes on the middle class by one penny to finance Medicare for All. (2019)


The more things change, and all that. 

Goofy Elizabeth Warren is unfortunately not doing anything to help dispel the idea that girls aren't good at math.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 02, 2019, 06:21:39 AM

     Everyone thinks they are expert on how much tax will come back from an expansionary new government program.

     I'm sure Warren has a plan that's no better or worse than the other ones. The howyougonna meme is empty, a conversation stopper.

     We don't know how much tax comes back from a bigger economy. It will be more, that we know. Over the last decade it's been fairly proportional. The economy grew slowly and the tax came back about the same. If Medicare for All is expansionary that raises the tax take the normal way. If we impose a sufficient delay on the imposition of a higher tax rate we might find, to the everlasting sorrow of shrinkonomists, that it's not needed, whatever "needed" is supposed to be.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 02, 2019, 06:24:09 AM
Quote from: drogulus on November 02, 2019, 06:21:39 AM
     Everyone thinks they are expert on how much tax will come back from an expansionary new government program.

     I'm sure Warren has a plan that's no better or worse than the other ones. The howyougonna meme is empty, a conversation stopper.

     We don't know how much tax comes back from a bigger economy. It will be more, that we know. Over the last decade it's been fairly proportional. The economy grew slowly and the tax came back about the same. If Medicare for All is expansionary that raises the tax take the normal way. If we impose a sufficient delay on the imposition of a higher tax rate we might find, to the everlasting sorrow of shrinkonomists, that it's not needed, whatever "needed" is supposed to be.


The funniest thing about this post is that it isn't satire.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 02, 2019, 06:55:36 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 01, 2019, 04:48:35 PM
middle-class tax hikes are a great thing when you don't need to pay premiums, co-pays, deductibles etc. private crap and save tons of money in the process. This fearmongering of taxes is so old by now... ...come on!

     The middle class will pay more tax on higher income, just like the economy will. Add more income and you get more tax back unless you deliberately try to prevent the tax return from rising as the economy grows. The real economic question is about inflation. Demand side inflation is hard to get and even harder to sustain. The reason for that is that real limits govern the use of money to deploy resources, and when the limits are approached resources will expand through efficiency gains and substitution. When growth is slow productivity gains are weak, when growth speeds up, gains speed up.

     Do we "need" higher tax rates, or should we hold off and let expansion pay for itself? It would be wise to wait and see if a need of some kind appears.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 02, 2019, 06:58:09 AM
drogulus posts: argle-bargle or foofaraw?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 02, 2019, 07:18:27 AM

     Kelton says that MfA might be demand negative and require a tax cut to maintain growth. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)

     Medicare-for-all has a modeling problem (https://theweek.com/articles/826609/medicareforall-modeling-problem)

Now, Americans don't like taxes, so that's a major political handicap.

But more the point, that assumption that you need to fully "pay for" the program is wrong on the merits.

Here's how it actually works: The federal government controls the supply of U.S. dollars, so it can create as many as it wants. It doesn't need taxes to get the money. What it does have to do is manage the macro-economy, making sure the sum total of its fiscal policy doesn't lead to overheating and inflation. As long as the economy is below capacity, the government can spend without any sort of offset, adding more demand to the economy and creating jobs until it fills that gap. Once that gap is filled, additional spending does need to be offset, lest inflation set in.

This critique is often associated with Modern Monetary Theory, of which Kelton is a major champion. But most of the mainstream economics profession will acknowledge this description is accurate. They just think distinguishing between taxes as "paying for" spending and taxes as offsets for inflation is a matter of "tomatoe" versus "tomato."


    Yeah, what I said. But I think the takeaway from demand positive or negative initial assumptions is that it doesn't matter for whether you do the policy. If the resources are there, there's no need to "run out of dollars" for them.

     So why would Kelton think we'd use tax cuts? Oh, this:

Now, there's no way those Americans who lose their jobs in the private health insurance bureaucracy could keep working in the same sector. Permanently squashing that bureaucracy is part of the point of Medicare-for-all. But the government does need to ensure there are good jobs waiting for those people. That means ensuring the economy has reached full employment and demand is maxed out. That will keep employers desperate for labor, and they'll scramble to snatch those workers up.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 02, 2019, 07:18:41 AM
Quote from: Todd on November 02, 2019, 06:58:09 AM
drogulus posts: argle-bargle or foofaraw?

Whichever of these terms means "utterly unintelligible verbiage" gets my vote.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 02, 2019, 07:30:33 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 02, 2019, 07:18:41 AM
Whichever of these terms means "utterly unintelligible verbiage" gets my vote.


I've occasionally thought about contacting my alma mater to direct the Econ faculty to drogulus' posts on economics as humorous examples of how economically illiterate so many Americans are, including some Big Brains.  The posts could serve as "Don't Let This Happen to You" warnings.  The English department could also use his posts as useful counterexamples of good writing, though I think once they realized he is a native speaker, they might be more concerned for his mental well-being than anything else.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 02, 2019, 07:31:37 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 02, 2019, 07:18:41 AM
Whichever of these terms means "utterly unintelligible verbiage" gets my vote.

     If all I did was regurgitate standard issue nonsense of the kind you are used to hearing, I assume you'd find it intelligible. Do you think, for example, that when the government spends more money into the economy, people have less of it, while if the government taxes more money from the people, they have more? Do you find that intelligible?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 02, 2019, 07:42:42 AM
Quote from: Todd on November 02, 2019, 07:30:33 AM

I've occasionally thought about contacting my alma mater to direct the Econ faculty to drogulus' posts on economics as humorous examples of how economically illiterate so many Americans are, including some Big Brains. 

     Don't bother with them, they will be the last to know. One funeral at a time they will learn.

     I have a better idea, take it to Wall Street.

     Modern Monetary Theory Finds an Embrace in an Unexpected Place: Wall Street (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/05/business/economy/mmt-wall-street.html)

"I don't look at labels in terms of what's on the left and the right," said Jan Hatzius, the chief economist at Goldman Sachs. "I try to look at what makes me have a better chance of getting the forecast right, and I do find some of the ideas useful."

So does Paul A. McCulley, a former chief economist at the behemoth asset firm Pimco. Ideas like M.M.T. that rub against the grain of conventional economics, he said, have "for all of my career been a very useful framework for analysis."

That framework helped produce billion-dollar gains for the company after the 2008 financial crisis. Dismissing alarms about outsize government debt and white-knuckle interest rates, Pimco instead bet successfully that rates would remain low. When it came to decision-making during this period, Mr. McCulley said, M.M.T. and other unorthodox approaches helped him "get it right."

Richard C. Koo, chief economist at the Nomura Research Institute in Tokyo, said he had been telling his clients for years that "even with huge budget deficits in the U.S., interest rates would actually come down, not go up."


   
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 02, 2019, 07:56:36 AM
MMT is the Scientology of economics. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 02, 2019, 09:37:28 AM
Quote from: drogulus on November 02, 2019, 07:31:37 AM
     If all I did was regurgitate standard issue nonsense of the kind you are used to hearing, I assume you'd find it intelligible.

I don't mind heterodox economics. I mind nonsense such as this:

Quote from: drogulus on November 02, 2019, 06:55:36 AM
     The middle class will pay more tax on higher income, just like the economy will.

Granted, English is not my mother tongue but what I infer from the above is "the economy will pay more tax on higher income". If you could explain me how "economy" can "pay tax", be it more or less, I'll retract "nonsense". (That is, putting aside the issue of writing "more tax" for what I assume you meant "higher taxes".)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 02, 2019, 10:45:49 AM
Quote from: drogulus on November 02, 2019, 07:18:27 AMNow, Americans don't like taxes,...

Yep, but I don't think Americans like premiums, co-pays, etc. either...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on November 02, 2019, 11:23:43 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 02, 2019, 10:45:49 AM
Yep, but I don't think Americans like premiums, co-pays, etc. either...
Well, then it just seems to be a matter of which poison tastes worse to Americans, which can be decided by voting...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 02, 2019, 12:03:28 PM
Quote from: greg on November 02, 2019, 11:23:43 AM
Well, then it just seems to be a matter of which poison tastes worse to Americans, which can be decided by voting...


To a limited extent.  Unless there is a 1932 style victory for one party or the other, the best any incoming Administration can hope for is a watered-down version of its agenda to pass.  I do hope Dems and ignorant non-American fellow travelers get very excited about Medicare for All. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 02, 2019, 01:21:11 PM
Quote from: Florestan on November 02, 2019, 09:37:28 AM


Granted, English is not my mother tongue but what I infer from the above is "the economy will pay more tax on higher income". If you could explain me how "economy" can "pay tax", be it more or less, I'll retract "nonsense". (That is, putting aside the issue of writing "more tax" for what I assume you meant "higher taxes".)


     Ah, you are approaching the portals of sense. Let me help you get all the way though. Let's call everyone who pays federal tax the "economy", even though not everyone does pay tax, at the aggregate level (the level that concerns us) all taxes are paid, no taxes are paid by not the economy. If it pays taxes, it's the economy. So long as all the tax is on the economy it doesn't matter that some pay zero or even negative tax.

     Put it all together and the economy is taxed. That takes care of the first unintelligible point.

     The second unintelligible point is how the tax return changes as the economy changes, typically when the economy grows. First what should you expect to happen, in English or any language? Given the same tax rates the nominal tax will grow. Over the last decade the U.S. economy grew about 50% in nominal GDP, while the annual tax return is up by about 60% unadjusted, so we're comparing apples to apples.

     So, holding rates constant and not trying to target a tax/GDP ratio (who does that?), your task is to estimate what the effects will be of a Medicare for All plan both on the private costs side and the public costs side, as well as the demand effects of the shift in terms of employment.

     There is every reason to assume that I'm not (yet) talking about changing tax rates.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 02, 2019, 03:11:34 PM
Quote from: drogulus on November 02, 2019, 01:21:11 PMno taxes are paid by not the economy


Only on GMG.  Literally.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 02, 2019, 03:25:43 PM


     
Quote from: greg on November 02, 2019, 11:23:43 AM
Well, then it just seems to be a matter of which poison tastes worse to Americans, which can be decided by voting...

     I'm insured either way they vote. My interest is that it's efficient costwise to cover everyone and the economy will run better that way. Emergency rooms are the most costly way to deliver health care, and sicker patients cost more, too. Covering everyone means more preventive care and earlier interventions when people get sick.

     I'll pay less for my coverage if I carry lower external system costs, and so will everyone similarly insured, which optimally will be everyone.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 03, 2019, 01:09:20 AM
Quote from: drogulus on November 02, 2019, 01:21:11 PM


     Ah, you are approaching the portals of sense. Let me help you get all the way though. Let's call everyone who pays federal tax the "economy", even though not everyone does pay tax, at the aggregate level (the level that concerns us) all taxes are paid, no taxes are paid by not the economy. If it pays taxes, it's the economy.

That's not even heterodox economics anymore, it's Humpty-Dumpty economics.

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 03, 2019, 04:20:05 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 03, 2019, 01:09:20 AM
That's not even heterodox economics anymore, it's Humpty-Dumpty economics.


Including the word "economics" is extraordinarily generous of you. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 03, 2019, 05:35:24 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 03, 2019, 01:09:20 AM
That's not even heterodox economics anymore, it's Humpty-Dumpty economics.



     It's neither, it's this:

     (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg)

     What you're missing is that absent ideology there are facts, such as the federal tax rate on the economy.

     As the economy grows the tax total stays within a range. Rate changes have a small impact.

     If you change rates the economy will still be taxed in the range above. This chart goes back to 1945. Spot the rate changes, spot the "largest increase/decrease in history".

     Don't bother, you have no idea. Changes in the tax regime can be distinguished by their effects on the rate of growth in the economy. A large economy that is taxed at 16% sends more tax back than a smaller one.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 03, 2019, 06:28:16 AM
Yep, definitely argle-bargle.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 03, 2019, 07:31:48 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 03, 2019, 01:09:20 AM
That's not even heterodox economics anymore, it's Humpty-Dumpty economics.

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'


     This might help.

     Taxes for Revenue Are Obsolete (https://modernmoneynetwork.org/sites/default/files/biblio/BeardsleyRuml.pdf)

     What's now called MMT used to be called chartalism. Keynes operated within the gold standard and some of his successors kept the framework. Trying to combine a money scarcity theory with its refutation leads to all kinds of mischief. It's why most economists can't explain why they are wrong repeatedly in ways they can't seem to correct.

     Randall Wray wanted to call MMT neochartalism. That would have been good since it's not a new theory. I note that Wray wants to abolish corporate taxation on the same grounds as Ruml did. That's tangential to the point but since I like it, it's in here. It's the same kind of howyougonnapayfor BS as Medicare for All. Where will we "get" the money?

     Warren threaded the needle between sense and nonsense sufficiently well to satisfy nonsense afficianados as well as the practical minded. Krugman blessed her effort, so there's that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 03, 2019, 07:37:04 AM
Looks like drogulus writes foofaraw as well.  A double threat.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 05, 2019, 04:47:47 AM
So Warren came out with her version of M4A. It's good to know Warren seems to after all wishy washiness endorse M4A, but her plan is problematic. She tries to formulate it so that it "doesn't rise middle class taxes", but that's semantics to avoid bogus corporate critisism. Of course middle class taxes go up because you need to PAY FOR IT. Of course for the middle class it's money saved, when they get rid of private taxes, premiums etc. According to Kyle Kulinski Warren's plan is harder to pass than Bernie's plan and it's clear Bernie would fight harder for M4A as he has fought these things for decades rather than jumping the M4A bandwagon now that is a winning issue politically.

Bernie is still the best, Warren being second best as Democratic candidate.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 05, 2019, 05:31:14 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 05, 2019, 04:47:47 AM
So Warren came out with her version of M4A. It's good to know Warren seems to after all wishy washiness endorse M4A, but her plan is problematic. She tries to formulate it so that it "doesn't rise middle class taxes", but that's semantics to avoid bogus corporate critisism. Of course middle class taxes go up because you need to PAY FOR IT. Of course for the middle class it's money saved, when they get rid of private taxes, premiums etc. According to Kyle Kulinski Warren's plan is harder to pass than Bernie's plan and it's clear Bernie would fight harder for M4A as he has fought these things for decades rather than jumping the M4A bandwagon now that is a winning issue politically.

Bernie is still the best, Warren being second best as Democratic candidate.

     An article said the Warren plan is criticized by the left, right and center. That's tells me that a real world economic analysis of how costs shift, rise and fall has nothing to do with what people are saying.

     They might as well all hire a single economist and tell him/her/it "run out of dollars here" "no, run out of dollars there" "whatever you do, just run out of dollars".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on November 05, 2019, 08:12:53 AM
Warren's head tax charges middle and low earners much more than a payroll tax does. $9.5k is a lot more to workers earning $15k than to those earning $190k; 8% is the same for everyone.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 05, 2019, 09:39:52 AM
Quote from: schnittkease on November 05, 2019, 08:12:53 AM
Warren's head tax charges middle and low earners much more than a payroll tax does. $9.5k is a lot more to workers earning $15k than to those earning $190k; 8% is the same for everyone.

Yes, that's Warren's trick to be able to say middle class taxes don't rise.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 05, 2019, 10:50:47 AM
Quote from: schnittkease on November 05, 2019, 08:12:53 AM
Warren's head tax charges middle and low earners much more than a payroll tax does. $9.5k is a lot more to workers earning $15k than to those earning $190k; 8% is the same for everyone.

     It's easily fixed to look like something we'd want to do. Medicare for All is in any case a resource question and not about how many dollars are needed for it. All plans based on money run outs are equally repugnant. We always produce the money for anything resources allow us to do, if we really want to do it. Deciding to do a big program is deciding on not running out of dollars for the resources we use dollars to deploy. This is what we always do, and always will do. Whenever an emergency happens we immediately stop the bogus dollar run outs and do what works until the worst of the danger passes and it's safe to go back to our stupid ideas again.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 05, 2019, 06:46:08 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 05, 2019, 09:39:52 AM
Yes, that's Warren's trick to be able to say middle class taxes don't rise.

She also tries to force a considerable amount of the costs onto employers and states by mandating them to pay as much on health care for employees and Medicaid recipients. An important part of the mess we are in now comes from employers and states trying to get out of paying those benefits in the first place.  But even if it works it just means state taxes will go up and employee benefits will go down...so we taxpayers will still be stuck with the bill.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 05, 2019, 07:13:28 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 05, 2019, 06:46:08 PM
She also tries to force a considerable amount of the costs onto employers and states by mandating them to pay as much on health care for employees and Medicaid recipients. An important part of the mess we are in now comes from employers and states trying to get out of paying those benefits in the first place.  But even if it works it just means state taxes will go up and employee benefits will go down...so we taxpayers will still be stuck with the bill.

     Putting the burden on employers and rising employee premiums is exactly the wrong thing to do. That's what we're trying to get away from. It should be in the fiscal balance and nowhere else. That's the lowest cost, lowest overhead way to do it. You could even raise a little tax to calm the nervous nellies, though by far the best thing is to see how much the economy will balance on its own, then you can let the taxophiles have a little fun.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on November 06, 2019, 12:46:50 AM
I don't understand anything about macro-economics. I really think a lot of people are like me in that we don't understand what medicare-for-all means for working class people in terms of all the details and repercussions. My friends on the socialist left, who hate democrats really, support Sanders as a matter of ideology. My only belief regarding this issue is that it should be and is possible to find a way to have everyone covered and no one in debt for being sick. I live in Japan; It's not the best system but everyone is covered. Maybe the U.S. needs something like Japan where big companies have one big system and independent/temporary workers another. Here, everyone MUST join and costs are fairly low.

I'm losing a little trust in Warren because it seems like she's promised something that's full of holes and she's boxed herself in. It's too bad because despite her faults, I think she has political talent and real knowledge about banking and consumer protection. She's made some flubs but I still think she's a decent human being.

I quite dislike Biden though I think Dems need another look at a mainstream candidate. It's too bad Cory Booker got no traction. He's another talented politician and a genuinely good guy.

I don't want a prosecutor - Harris or Klobuchar - because I have a low opinion of that profession and both of them rub me the wrong way.

I really don't know anything much about Buttigieg and no idea if he could really contend nationally. Could he? Should he?

Who's left? Who do we have? I'm starting to get a bit pessimistic.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 06, 2019, 02:07:11 AM
Quote from: JBS on November 05, 2019, 06:46:08 PM
She also tries to force a considerable amount of the costs onto employers and states by mandating them to pay as much on health care for employees and Medicaid recipients. An important part of the mess we are in now comes from employers and states trying to get out of paying those benefits in the first place.  But even if it works it just means state taxes will go up and employee benefits will go down...so we taxpayers will still be stuck with the bill.

In the end someone has to pay for healthcare so costs must be forced to someone. To whom are costs forced on is a political choice of what kind of country the US is. Is it an oligarchy where healthcare is NOT a human right, but something the rich can profit on, or is it a social democracy where healthcare is a human right meaning those who have more money need to pay a larger share of the healthcare costs? This democratic primary is a test of what kind of country Americans want. If they want to keep the oligarchy, someone like Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg will be the nominee. They won't do much to change the system so oligarchy can continue. If people want democracy, Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren* will be the nominee. If americans fail to elect Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren* as the next president then Americans simply want oligarchy and they better be fine with what it means: 30.000-45.000 dies every year because they don't have access to basic healthcare, half a million people go bankrupt every years because of medical bills, the most expensive dugs in the World etc. That's the cost of insurance company/Big Pharma CEOs buying more yachts.

* Electing Warren means slim chance for M4A, but I don't blame people if they think Warren gives then single-payer-healthcare. Most people don't follow politics intensively and the misinformation of the corporate media doesn't help. We can only hope enough people realize Bernie Sanders is the correct choice, the best bet for having M4A and other much needed changes.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 06, 2019, 04:09:28 AM
Quote from: milk on November 06, 2019, 12:46:50 AM
I don't understand anything about macro-economics.

The important thing is to understand that in macro-economic systems money doesn't dissappear when it's used. When you buy a car, from your perspective the money is "gone" forever, but in macro-economic systems money just circulates and never disappears. This is an oversimplification, but it's the main principle when dealing with macro-economics. In macro-economics the flow of money and how money flows are important things. Flow means activity. It means people have jobs and can consume. Depression is less flow. How money flows is also important. Do people use money on alcohol or education? Money used on eduction is more beneficial to the society while wild alcohol usage creates problems. Macro-economic system has multiplying effects: Using 1 dollar on alcohol may have a multiplying effect of 0.8 meaning 20 cents is gone from the system (the problems ate it up) while using 1 dollar on education may have a multiplying effect of 6 in the long run so that over the years 5 dollars are added to the system (education made it possible to be more productive).

macro-economic is totally differen from business economics. In business you minimaze the costs and maximaze the income as the main principle, but in macro-economics you want a steady good flow of money through the things of large multiplying effects. Since social problems means inavoidably poor multiplying effects, good macro-economics almost automatically means good social policy and this is one of the secrets behind the success of for example Nordic countries.

Quote from: milk on November 06, 2019, 12:46:50 AMI really think a lot of people are like me in that we don't understand what medicare-for-all means for working class people in terms of all the details and repercussions.

It means you pay less for better care. You pay less, because you no long pay for the new yachts of insurance company/Big Pharma CEOs and the richest 5 % pay more, their "fair share", because of their increase in taxes is bigger than what they save not paying premiums etc. private taxes.

Quote from: milk on November 06, 2019, 12:46:50 AMMy friends on the socialist left, who hate democrats really, support Sanders as a matter of ideology. My only belief regarding this issue is that it should be and is possible to find a way to have everyone covered and no one in debt for being sick. I live in Japan; It's not the best system but everyone is covered. Maybe the U.S. needs something like Japan where big companies have one big system and independent/temporary workers another. Here, everyone MUST join and costs are fairly low.

I don't know your friends, but they are probably social democrats rather than socialists. Ask them if they think the US government should own Apple. If they say yes, they are socialists (outside capitalistic ideology). If they say no they are social democrats (inside capitalistic ideology) Bernie Sanders is a social democrat (but he calls himself democratic socialist which is unfortunate and wrong).

Other developped western countries have found a way to have everyone covered and no one in debt for being sick. It's done by having a single-payer-system and removing profit incentives from healthcare. It turns out that people don't go bankrupt for being sick when they don't have to pay for new yachts for CEOs and single-payer-system ensures a good risk pool so that the costs are distributed evenly among people. That's real healthcare insurance. If 1 % of people need treatment X, then everybody pays 1 % (on average, in practice the rich pay more and poor people less if anything) of the cost of such treatment and we are done. Nobody is in debt for being sick, but also no new yachts for anyone! In fact it means LESS yachts, because the rich have to pay more taxes! It's about deciding which is more important in society: All people have affordable healthcare or CEOs have many yachts. Call me a socialist, but somehow I think people having healthcare is 100000 times more important.  :P

Quote from: milk on November 06, 2019, 12:46:50 AMI'm losing a little trust in Warren because it seems like she's promised something that's full of holes and she's boxed herself in. It's too bad because despite her faults, I think she has political talent and real knowledge about banking and consumer protection. She's made some flubs but I still think she's a decent human being.

Warren is probably the best candidate on banking and consumer protection, but she has her weaknesses such as voting for wars. Of the candidates she is clearly second best choice after Bernie now that Tulsi Gabbard has disappointingly backpedaled from M4A (Tulsi is the best when it comes to getting out of wars).

Quote from: milk on November 06, 2019, 12:46:50 AMI think Dems need another look at a mainstream candidate.

It's not 90's anymore. The time of (corporate) mainstream candidates is over. Mainstream candidate Hillary Clinton lost to (fake) populist clown candidate Trump. The US has moved to the era of political populism. That's why 2 out of 3 candidates of the top 3 are populists and only one is (corporate) mainstream and is hanging up in the polls thanks to "default" support from people who don't follow politics closely and have nostalgic memories of the Obama years when mean Tweets were not a thing. People want candidates who say things they want are possible, not candidates who say things are not possible. Why would you vote for a candidate who says he/she is against the things you want/need? You want healthcare? I am against that! You want "free" education? I am against that! You want 15 dollars living wage? I am against that! My corporate donors don't like what you want so shut the fuck up and just vote for me! The Overton Window is moving left and soon people like Bernie Sanders are considered "mainstream." In Finland Bernie Sanders would be totally mainstream, close to the political center.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on November 06, 2019, 07:57:46 AM
Quote from: milk on November 06, 2019, 12:46:50 AM
I don't understand anything about macro-economics. I really think a lot of people are like me in that we don't understand what medicare-for-all means for working class people in terms of all the details and repercussions. My friends on the socialist left, who hate democrats really, support Sanders as a matter of ideology. My only belief regarding this issue is that it should be and is possible to find a way to have everyone covered and no one in debt for being sick. I live in Japan; It's not the best system but everyone is covered. Maybe the U.S. needs something like Japan where big companies have one big system and independent/temporary workers another. Here, everyone MUST join and costs are fairly low.

I'm losing a little trust in Warren because it seems like she's promised something that's full of holes and she's boxed herself in. It's too bad because despite her faults, I think she has political talent and real knowledge about banking and consumer protection. She's made some flubs but I still think she's a decent human being.

I quite dislike Biden though I think Dems need another look at a mainstream candidate. It's too bad Cory Booker got no traction. He's another talented politician and a genuinely good guy.

I don't want a prosecutor - Harris or Klobuchar - because I have a low opinion of that profession and both of them rub me the wrong way.

I really don't know anything much about Buttigieg and no idea if he could really contend nationally. Could he? Should he?

Who's left? Who do we have? I'm starting to get a bit pessimistic.

Your pessimism is justified.

My present thoughts are that, while there is ample reason to prefer someone else, Biden may possibly be the best nominee. We all know from for years ago that "I'm not Trump!" Ain't enough.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 06, 2019, 09:47:51 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 06, 2019, 04:09:28 AM
The important thing is to understand that in macro-economic systems money doesn't dissappear when it's used. When you buy a car, from your perspective the money is "gone" forever, but in macro-economic systems money just circulates and never disappears. This is an oversimplification, but it's the main principle when dealing with macro-economics. In macro-economics the flow of money and how money flows are important things. Flow means activity. It means people have jobs and can consume. Depression is less flow. How money flows is also important. Do people use money on alcohol or education? Money used on eduction is more beneficial to the society while wild alcohol usage creates problems. Macro-economic system has multiplying effects: Using 1 dollar on alcohol may have a multiplying effect of 0.8 meaning 20 cents is gone from the system (the problems ate it up) while using 1 dollar on education may have a multiplying effect of 6 in the long run so that over the years 5 dollars are added to the system (education made it possible to be more productive).


     This is largely correct in all working economic understandings, and contrary to most economic rhetoric, where government spending is disappeared money and taxing means people have more. Adding too much money "crowds out" private sector use of it. Maybe it works that way in the Upside Down, but that's not where we live.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 06, 2019, 11:31:00 PM
Politico:

How Kamala Harris Went From 'Female Obama' to Fifth Place
She entered the 2020 presidential race with promise and charisma, but is now sliding perilously close to irrelevance. What went wrong? And is it too late for her to reverse course? (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/05/how-kamala-harris-went-from-female-obama-to-fifth-place-229901)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on November 08, 2019, 12:00:38 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 06, 2019, 02:07:11 AM
In the end someone has to pay for healthcare so costs must be forced to someone. To whom are costs forced on is a political choice of what kind of country the US is. Is it an oligarchy where healthcare is NOT a human right, but something the rich can profit on, or is it a social democracy where healthcare is a human right meaning those who have more money need to pay a larger share of the healthcare costs? This democratic primary is a test of what kind of country Americans want. If they want to keep the oligarchy, someone like Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg will be the nominee. They won't do much to change the system so oligarchy can continue. If people want democracy, Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren* will be the nominee.

I understand where you're coming from, and rationally it's all perfectly right. But it's not the way large numbers of Americans think. Warren's healthcare plans will cause her to lose the general, because it only appeals to a limited segment of the population, popularly called "the coastal elites"  -  who, hilariously, don't need healthcare for all. Also one can tell, by looking at online responses to just about anything about the elections, that there is a tremendous effort by trolls from the right to scare low info people that voting D will mean left wing 'dangerous' women like AOC c.s. will basically call the shots. This is complete nonsense but it is a very potent concept to make millions of people go to the voting booth come 2020 and vote Trump.

The USA are to a large extent an ideological state, rather than a republic guided by common sense, and gritty masculinity and self-reliance are some of its abiding myths. Very few people who adamantly believe in the self-reliance myth are really fully self-reliant, most red states are highly dependent on the blue states' revenue support, but that doesn't matter. Many households depend on workings moms, but people just don't want to know. They don't want a woman anywhere near the Oval Office. They want to hold on to their myths. And these are very easy to push by the Right and their online trolls. All you need to do is appeal to age-old stereotypes.

So, basically the Dems need a candidate who can speak to these feelings and tell the people outside the coastal elites that he or she is not going to take away their metaphorical guns. You can call that a 'corporate' candidate, but that's the way it is. Nominate Bernie or Warren and you'll get four more years of Trump which will do irreperable damage to America and the planet.

My dream candidate is Buttigieg. Just the idea of all these 70+ candidates drives me crazy. Used to be a feature of the Soviet Union, a politburo filled with very very old men. Now it's become a feature of the USA government.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on November 08, 2019, 12:44:09 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-president-2020.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-president-2020.html)
Bloomberg?
Bloomberg/Abrams?

This would drive my ultra-lefty friends crazy as they already hate the Democrats worse than any republican.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on November 08, 2019, 12:57:20 AM
Quote from: milk on November 08, 2019, 12:44:09 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-president-2020.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-president-2020.html)
Bloomberg?
Bloomberg/Abrams?

This would drive my ultra-lefty friends crazy as they already hate the Democrats worse than any republican.

Bloomberg is 77 years old or something? It's just crazy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 08, 2019, 01:30:35 AM
Quote from: Herman on November 08, 2019, 12:00:38 AM
Just the idea of all these 70+ candidates drives me crazy. Used to be a feature of the Soviet Union, a politburo filled with very very old men. Now it's become a feature of the USA government.

Good point.  :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 02:54:13 AM
Quote from: Herman on November 08, 2019, 12:00:38 AM
I understand where you're coming from, and rationally it's all perfectly right. But it's not the way large numbers of Americans think. Warren's healthcare plans will cause her to lose the general, because it only appeals to a limited segment of the population, popularly called "the coastal elites"  -  who, hilariously, don't need healthcare for all. Also one can tell, by looking at online responses to just about anything about the elections, that there is a tremendous effort by trolls from the right to scare low info people that voting D will mean left wing 'dangerous' women like AOC c.s. will basically call the shots. This is complete nonsense but it is a very potent concept to make millions of people go to the voting booth come 2020 and vote Trump.

The USA are to a large extent an ideological state, rather than a republic guided by common sense, and gritty masculinity and self-reliance are some of its abiding myths. Very few people who adamantly believe in the self-reliance myth are really fully self-reliant, most red states are highly dependent on the blue states' revenue support, but that doesn't matter. Many households depend on workings moms, but people just don't want to know. They don't want a woman anywhere near the Oval Office. They want to hold on to their myths. And these are very easy to push by the Right and their online trolls. All you need to do is appeal to age-old stereotypes.

So, basically the Dems need a candidate who can speak to these feelings and tell the people outside the coastal elites that he or she is not going to take away their metaphorical guns. You can call that a 'corporate' candidate, but that's the way it is. Nominate Bernie or Warren and you'll get four more years of Trump which will do irreperable damage to America and the planet.

My dream candidate is Buttigieg. Just the idea of all these 70+ candidates drives me crazy. Used to be a feature of the Soviet Union, a politburo filled with very very old men. Now it's become a feature of the USA government.

Majority of Americans suppoirt M4A. People just don't want to go bankrupt when they get ill or die because thet can't afford healthcare. It is a winning issue. In some polls even majority (52 %) of Republicans support it. All this despite of relentless smearing and fearmongering over M4A in the corporate media protecting the mafia, I mean the healthcare insurance companies and Big Pharma.

We saw in 2016 what happens when you put a corporate dem against a (fake) populist: She lost. She didn't do well outside coastal elites. If you actually knew something about American politics you'd know Bernie's support in the rust belt where you have to be strong to beat Trump is very strong. But you don't know anything and you live in your bubble of corporate media BS. At least you repeat their silly talking points.

Name one thing Pete Buttigieg is for. You may find that hard, but I help you: Buttigieg is for Buttigieg being the president. He is the insurance policy for the corporate dems in case Biden comes down (he will). That's why corporate media writes "Buttigieg is fourth in the polls, but STRONG fourth". Buttigieg is a good candidate for the rich: He won't change anything, at least much and he is gay. So, corporates can accuse you for being anti-gay if you don't support him. He being gay means nothing (I have voted for a gay candidate in Finnish presidential elections twice). Him being corrupt and his policies sucking means everything.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on November 08, 2019, 03:32:38 AM
Quote from: Herman on November 08, 2019, 12:57:20 AM
Bloomberg is 77 years old or something? It's just crazy.

Per your observation of the gerontocracy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on November 08, 2019, 03:34:30 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 02:54:13 AM
Majority of Americans suppoirt M4A. People just don't want to go bankrupt when they get ill or die because thet can't afford healthcare. It is a winning issue. In some polls even majority (52 %) of Republicans support it. All this despite of relentless smearing and fearmongering over M4A in the corporate media protecting the mafia, I mean the healthcare insurance companies and Big Pharma.

We saw in 2016 what happens when you put a corporate dem against a (fake) populist: She lost. She didn't do well outside coastal elites. If you actually knew something about American politics you'd know Bernie's support in the rust belt where you have to be strong to beat Trump is very strong. But you don't know anything and you live in your bubble of corporate media BS. At least you repeat their silly talking points.

Name one thing Pete Buttigieg is for. You may find that hard, but I help you: Buttigieg is for Buttigieg being the president. He is the insurance policy for the corporate dems in case Biden comes down (he will). That's why corporate media writes "Buttigieg is fourth in the polls, but STRONG fourth". Buttigieg is a good candidate for the rich: He won't change anything, at least much and he is gay. So, corporates can accuse you for being anti-gay if you don't support him. He being gay means nothing (I have voted for a gay candidate in Finnish presidential elections twice). Him being corrupt and his policies sucking means everything.

You should get out of your bubble more. And, yes, "at all" would be more.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on November 08, 2019, 04:38:51 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 02:54:13 AM
We saw in 2016 what happens when you put a corporate dem against a (fake) populist: She lost. She didn't do well outside coastal elites. If you actually knew something about American politics you'd know Bernie's support in the rust belt where you have to be strong to beat Trump is very strong. But you don't know anything and you live in your bubble of corporate media BS. At least you repeat their silly talking points.

It's really unnecessary to put me down this way. (Or any other way.) Yeah, Hillary lost, and perhaps she wasn't the ideal candidate. She did win three million more votes than Trump, even after the FBI and the New York Times (that always hated her) put massive emphasis on the "what about the emails?"

Her big mistake was insufficient campaigning in the Belt du Rust.

It's true I could have more numbers on Bernie and how he's doing in flyover country, but it doesn't matter. There is just no way that a old man who is always yelling angrily and looking disgruntled and who has yet to kiss his first baby (outside his own family) is going to win the general. Yes he has a lot of supporters, but likewise there are a lot of voters who just won't drive to the polls if he's the candidate.

His recent heart event won't help either. He's the oldest candidate. He's not going to complete his first term.

So basically you're voting for the VP. Same thing btw if you're voting Biden, or Trump 2020 (chances are Trump will pick another VP now that the Evangelicals are solidly in his corner: he doesn't need Pence any longer; why do you think Lindsay Graham is so in lurv with T? He's eyeing that job.).

I like Bloomberg (although last time I saw and heard him was four years ago), I like his manner and his humor. But like I said, a country larger than a million pop. should not rely on folks this age for government.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 08:29:36 AM
Quote from: Herman on November 08, 2019, 04:38:51 AM
It's really unnecessary to put me down this way. (Or any other way.) Yeah, Hillary lost, and perhaps she wasn't the ideal candidate. She did win three million more votes than Trump, even after the FBI and the New York Times (that always hated her) put massive emphasis on the "what about the emails?"

Sorry, I am just so tired of corporate talking points being parroted everywhere... ...Hillary indeed wasn't an ideal candidate. She did won the popular vote and should be the president, but the system is what it is and you need to collect your votes in correct places. Trump did that and is in the White House.

Quote from: Herman on November 08, 2019, 04:38:51 AMHer big mistake was insufficient campaigning in the Belt du Rust.
Yes, but it's hard to campaign in the rust belt when you are corporate. It's not easy to tell people you are bringing the jobs back when you are someone who has been bought by the donors to help outsourcing jobs. Trump did what he does best: He lied and people believed him because he was able to label himself as an outsider (of the hated establishment) and populist. Neither Trump nor Hillary are people who bring (well paying) jobs back, because both of them are bought by the big money donors to do the bidding of the top 1 %.

Quote from: Herman on November 08, 2019, 04:38:51 AMIt's true I could have more numbers on Bernie and how he's doing in flyover country, but it doesn't matter. There is just no way that a old man who is always yelling angrily and looking disgruntled and who has yet to kiss his first baby (outside his own family) is going to win the general. Yes he has a lot of supporters, but likewise there are a lot of voters who just won't drive to the polls if he's the candidate.

Bernie is doing pretty well. It will be challenging for him to win the Democratic primary, but if it is Bernie vs. Trump, Trump has no change. If you want to get rid of Trump, you should pray for Bernie to win this primary. Bernie dominates in the rust belt. He can campaign for jobs, because he actually believes in creating jobs, green jobs as a part of the New Green Deal. Bernie's presidency would mean real change toward Nordic social democracy which would help regular people so that American won't vote for incompetent clowns out of desperation in the future.

"There is just no way that a old man who is always yelling angrily and looking disgruntled" is an excellent example of people repeating corporate talking points. Bernie is angry to the system that is rigged for the top 1 % and screws over regular people. Everyone should be angry about that. Otherwise he is a kind human being who genuinely cares about other people.

Quote from: Herman on November 08, 2019, 04:38:51 AMIHis recent heart event won't help either. He's the oldest candidate. He's not going to complete his first term.
Yeah, it did not help, but he is feeling now better thanks to the operation. He is in very good shape for his age, has lots of energy and most importly his head is sharp, unlike Biden who clearly shows signs of mental decline.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 08:46:55 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 08, 2019, 03:34:30 AM
You should get out of your bubble more. And, yes, "at all" would be more.

We are always inside a bubble. It is about choosing the correct one. How to do that? You listen to the bubbles and use your head to decide which bubble makes most sense. That's how I chose my bubble. The day I find Alex Jones' bubble make more sense than Kyle Kulinski's bubble I will change my opinions and I start talking how Obama is a lizard human sent on Earth by Satan, but so far I find Kyle Kulinski making much more sense... ...so that's why I have my bubble.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 08, 2019, 08:51:21 AM

     What people want is subject to some "reflexivity". Soros uses the concept to track how markets diverge according to feedback. People are influenced and influence each other to only want what they can get, and as a consequence bend the getting trend down.

     I take the view that "nothing ever" changes are the the best. On the conventional view Social Security, Medicare and the 40 hour week are impossible objectives. Since they happen there should be a method combined with a window of opportunity. I judge that we don't know in advance if we are there. As Ed Fredkin might say, there's no faster way of solving the problem than what is happening. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/laugh.gif)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 08:57:08 AM
Quote from: drogulus on November 08, 2019, 08:51:21 AM
     What people want is subject to some "reflexivity". Soros uses the concept to track how markets diverge according to feedback. People are influenced and influence each other to only want what they can get, and as a consequence bend the getting trend down.

     I take the view that "nothing ever" changes are the the best. On the conventional view Social Security, Medicare and the 40 hour week are impossible objectives. Since they happen there should be a method combined with a window of opportunity. I judge that we don't know in advance if we are there. As Ed Fredkin might say, there's no faster way of solving the problem than what is happening. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/laugh.gif)

Based on this fatalistic philosophy it doesn't matter who is elected in power. Things just happen and that's as fast as it can be...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 08, 2019, 09:32:27 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 08:57:08 AM
Based on this fatalistic philosophy it doesn't matter who is elected in power. Things just happen and that's as fast as it can be...

     It's not fatalistic. The future is open to how fast we can make things happen. We just don't know until we do it. I'm rejecting the pessimism concerning "nothing ever" changes, the big "impossible" ones like universal health care. I'm saying there's no reason to accept as literal truth that such changes can't happen. What we have done, we can do, even if only rarely when the planets are aligned. How do we know that by concerted action we won't align the planets a little bit in our favor?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 08, 2019, 12:15:42 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 08:46:55 AM
We are always inside a bubble. It is about choosing the correct one. How to do that? You listen to the bubbles and use your head to decide which bubble makes most sense. That's how I chose my bubble. The day I find Alex Jones' bubble make more sense than Kyle Kulinski's bubble I will change my opinions and I start talking how Obama is a lizard human sent on Earth by Satan, but so far I find Kyle Kulinski making much more sense... ...so that's why I have my bubble.

You think the Young Turks make sense, but they sound like they make sense only because you share their opinions.  If you shed that bias you'd find they are just as inaccurate as anyone else.

For instance, you keep mentioning medical bankruptcies. The main cause of most such bankruptcies is job loss related to illness. The can't work because of illness, and the bills get too high. This is not a failure of the health care system. It's a failure of the social welfare system, and an honest solution to it would have no relevance to medical care.

Most people are not concerned with losing their home because of medical bills. They are concerned with getting the best health care they can find. For anyone who is insured already Medicare for All would mean at best nothing better than what they now have, and for many people it would be worse.  We know it because that is what happens under actual Medicare and Obamacare. So MfA means the 70 percent who are insured would not get better care and might possibly get worse care for the sake of giving the 30 percent who are not insured care that is better only in the sense that some minimal care is better than none at all. And they would pay higher taxes and deductibles/copayments for it. (Deductibles and copayments would be a perennial feature of MfA like it is for Medicare and Obamacare now, any claims to the contrary being merely claims.)

Why would anyone support such a plan?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on November 08, 2019, 12:42:28 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 08, 2019, 12:15:42 PM
You think the Young Turks make sense, but they sound like they make sense only because you share their opinions.

Thus, his bubble. And he underscores my point, by riffing gibberish on "bubbles."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 01:06:08 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 08, 2019, 12:15:42 PM
You think the Young Turks make sense, but they sound like they make sense only because you share their opinions.  If you shed that bias you'd find they are just as inaccurate as anyone else.

I am not saying TYT always has every detail 100 % correct. They make mistakes just like anyone. Often they correct those mistakes. Maybe you could mention an major inaccuracy they have made and haven't corrected? The members of TYT don't always agree with each other. Cenk and Ana have disagreements sometimes. Cenk thinks Warren is better candidate than I think (I agree more with Kyle Kulinski). Everybody has bias. The difference is there lefty Youtubers tell you their bias so you know it, but they try to give you the facts as they are. The corporate media has their bias (protecting the 1 %), but they don't admit it. They say they are neutral (lie!) and they smear the facts.

Quote from: JBS on November 08, 2019, 12:15:42 PMFor instance, you keep mentioning medical bankruptcies. The main cause of most such bankruptcies is job loss related to illness. The can't work because of illness, and the bills get too high. This is not a failure of the health care system. It's a failure of the social welfare system, and an honest solution to it would have no relevance to medical care.
Social welfare system is part of lefty politics. You can't have so good welfare to deal with the huge medical bills people have. It's useless to claim people in the US don't go bankrupt because of medical bills, because they do. Also, bankruptcies is only one reason to fix the system. So, this is a corporate talking point. The US needs single payer, end of story.

Quote from: JBS on November 08, 2019, 12:15:42 PMMost people are not concerned with losing their home because of medical bills. They are concerned with getting the best health care they can find. For anyone who is insured already Medicare for All would mean at best nothing better than what they now have, and for many people it would be worse.  We know it because that is what happens under actual Medicare and Obamacare. So MfA means the 70 percent who are insured would not get better care and might possibly get worse care for the sake of giving the 30 percent who are not insured care that is better only in the sense that some minimal care is better than none at all. And they would pay higher taxes and deductibles/copayments for it. (Deductibles and copayments would be a perennial feature of MfA like it is for Medicare and Obamacare now, any claims to the contrary being merely claims.)

Why would anyone support such a plan?

More corporate BS. Most people are not concerned??? Wow. In Finland NOBODY is concerned! Same with all other developped countries, exept the US and you ask me why anyone support such a plan? You get BETTER care fort LESS money that's why! I am so tired of educating you boneheads!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 03:37:50 PM
MSNBC Host Offers Worst Election Analysis Of All Time

https://www.youtube.com/v/VTmQiFxuAEg
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 08, 2019, 03:40:33 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 01:06:08 PM
I am not saying TYT always has every detail 100 % correct. They make mistakes just like anyone. Often they correct those mistakes. Maybe you could mention an major inaccuracy they have made and haven't corrected? The members of TYT don't always agree with each other. Cenk and Ana have disagreements sometimes. Cenk thinks Warren is better candidate than I think (I agree more with Kyle Kulinski). Everybody has bias. The difference is there lefty Youtubers tell you their bias so you know it, but they try to give you the facts as they are. The corporate media has their bias (protecting the 1 %), but they don't admit it. They say they are neutral (lie!) and they smear the facts.
Social welfare system is part of lefty politics. You can't have so good welfare to deal with the huge medical bills people have. It's useless to claim people in the US don't go bankrupt because of medical bills, because they do. Also, bankruptcies is only one reason to fix the system. So, this is a corporate talking point. The US needs single payer, end of story.

More corporate BS. Most people are not concerned??? Wow. In Finland NOBODY is concerned! Same with all other developped countries, exept the US and you ask me why anyone support such a plan? You get BETTER care fort LESS money that's why! I am so tired of educating you boneheads!

I've given you examples before of how they don't present the facts. For instance, they avoid Big Pharma's abuse of the regulatory and patent processes. Which is the real source of Big Pharma's profits. So the Young Turks are actually propagandizing for Big Pharma! So at leasr sometimes they are lying, just like Fox and CNN.

Again, you think medical bankruptcies are tied to huge medical bills. They are not. They are tied to people not being able to work while sick. The amount of their medical bills has nothing to do with that. They can be fully insured and still go bankrupt. If the Young Turks say otherwise they are lying. I am sure in Finland people get sick, can't work, can't pay bills because of that.

I italicized one thing you said in your post because it's completely wrong. The Young Turks lie just as much as any other part of the American media. Until you accept that reality, your opinions on American politics will be garbage because they are based on garbage.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 08, 2019, 03:44:54 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 03:37:50 PM
MSNBC Host Offers Worst Election Analysis Of All Time

https://www.youtube.com/v/VTmQiFxuAEg

I don't like Mika (she and her now-husband have never really acknowledged their role in making Trump a respectable candidate), especially when she starts to sermonize, but most of what she says is an accurate assessment of American politics. It the Young Turks say otherwise, then that's another demonstration of why you should not trust the Young Turks.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 08, 2019, 03:53:12 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 01:06:08 PM
I am not saying TYT always has every detail 100 % correct. They make mistakes just like anyone. Often they correct those mistakes. Maybe you could mention an major inaccuracy they have made and haven't corrected? The members of TYT don't always agree with each other. Cenk and Ana have disagreements sometimes. Cenk thinks Warren is better candidate than I think (I agree more with Kyle Kulinski). Everybody has bias. The difference is there lefty Youtubers tell you their bias so you know it, but they try to give you the facts as they are. The corporate media has their bias (protecting the 1 %), but they don't admit it. They say they are neutral (lie!) and they smear the facts.


Is there any investigative reporting presented via YouTube? Isn't 100% of whats on there just amateur opinion on other peoples legwork?

A considerable amount of the information you (and your beloved Kyle) take completely for granted and absorb through whatever circuitous route comes from some very talented people in what you sweepingly call "the corporate media".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 08, 2019, 04:01:29 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 08, 2019, 03:53:12 PM
Is there any investigative reporting presented via YouTube? Isn't 100% of whats on there just amateur opinion on other peoples legwork?

A considerable amount of the information you (and your beloved Kyle) take completely for granted and absorb through whatever circuitous route comes from some very talented people in what you sweepingly call "the corporate media".

Actually a lot of it comes through Mother Jones and other progressive outlets, not the corporate media.  But I have yet to find anything they say that isn't espoused by other progressives. Plenty of whom can be found on MSNBC and CNN in the role of pundits.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on November 08, 2019, 04:05:38 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 08, 2019, 03:44:54 PM
I don't like Mika (she and her now-husband have never really acknowledged their role in making Trump a respectable candidate), especially when she starts to sermonize, but most of what she says is an accurate assessment of American politics. It the Young Turks say otherwise, then that's another demonstration of why you should not trust the Young Turks.

Somebody doesn't get that throwing in a MSNBC vid doesn't map onto "See, my bubble is the One True Bubble!"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 08, 2019, 04:11:19 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 08, 2019, 04:01:29 PM
Actually a lot of it comes through Mother Jones and other progressive outlets, not the corporate media.  But I have yet to find anything they say that isn't espoused by other progressives. Plenty of whom can be found on MSNBC and CNN in the role of pundits.

I said that because 71 dismisses all the investigative reporting from, say, the Washington Post and the New York Times as mere "corporate media".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 08, 2019, 04:45:03 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 08, 2019, 04:11:19 PM
I said that because 71 dismisses all the investigative reporting from, say, the Washington Post and the New York Times as mere "corporate media".

Yes.
But since he avoids the corporate media he seems to not realize how well represented progressives are in the corporate media, and how often the Young Turks simply paraphrase what can be heard regularly on the corporate media. He seems to think the corporate media suppress progressive views. They don't. The might suppress conservative views, but even that is debateable.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 05:25:08 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 08, 2019, 03:40:33 PM
I've given you examples before of how they don't present the facts. For instance, they avoid Big Pharma's abuse of the regulatory and patent processes. Which is the real source of Big Pharma's profits. So the Young Turks are actually propagandizing for Big Pharma! So at leasr sometimes they are lying, just like Fox and CNN.

Patents are a thing everywhere, but the US has highest prices. Why? Canadian drugs are as good as American drugs, but cheaper. Why? It's because US government can't negotiate to lower prices. Canada government can. Why? Because in Canada Medical industry hasn't bought the government. In the US it has. I don't know if your claims about TYT are even true. They say drugs are too expensive in the US and they are right. Never have I seen them justifying Big Pharma's profits, but then again, I haven't seen all their videos and I don't know what you have seen.

Quote from: JBS on November 08, 2019, 03:40:33 PMAgain, you think medical bankruptcies are tied to huge medical bills. They are not. They are tied to people not being able to work while sick. The amount of their medical bills has nothing to do with that. They can be fully insured and still go bankrupt. If the Young Turks say otherwise they are lying. I am sure in Finland people get sick, can't work, can't pay bills because of that.

In Finland workers have better protection. Paid sick leave (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sick_leave) for example.
In the US, 10 states seems to have some sort of paid sick leave requirements.
How are you paying 50.000 dollar medical bill if you live paycheck to paycheck? Go Fund Me?

Quote from: JBS on November 08, 2019, 03:40:33 PMI italicized one thing you said in your post because it's completely wrong. The Young Turks lie just as much as any other part of the American media. Until you accept that reality, your opinions on American politics will be garbage because they are based on garbage.

I don't understand you accusations. You need to point out something they have said and prove it a lie. So, whay is it they have said about Big Pharma that is a lie?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 05:30:40 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 08, 2019, 03:44:54 PM
I don't like Mika (she and her now-husband have never really acknowledged their role in making Trump a respectable candidate), especially when she starts to sermonize, but most of what she says is an accurate assessment of American politics. It the Young Turks say otherwise, then that's another demonstration of why you should not trust the Young Turks.

That's a Secular Talk (Kyle Kulinski) video, not a TYT video.
I trust Kyle Kulinski and TYT 1000 times more than corporate media and you are a brainwashed useful idiot for the rich.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 05:38:18 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 08, 2019, 03:53:12 PM
Is there any investigative reporting presented via YouTube? Isn't 100% of whats on there just amateur opinion on other peoples legwork?

A considerable amount of the information you (and your beloved Kyle) take completely for granted and absorb through whatever circuitous route comes from some very talented people in what you sweepingly call "the corporate media".

Yes, TYT has investigations. Recently congress  aknowledged some of it. To call them "amateur opinion" is pretty harsh considering how hard they work. Do you think war is always the way? That's corporate media. More war? Is tha it? TYT says, come home. Stop killing. Use the money to fix water in Flint, Michigan.

You live in a country with single payer right? So you have access to healtcare right? So you don't go bankrut? TYT fight for Americans to have the same you don't want that what?

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 05:43:46 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 08, 2019, 04:11:19 PM
I said that because 71 dismisses all the investigative reporting from, say, the Washington Post and the New York Times as mere "corporate media".

Sure those outlets have great articles, but somehow they NEVER write positively about Bernie.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 08, 2019, 05:44:31 PM
71dB, you use the term "corporate" for points of view don't like in much the same way that Trump refers to "fake news".

It's not helpful.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 05:46:10 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 08, 2019, 04:45:03 PM
Yes.
But since he avoids the corporate media he seems to not realize how well represented progressives are in the corporate media, and how often the Young Turks simply paraphrase what can be heard regularly on the corporate media. He seems to think the corporate media suppress progressive views. They don't. The might suppress conservative views, but even that is debateable.

Even on MSNBC it's hard to find positive coverage about progressives.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 08, 2019, 05:47:05 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 05:25:08 PM
Patents are a thing everywhere, but the US has highest prices. Why? Canadian drugs are as good as American drugs, but cheaper. Why? It's because US government can't negotiate to lower prices. Canada government can. Why? Because in Canada Medical industry hasn't bought the government. In the US it has. I don't know if your claims about TYT are even true. They say drugs are too expensive in the US and they are right. Never have I seen them justifying Big Pharma's profits, but then again, I haven't seen all their videos and I don't know what you have seen.

In Finland workers have better protection. Paid sick leave (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sick_leave) for example.
In the US, 10 states seems to have some sort of paid sick leave requirements.
How are you paying 50.000 dollar medical bill if you live paycheck to paycheck? Go Fund Me?

I don't understand you accusations. You need to point out something they have said and prove it a lie. So, whay is it they have said about Big Pharma that is a lie?

Big Pharma gets its profits by manipulating the FDA approval and patent processes. They prevent competition. Single payer doesn't solve that.  Canada has lower prices because it allows generics that are illegal in the US. You can buy a generic drug in Canada that is illegal in the US thanks to the FDA. If your videos don't explain that, they are lying.

As for the 50,000 dollar medical bills: hospitals etc normally allow extended payments and charitable writeoffs. That's why what you call medical bankruptcies are actually very rare.

Paid sick leave is not part of health insurance. That was my point. The real problem can't be solved by health insurance because it doesn't actually involve health care.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 05:49:07 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 08, 2019, 05:44:31 PM
71dB, you use the term "corporate" for points of view don't like in much the same way that Trump refers to "fake news".

It's not helpful.

Corporate means status quo, maintaining the rigged system. Blocking progress. Benefitting the rich and corporations. It's propping up Pete Buttigieg writing "Strong fourth in polls" etc
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 08, 2019, 05:50:55 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 05:43:46 PM
Sure those outlets have great articles, but somehow they NEVER write positively about Bernie.

Because unless you're a true leftist there isn't much to say that's positive about him.

Quote from: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 05:46:10 PM
Even on MSNBC it's hard to find positive coverage about progressives.

You're in Finland, so I can understand you not watching MSNBC...but MSNBC is full of progressives. Mika and Joe Scarborough are their token centrist.  If you watched it you would understand that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 08, 2019, 05:53:21 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 05:49:07 PM
Corporate means status quo, maintaining the rigged system. Blocking progress. Benefitting the rich and corporations. It's propping up Pete Buttigieg writing "Strong fourth in polls" etc

Funny how everything you don't like you wave off as corporate disinformation. Perhaps you are the one who is brainwashed?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 05:59:19 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 08, 2019, 05:47:05 PM
Big Pharma gets its profits by manipulating the FDA approval and patent processes. They prevent competition. Single payer doesn't solve that.  Canada has lower prices because it allows generics that are illegal in the US. You can buy a generic drug in Canada that is illegal in the US thanks to the FDA. If your videos don't explain that, they are lying.

As for the 50,000 dollar medical bills: hospitals etc normally allow extended payments and charitable writeoffs. That's why what you call medical bankruptcies are actually very rare.

Paid sick leave is not part of health insurance. That was my point. The real problem can't be solved by health insurance because it doesn't actually involve health care.

Single payer means government can negotiate prices down. Canada drugs can be allowed in the US (competition => prices down). Things can be changed if there is political will. Is this a lie? Why do you protect the interest of rich on the expense of regular people? Insurance companies pay you?

https://www.thebalance.com/medical-bankruptcy-statistics-4154729 (https://www.thebalance.com/medical-bankruptcy-statistics-4154729)

If the healtcare system is so good, why do majority of Americans want M4A?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 06:01:10 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 08, 2019, 05:53:21 PM
Funny how everything you don't like you wave off as corporate disinformation. Perhaps you are the one who is brainwashed?

What can I say. I need sleep 5 am
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 08, 2019, 06:06:36 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 05:59:19 PM
Single payer means government can negotiate prices down. Canada drugs can be allowed in the US (competition => prices down). Things can be changed if there is political will. Is this a lie? Why do you protect the interest of rich on the expense of regular people? Insurance companies pay you?

https://www.thebalance.com/medical-bankruptcy-statistics-4154729 (https://www.thebalance.com/medical-bankruptcy-statistics-4154729)

If the healtcare system is so good, why do majority of Americans want M4A?

If you read what I wrote, you would understand that Canadian drugs are not allowed in the US, and the problem is not because of we don't have single payer but because we allow single-producer.

Also, if you read the Balance article , you would have realized it concludes there are no reliable statistics!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 06:15:35 PM
I have the right to be lefty.
The US have a change for change
Change is needed - the oligarchy is out of hand and real democracy is gone.
Trump is president because corporate dems suck
I can't understand how it is possible everyone here are idiots brainwashed by corporate media
Lefty Youtubers are popular. They rival corporate media. So many views.
Kyle Kulinski was in 2016 like the fifth largest political Youtube channel!
In Politicon massive meet and greet! Political Superstar. Destroyed Charlie Kirk
There are millions of people who agree with me. Just not on this board of idiots.
Maybe you all make too much money to know the struggle of regular people.
Maybe someone here agrees with me and supports Bernie (where are you?)

What the fuck is this? What the fuck?


Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 06:17:47 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 08, 2019, 06:06:36 PM
If you read what I wrote, you would understand that Canadian drugs are not allowed in the US, and the problem is not because of we don't have single payer but because we allow single-producer.

Also, if you read the Balance article , you would have realized it concludes there are no reliable statistics!

You don't understant it's the SAME REASON!!! Profit!!! That's why not single payer and no allowed import!!! When you give middle finger you can allow import AND have single payer!! FOr profit healthcare make no sense. That's why only US has it. Only US is corrupt and stupid enough.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 06:29:14 PM
Michael Bloomberg wants to humiliate himself!  ;D Let's see if he gets more than 17 votes from his establishment circles. Probably away from Biden which only helps the progressives.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 08, 2019, 06:32:09 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 06:17:47 PM
You don't understant it's the SAME REASON!!! Profit!!! That's why not single payer and no allowed import!!! When you give middle finger you can allow import AND have single payer!! FOr profit healthcare make no sense. That's why only US has it. Only US is corrupt and stupid enough.

So you're a Communist. Then you should realize that your arguments are not effective with people who are not communist.

But allowing imported drugs would solve most of the problem. No need to use single payer.

But can you at least understand that, compared to the general US, the GMG membership trends left? Even me. I am, in US terms, left of center.  But most Americans don't even know who Charlie Kirk is, so "destroying" him isn't that big a deal.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on November 08, 2019, 06:37:08 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 08, 2019, 03:53:12 PM
Is there any investigative reporting presented via YouTube? Isn't 100% of whats on there just amateur opinion on other peoples legwork?

A considerable amount of the information you (and your beloved Kyle) take completely for granted and absorb through whatever circuitous route comes from some very talented people in what you sweepingly call "the corporate media".

Many on YouTube have the necessary qualifications to be one of those "very talented people" on corporate media.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on November 08, 2019, 06:44:42 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 08:46:55 AM
We are always inside a bubble. It is about choosing the correct one. How to do that? You listen to the bubbles and use your head to decide which bubble makes most sense. That's how I chose my bubble. The day I find Alex Jones' bubble make more sense than Kyle Kulinski's bubble I will change my opinions and I start talking how Obama is a lizard human sent on Earth by Satan, but so far I find Kyle Kulinski making much more sense... ...so that's why I have my bubble.

That's a lot of bubbles. Are you planning on making your own bath?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 06:45:08 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 08, 2019, 03:53:12 PM
Is there any investigative reporting presented via YouTube? Isn't 100% of whats on there just amateur opinion on other peoples legwork?


Here:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA
https://tyt.com/stories/franchise/4vZLCHuQrYE4uKagy0oyMA
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 06:48:26 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 08, 2019, 06:32:09 PM
So you're a Communist. Then you should realize that your arguments are not effective with people who are not communist.

But allowing imported drugs would solve most of the problem. No need to use single payer.

But can you at least understand that, compared to the general US, the GMG membership trends left? Even me. I am, in US terms, left of center.  But most Americans don't even know who Charlie Kirk is, so "destroying" him isn't that big a deal.

Do you want healthcare for ALL americans? Single payer is the answer.
I am not communist. I am social democrat.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 08, 2019, 06:57:47 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 06:48:26 PM
Do you want healthcare for ALL americans? Single payer is the answer.
I am not communist. I am social democrat.

Single payer is not the only answer. It's not even the best answer.
You complain about people making a profit, then claim government should control things.  That's more communist than social democrat.

I've told you this before: if you want to be fully informed, you need to listen to the people who disagree with you, not the people who agree with you. The former are more likely to bring you information you don't know about. F.i., the people you agree with don't mention the way Big Pharma abuses the patent and FDA approval processes. That means they aren't telling you about the most important part of the problem of high drug prices. A part of the problem single payer is not able to fix.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on November 08, 2019, 07:02:01 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on November 08, 2019, 06:37:08 PM
Many on YouTube have the necessary qualifications to be one of those "very talented people" on corporate media.

Sure, but it's not about qualifications. We have a chap who pays no attention to news of the sort he doesn't like, and dismisses it out of hand as "corporate." I.e: His precious bubble.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 08, 2019, 07:32:25 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 06:48:26 PM
Do you want healthcare for ALL americans? Single payer is the answer.
I am not communist. I am social democrat.

      It's not the answer, it's one of the best answers, used among the best systems. There are different pay for schemes in universal health coverage. Who and what is covered is crucial. Pay for controversies are supposed to be about whether the program can be done. That's nonsense, it's either a way to stop the program or fight with rivals over whose plan is best. In the world the best is on the benefit side, not the pay for side, in public discourse the howyougonna is politics more than economics, where all general plan types work.

     The notion that the U.S will go broke doing what less rich countries do is pure fakery.

   
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on November 08, 2019, 07:47:42 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 08, 2019, 12:15:42 PM
...it would be worse...because that is what happens under...Obamacare.
What's the evidence that things are generally worse for people under Obamacare?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on November 08, 2019, 08:02:45 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 08, 2019, 06:32:09 PM
So you're a Communist. Then you should realize that your arguments are not effective with people who are not communist.

But allowing imported drugs would solve most of the problem. No need to use single payer.

But can you at least understand that, compared to the general US, the GMG membership trends left? Even me. I am, in US terms, left of center.  But most Americans don't even know who Charlie Kirk is, so "destroying" him isn't that big a deal.
are you saying that there AREN'T western European countries that have removed profit partially or completely from their healthcare systems?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 08, 2019, 08:16:43 PM
Quote from: milk on November 08, 2019, 08:02:45 PM
are you saying that there AREN'T western European countries that have removed profit partially or completely from their healthcare systems?

     The answer is immaterial, a distraction. What the system provides, full coverage sociopathic politicians can't take away, is what matters. Once implemented, a major barrier will have fallen and future improvement can be made.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 09, 2019, 12:10:38 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 06:48:26 PM
I am not communist.

You might not be a communist but you obviously exhibit mental and behavioral traits typical of a Party activist, including, but not limited to:

- fanatical dedication to "the Party's cause"
- blind belief in the Party's "scientifically-based" ideology
- unshakable conviction of your moral and intellectual superiority to anyone who disagrees with you;
- firm persuassion that anyone who disagrees with you is either benighted (brainwashed) or "an enemy of the people"
- deep and in some cases, probably yours too, genuine concern for the welfare of people who have never asked for your help and who, given the opportunity, would probably reject many / most / all of your solutions to their problems.

You might not be a communist but, had you been born in the right place at the right time, you'd quite possibly have been one of them.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 09, 2019, 12:27:06 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 08, 2019, 06:45:08 PM
Here:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA
https://tyt.com/stories/franchise/4vZLCHuQrYE4uKagy0oyMA

No. That doesn't qualify as " investigative reporting".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on November 09, 2019, 12:42:58 AM
Let's not all pile on 71.

He's from Finland, which may be pretty close to the total opposite of the USA, culturally, even though Trump likes to touch Finland's presidents knee a lot, while talking.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 09, 2019, 03:28:17 AM
Quote from: JBS on November 08, 2019, 06:57:47 PM
Single payer is not the only answer. It's not even the best answer.

It has a damn good track record all over the World. Healthcare can be done with public or private service providers or mix of the two, but the principle of single payer is what makes it work. Some candidates talk about public option (not single payer). The problem is privite insurance providers can cherry pick healthy and young customers and leave the sick to the public side making it hard to be sustainable.

Quote from: JBS on November 08, 2019, 06:57:47 PMYou complain about people making a profit, then claim government should control things.  That's more communist than social democrat.

Then the US has communist fire department, doesn't it? Even the US is a mixed economy and some things in society are run by the government, because that's the best way to do it. Bernie is not proposing government should run coffee shops. Coffee shops work best in free market capitalism so that's the way it should be. The UK has public financing of public healthcare services while France has public finance of private healthcare services. Both work very well, so services can be public or private as long as it's public financing. You want to make profit, operate on a sector free market is good for and leave people's healthcare alone.

Quote from: JBS on November 08, 2019, 06:57:47 PMI've told you this before: if you want to be fully informed, you need to listen to the people who disagree with you, not the people who agree with you. The former are more likely to bring you information you don't know about. F.i., the people you agree with don't mention the way Big Pharma abuses the patent and FDA approval processes. That means they aren't telling you about the most important part of the problem of high drug prices. A part of the problem single payer is not able to fix.

I do listen to people who disagree, for example you. It's not my fault your opinions suck. It's irrelevant HOW Big Pharma abuses whatever processes. This is about moving toward Nordic social democracy and restoring democracy where Big Pharma doesn't have the power to abuse anyone in any way. When the government is the big buyer of drugs and says government pays only 50 dollars for a something that has cost 200 dollars because in France and Germany similar drug costs only 30 dollars Big Pharma has no choice but to cut prices and lower profit to reasonable level. That's why Big Pharma doesn't want Bernie to become the president and why they buy the corporate media to smear Bernie day in day out. Maybe you should start listening to people like me?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 09, 2019, 03:43:41 AM
Quote from: drogulus on November 08, 2019, 07:32:25 PM
      It's not the answer, it's one of the best answers, used among the best systems. There are different pay for schemes in universal health coverage. Who and what is covered is crucial. Pay for controversies are supposed to be about whether the program can be done. That's nonsense, it's either a way to stop the program or fight with rivals over whose plan is best. In the world the best is on the benefit side, not the pay for side, in public discourse the howyougonna is politics more than economics, where all general plan types work.

     The notion that the U.S will go broke doing what less rich countries do is pure fakery.

How is the US going to pay the current system? That's the real question. Isn't it funny how they ask "howyougonnapay" only when it's something that would help regular people?

Tax cuts for the rich? No problem! Increase of military budget? No problem!
Cancellation of student loans? How are we gonna pay for it??
Healthcare for all? How are we gonna pay for it??

That's what you have in oligarchy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 09, 2019, 03:55:05 AM
Quote from: milk on November 08, 2019, 07:47:42 PM
What's the evidence that things are generally worse for people under Obamacare?

ObamaCare was a step to the right direction and more people got covered under it. Trump has harmed ObamaCare and I believe 7 million people have lost their healthcare under Trump (he promised healthcare to everyone, but of course lied).

ObamaCare is originally a right wing idea that protects the profits of insurance companies while giving covarage to more people. In the 80's it was a Republican thing, but the Overton Window moved right so that The Dems moved in economic issues where Republicans used to be and despite of campaigning as a lefty, Obama governed as a centrists and did RomneyCare renamed to ObamaCare. A lot of people are pissed of the Dems because of centrist BS like this. Dems lost over 1000 seats under Obama and Hillary Clinton lost to Trump. If you don't serve your base you lose it. Corporate Dems really suck at serving their base, but what can you do when you have been paid and bought to NOT serve your base, but your donors? That's the dilemma the Dems have had and that's why there is a civil war inside the Dems between the corporates and the progressives.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 09, 2019, 04:00:19 AM
Quote from: drogulus on November 08, 2019, 08:16:43 PM
     The answer is immaterial, a distraction. What the system provides, full coverage sociopathic politicians can't take away, is what matters. Once implemented, a major barrier will have fallen and future improvement can be made.

Good post!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 09, 2019, 04:01:02 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 09, 2019, 12:27:06 AM
No. That doesn't qualify as " investigative reporting".

Why?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 09, 2019, 04:12:09 AM
Quote from: Herman on November 09, 2019, 12:42:58 AM
Let's not all pile on 71.

He's from Finland, which may be pretty close to the total opposite of the USA, culturally, even though Trump likes to touch Finland's presidents knee a lot, while talking.

Thanks for your attempt to understand where I'm coming from. It's true Finland and the USA are quite different culturally. Small talk is big in the US, while in Finland we don't really do small talk, the reason why Finns can at first seem cold and rude, but it's the culture. I have watched a lot of Youtube videos of people from other countries coming to Finland and having the intense cultural shocks.  ;D

However, this is not THE reason I am for medicare for all. Canada has single payer too, and it's somewhat similar culturally to the US, just a functioning democracy instead of an oligarchy. Majority of Americans support medicare for all and for a food reason. For-profit model just doesn't work for healthcare unless the purpose is to finance new yachts for the CEOs.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 09, 2019, 04:21:11 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 09, 2019, 04:12:09 AM
I have watched a lot of Youtube videos of people from other countries coming to Finland and having the intense cultural shocks.  ;D

It seems that YT is not only your main source of knowledge and wisdom but also your substitute for social interactions. Have you ever met a non-Finn in person, I wonder?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 09, 2019, 04:36:02 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 09, 2019, 03:43:41 AM
How is the US going to pay the current system? That's the real question. Isn't it funny how they ask "howyougonnapay" only when it's something that would help regular people?

Tax cuts for the rich? No problem! Increase of military budget? No problem!
Cancellation of student loans? How are we gonna pay for it??
Healthcare for all? How are we gonna pay for it??

That's what you have in oligarchy.

     Whether you use the term oligarchy or not, you're right that the howyougonna is a weapon against social welfare.

      A few on the left try to raise a ruckus over military spending as a zero sum proposition. It doesn't work very well.

      I can't imagine using a "run out of dollars" argument for anything. If only health care stuff runs out, the same is true for missile stuff.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 09, 2019, 10:49:25 AM
Quote from: milk on November 08, 2019, 07:47:42 PM
What's the evidence that things are generally worse for people under Obamacare?

To put it in very general terms, Obamacare and Medicare provide less coverage, with higher premiums, copayments, and deductibles in the case of Obamacare, than comparable employer provided plans.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 09, 2019, 10:56:46 AM
Quote from: milk on November 08, 2019, 08:02:45 PM
are you saying that there AREN'T western European countries that have removed profit partially or completely from their healthcare systems?

My reply was specific to 71db, whose argument that health care is a necessity, so we need to get rid of profits and put it under total government control (aka single payer) actually applies to most things: food, clothing, housing, transportation, etc.

I wasn't talking about single payer. I was talking about the ideology that drives 71db's positions.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on November 09, 2019, 12:54:28 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 08, 2019, 03:53:12 PM
Is there any investigative reporting presented via YouTube? Isn't 100% of whats on there just amateur opinion on other peoples legwork?

A considerable amount of the information you (and your beloved Kyle) take completely for granted and absorb through whatever circuitous route comes from some very talented people in what you sweepingly call "the corporate media".
It exists, but it's in the minority of news stuff on youtube. The reason should be pretty obvious: important stuff happens in many different places, and it takes a lot of money to travel, so it would be hard for a team of 1-5 people, which is usually what youtube channels are made of.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 09, 2019, 02:14:31 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 09, 2019, 10:56:46 AM
My reply was specific to 71db, whose argument that health care is a necessity, so we need to get rid of profits and put it under total government control (aka single payer) actually applies to most things: food, clothing, housing, transportation, etc.

I wasn't talking about single payer. I was talking about the ideology that drives 71db's positions.

     Single payer systems will remain private sector. The doctors, clinics and hospitals will be as private as they are now.

     Dollars the government spends go into the private sector directly or through the pay of employees. That's where all the dollars end up, now and under any health care system. There will be profits.

     You can't say we didn't try to avoid single payer. We didn't even include a public option in OCare. All of the people who say they hate socialist health care proved they wouldn't settle for an alternative, no matter how badly compromised it was by their efforts to wreck it. The only way left is to place it behind a wall they can't blast through.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on November 09, 2019, 02:38:23 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 09, 2019, 10:49:25 AM
To put it in very general terms, Obamacare and Medicare provide less coverage, with higher premiums, copayments, and deductibles in the case of Obamacare, than comparable employer provided plans.
These are more assertions. My question was specifically about evidence that people are generally worse off.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on November 09, 2019, 03:57:59 PM
Quote from: greg on November 09, 2019, 12:54:28 PM
It exists, but it's in the minority of news stuff on youtube. The reason should be pretty obvious: important stuff happens in many different places, and it takes a lot of money to travel, so it would be hard for a team of 1-5 people, which is usually what youtube channels are made of.

And, the smaller the team, to state the obvious, the less likelihood that there will be checks and balances within the organization--the likelier that you have a pod of like-minded individuals, with insufficient intramural incentive to journalistic objectivity.

But they'll give a sympathetic audience just what they want.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 09, 2019, 04:04:12 PM
Quote from: drogulus on November 09, 2019, 02:14:31 PM
     Single payer systems will remain private sector. The doctors, clinics and hospitals will be as private as they are now.

     Dollars the government spends go into the private sector directly or through the pay of employees. That's where all the dollars end up, now and under any health care system. There will be profits.

     You can't say we didn't try to avoid single payer. We didn't even include a public option in OCare. All of the people who say they hate socialist health care proved they wouldn't settle for an alternative, no matter how badly compromised it was by their efforts to wreck it. The only way left is to place it behind a wall they can't blast through.

Derp. If it's single payer, it's public sector because it is the government via bureaucrats and regulations. If the government doesn't pay for hernia operations, people won't get hernia operations unless they have the money to pay for it all themselves. It's not who is paid that defines private sector but who pays it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on November 09, 2019, 05:35:18 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 09, 2019, 03:57:59 PM
...a pod of like-minded individuals, with insufficient intramural incentive to journalistic objectivity.

Thanks for describing the majority of corporate media.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on November 09, 2019, 05:43:06 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on November 09, 2019, 05:35:18 PM
Thanks for describing the majority of corporate media.


And those who echo buzzwords like "corporate media," rather than addressing the point.

Sure, there are challenges in larger organizations, too. But the challenge is amplified when you're just a few mates running a YouTube channel.

And, to state the obvious yet again: activism is not journalism.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 09, 2019, 06:00:51 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 09, 2019, 04:04:12 PM
Derp. If it's single payer, it's public sector because it is the government via bureaucrats and regulations. If the government doesn't pay for hernia operations, people won't get hernia operations unless they have the money to pay for it all themselves. It's not who is paid that defines private sector but who pays it.

Just noting that there are a variety of systems between full private and literal single payer. In our system it's not so much the government not paying for operations (though strictly speaking there are situations where they won't pay for something on the grounds it's not clinically justified), it's more a case of the government stating how MUCH it will pay.

For many services there is a gap between what the government pays and what something costs. This is remarkably like what happens with lots of private health insurance anyway.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 09, 2019, 06:04:07 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 09, 2019, 05:43:06 PM
And those who echo buzzwords like "corporate media," rather than addressing the point.

Sure, there are challenges in larger organizations, too. But the challenge is amplified when you're just a few mates running a YouTube channel.

And, to state the obvious yet again: activism is not journalism.

I'm in general agreement. You might be interested, though in an episode of a podcast called Against the Rules, which discusses how larger media organisations used to employ fact checkers to basically challenge the journalists internally to make sure stories are accurate, and how this job has been gradually dispensed with.

https://atrpodcast.com/episodes/the-alex-kogan-experience-s1!d20f3
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 09, 2019, 06:16:45 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 09, 2019, 06:00:51 PM
Just noting that there are a variety of systems between full private and literal single payer. In our system it's not so much the government not paying for operations (though strictly speaking there are situations where they won't pay for something on the grounds it's not clinically justified), it's more a case of the government stating how MUCH it will pay.

For many services there is a gap between what the government pays and what something costs. This is remarkably like what happens with lots of private health insurance anyway.

Agreed. But 71db is explicitly arguing for literal single payer, and drogulus seems to agree with him.

My own preference is for the "public option" drogulus is against, and the Biden/Buttigieg wing of the Democratic Party is for.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on November 09, 2019, 06:39:14 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 09, 2019, 03:57:59 PM
And, the smaller the team, to state the obvious, the less likelihood that there will be checks and balances within the organization--the likelier that you have a pod of like-minded individuals, with insufficient intramural incentive to journalistic objectivity.

But they'll give a sympathetic audience just what they want.
What confounds me and fascinates me are the people I continually run into who confidently gather like-minded fringe news into confident conspiratorial ideologies. Some of them even have the temerity to call themselves "journalists." They're working with facts and I don't dismiss them out of hand - but their questioning I'm-not-a-sucker attitude is often an unquestioning kind of twisted dogma. They're not always wrong but I certainly think they make a mess of reality.
I get annoyed but I also can't look away.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on November 09, 2019, 07:30:36 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 09, 2019, 03:57:59 PM
And, the smaller the team, to state the obvious, the less likelihood that there will be checks and balances within the organization--the likelier that you have a pod of like-minded individuals, with insufficient intramural incentive to journalistic objectivity.

But they'll give a sympathetic audience just what they want.
That might sound right logically but I think in reality the result is either the same between big and small, or the opposite somewhat more (and definitely more likely to be the opposite if you are talking about youtubers who don't rely on youtube for money).

I don't think there is any more sort of checks and balances in any large organization just because there are more people, that's the problem. Decisions are still only made by a few and the rest, that aren't at the top, have to comply or else lose their job.

Some people can have more checks and balances within their self, individually, than a group of ten close-minded/non-critically thinking people. Others may have unchanging opinions their whole life, really it just depends.

And the great thing about youtube independent content creators is that there is waaaaaaayyy more variety of opinions out there, and more is always better.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 09, 2019, 07:44:49 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 09, 2019, 04:04:12 PM
Derp. If it's single payer, it's public sector because it is the government via bureaucrats and regulations. If the government doesn't pay for hernia operations, people won't get hernia operations unless they have the money to pay for it all themselves. It's not who is paid that defines private sector but who pays it.

     Government spending of trillions of dollars per year doesn't put the payees in the public sector unless they are employed by the government themselves, and of course these bureaucrats (and soldiers and janitors) pay their money into the private sector, too. The government doesn't sell groceries.

     While there are public components of a health care system, it's mostly private and will remain so. It will continue to generate profits, just like all the other sectors of the economy that depend on government spending for wages, jobs and profits. Besides, what would happen to the economy if all the net dollars savings went away, all $23T of it. How the hell would the private sector pay for anything?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on November 09, 2019, 09:37:20 PM
Quote from: greg on November 09, 2019, 07:30:36 PM
That might sound right logically but I think in reality the result is either the same between big and small, or the opposite somewhat more (and definitely more likely to be the opposite if you are talking about youtubers who don't rely on youtube for money).

I don't think there is any more sort of checks and balances in any large organization just because there are more people, that's the problem. Decisions are still only made by a few and the rest, that aren't at the top, have to comply or else lose their job.

Some people can have more checks and balances within their self, individually, than a group of ten close-minded/non-critically thinking people. Others may have unchanging opinions their whole life, really it just depends.

And the great thing about youtube independent content creators is that there is waaaaaaayyy more variety of opinions out there, and more is always better.
What if there were a news channel where the goal wasn't to be neutral but to have both sides at the same time?

Like 50/50 representation of liberal/conservative, like a merger of Fox News and CNN? Would such a thing even be possible? I kind of don't think it would sustain itself for very long until the most aggressive people take over, even if represented with even numbers. Complete balance is just an impossibility.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 09, 2019, 11:29:16 PM
Quote from: greg on November 09, 2019, 09:37:20 PM
What if there were a news channel where the goal wasn't to be neutral but to have both sides at the same time?

Like 50/50 representation of liberal/conservative, like a merger of Fox News and CNN? Would such a thing even be possible? I kind of don't think it would sustain itself for very long until the most aggressive people take over, even if represented with even numbers. Complete balance is just an impossibility.

Ah, the old "balance" idea.

Which basically only works if both sides are equally legitimate and the arguments on both sides are of equal merit.

Otherwise, you get the problem (all too frequently encountered) of a news organisation picking one person each to represent 2 sides, ignoring that one of those people represents a very large majority of opinion and the other represents a fringe view.

Never mind opinions, it's perfectly possible to find someone to represent a fringe view of FACTS if you look hard enough to find someone for the sake of "balance". Especially in the USA, which seems to be a fertile ground for conspiracy theories.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on November 09, 2019, 11:51:32 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 09, 2019, 05:43:06 PM
Sure, there are challenges in larger organizations, too. But the challenge is amplified when you're just a few mates running a YouTube channel.

Yeah, I'm sure it's a problem when your organization consists of homogenous anchors who are hired because they think a certain way. Or if they think differently, they are fired. Remember Ed Schultz?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 10, 2019, 01:59:07 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 09, 2019, 05:43:06 PM
Activism is not journalism.

Neither is protecting the establishment.

CNN Caught Flipping Sanders/Warrens Poll Results

https://www.youtube.com/v/ny9NLAsp8yo
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 10, 2019, 05:30:56 AM
I'm wondering if any members of the GMG Big Brain Brigade who defend imposing single payer can explain what will replace the investment activities performed by insurance companies, and/or how that would or would not impact the economy as a whole.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 10, 2019, 06:03:41 AM
Quote from: Todd on November 10, 2019, 05:30:56 AM
I'm wondering if any members of the GMG Big Brain Brigade who defend imposing single payer can explain what will replace the investment activities performed by insurance companies, and/or how that would or would not impact the economy as a whole.

     Insurance companies will figure out how to invest in the new environment without my help, but I expect they will do what my health plan company does, grab some of the huge health insurance market for alternative Medicare plans like the one I have. Many of the top companies are there now, so I expect plenty of people will keep Aetna and shift to the Medicare Advantage plan they offer.

     For people, check out the CMS rating for the company plans. Some big famous ones don't rate that highly. For investors I advise letting things settle a bit. Invest in other parts of the health care system. I like REITs.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 10, 2019, 06:05:07 AM
Quote from: drogulus on November 10, 2019, 06:03:41 AMInsurance companies will figure out how to invest in the new environment without my help


You literally missed the entire point.  You have no idea what I even asked.  I am not surprised.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 10, 2019, 06:16:12 AM
Quote from: Todd on November 10, 2019, 06:05:07 AM

You literally missed the entire point.  You have no idea what I even asked.  I am not surprised.

     I made a better point. If you wish to enlighten anyone on insurance company investing, go ahead. We are eager to learn on account of that is what Big Brains are for. Go ahead and make my day.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 10, 2019, 06:25:55 AM
Quote from: drogulus on November 10, 2019, 06:16:12 AM
     I made a better point. If you wish to enlighten anyone on insurance company investing, go ahead. We are eager to learn on account of that is what Big Brains are for. Go ahead and make my day.


You need to reread, or probably read for the first time, high school level texts on economics and then you would have at least an inkling of what I asked.  You clearly don't have that now.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on November 10, 2019, 06:36:57 AM
Reading through some of this thread, it absolutely sickens me the way some members here are acting when the evidence of such behavior doesn't exist when they discuss music. Todd is especially guilty of talking down to members who don't understand what he's talking about or want to actually engage him in debate. Just look at his last couple of posts. I think people who contribute to any thread would do well to be more civil with each other, especially to those who have opposing viewpoints.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 10, 2019, 06:41:14 AM

     You don't need to offer a detailed look at how insurance companies invest. All you have to do is give a general explanation that shows you understand how it works, and why insurance companies will come out of their foxholes with their hands up because they can't invest any more.

Quote from: Mirror Image on November 10, 2019, 06:36:57 AM
Reading through some of this thread, it absolutely sickens me the way some members here are acting when the evidence of such behavior doesn't exist when they discuss music. Todd is especially guilty of talking down to members who don't understand what he's talking about or want to actually engage him in debate. Just look at his last couple of posts. I think people who contribute to any thread would do well to be more civil with each other, especially to those who have opposing viewpoints.

     I make allowances for people who can't make them for whatever reason. The subject matter interests me, so I go on.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 10, 2019, 06:44:25 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on November 10, 2019, 06:36:57 AMor want to actually engage him in debate.


There is no real debating on GMG.  And debating is literally impossible when some posters like drogulus can't write proper English sentences and lack even a basic understanding of the topics being pseudo-debated.  On matters political and economic, this forum is as pathetic as any other website out there, but it is made more humorous and entertaining by the intellectual and moral posturing of the members of the GMG Big Brain Brigade.  They actually believe their own bullshit.

A perfect example:


Quote from: drogulus on November 10, 2019, 06:41:14 AM
     You don't need to offer a detailed look at how insurance companies invest. All you have to do is give a general explanation that shows you understand how it works, and why insurance companies will come out of their foxholes with their hands up because they can't invest any more.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 10, 2019, 06:50:45 AM
Quote from: Todd on November 10, 2019, 06:44:25 AM

There is no real debating on GMG. 



     It happens all the time. You don't want to take part. You claim to be amused by what goes on here. I'm not a mind reader but it doesn't seem very much like amusement. The level of hostility you express indicates something else.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 10, 2019, 06:51:42 AM
Quote from: drogulus on November 10, 2019, 06:50:45 AM
     It happens all the time. You don't want to take part. You claim to be amused by what goes on here. I'm not a mind reader but it doesn't seem very much like amusement. The level of hostility you express indicates something else.


See my last post in this thread.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on November 10, 2019, 06:56:29 AM
Quote from: greg on November 09, 2019, 09:37:20 PM
What if there were a news channel where the goal wasn't to be neutral but to have both sides at the same time?

Like 50/50 representation of liberal/conservative, like a merger of Fox News and CNN? Would such a thing even be possible?

You'd get CNN; they let plenty of conservatives speak. Or one of the networks.
The only one that doesn't do balance, or hardly any, is Fox.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 10, 2019, 07:03:53 AM
(https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Third-Edition-Full.jpg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 10, 2019, 07:04:04 AM
     Warren Buffett and the Insurance Business: A 52-Year Love Story
(https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/02/22/warren-buffett-and-the-insurance-business-a-52-yea.aspx)

     Insurance companies invest, investors invest in insurance companies. I bought a few shares of BRK-B just for kicks.

Quote from: Todd on November 10, 2019, 06:51:42 AM

See my last post in this thread.


    Don't give up now.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 10, 2019, 07:14:57 AM

     The largest health insurer is United Healthcare. I get mailings from them all the time. They want my Medicare business. Though I'm very sure they invest well because they're big, I'm sticking with my plan because it's better than anything United offers.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on November 10, 2019, 07:28:45 AM
Quote from: Todd on November 10, 2019, 07:03:53 AM
(https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Third-Edition-Full.jpg)

If "mainstream" means bashing Sanders, then sure.

I have restrained myself from saying good riddance (but I suppose I just did).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 10, 2019, 08:44:54 AM

      I use information density, too, not to replace my partisan interests but to help guide them.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on November 10, 2019, 02:17:18 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 09, 2019, 11:29:16 PM
Ah, the old "balance" idea.

Which basically only works if both sides are equally legitimate and the arguments on both sides are of equal merit.

Otherwise, you get the problem (all too frequently encountered) of a news organisation picking one person each to represent 2 sides, ignoring that one of those people represents a very large majority of opinion and the other represents a fringe view.

Never mind opinions, it's perfectly possible to find someone to represent a fringe view of FACTS if you look hard enough to find someone for the sake of "balance". Especially in the USA, which seems to be a fertile ground for conspiracy theories.
You could have two separate people, each representing a mainstream opinion each of left/right.

But inevitably, that would be like a civil war within the network by definition, which always would lead to one side winning out, so it wouldn't be sustainable.

The only way such a thing might be possible is to have the organization run by someone who is politically either moderate or impartial, and employ people that care more about the money they make rather than the message, since who wants to work for someone who will help support the opposing view also?

(I might have just described something much more than just my example scenario...)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 10, 2019, 02:34:10 PM
Quote from: greg on November 10, 2019, 02:17:18 PM
You could have two separate people, each representing a mainstream opinion each of left/right.

But inevitably, that would be like a civil war within the network by definition, which always would lead to one side winning out, so it wouldn't be sustainable.

The only way such a thing might be possible is to have the organization run by someone who is politically either moderate or impartial, and employ people that care more about the money they make rather than the message, since who wants to work for someone who will help support the opposing view also?

(I might have just described something much more than just my example scenario...)

     Biased sources of information simply don't present a serious barrier in a country where information flows freely all over the place. It's kind of silly to place such a high value on biases at the same time as you complain about how easy it is to detect them.

     I do like the horsey racy stuff and the combat theater. Sock! Pow!! It's OK to have a little fun.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 10, 2019, 02:34:22 PM
Quote from: Todd on November 10, 2019, 07:03:53 AM
(https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Third-Edition-Full.jpg)

and its interesting that in the red box "nonsense damaging to public discourse" you see the right wing stuff cited everywhere, but the left wing ones I never see at all, to the point that their names are unknown
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 10, 2019, 02:55:26 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 10, 2019, 02:34:22 PM
and its interesting that in the red box "nonsense damaging to public discourse" you see the right wing stuff cited everywhere, but the left wing ones I never see at all, to the point that their names are unknown

Occupy Democrats gets shared into my Facebook timeline at least once a day, and Palmer Report was retweeted into my Twitter at a similar rate when I was on Twitter.  I don't recognize the other names in that box.
As for the corresponding rightwing box, the Federalist has been nothing more than a Trumpian propaganda outlet for some time and should be there. So should another website, Townhall, that's not shown at all.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 10, 2019, 02:59:00 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 10, 2019, 02:55:26 PM
Occupy Democrats gets shared into my Facebook timeline at least once a day, and Palmer Report was retweeted into my Twitter at a similar rate when I was on Twitter.  I don't recognize the other names in that box.
As for the corresponding rightwing box, the Federalist has been nothing more than a Trumpian propaganda outlet for some time and should be there. So should another website, Townhall, that's not shown at all.

Interesting. I've seen "Occupy Democrats" on a couple of joke memes, but otherwise nothing. The Palmer Report I've never encountered at all.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 10, 2019, 03:19:34 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 10, 2019, 02:59:00 PM
Interesting. I've seen "Occupy Democrats" on a couple of joke memes, but otherwise nothing. The Palmer Report I've never encountered at all.

Occupy Democrats seems to generate a lot of antiTrump memes. I am not sure I would call any I have seen jokes.
I haven't seen Palmer Report since I left Twitter, I think. It was retweeted by a GMG member who rarely, if ever, posts in these political threads.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 10, 2019, 03:23:20 PM
Newsweek (https://www.newsweek.com/2020-democratic-primary-bernie-sanders-polls-policies-democratic-socialism-1469949) writes:

BERNIE SANDERS 'BEST' ON HEALTH CARE, THE ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND IMMIGRATION IN NEW 2020 POLL.

Poll conducted by Ipsos on behalf of Reuters, November 1-4.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 10, 2019, 03:23:34 PM

     Do the far left wing sites do Putin stuff, too? My instinct is that they do, that the far left and right are both supported by the Mystery Caller, even when they don't exactly in so many words support him.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 10, 2019, 03:33:57 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 10, 2019, 03:23:20 PM
Newsweek (https://www.newsweek.com/2020-democratic-primary-bernie-sanders-polls-policies-democratic-socialism-1469949) writes:

BERNIE SANDERS 'BEST' ON HEALTH CARE, THE ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND IMMIGRATION IN NEW 2020 POLL.

Poll conducted by Ipsos on behalf of Reuters, November 1-4.

Isn't Newsweek corporate media? So aren't they prohibited from publishing anything good about Bernie by their oligarchic overlords?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on November 10, 2019, 03:56:04 PM
Quote from: drogulus on November 10, 2019, 02:34:10 PM
     Biased sources of information simply don't present a serious barrier in a country where information flows freely all over the place.
The sources themselves, no. It's more about individual choice if all viewpoints are present.

Anyways, the original point was a small-team group (like youtube) vs. a large-team group (like network news). I don't think your point really has anything to do with the point I was making.


Quote from: drogulus on November 10, 2019, 02:34:10 PM
     It's kind of silly to place such a high value on biases at the same time as you complain about how easy it is to detect them.
What are you even talking about?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on November 10, 2019, 05:14:42 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 09, 2019, 06:04:07 PM
I'm in general agreement. You might be interested, though in an episode of a podcast called Against the Rules, which discusses how larger media organisations used to employ fact checkers to basically challenge the journalists internally to make sure stories are accurate, and how this job has been gradually dispensed with.

https://atrpodcast.com/episodes/the-alex-kogan-experience-s1!d20f3

It's certainly an industry in need of cleaning/truing up
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on November 10, 2019, 05:16:02 PM
Quote from: milk on November 09, 2019, 06:39:14 PM
What confounds me and fascinates me are the people I continually run into who confidently gather like-minded fringe news into confident conspiratorial ideologies. Some of them even have the temerity to call themselves "journalists." They're working with facts and I don't dismiss them out of hand - but their questioning I'm-not-a-sucker attitude is often an unquestioning kind of twisted dogma. They're not always wrong but I certainly think they make a mess of reality.
I get annoyed but I also can't look away.

I feel ya.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 10, 2019, 07:27:13 PM
Quote from: greg on November 10, 2019, 03:56:04 PM
What are you even talking about?

     Nothing, it was just an idea I have that you can discriminate among sources based on their record of reliability in their presentations of matters of fact. The higher an organization rates on pure news criteria, the better they tend to be at the analytic level. I discount bias because it's not much of a barrier to understanding.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on November 10, 2019, 07:46:02 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 10, 2019, 03:33:57 PM
Isn't Newsweek corporate media? So aren't they prohibited from publishing anything good about Bernie by their oligarchic overlords?

This was a poll, and they chose to report it—not the case with many others. Sure, from time to time Bernie gets positive coverage, but generally speaking it is decidedly negative. If you don't see it, you don't see it.

One of my favorites:
"Buttigieg in fourth, but a strong fourth" (https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/cnn-poll-new-hampshire-10-29-2019/index.html)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 10, 2019, 07:51:39 PM
I just did a Google search for "Bernie Sanders News" for the last 24 hours.

I'm not seeing the hostility.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 10, 2019, 07:56:24 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on November 10, 2019, 07:46:02 PM
This was a poll, and they chose to report it—not the case with many others. Sure, from time to time Bernie gets positive coverage, but generally speaking it is decidedly negative. If you don't see it, you don't see it.

One of my favorites:
"Buttigieg in fourth, but a strong fourth" (https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/cnn-poll-new-hampshire-10-29-2019/index.html)

I don't see it as negative because I see it as accurately reporting the flaws in his policies. Drastically increasing taxes so a minority of Americans can get less than adequate health care.,.increasing taxes to increase college enrollment figures (why not instead focus on programs that prepare people for jobs without forcing them into colleges no matter what their career is?)...
Buttigieg is wholesome, normal, not part of the DC swamp.  Why wouldn't people like him compared to three candidates (Warren, Sanders, Biden) whose main credential is name recognition?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 10, 2019, 11:06:20 PM
Quote from: greg on November 10, 2019, 02:17:18 PM
You could have two separate people, each representing a mainstream opinion each of left/right.

Half the problem is that there are various issues on which it makes zero sense to divide opinion into "left" and "right", but it happens anyway.

The glaring example right now is climate change (a debate rearing its head again right now in Australia as fires last week killed 3 people and tomorrow is tipped to have some of the worst fire conditions ever recorded... and it's not even summer yet). I'm perfectly happy that you can have "left" and "right" views on, say, the best mechanisms to use to push the economy in directions that favour less emissions, but that isn't what has happened in your country or mine. Instead, for some incomprehensible reason, the tactic of part of the "right" has been to attack the credibility of the scientists reporting that the climate is changing.

WHY? Why in God's name is listening to scientists even a political issue? Who exactly was the political madman who first saw advantage in casting scientists as part of some kind of vast conspiracy for profit (a notion which is ludicrous if you've ever known any scientists and the constant struggle for funding, nobody gets rich from being the actual scientist)?

So instead of having a genuine left/right debate about strategies as the climate changes (which IS in fact the kind of debate that has happened in some countries), one side of that debate frequently isn't happening because someone, somewhere decided to turn climate change itself into a left/right debate. Which is just fucking nuts.

Australian politics has spent a decade being utterly wrecked by this. We're almost at the 10-year anniversary of when the more right-wing of our main political parties overthrew its own (relatively moderate) leader because he was about to finish negotiating a market-based carbon price mechanism with "the enemy". MARKET-BASED. As he said shortly after his overthrow, it was actually an idea that was thoroughly in keeping with his own party's basic economic philosophy, but they revolted because a pile of them had decided that climate change wasn't real.

I won't bore you with all the further disasters that followed. For current purposes, it's sufficient to say that one side of politics deciding that the science of climate change is absolute crap (and that is a quote from the person who became the new leader at the time) makes me extremely skeptical of the value of picking a mainstream left and a mainstream right opinion on important issues. Because in that instance, on one of THE most important issues, the mainstream right decided it wanted to be represented by people who wouldn't listen to thoroughly apolitical source material.

And I know that most of the Republican candidates in 2016 did not accept climate change. I was paying attention. The fact that Kasich accepted the science was seen as highly detrimental to his chances of getting the nomination. Which is a completely lunatic state of affairs. When accepting the science becomes a fringe view on one side of politics, something is VERY wrong and left/right balance becomes unachievable.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on November 11, 2019, 12:40:46 AM
Save your breath, a good number of people on this board are also climate change deniers and there's a few more who think climate change is happening but it'll be good for them personally so nothing should be done (except build the wall).

The latter will eventually become the mainstream conservative position even in Australia: "climate change will be fine for us, we'll survive, we just need to end all (nonwhite) immigration and refugee intake so we can keep our standard of living." (isn't that basically what Peter Dutton already believes?) And that position was always the endgame for climate deniers—denial was just a tactic they used for a few decades to prevent action that would meaningfully reduce their own access to cars, luxury yachts and so on, before they could pivot to "ah its too late now we just gotta hold on to what we have"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 11, 2019, 12:54:13 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ECXcyhhUYAET13V.png)


Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of 'untold suffering'
Statement sets out 'vital signs' as indicators of magnitude of the climate emergency (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/05/climate-crisis-11000-scientists-warn-of-untold-suffering)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 11, 2019, 01:29:23 AM
Quote from: amw on November 11, 2019, 12:40:46 AM
Save your breath, a good number of people on this board are also climate change deniers and there's a few more who think climate change is happening but it'll be good for them personally so nothing should be done (except build the wall).

The latter will eventually become the mainstream conservative position even in Australia: "climate change will be fine for us, we'll survive, we just need to end all (nonwhite) immigration and refugee intake so we can keep our standard of living." (isn't that basically what Peter Dutton already believes?) And that position was always the endgame for climate deniers—denial was just a tactic they used for a few decades to prevent action that would meaningfully reduce their own access to cars, luxury yachts and so on, before they could pivot to "ah its too late now we just gotta hold on to what we have"

Well, we've already got to the point where, when bushfires are happening, "now is not the time to talk about climate change" in much the same way that when there's a massacre in the US it's not the time to talk about gun control.

EDIT: Have any of the people on this board been good enough to disclose their scientific qualifications? Just curious if any of them have any. Not necessarily in climate science, just wondering about the extent of understanding of science in general.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 11, 2019, 02:40:52 AM
Quote from: Madiel on November 11, 2019, 01:29:23 AM
EDIT: Have any of the people on this board been good enough to disclose their scientific qualifications? Just curious if any of them have any. Not necessarily in climate science, just wondering about the extent of understanding of science in general.

That's an interesting topic which begs two questions.

1. What do you mean by "scientific qualifications"?

2. What are the criteria for assessing "the extent of understanding of science in general"?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on November 11, 2019, 04:23:17 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 11, 2019, 02:40:52 AM
That's an interesting topic which begs two questions.

1. What do you mean by "scientific qualifications"?

2. What are the criteria for assessing "the extent of understanding of science in general"?
It may be as "innocent" as "is it possible that some GMG members work in the field of science" and therefore might have some expertise. I wouldn't suggest that you need expertise to have an opinion or understand but I would say that you need something to go against scientific consensus. I asked this before and didn't get a strong answer: what evidence do "skeptics" have that goes against global warming - its causes and effects. But I don't want to derail the thread. Just my two cents but I find the answers weak and fallacious. You need something if you are going against well-established scientific consensus. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 11, 2019, 04:23:52 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 11, 2019, 02:40:52 AM
That's an interesting topic which begs two questions.

1. What do you mean by "scientific qualifications"?

2. What are the criteria for assessing "the extent of understanding of science in general"?

1. I mean qualifications in science from having studied science.

2. There are no specific criteria, but when it comes to people who reject the consensus of scientists on this particular issue I'm curious to know the basis on which they do so. It's very rare that one of the bases is a solid grounding in science.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 11, 2019, 04:24:02 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 10, 2019, 07:51:39 PM
I just did a Google search for "Bernie Sanders News" for the last 24 hours.

I'm not seeing the hostility.

Googling Bernie you get stuff from corporate to progressive so it evens things up. If you limit your search to corporate media you should start seeing a pattern. Do you think the corporate media would ever write "Bernie is strong fourth" if Bernie polled at 8 % or so? No. They would write something along the lines of "Bernie's agenda to turn the US into Venezuela is over."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 11, 2019, 04:45:11 AM
Quote from: Madiel on November 11, 2019, 01:29:23 AM
EDIT: Have any of the people on this board been good enough to disclose their scientific qualifications? Just curious if any of them have any. Not necessarily in climate science, just wondering about the extent of understanding of science in general.

I have done science for about 5 years in the field of acoustics (so no expertise of climate science of any kind) and I have university degree in engineering so I think I have an idea of what science is about. What is surprising to me is how many people don't see how climate change denialism originates from fossil fuel industry. Especially in the US the oligarchs have managed to make people distrust scientists so that science can't hurt their profits, at least much. Another reason why oligarchy must be ended and democracy restored. This planet may survive demcoracy, but it won't survive oligarchy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 11, 2019, 04:48:31 AM
Quote from: Madiel on November 11, 2019, 04:23:52 AM
I mean qualifications in science from having studied science.

Each and every person who has completed his secondary education can claim to having studied science, including but not limited to, mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 11, 2019, 10:58:43 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 11, 2019, 04:48:31 AM
Each and every person who has completed his secondary education can claim to having studied science, including but not limited to, mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology.

And that right there is the problem. People believing that having the same baseline level of science education as the general population is enough to stand against the people who spent more time than that specifically studying science.

I said a qualification IN SCIENCE. Not a generic qualification that happened to have a science component because it had a bit of everything in it and as a kid you didn't have a choice about it anyway.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 11, 2019, 11:11:06 AM
This is the kind of things that happens when people try to wield their baseline level of science as if they know all there is to know: https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.teenvogue.com/story/teacher-destroys-transphobia-science/amp
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 11, 2019, 12:10:24 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 11, 2019, 10:58:43 AM
And that right there is the problem. People believing that having the same baseline level of science education as the general population is enough to stand against the people who spent more time than that specifically studying science.

I don't disagree, in principle. And the problem is compounded by the widespread availability of such scientific luminaries as Youtube, Wikipedia and Google Search.

There is also a reverse to this, in that sometimes people who are super-qualified in a scientific field feel entitled to pontificate about other fields, where their expertise is entirely irrelevant. Economy, philosophy and history are particularly vulnerable to such treatment.

Quote
I said a qualification IN SCIENCE.

As far as I know, on GMG we have one mathematician, one physicist (no longer active), a radiologist and two engineers (one of them yours truly). Not sure, though, how relevant and helpful are these qualifications for understanding climate science, its hypothesis, tests, results and predictions. When it comes to laymen in this respect, the advantage is certainly on the side of the "alarmists", who can always refer to the authority of scientific consensus even if they themselves are little able, if at all, to understand the science behind it; while the "denialists" must always offer evidence that they understand it themselves before expressing skepticism about it .
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 11, 2019, 12:28:30 PM
My point was that a grounding in science helps understand the basic approach of science, with hypotheses and so on, and how a consensus develops.

And that knowing scientists also is likely to inoculate you against the whole conspiracy angle.

I have a science degree. Mostly chemistry and biochemistry.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 11, 2019, 05:28:45 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 11, 2019, 12:28:30 PM
My point was that a grounding in science helps understand the basic approach of science, with hypotheses and so on, and how a consensus develops.

And that knowing scientists also is likely to inoculate you against the whole conspiracy angle.

I have a science degree. Mostly chemistry and biochemistry.


Query: do you know how many of 1100 scientists in that link Simon posted are actually climate scientists? If you want to emphasize qualifications, shouldn't you weed out scientists in other fields.

You mentioned in an earlier post the struggle for funding. Isn't that itself corrupting? How often will a scientist trim his sails to the prevailing wind so as not to draw the opposition of those who hold the institutional keys to success? Scientific training conveys no immunity to the normal human flaws..

I have other comments to make, but I will make them in reply to a post that they are more relevant to.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 11, 2019, 05:52:42 PM
Quote from: amw on November 11, 2019, 12:40:46 AM
Save your breath, a good number of people on this board are also climate change deniers and there's a few more who think climate change is happening but it'll be good for them personally so nothing should be done (except build the wall).

The latter will eventually become the mainstream conservative position even in Australia: "climate change will be fine for us, we'll survive, we just need to end all (nonwhite) immigration and refugee intake so we can keep our standard of living." (isn't that basically what Peter Dutton already believes?) And that position was always the endgame for climate deniers—denial was just a tactic they used for a few decades to prevent action that would meaningfully reduce their own access to cars, luxury yachts and so on, before they could pivot to "ah its too late now we just gotta hold on to what we have"

That is a radical distortion of the skeptical position, which can be reduced to three basic points
1) the scientific evidence supporting the idea that human actions have more than a marginal effect on warming climate is much weaker than proponents claim, and (corollary) human actions will only have a marginal effect on impeding warming.

2) the claims of impending catastrophe are progandistic, highly speculative, and always assume maximal effects.

3) the Left tries to use warming as a hook to justify all its pet ideals. The article Simon linked is an example. The authors use climate change to justify demands for population control and enforced vegetarianism.  The Green New Deal envisages government regulation, if not outright control, of all economic activity, but wants to impose as goals a lot of "social justice" ideals that have absolutely nothing to do with pollution.

It's that last point that explains why the Right adheres to skepticism. Climate change has been hijacked by the Left as a way to force its ideas on everyone else.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 11, 2019, 06:05:50 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 11, 2019, 05:28:45 PM

Query: do you know how many of 1100 scientists in that link Simon posted are actually climate scientists? If you want to emphasize qualifications, shouldn't you weed out scientists in other fields.

You mentioned in an earlier post the struggle for funding. Isn't that itself corrupting? How often will a scientist trim his sails to the prevailing wind so as not to draw the opposition of those who hold the institutional keys to success? Scientific training conveys no immunity to the normal human flaws..

I have other comments to make, but I will make them in reply to a post that they are more relevant to.

Eleven thousand, not eleven hundred.

And I would imagine the walls between various fields of scientific inquiry are more blurred or overlapping than you allow, making practitioners of one field more than capable of analyzing the data and sources of another.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 11, 2019, 06:13:24 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 11, 2019, 05:52:42 PM

3) the Left tries to use warming as a hook to justify all its pet ideals. The article Simon linked is an example. The authors use climate change to justify demands for population control and enforced vegetarianism.  The Green New Deal envisages government regulation, if not outright control, of all economic activity, but wants to impose as goals a lot of "social justice" ideals that have absolutely nothing to do with pollution.

It's that last point that explains why the Right adheres to skepticism. Climate change has been hijacked by the Left as a way to force its ideas on everyone else.

Which Left? Where? Whose pet ideals, and which?

This is a broad consensus across disparate peoples.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 11, 2019, 06:47:33 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 11, 2019, 06:05:50 PM
Eleven thousand, not eleven hundred.

And I would imagine the walls between various fields of scientific inquiry are more blurred or overlapping than you allow, making practitioners of one field more than capable of analyzing the data and sources of another.

You're assuming they stop and analyze the data, as opposed to automatically signing onto something which they know it's beneficial to sign on to.

I don't know about the link  you posted, but I've seem similar things in which only a small number were from fields that were relevant, and most from fields of no relevance to climate science, and whose opinions are therefore of no more weight than yours or mine.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 11, 2019, 06:56:55 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 11, 2019, 06:13:24 PM
Which Left? Where? Whose pet ideals, and which?

This is a broad consensus across disparate peoples.

Here's what be called the official American version, as put forth in a proposed Congressional resolution

Quote"Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States."
"Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security;
and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature."
"Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States."
"Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."
"Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible."
"Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and 'smart' power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity."
"Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification."
"Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail."
"Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible."
"Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible." [50]

What do the items I bolded have to do with climate change?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 11, 2019, 06:57:52 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 11, 2019, 06:47:33 PM
You're assuming they stop and analyze the data, as opposed to automatically signing onto something which they know it's beneficial to sign on to.

I don't know about the link  you posted, but I've seem similar things in which only a small number were from fields that were relevant, and most from fields of no relevance to climate science, and whose opinions are therefore of no more weight than yours or mine.

I don't agree with that at all.

What do you mean by "beneficial to sign on to"?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 11, 2019, 07:01:34 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 11, 2019, 06:57:52 PM
I don't agree with that at all.

What do you mean by "beneficial to sign on to"?

Going along to get along, as the phrase has. Not making waves, as another phrase has it.If a person has no risks from signing on, but does have risks from not signing on, and no personal stake, why wouldn't they sign on?

In short, I am assuming scientists are subject to the same flaws as everyone else.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 11, 2019, 07:20:31 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 11, 2019, 07:01:34 PM
Going along to get along, as the phrase has. Not making waves, as another phrase has it.If a person has no risks from signing on, but does have risks from not signing on, and no personal stake, why wouldn't they sign on?

In short, I am assuming scientists are subject to the same flaws as everyone else.

Again: I don't believe that at all. I think they're genuinely concerned.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 11, 2019, 07:22:05 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 11, 2019, 07:20:31 PM
Again: I don't believe that at all. I think they're genuinely concerned.

They may be genuinely concerned. That doesn't mean they are genuinely knowledgeable, or have any reason to sign such a thing other than knowing their colleagues expect them to do so.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 11, 2019, 11:48:11 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 11, 2019, 12:28:30 PM
My point was that a grounding in science helps understand the basic approach of science, with hypotheses and so on, and how a consensus develops.

That is true. For understanding how a consensus develop, though, some basic notions of sociology and psychology are as helpful as, say, basic notions of physics or chemistry.

QuoteI have a science degree. Mostly chemistry and biochemistry.

I thought you were a lawyer and your area of expertise is legislation drafting.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 11, 2019, 11:53:27 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 11, 2019, 05:52:42 PM
the Left tries to use warming as a hook to justify all its pet ideals.

Climate change has been hijacked by the Left as a way to force its ideas on everyone else.

My thoughts exactly and to your wellspotted examples I can add the following points, taken form the Platform of the US Youth Climate strike Movement:

Respect and follow all treaties with First Nation communities and protect the food sovereignty and intellectual property of First Nations, as well as ensuring appropriate, culturally competent training programs for tribal colleges and collaborations between tribal and state colleges to provide education for the green economy.

Invest in education and training for inmates regarding renewable careers, and invest grassroots transformative justice to move away from the unjust prison system and the school-to-prison-pipeline, and outlaw private prisons and the forced labor of prison inmates.

Protect and enforce land and sovereign rights of tribal nations; honor and protect treaty rights, and free prior and informed consent for Indigenous nations, in keeping with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;

Remove entrenched racial, regional, ability, and gender-based barriers to income and wealth; create a public bank to finance a transition for the benefit of all Americans.

Respect Indigenous women, Indigenous queer and trans women, women of color, and queer and trans people of color and protect them from assault, sexual violence, and trafficking

Acknowledge the term "climate refugee" and welcome all climate refugees including; war refugees, communal/gang violence refugees, and natural disaster refugees.

Work together with other wealthy nations to be prepared to welcome climate refugees and provide safety and accommodation for them in international solidarity.


(rtwt here: https://www.youthclimatestrikeus.org/platform (https://www.youthclimatestrikeus.org/platform))

None of the above has got anything to do with climate change.


Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 12, 2019, 12:03:24 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 11, 2019, 06:05:50 PM
And I would imagine the walls between various fields of scientific inquiry are more blurred or overlapping than you allow, making practitioners of one field more than capable of analyzing the data and sources of another.

What do you make of this, then?

https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ED-brochureversieNWA4.pdf (https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ED-brochureversieNWA4.pdf)

Scroll down for a full list of signatories.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 12, 2019, 01:40:23 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 11, 2019, 11:48:11 PM
I thought you were a lawyer and your area of expertise is legislation drafting.

Must I only have one degree and only fit in one box?

I'm certainly not claiming that climate science is my area of expertise. I'm only stating that I have a Bachelor of Science.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 12, 2019, 01:49:05 AM
Quote from: JBS on November 11, 2019, 05:52:42 PM
1) the scientific evidence supporting the idea that human actions have more than a marginal effect on warming climate is much weaker than proponents claim, and (corollary) human actions will only have a marginal effect on impeding warming.

So can you clarify which part of the idea, exactly, you do not support?

Do you not support that carbon dioxide and some other gases have 'greenhouse', heat-trapping properties?

Do you not support that the level of carbon dioxide is increasing?

Do you support that the level is increasing, but not support that human activity is the cause of this?

Or do you not support that increasing levels of carbon dioxide will have an impact on climates?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 12, 2019, 02:00:21 AM
Quote from: JBS on November 11, 2019, 05:28:45 PM

Query: do you know how many of 1100 scientists in that link Simon posted are actually climate scientists? If you want to emphasize qualifications, shouldn't you weed out scientists in other fields.

If you had actually read what I said, instead of what you think I said, you would see that my point was not to require people to be experts but that it helps to have sufficient grounding to understand what the experts are saying.

And my point was not to talk about people who accept what the experts are saying, but people who think they know better than the experts.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 12, 2019, 02:09:26 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 12, 2019, 12:03:24 AM
What do you make of this, then?

https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ED-brochureversieNWA4.pdf (https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ED-brochureversieNWA4.pdf)

Scroll down for a full list of signatories.

I can see at least 4 things in that little pamphlet that, to the best of my knowledge, are either misleading oversimplifications or simply wrong.

To pick one of the easiest ones: saying that carbon dioxide is beneficial and not a pollutant is a bit like saying that arsenic can't possibly be a poison because it's an essential trace element. Or that an excess of oxygen or water can't kill you just like a lack of oxygen or water can.

It is quite clearly possible to have too much of a 'good' thing.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 12, 2019, 02:19:58 AM
As to increasing crop yields, on its own it's strictly true but a major oversimplification of the different effects that will occur.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-study-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-will-help-and-hurt-crops

https://theconversation.com/will-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-really-boost-plant-growth-95265

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 12, 2019, 02:57:57 AM
Quote from: Madiel on November 12, 2019, 01:40:23 AM
Must I only have one degree and only fit in one box?

Of course not. I just remembered that you said several times you were a lawyer and your daily job was to draft law proposals.

Quote
I'm certainly not claiming that climate science is my area of expertise.

Nor did I infer that.

QuoteI'm only stating that I have a Bachelor of Science.

Fwiw, I have a M. Sc. in Mechanical Engineering, meaning I'm no more an expert in climate science than you are.



Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 12, 2019, 03:07:41 AM
Quote from: JBS on November 11, 2019, 07:22:05 PM
That doesn't mean they are genuinely knowledgeable,

If climate scientists are not genuinely knowledgeable then I guess nobody is.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 12, 2019, 03:17:05 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 12, 2019, 02:57:57 AM
Fwiw, I have a M. Sc. in Mechanical Engineering, meaning I'm no more an expert in climate science than you are.

Always struggled to understand engineering myself. I once did a sort of personality assessment related to professions, and engineering-related professions were pretty much bottom of the list. Along with jobs in sales. I think the issue is that I tend to be a highly theoretical and abstract person and engineering is all about the practical application of science.

At my university science and engineering were distinct degrees but with quite a few subjects in common. Then the engineers would go away and do mysterious engineery things.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 12, 2019, 03:54:46 AM
Quote from: Madiel on November 12, 2019, 03:17:05 AM
Always struggled to understand engineering myself. I once did a sort of personality assessment related to professions, and engineering-related professions were pretty much bottom of the list. Along with jobs in sales. I think the issue is that I tend to be a highly theoretical and abstract person and engineering is all about the practical application of science.

At my university science and engineering were distinct degrees but with quite a few subjects in common. Then the engineers would go away and do mysterious engineery things.

I can certainly relate to that. After finishing my M. SC. I went to The Netherlands for a Ph. D. in Applied Mathematics (actually, I went there because my girlfriend of the time back then was doing her own Ph. D. in The Netherlands and taking that position was an excellent oppoortunity for us to be together :) ). Problem is, I did not fit in that mathematically-minded department at all. All they were thinking about, and interested in, was coming up with a set of difficult equations to which sophisticated numerical methods could be applied; they disregarded completely the physics or chemistry behind them and frankly I suspect they didn't even properly understood them. I remember a brainstorming meeting in which they literally quarreled for almost an hour --- and didn't settle the matter --- over which term(s) in the mathematical expression of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics should be wriiten to the left and which to the right of the equal sign.

(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/imgheat/firlaw2.png)

I was watching the whole scene and coulldn't believe my eyes. I became increasinlgy impatient and annoyed and I could hardly refrain myself from standing up and shouting "Dammit, gentlemen, just write the effing equation as everybody else who is not a mathematician in this department has been writing it for 150 years now and let's go home because it's getting late and I don't know about you but I am hungry and need a drink!"

After a year or so, I quit, for several reasons, but one of them was that I didn't belong there intellectually. They literally lived in a mathematical bubble.



Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 12, 2019, 03:59:03 AM
Who would have more terms on the left than the right? That's just weird.  :laugh:
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 12, 2019, 04:12:42 AM
Quote from: Madiel on November 12, 2019, 03:59:03 AM
Who would have more terms on the left than the right? That's just weird.  :laugh:

Weird is an understatement. It was simply insane.

I don't remember the arguments each of them made for their own version of the equation but they all had to do with whether this or that form was more suitable for the application of this or that numerical method.  For them the real world phenomena were just a pretext for their intellectual play with equations.

But apart from that, I have fond memories of my stay in Eindhoven, not least because I discovered Brilliant Classics (whose discs and boxsets were back then sold in a chain of drugstores called Kruidvat. I was probably the only customer not buying anything else beside CDs.  ;D )
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 12, 2019, 04:34:31 AM
Drugstores in the Netherlands... for a few milliseconds that gives me, as a person not from North America who doesn't use that word, a completely different mental picture from the one you intended.  ;D

Bedtime here. Night.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 12, 2019, 04:43:37 AM
Quote from: Madiel on November 12, 2019, 04:34:31 AM
Drugstores in the Netherlands... for a few milliseconds that gives me, as a person not from North America who doesn't use that word, a completely different mental picture from the one you intended.  ;D

;D

The legal drugs proper are sold and consummed in so-called coffee houses. I suppose this, too, is not what you mentally picture when hearing the name.  :laugh:

Quote
Bedtime here. Night.

Good night, sleep well, have sweet dreams.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 12, 2019, 05:09:11 AM
     The fact that not all scientists are experts on climate change has no relevance. If they support climate experts it's because they know what the consensus means, that human activity causes climate change and the questions that arise about the pace of change are internal to the science and not questions resolved by political operatives and lobbyists.

      The grotesque fallacy here is that what activists say about climate science changes what the science itself says. If a Big Brained lefty says something about rising sea levels, the science behind it is retrospectively Big lefty Brained.

      If this is a good way to delegitimate science why not apply it to science more generally? Why not decide that every consensus that is politically troublesome is tainted, like for example the case of relativity which was deemed to be "Jewish physics" by political experts in Germany.

      Bad Science and Aryan Physics | Galileo, Johannes Stark and Philipp Lenard (https://www.headstuff.org/culture/history/history-news/bad-science-aryan-physics-galileo/)

      I give not one shit about how "not that bad" hostility to science is now. The point is the weaponization of base level hostility to inquiry and expertise.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 12, 2019, 06:19:22 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 12, 2019, 05:47:01 AM
What do you make of the science behind this?

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/sea-level-rise-may-not-become-catastrophic-until-after-2100/579478/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/sea-level-rise-may-not-become-catastrophic-until-after-2100/579478/)



     It's too early to form a conclusion. That's what the article says. Consider also that the mechanism discussed represents one way sea level rise could accelerate.

     (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Sea_Level_Rise.png/1024px-Sea_Level_Rise.png)

     This is without the theory the article discusses.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 12, 2019, 06:29:35 AM
Quote from: drogulus on November 12, 2019, 06:19:22 AM
     It's too early to form a conclusion. That's what the article says.

It says:

A Terrifying Sea-Level Prediction Now Looks Far Less Likely

and

Other researchers find this possible future somewhat fantastic. "We, as European modelers, are slightly more skeptical of the marine-cliff idea," Frank Pattyn, a glaciologist at the Free University of Brussels, told me. "It has not been observed, not at such a scale."

and

"Nobody's debating that sea-level rise is happening. It's back to how much, how fast," Helen Amanda Fricker, a glaciologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, told me. Even the most optimistic scientists have recently increased their low-end estimates, she said. "It's healthy to have this debate."

I agree, it's healthy to have this debate, and many others. But "debate" is rather the opposite oif "consensus".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 12, 2019, 06:40:16 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 12, 2019, 06:29:35 AM
It says:

A Terrifying Sea-Level Prediction Now Looks Far Less Likely



     Yes, that's what I said. "Far less likely" refers to a recent prediction, not the estimates of sea level rise based on well confirmed mechanisms like the chart shows, which comes from 2017.

     Europeans who are skeptical about the recent prediction are not questioning the consensus. They are firmly within it. I said before that estimates of sea level rise and other effects are internal to the science and the consensus that has built up over decades of research.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 12, 2019, 07:47:31 AM
Quote from: drogulus on November 12, 2019, 06:40:16 AM
     Yes, that's what I said. "Far less likely" refers to a recent prediction, not the estimates of sea level rise based on well confirmed mechanisms like the chart shows, which comes from 2017.

I think you read a different article than the one I linked to. Here are the first four paragraphs, just in case. I underlined the relevant points.

One of the scariest scenarios for near-term, disastrous sea-level rise may be off the table for now, according to a new study previewed at a recent scientific conference.

Two years ago, the glaciologists Robert DeConto and David Pollard rocked their field with a paper arguing that several massive glaciers in Antarctica were much more unstable than previously thought. Those key glaciers—which include Thwaites Glacier and Pine Island Glacier, both in the frigid continent's west—could increase global sea levels by more than three feet by 2100, the paper warned. Such a rise could destroy the homes of more than 150 million people worldwide.

They are now revisiting those results. In new work, conducted with three other prominent glaciologists, DeConto and Pollard have lowered some of their worst-case projections for the 21st century. Antarctica may only contribute about a foot of sea-level rise by 2100, they now say. This finding, reached after the team improved their own ice model, is much closer to projections made by other glaciologists.

It is a reassuring constraint placed on one of the most alarming scientific hypotheses advanced this decade. The press had described DeConto and Pollard's original work as an "ice apocalypse" spawned by a "doomsday glacier." Now their worst-case skyrocketing sea-level scenario seems extremely unlikely, at least within our own lifetimes.


Quote
     Europeans who are skeptical about the recent prediction are not questioning the consensus. They are firmly within it. I said before that estimates of sea level rise and other effects are internal to the science and the consensus that has built up over decades of research.

The article says in plain English that there is no consensus about "how much and how fast" the sea level rises, in other words that there is no consensus about catastrophical sea level rising --- which is what many of the Left think to be the case. Actually, the whole article is about a catastrophic prediction being discarded by the very scientists who made it in the first place.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 12, 2019, 08:02:46 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 12, 2019, 07:47:31 AM
I think you read a different article than the one I linked to. Here are the first four paragraphs, just in case. I underlined the relevant points.

One of the scariest scenarios for near-term, disastrous sea-level rise may be off the table for now, according to a new study previewed at a recent scientific conference.

Two years ago, the glaciologists Robert DeConto and David Pollard rocked their field with a paper arguing that several massive glaciers in Antarctica were much more unstable than previously thought. Those key glaciers—which include Thwaites Glacier and Pine Island Glacier, both in the frigid continent's west—could increase global sea levels by more than three feet by 2100, the paper warned. Such a rise could destroy the homes of more than 150 million people worldwide.

They are now revisiting those results. In new work, conducted with three other prominent glaciologists, DeConto and Pollard have lowered some of their worst-case projections for the 21st century. Antarctica may only contribute about a foot of sea-level rise by 2100, they now say. This finding, reached after the team improved their own ice model, is much closer to projections made by other glaciologists.

It is a reassuring constraint placed on one of the most alarming scientific hypotheses advanced this decade. The press had described DeConto and Pollard's original work as an "ice apocalypse" spawned by a "doomsday glacier." Now their worst-case skyrocketing sea-level scenario seems extremely unlikely, at least within our own lifetimes.


The article says in plain English that there is no consensus about "how much and how fast" the sea level rises, in other words that there is no consensus about catastrophical sea level rising --- which is what many of the Left think to be the case. Actually, the whole article is about a catastrophic prediction being discarded by the very scientists who made it in the first place.

     I read it correctly. The proponents of the new prediction now question it. Because of its recency it didn't get into the consensus, so removing it doesn't change the range of estimations of the pace of change the chart shows. However, there are realistic reasons for pessimism the article mentions:

Yet even MICI's skeptics agree: Our understanding of sea-level rise is rapidly growing more ominous. In its last major report, in 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projected that oceans could rise two feet by 2100 if greenhouse-gas emissions continue on a worst-case trajectory. That number will almost certainly worsen in the IPCC's next report, which is due in 2021, Pattyn said. "We are facing sea-level rise that is obviously going to be higher in the mean than what the IPCC's 'Fifth Assessment Report' showed," he said.

     In order to understand what the article say you have to differentiate between one prediction and the larger theory. The article does make this clear as the quote shows.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 12, 2019, 08:22:12 AM
Quote from: drogulus on November 12, 2019, 08:02:46 AM
     I read it correctly. The proponents of the new prediction now question it. Because of its recency it didn't get into the consensus

The proponents of the new, moderate prediction are exactly the same proponents of the old, catastrophic prediction. If the old one got into the consensus based on their old model, thus testifying to their impeccable scientific credentials, there is no reason to doubt that the new one will also get into the consensus, based on their new, improved model and their impeccable scientific credentials.

And besides, we are talking about a local, not a global consensus. The article says it plainly:

This finding, reached after the team improved their own ice model, is much closer to projections made by other glaciologists.

We learn two things from the above: (1) other glaciologists made different projections than the catastrophic one which we are discussing, which means there was no general consensus; (2) the new, moderate projection is much closer to those other projections, which means that a consensus is likely to be reached on the moderate, not on the catastrophic projection.

Once again: nobody is arguing the sea level is not rising or that the phenomenon is not alarming. The debate is about "how much and how fast". Yet many on the Left, and especially the mass media, present the state of the current research as having being definitely and definitively settled on the catastrophic side --- which is far from being the case, as the article clearly shows for anyone who is not ideologically biased.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 12, 2019, 08:35:50 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 12, 2019, 08:22:12 AM
The proponents of the new, moderate prediction are exactly the same proponents of the old, catastrophic prediction. If the old one got into the consensus based on their old model, thus testifying to their impeccable scientific credentials, there is no reason to doubt that the new one will also get into the consensus, based on their new, improved model and their impeccable scientific credentials.



     No, the new prediction never got into the consensus, so there's nothing to remove. If you think the consensus that exists is moderate, all I can say is that compared to the next one, it might be so. The article says exactly that. That's what "growing more ominous" means.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 12, 2019, 08:43:06 AM
Quote from: drogulus on November 12, 2019, 08:35:50 AM
     No, the new prediction never got into the consensus

Source, please.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 12, 2019, 08:51:36 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 12, 2019, 08:43:06 AM
Source, please.

     It's new. It wasn't peer reviewed. It came and went without an effect on what the chart shows, the consensus view from 2017, including the effect of Antarctic ice melting. If you're asking which source doesn't have the new hypothesis in it, it would be all of them.

     (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Sea_Level_Rise.png/1024px-Sea_Level_Rise.png)

     This is the preexisting "moderate" estimate. The next one is expected to be worse.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 12, 2019, 09:12:00 AM
Quote from: drogulus on November 12, 2019, 08:51:36 AM
     It's new. It wasn't peer reviewed.

So you have no source. I expected that much.

As for the theory that "it's new and not yet peer-reviewed, therefore it has been / will be rejected", I have only two comments.

1. The article is from January 2019, so it's not unreasonable to infer that the conference took place in 2018. In the field of science, one-full-year-old is hardly the equivalent of "new".

2. There was a time when the predictions around which the actual consensus is built were new and not yet peer-reviewed and probably contradicted the older consensus.

QuoteIf you're asking which source doesn't have the new hypothesis in it, it would be all of them.

Unless you have read all peer-reviewed articles on sea level rise published since January, 2019* and have thus learned  that not a single one of them considered, or accepted, the theoretical model and the predictions advanced by De Conto and Pollard and alluded to in The Atlantic article, the above phrase is a strong contender --- in a very stiff competition, actually --- for the stupidest statement you've ever made.

*an impossible task even for your intellectual superpowers

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 12, 2019, 10:15:20 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 12, 2019, 09:12:00 AM
So you have no source. I expected that much.


     Why would I need a source for something that never happened? The chart I showed was from 2017. The article discusses a hypothesis that came and went, leaving us in the same place we were, awaiting the latest updates.

     I read the article and understood it.

There was a time when the predictions around which the actual consensus is built were new and not yet peer-reviewed and probably contradicted the older consensus.

     Undoubtedly, that's true. That's how science evolves, by a process of continual reappraisal encompassing new data. Empirical inquiry is a probabilistic enterprise.

     So, sometimes a new hypothesis alters the consensus, sometimes it doesn't. The one in the article didn't.

QuoteOther researchers find this possible future somewhat fantastic.

     That doesn't look like "getting into the consensus" to me.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 12, 2019, 10:26:50 AM
Arguing with you is exactly like banging my head against the Great China Wall hoping it'll crumble. I give up.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 12, 2019, 10:35:00 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 12, 2019, 10:26:50 AM
Arguing with you is exactly like banging my head against the Great China Wall hoping it'll crumble. I give up.

      I could have predicted that. You're determined to avoid understanding what the article actually says, in favor of the notion that a single hypothesis among many such has altered the consensus view one way and then another way. There is no evidence other than it's like a thousand other speculations in papers that get discussed before disappearing into the void.

      It still remains possible that the MICA prediction will be confirmed at some point in the future. It may still "get into the consensus", or so the article says.

MICI remains a young idea, first proposed only six years ago. It need not be rejected simply because scientists haven't arrived at hard conclusions yet, Fricker, the Scripps glaciologist, said. Marine ice-cliff instability remains a worrying possibility: a low-chance, high-danger tail risk of climate change. It's just one of the many gambles that humanity is placing on its own future—and it's not even the only mechanism that could cause West Antarctica to collapse. Researchers are also investigating another mechanism, "marine ice-sheet instability," that could target some of the same fragile glaciers.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 12, 2019, 11:37:09 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 12, 2019, 10:26:50 AM
Arguing with you is exactly like banging my head against the Great China Wall hoping it'll crumble. I give up.

Try arguing with me. The problem is I can follow everything that drogulus is saying right now and it makes perfect sense to me.

Because this is the way science actually works and why scientific literacy matters, and why the kind of reactions people have to science reporting, reacting to the fate of a single study as if it's definitive, is so damn problematic.

People who demand definitive proof on something like future climate modelling are simply showing they don't understand how science operates. We've already had a train based cartoon about this.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 12, 2019, 11:41:13 AM
I mean, the fact that you dispute that something a year old is "new" boggles my mind. Do you have any understanding of just how many years people spend working on an avenue of research? And how long it can take other scientists to confirm an initial result, assuming it IS confirmed?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 12, 2019, 12:14:59 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 12, 2019, 11:37:09 AM


Because this is the way science actually works and why scientific literacy matters, and why the kind of reactions people have to science reporting, reacting to the fate of a single study as if it's definitive, is so damn problematic.



     I slightly disagree with the scientific literacy part. I hardly have any, yet I have no trouble understanding science articles. The article says what the title says it says:

A Terrifying Sea-Level Prediction Now Looks Far Less Likely

But experts warn that our overall picture of sea-level rise looks far scarier today than it did even five years ago.


     Plain literacy should be enough.
     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 12, 2019, 12:20:41 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 12, 2019, 01:49:05 AM
So can you clarify which part of the idea, exactly, you do not support?

Do you not support that carbon dioxide and some other gases have 'greenhouse', heat-trapping properties?

Do you not support that the level of carbon dioxide is increasing?

Do you support that the level is increasing, but not support that human activity is the cause of this?

Or do you not support that increasing levels of carbon dioxide will have an impact on climates?

The last, more or less.

Essentially, AGW advocates ignore the natural factors that have been driving climate change since Earth had a climate that was capable of changing, and which in and of themselves are capable of causing all the change we see to date and are likely to see in the near and medium term future.  There's a lot we don't know about those factors, but AGW advocates act as if they don't count. It's like treating the brakes as the only important part of a car.

The more honest ones admit the importance of those natural factors, admit the actual uncertainty about how important carbon emissions are, but argue that the potential impacts are so enormous that we have to act to avoid them no matter what.

Added to this is the parade of catastrophic projections which seem designed to grab headlines. Rather as if proponents want to scare people instead of actually persuading them.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 12, 2019, 12:36:52 PM

     It doesn't matter what the advocates or headlines say. It matters what the researchers say. They are the "more honest" ones, if that's how you view it.

     I don't think there's an honesty problem about the scientific consensus. It's a collective enterprise with the strongest error correction machinery of any human activity.

     The science will say what the headlines should be, and it won't be wrong because the headline says a catastrophe is coming. If one is coming the headline should say so.

      Enough with the advocates already, you can't impugn the science through them.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 12, 2019, 12:41:46 PM

     You can't do a theory about unnatural climate change that isn't soundly based in natural change. The idea is bewildering and not remotely plausible. How could there be a climate theory at all if natural change didn't feature in it?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 12, 2019, 12:49:48 PM
Quote from: drogulus on November 12, 2019, 12:41:46 PM
     You can't do a theory about unnatural climate change that isn't soundly based in natural change. The idea is bewildering and not remotely plausible. How could there be a climate theory at all if natural change didn't feature in it?

You have it half right, at least.

We don't know enough about natural change to allow us to have a theory about unnatural climate change.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 12, 2019, 02:10:02 PM
To change the climate in this thread: Example of corporate media (MSNBC) stupidity:

Chuck Todd: Bloomberg Is A Very Serious Contender For President

Hah hah hahhhaaaah hah haaah!!!  :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:

If anything, Bloomberg will take a few votes away from other corporate cadidates and doing so help Bernie and Elizabeth. The left is grateful for Bloomberg for his delusional exercise in futility.  0:)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on November 12, 2019, 02:19:04 PM
If shooting fish in a barrel, calling an MSNBC piece stupid, is your idea of a large evening, knock yourself out, dude!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 12, 2019, 02:22:29 PM
JFK argued for Medicare for All.

https://www.youtube.com/v/MQQhr9BcaaA

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 12, 2019, 02:33:39 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 12, 2019, 12:49:48 PM
You have it half right, at least.

We don't know enough about natural change to allow us to have a theory about unnatural climate change.

      That would have to be your conclusion, that the researchers don't have enough knowledge, a value judgment with no fact basis. Science never has enough knowledge, it uses what it has and seeks more. It won't fold up its tent because it doesn't know enough about what it studies.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 12, 2019, 02:43:07 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 12, 2019, 02:22:29 PM
JFK argued for Medicare for All.



      There wasn't any Medicare, but nevertheless you're correct. Dems have supported universal coverage since Truman. There will be no advantage for Dems to both underpromise and then underdeliver. If you want to convince voters that you stand for something, the best way is to stand for something.
     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: North Star on November 12, 2019, 03:13:42 PM
Quote from: JBS on August 26, 2019, 12:39:31 PM
If that's the chart I think it is, it uses cherrypicked data to give the impression that  the rate of change is faster than it really is. It understates temperature change in earlier times and overstates temperature change in modern times. Result, it gets people to say OMG! based in manipulation.

Even it is an honest chart, it merely shows correlation. The evidence for causation is remarkably thin, especially when you understand that although we know rather little about nonhuman factors in climate change, what we know suggests all of the change can be accounted for by nonhuman factors.

Which illustrates my main point.

You are assuming the information you get from AGW advocates is impartial and honest. It's actually biased and subject to manipulation. AGW advocates can look towards government grants and money from the  industries that would benefit from development of alternate energy. So they have as much motivation to mislead the public as the ones who work for the fossil fuel. Be as skeptical of the advocates on your own side as you are of the ones who advocate for the other side.  They are not trying to inform you, they are trying to persuade you. That means the information you get from them is edited and arranged. It's not impartial.

Be a cynic. Distrust both sides.


Quote from: North Star on August 26, 2019, 01:21:18 PM
These charts below from NASA and NOAA are more cherrypicking, I guess? (here (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)'s Poju's chart. 'It' doesn't understate or overstate anything, as it is a composite of 11 different reconstructions. You're welcome to show that the compiler cherry-picked or altered the 11 reconstructions to manipulate the resulting chart and to prove your earlier claim.)  And I see you already offer the correlation is not proof of causation defense next. We know since John Tyndall and Svante Arhus in the 19th century of the greenhouse effect, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has a dramatic effect on Earth's surface temperatures. Can you point out an alternative explanation for the correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and changes in Earth's climate? I suspect forest fires increasing with the temperature rise will not be enough to explain the recent rise.
And then, you try to prove that those who have shown with scientific methods that the science showing man-made climate change is scientifically true, are just as dishonest as those who try to show that science is wrong, or that science is not certain, or that science is corrupt because scientists want money for their solar energy plants? Maybe you should show us a chart that displays how a scientist's expressed views on climate change correlate with the money on their bank accounts. After that you would only have to refute the science. You say that these are just two sides to a story? "A lie ain't a side of a story. It's just a lie", to quote The Wire...
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
(https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg)


https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/last-2000-years
(https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_page_width/public/Reconstructed-Northern-Hemisphere-annual-temperature-during-the-last-2000-years-v2.jpg)

Quote from: JBS on August 26, 2019, 01:49:25 PM
1) Temperature reconstructions from premodern times are by their nature speculative.
2) Even in the modern period, temperature comparisons are usually not completely completely on point because human construction can impact microclimate.
Which means that the data is not as reliable as you think it is. (And if human action is the cause of increasing CO2 levels, thre would be less fluctuation in prehuman eras and a faster rate before 1950.)
3) The point is, we do not know enough about natural factors like solar flares, etc. to say that CO2 is the only, or even the most important, reason.  We don't even know enough about the greenhouse effect: it may actually have a cooling effect.
Hence, the most reasonable attitude is skepticism if anyone claims CO2 is the main reason.
(Forest fires may have an impact, in that they result in less CO2 being taken out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis.)

Quote from: North Star on August 26, 2019, 02:52:54 PM
If you mean that they are not based on thermometer readings, you are correct. That doesn't mean that the methods used by scientists (coral skeletons, tree rings, glacial ice cores, etc) allow for errors of the magnitude that would result in the recent development looking unexceptional.
Oh, so global warming is just the misrepresentation of the thermometers in Vancouver and Oslo that were originally in the forest, suddenly being inside an office building.

Nobody suggested that human action is the only thing that can raise CO2 levels. The point is, The recent trend is something totally different than the fluctuation caused by volcanoes and weather.
Solar flares etc have existed for a long time, and so have variations in those. The climate has warmed faster than ever since the industrial revolution, according to the best means we have to measure that. Is there any reason to think that solar flares etc are suddenly having a more dramatic effect than ever before?


Quote from: JBS on November 12, 2019, 12:20:41 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 12, 2019, 01:49:05 AM
So can you clarify which part of the idea, exactly, you do not support?

Do you not support that carbon dioxide and some other gases have 'greenhouse', heat-trapping properties?

Do you not support that the level of carbon dioxide is increasing?

Do you support that the level is increasing, but not support that human activity is the cause of this?

Or do you not support that increasing levels of carbon dioxide will have an impact on climates?

The last, more or less.

Essentially, AGW advocates ignore the natural factors that have been driving climate change since Earth had a climate that was capable of changing, and which in and of themselves are capable of causing all the change we see to date and are likely to see in the near and medium term future.  There's a lot we don't know about those factors, but AGW advocates act as if they don't count. It's like treating the brakes as the only important part of a car.

The more honest ones admit the importance of those natural factors, admit the actual uncertainty about how important carbon emissions are, but argue that the potential impacts are so enormous that we have to act to avoid them no matter what.

Added to this is the parade of catastrophic projections which seem designed to grab headlines. Rather as if proponents want to scare people instead of actually persuading them.
No. Scientists who don't deny AGW see that the rate of climate change in the past decades is far faster than what those natural factors would cause. You're driving without headlights in the dark while telling us the ones you could use are not perfect.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 12, 2019, 03:49:37 PM
Quote from: North Star on November 12, 2019, 03:13:42 PM


No. Scientists who don't deny AGW see that the rate of climate change in the past decades is far faster than what those natural factors would cause. You're driving without headlights in the dark while telling us the ones you could use are not perfect.


Yet the NOAA graph you posted actually proves my point. The rate of change is well within the norms of the previous 20 centuries.


Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 13, 2019, 12:14:38 AM
Quote from: Madiel on November 12, 2019, 11:37:09 AM
Try arguing with me.

I won't argue with anyone anymore. How I wish I could unsubscribe from all these bloody political threads. Actually, I should heed my wife's advice, or rather obey her enjoinment, to drastically cut the time I spend on GMG. She's right and I wish I could. Sometimes I feel like I'm really addicted to GMG.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 13, 2019, 12:22:04 AM
Quote from: JBS on November 12, 2019, 12:20:41 PM
The last, more or less.

Essentially, AGW advocates ignore the natural factors that have been driving climate change since Earth had a climate that was capable of changing, and which in and of themselves are capable of causing all the change we see to date and are likely to see in the near and medium term future.  There's a lot we don't know about those factors, but AGW advocates act as if they don't count. It's like treating the brakes as the only important part of a car.

The more honest ones admit the importance of those natural factors, admit the actual uncertainty about how important carbon emissions are, but argue that the potential impacts are so enormous that we have to act to avoid them no matter what.

Added to this is the parade of catastrophic projections which seem designed to grab headlines. Rather as if proponents want to scare people instead of actually persuading them.

The problem with this line of thinking is twofold. First, you don't seem to be asking whether those natural factors are currently PRESENT. In some cases they're not. For example, the fact that high volcanic activity has had an effect in the past is not relevant if we are not, presently, in a period of high volcanic activity. My understanding is that we are not.

The other thing you seem to be ignoring is timeframe. Natural factors simply don't operate at the same speed as the sharp spike in greenhouse gases that we have generated. And it's not climate change per se that is the issue, it's the speed of that change, which will affect whether ecosystems have the capacity to adapt. So again, the fact that natural factors could cause the temperature to increase by a couple of degrees is completely beside the point if you don't ignore the difference between increasing the temperature by a couple of degrees in a human lifetime and doing it over thousands of years. A forest can't march north a few hundred kilometres in the short timeframe the way it could in the long one.

Speed is critical here. Otherwise, me putting a bullet in my hand and throwing it at you would have the same effect as me putting the bullet in a gun and firing.

As to your general reliance on natural factors, this is as good a starting point as any. https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate.htm
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 13, 2019, 12:26:30 AM
Quote from: JBS on November 12, 2019, 03:49:37 PM
The rate of change is well within the norms of the previous 20 centuries.

No it isn't. Not if you take a global perspective instead of doing the typical white thing of thinking only your part of the world matters.

See: "It was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period". https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-07-27/climate-change-denial-zombies-killed/11291724

Or just pick a selection from this list. https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 13, 2019, 12:38:40 AM
Perhaps a better thing to ask is: why are people so keen to throw doubt on the consensus? What's actually in it for you, beyond the general human tendency to try to explain away things that are uncomfortable or inconvenient?

The whole thing would be a lot simpler and, frankly, cheaper, if people just got on with making the necessary adjustments. The Stern Review said this in 2006. I mean, in parts of the West people have spent years arguing until they're blue in the face arguing why solar energy - which is the foundation of all life on this planet and readily available - isn't a viable energy source. Meanwhile, in China there were companies who just went ahead and figured out HOW to make it viable, and are making billions as a result selling cheap solar around the world.

Billions.

America and Australia are two countries where truly enormous market opportunities have been missed because people have been so utterly consumed with arguing why they should hold onto the old markets. As it's a political thread, it's worth pointing out that the USA has a higher rate of climate change skepticism than anywhere in the world. What are the "natural factors" explaining THAT?

It's kind of like arguing why the Y2K bug isn't a problem instead of just fucking getting on with figuring out how to fix it.

I mean, this cartoon is a true classic.

(https://scienceblogs.com/files/startswithabang/files/2010/11/photo-thumb-500x376-57911.jpeg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 13, 2019, 12:48:43 AM
Quote from: JBS on November 12, 2019, 12:49:48 PM
We don't know enough about natural change to allow us to have a theory about unnatural climate change.

Trying to claim that natural factors are the cause in one post AND that we don't know enough about natural factors in another is ludicrous. Make up your mind.

And scientists are telling you they DO know enough. Seriously, do you have any understanding of the scientific method? Do you not understand that scientists have tested out a whole tonne of hypotheses, all of the zombie ones that people like you keep resurrecting, before arriving at the position that the best explanation for what's going on is that human-generated emissions are causing an unusually rapid change to the climate?

It's just ridiculous to sit there at your computer typing that we don't know enough when there are decades upon decades on research, started LONG before you were even paying attention, that have been directed to these questions precisely because people thought they were important questions.  The problem is simply that you don't know enough, or haven't found enough bits of material that you're prepared to accept lest they upset your little thought bubble.

I mean, saying that we don't know enough is the very worst form of denial. The question wasn't first raised when pundits on Fox News first started talking about it. This has been under discussion in the scientific community before many of the people on this message board were even fucking born. The initial observations that CO2 levels were changing date back to the middle of the 20th century.

If you think we don't know enough, then fucking shut up about it and leave the conversation to the people who actually have knowledge. Don't parade your ignorance. You can either be involved in a discussion or claim there's nothing to discuss, but not both at once.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 13, 2019, 02:17:31 AM
I'm not interested of debating with climate change deniers anymore. I did that in the past enough and learned those people are simply too far gones (TFGs). I believed in man made climated change back in the 80's in my teens so to me it's unconceivable a lot of people don't believe in it in the year 2019. We can only hope the majority of people understand the climate change is an existential crisis that has to be dealt with and we live in a system democratic enough so that this majority is heard.

That said, new endorsements for Bernie Sanders:

- National Nurses United, the largest nurses' union in the country
- Ana Kasparian of TYT
- Cenk Uygur of TYT
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on November 13, 2019, 05:34:28 AM
Quote from: Madiel on November 13, 2019, 12:48:43 AM
If you think we don't know enough, then fucking shut up about it and leave the conversation to the people who actually have knowledge. Don't parade your ignorance. You can either be involved in a discussion or claim there's nothing to discuss, but not both at once.

Someone had to say it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 13, 2019, 06:03:57 AM
Quote from: Madiel on November 13, 2019, 12:38:40 AM
Perhaps a better thing to ask is: why are people so keen to throw doubt on the consensus? What's actually in it for you, beyond the general human tendency to try to explain away things that are uncomfortable or inconvenient?

The whole thing would be a lot simpler and, frankly, cheaper, if people just got on with making the necessary adjustments. The Stern Review said this in 2006. I mean, in parts of the West people have spent years arguing until they're blue in the face arguing why solar energy - which is the foundation of all life on this planet and readily available - isn't a viable energy source. Meanwhile, in China there were companies who just went ahead and figured out HOW to make it viable, and are making billions as a result selling cheap solar around the world.

Billions.

America and Australia are two countries where truly enormous market opportunities have been missed because people have been so utterly consumed with arguing why they should hold onto the old markets. As it's a political thread, it's worth pointing out that the USA has a higher rate of climate change skepticism than anywhere in the world. What are the "natural factors" explaining THAT?

It's kind of like arguing why the Y2K bug isn't a problem instead of just fucking getting on with figuring out how to fix it.

I mean, this cartoon is a true classic.

(https://scienceblogs.com/files/startswithabang/files/2010/11/photo-thumb-500x376-57911.jpeg)

Ask yourself this: why is the Left so keen to push so many of its goals through its climate change crusade...even the goals that have nothing to do with climate change?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: North Star on November 13, 2019, 07:33:40 AM
Quote from: JBS on November 13, 2019, 06:03:57 AM
Ask yourself this: why is the Left so keen to push so many of its goals through its climate change crusade...even the goals that have nothing to do with climate change?
And you might well ask why is it relevant what lefties want, when the issue is much of the right claiming they know better than the scientific consensus.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on November 13, 2019, 08:38:47 AM
Quote from: JBS on November 13, 2019, 06:03:57 AM
Ask yourself this: why is the Left so keen to push so many of its goals through its climate change crusade...even the goals that have nothing to do with climate change?
Maybe conservatives could have done the.same- trying to get their goals done through the climate change scare also. Seems like they missed out on an opportunity.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 13, 2019, 09:23:08 AM
What goals that have nothing to do with climate change are the left pushing through its climate change crusade?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 13, 2019, 09:27:57 AM
Quote from: North Star on November 13, 2019, 07:33:40 AM
And you might well ask why is it relevant what lefties want, when the issue is much of the right claiming they know better than the scientific consensus.

Because the Left tries to make climate change its vehicle/ excuse for all its ideas....

Quote from: 71 dB on November 13, 2019, 09:23:08 AM
What goals that have nothing to do with climate change are the left pushing through its climate change crusade?

Go upthread to the examples Florestan and I posted.
Then, if you wish, explain to me how fulfilling the list of social justice wishes will do anything to curb emissions.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 13, 2019, 09:35:24 AM
Quote from: JBS on November 13, 2019, 09:27:57 AM
Go upthread to the examples Florestan and I posted.
Then, if you wish, explain to me how fulfilling the list of social justice wishes will do anything to curb emissions.

"social justice wishes" as in LGBT rights? How is the left connecting those to climate change?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 13, 2019, 09:51:50 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 13, 2019, 09:35:24 AM
"social justice wishes" as in LGBT rights? How is the left connecting those to climate change?

I posted the US Green New Deal congressional resolution. Florestan posted a European equivalent. Read them, and you will understand my comment.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 13, 2019, 10:00:57 AM
Quote from: Madiel on November 13, 2019, 12:26:30 AM

Or just pick a selection from this list. https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I note that most of the rebuttals proposed are either simple reassertions of the basic premise of AGW, or evasions of the argument. For instance,
"Neptune is warming" is not rebutted by the fact that the sun is cooling. It would be rebutted if Neptune is not warming, or if Neptune's warming is at a rate totally different than ours. But the listmakers opted not to do that.  Perhaps because they wanted to avoid the actual meaning of "Neptune is warming" is that Earth's warming is part of a solar system-wide trend.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: North Star on November 13, 2019, 01:47:50 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 13, 2019, 10:00:57 AM
I note that most of the rebuttals proposed are either simple reassertions of the basic premise of AGW, or evasions of the argument. For instance,
"Neptune is warming" is not rebutted by the fact that the sun is cooling. It would be rebutted if Neptune is not warming, or if Neptune's warming is at a rate totally different than ours. But the listmakers opted not to do that.  Perhaps because they wanted to avoid the actual meaning of "Neptune is warming" is that Earth's warming is part of a solar system-wide trend.
Neptune is one planet. Earth is one planet. There are eight planets. It's not a solar system-wide trend if 25% of the planets, all of them with completely different orbits and properties, are warming. It's about as intelligent a rebuttal as pointing out that my fridge is getting colder. As for the claim that the website Madiel linked to, doesn't properly rebut the claim, the sentence you quoted is a link (https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-neptune.htm).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: North Star on November 13, 2019, 01:52:22 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 13, 2019, 09:27:57 AM
Because the Left tries to make climate change its vehicle/ excuse for all its ideas....
And the relevance to the scientific veracity? Are you trying to say that you think the science must be wrong if someone you disagree with supports it?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 13, 2019, 02:25:15 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 11, 2019, 06:56:55 PM

What do the items I bolded have to do with climate change?

The "Green New Deal" isn't just about climate change, its also about social inequality. They don't claim to be (directly) addressing climate change in those sections. What you've highlighted is the "New Deal" part.

There have elsewhere been a variety of climate initiatives put forward addressing the climate specifically. The idea that Lefties always attach a laundry list of unrelated pet projects is patently false.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 13, 2019, 02:33:48 PM
on topic and on tangent:

Tackling the Climate Crisis Head On | Elizabeth Warren (https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/climate-change)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on November 13, 2019, 03:56:33 PM
I'm not sure that I am particularly impressed that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick is flirting with throwing his hat in the ring.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 13, 2019, 06:15:33 PM
Quote from: North Star on November 13, 2019, 01:47:50 PM
Neptune is one planet. Earth is one planet. There are eight planets. It's not a solar system-wide trend if 25% of the planets, all of them with completely different orbits and properties, are warming. It's about as intelligent a rebuttal as pointing out that my fridge is getting colder. As for the claim that the website Madiel linked to, doesn't properly rebut the claim, the sentence you quoted is a link (https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-neptune.htm).

You gave a better rebuttal of the argument than they did.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 13, 2019, 06:38:35 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 13, 2019, 02:25:15 PM
The "Green New Deal" isn't just about climate change, its also about social inequality. They don't claim to be (directly) addressing climate change in those sections. What you've highlighted is the "New Deal" part.

There have elsewhere been a variety of climate initiatives put forward addressing the climate specifically. The idea that Lefties always attach a laundry list of unrelated pet projects is patently false.

Remember the link you posted about the 11,000 scientists? The authors there had no qualms saying we need to impose worldwide population control, and  worldwide meat consumption control, in the name of controlling carbon emissions. But they made no reference to anything with a direct impact on carbon emissions.  Why argue the merits of your cause if you can short circuit discussion by claiming we have to do such and such to avoid destroying the Earth?

But the Green New Deal is named after the economic program that, until now, was the most intrusive and the biggest in scale, the closest approach the U.S. has ever had to a centralized command economy, in peacetime. Even leaving out the social justice wishlist attached to it in the congressional resolution, it would involve governmental micromanagement on the same scale, rule by bureaucrats and technocrats accountable to no one else.

Which is the real reason why the US Right is so full of skeptics. They saw climate change being used as a reason for imposing leftist programs, so they started to look at the science, and found it to be full of speculation and not a little bit of data manipulation, masked under an appeal to the authority (the "consensus").
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 13, 2019, 06:51:52 PM
Quote from: North Star on November 13, 2019, 01:52:22 PM
And the relevance to the scientific veracity? Are you trying to say that you think the science must be wrong if someone you disagree with supports it?

      That is exactly the burden of the argument. By passing a judgment on the advocates the science is judged. The rest of the argument is that we don't know about natural climate science factors because scientists are misrepresenting their state of knowledge. To say this is unconvincing is a big understatement. The only way we have of judging the state of knowledge of science is by what we learn that they report to us.

Quote from: JBS on November 13, 2019, 06:38:35 PM
Remember the link you posted about the 11,000 scientists? The authors there had no qualms saying we need to impose worldwide population control, and  worldwide meat consumption control, in the name of controlling carbon emissions. But they made no reference to anything with a direct impact on carbon emissions.  Why argue the merits of your cause if you can short circuit discussion by claiming we have to do such and such to avoid destroying the Earth?

But the Green New Deal is named after the economic program that, until now, was the most intrusive and the biggest in scale, the closest approach the U.S. has ever had to a centralized command economy, in peacetime. Even leaving out the social justice wishlist attached to it in the congressional resolution, it would involve governmental micromanagement on the same scale, rule by bureaucrats and technocrats accountable to no one else.

Which is the real reason why the US Right is so full of skeptics. They saw climate change being used as a reason for imposing leftist programs, so they started to look at the science, and found it to be full of speculation and not a little bit of data manipulation, masked under an appeal to the authority (the "consensus").

      Yes, that's a fundamental fallacy, that the science is wrong because it will bring about a Bad Thing if it's true. I would say the bad thing the truth of the idea will bring is the predicted climate catastrophe. And yet, I don't make the same error and say that this terrible outcome renders the idea false. The desirability of the consequences does not render a proposition true or false.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 13, 2019, 06:58:37 PM
"rule by bureaucrats and technocrats accountable to no one else."

Do you even believe that as you're typing it? They're accountable to the voters: eg. Roosevelt being reelected three times.

I better step back from this. Pretty soon we'll be trading insults and I don't want to do that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 13, 2019, 07:00:33 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 13, 2019, 06:38:35 PM


Which is the real reason why the US Right is so full of skeptics. They saw climate change being used as a reason for imposing leftist programs, so they started to look at the science, and found it to be full of speculation and not a little bit of data manipulation, masked under an appeal to the authority (the "consensus").

     The right has abandoned reason and empiricism. Of course they will find what they want to be there, they have lost the ability to find anything else.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 13, 2019, 07:06:09 PM
Plus: I'd take "data full of speculation" over "suppressed data" any day.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 13, 2019, 07:09:42 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 13, 2019, 06:58:37 PM


I better step back from this. Pretty soon we'll be trading insults and I don't want to do that.

Feeling is mutual, so I will do so as well. (Same with regards to Madiel.)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 13, 2019, 07:10:34 PM
    If I could have it my way it would be the case that reducing CO2 emissions and building hundred of nuclear power plants would stabilize the situation so that it woiuldn't get much worse. I want science to tell me that is a realistic possibility if we start a massive program right now.

     I want that to be true, but no matter how much I want it, it very likely is not true. Even with the most massive conceivable effort, things are going to get far worse. The effort is necessary, and however delayed by sham reasoning it will happen. Nevertheless, there's going to be a great increase of the kind of suffering that we are seeing now, on a much larger scale.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 13, 2019, 08:46:01 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 13, 2019, 06:03:57 AM
Ask yourself this: why is the Left so keen to push so many of its goals through its climate change crusade...even the goals that have nothing to do with climate change?

Ask yourself what I raised at the very start of this: why the hell is the science of climate change a political issue?

I really don't give a damn whether a denialist is right wing or left wing. But they all seem to be right wing. Which doesn't raise questions about what the left is doing, it raises questions about what the right is doing.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on November 14, 2019, 09:05:19 AM
Quote from: Madiel on November 13, 2019, 08:46:01 PM
Ask yourself what I raised at the very start of this: why the hell is the science of climate change a political issue?

I really don't give a damn whether a denialist is right wing or left wing. But they all seem to be right wing. Which doesn't raise questions about what the left is doing, it raises questions about what the right is doing.
Both political sides don't trust each other so much that it literally would take something seen first hand for agreement to take place.

The distrust of the people will lead to distrust of the information. Information can be manipulated in order to achieve one's own goals.

Not saying I agree with that perspective. But you'll see people on the left arguing against crime statistics and such. I think it's the same concept.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 14, 2019, 03:16:26 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 13, 2019, 08:46:01 PM
Ask yourself what I raised at the very start of this: why the hell is the science of climate change a political issue?

I really don't give a damn whether a denialist is right wing or left wing. But they all seem to be right wing. Which doesn't raise questions about what the left is doing, it raises questions about what the right is doing.

Short answer
It's the Left that has politicized the issue, not the Right, by demanding everyone accede to their solutions.

Long answer

I have a long answer percolating in my head, but will wait until the current bout of server trouble has passed.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 15, 2019, 01:54:01 AM
Quote from: JBS on November 14, 2019, 03:16:26 PM
Short answer
It's the Left that has politicized the issue, not the Right, by demanding everyone accede to their solutions.

Long answer

I have a long answer percolating in my head, but will wait until the current bout of server trouble has passed.

The short answer is utter bullshit. In other parts of the world both right and left accept that human-caused climate change is a reality. My whole point from the very start is that this is completely different from a genuine political debate about what to do about it, which is the debate that right and left engage in in those parts of the world other than the parts, USA chief amongst them, where one side of politics has decided to attack the apolitical messenger.

So don't bother with the long answer. We are done. You have nothing of value to say on the topic. Every single time I try to talk science, you talk politics. Others have pointed this out as well. You CONSTANTLY conflate scientists with left-wing politicians / advocates as if the two classes are the same, no matter how many times other posters point out that you are doing this.

My opinion of you has seriously plummeted.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 15, 2019, 02:23:34 AM
Quote from: Madiel on November 15, 2019, 01:54:01 AM
The short answer is utter bullshit. In other parts of the world both right and left accept that human-caused climate change is a reality. My whole point from the very start is that this is completely different from a genuine political debate about what to do about it, which is the debate that right and left engage in in those parts of the world other than the parts, USA chief amongst them, where one side of politics has decided to attack the apolitical messenger.

So don't bother with the long answer. We are done. You have nothing of value to say on the topic. Every single time I try to talk science, you talk politics. Others have pointed this out as well. You CONSTANTLY conflate scientists with left-wing politicians / advocates as if the two classes are the same, no matter how many times other posters point out that you are doing this.

My opinion of you has seriously plummeted.

That's a good response to JBS's BS.

In Finland and I believe in many many other not so corrupt countries hardly any politician denies the scientific evidence for man made climate change. The only debate is over what should we do about it. In Finland some politicians on the populous right think Finland should do nothing and let the rest of the World deal with the mess because Finland is so small country, drop in the bucket, but that's of course not only selfish as hell, but also moronic populism. Any region of the size of Finland could refrain from climate change action using the same argument. On the left side of Finnish politics people think Finland should be the LEADING country in the World tackling climate change, being the major innovator and exporter of cutting edge green technology.

In the US the right is intellectually bankrupt. The left is the only hope to avoid total intellectual bankruptcy of the whole nation.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 15, 2019, 04:00:34 AM
Quote from: Madiel on November 15, 2019, 01:54:01 AM
The short answer is utter bullshit. In other parts of the world both right and left accept that human-caused climate change is a reality. My whole point from the very start is that this is completely different from a genuine political debate about what to do about it, which is the debate that right and left engage in in those parts of the world other than the parts, USA chief amongst them, where one side of politics has decided to attack the apolitical messenger.

So don't bother with the long answer. We are done. You have nothing of value to say on the topic. Every single time I try to talk science, you talk politics. Others have pointed this out as well. You CONSTANTLY conflate scientists with left-wing politicians / advocates as if the two classes are the same, no matter how many times other posters point out that you are doing this.

My opinion of you has seriously plummeted.

1)When scientists advocate leftist solutions, it's very fair to conflate them with left wing politicians and advocates.  The messenger is not apolitical.

2)You are assuming that scientists as a group have a mantle of incorruptibility that immunizes them from normal human frailities. You are assuming that use of the scientific method is foolproof against groupthink, institutional biases, and all the other flaws that bedevil any organized profession. They are not.

3)Perhaps Australia and Europe are different in this, but here in the US the politicization began with the Left, not the Right.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: North Star on November 15, 2019, 04:25:33 AM
Quote from: North Star on November 13, 2019, 01:52:22 PM
And the relevance to the scientific veracity? Are you trying to say that you think the science must be wrong if someone you disagree with supports it?

Quote from: JBS on November 15, 2019, 04:00:34 AM
1)When scientists advocate leftist solutions, it's very fair to conflate them with left wing politicians and advocates.  The messenger is not apolitical.

2)You are assuming that scientists as a group have a mantle of incorruptibility that immunizes them from normal human frailities. You are assuming that use of the scientific method is foolproof against groupthink, institutional biases, and all the other flaws that bedevil any organized profession. They are not.

3)Perhaps Australia and Europe are different in this, but here in the US the politicization began with the Left, not the Right.
Alright then.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 15, 2019, 04:32:07 AM
Quote from: JBS on November 15, 2019, 04:00:34 AM
1)When scientists advocate leftist solutions, it's very fair to conflate them with left wing politicians and advocates.  The messenger is not apolitical.

::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

You really don't get it, do you? They're not "leftist" solutions. They're solutions. To the extent that scientists ever talk about solutions at all rather than reporting data and making predictions.

The only reason they are "leftist" solutions, you fool, is because the right in America denies that there is a problem at all and so doesn't offer any solutions. Okay? The reason there aren't any "rightist" solutions in America is because the right WON'T FUCKING LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE.

You see? You're doing it again. You're starting with the political angle, seeing proposals for dealing with climate change associated with the left because that's the only side who is even in this discussion in America, and then think the proposals are inherently "leftist" for that reason.

Instead of starting with the science, noticing that the right in the USA is ignoring the science, and wondering why.

In the USA. How the fuck exactly do you believe that the science is "leftist" in the USA, when it's the same science that is present in the rest of the world and yet somehow that science isn't "leftist" elsewhere? Eh? How the blazes do you believe that the facts about climate change miraculously change their political position in certain parts of the world? What bizarre part of your brain thinks that a graph of temperature or carbon dioxide levels has a voting pattern?

Just start from first principles for once and realise that facts are supposed to shape policy instead of politics shaping facts. And don't you DARE respond by claiming that leftist politics is shaping the scientific facts.

Can you do that? No, honestly I don't think you can. Because you heard about the issue of climate change from a political angle first instead of a scientific one, you are permanently locked into thinking of it as political issue and simply cannot pull your head out of your arse long enough to understand that that is fundamentally wrong. You see a chart in a scientific paper and think "that's a Democrat chart". Somehow believing that there is a notional Republican-supporting chart out there that the scientific community is suppressing.

It's a chart. It doesn't register to vote. What Democrats or Republicans choose to do with that chart and the information it conveys is a different matter entirely. It's not the chart's fucking fault that one side of American politics spends its time arguing that the chart is fake news.

Because we are on a political thread, you are rigidly committed to analysing the issue politically when my whole point from the very beginning was that treating this as a political issue is a fundamental and critical mistake.

I wouldn't care if it wasn't for the fact that the mindset of you and people like you has the capacity to make life on this planet far more difficult than it otherwise would be. If you were drowning at sea, your first order question would be whether the right logo is on the side of the lifeboat.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 15, 2019, 04:59:44 AM
As to point number 2, no, I never claimed scientists are immune to these problems. But your claim is that scientists fall prey to POLITICAL groupthink, which is nonsense.

Again you have cause and effect entirely backwards. If scientists in your country now tend to vote Democrat, that is because they cannot now bring themselves to vote for a party that has made a firm commitment to scientific illiteracy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on November 15, 2019, 05:17:58 AM
Quote from: JBS on November 15, 2019, 04:00:34 AM
3)Perhaps Australia and Europe are different in this, but here in the US the politicization began with the Left, not the Right.

As far as I know, "politicization" began in the 1950s when Exxon & several other oil companies were provided with evidence that burning fossil fuels would cause climate change, and proceeded to use money and political influence to bury that evidence and lobby against future climate research for some 30 years. Any kind of environmentalists were labeled eco-terrorists, communists and soviet agents, and had their activities officially suppressed, a suppression that continues today outside the US with the murders and disappearances of land defenders and conservationists across Latin America, Africa and Asia. All of this has become well documented in recent years.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 15, 2019, 12:59:12 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 15, 2019, 04:59:44 AM
As to point number 2, no, I never claimed scientists are immune to these problems. But your claim is that scientists fall prey to POLITICAL groupthink, which is nonsense.

Again you have cause and effect entirely backwards. If scientists in your country now tend to vote Democrat, that is because they cannot now bring themselves to vote for a party that has made a firm commitment to scientific illiteracy.

I'm saying the "consensus" is an orthodoxy enforced by groups who are more interested in maintaining control of the discussion than actually arriving at the truth. That's why I call it groupthink.

What I mean by leftist solutions are ideas which are based on increased governmental control, increased bureaucracy, increased taxation, increased government interference in private life.  All the things traditional American conservatives are opposed to, no matter what the context. (Traditional being preTrump conservatism. Trumpism is something completely different from that.)

QuoteJust start from first principles for once and realise that facts are supposed to shape policy instead of politics shaping facts. And don't you DARE respond by claiming that leftist politics is shaping the scientific facts.

It's not shaping the facts, but it is shaping the presentation of the facts.




Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 15, 2019, 01:30:50 PM
I said I would not argue anymore with anyone, and I stand by it. I didn't say I would post no more.

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~wstarbuc/Writing/Prejud.htm (http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~wstarbuc/Writing/Prejud.htm)

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 15, 2019, 01:45:47 PM
Do you see the irony in hunting out a paper on confirmation bias to the end of confirming your bias?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 15, 2019, 01:57:41 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 15, 2019, 12:59:12 PM
It's not shaping the facts, but it is shaping the presentation of the facts.

Oh the irony.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on November 15, 2019, 03:11:08 PM
Just a question.

Would you people that are both liberal and support climate change NOT question the scientific consensus on climate change at at all if the solutions were heavily in the favor right wing policy?

If the solutions were to drastically cut government spending on the poor, education, health care, etc. and cut taxes for the rich (which tbh are policies I don't support, either), and the politicians use climate change as an excuse, would you just be like, "Okay, guess I'll vote for a Republican this time!"?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 15, 2019, 03:23:05 PM
How the hell would that be a solution?

Also: "support climate change" is a weird and telling way of phrasing it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 15, 2019, 03:37:38 PM
Quote from: greg on November 15, 2019, 03:11:08 PM
Just a question.

Would you people that are both liberal and support climate change NOT question the scientific consensus on climate change at at all if the solutions were heavily in the favor right wing policy?

If the solutions were to drastically cut government spending on the poor, education, health care, etc. and cut taxes for the rich (which tbh are policies I don't support, either), and the politicians use climate change as an excuse, would you just be like, "Okay, guess I'll vote for a Republican this time!"?

I don't know if I can answer this because I don't identify as "liberal". In my country's political landscape I am slightly left of centre, and a swinging voter.

At least I try to be one, with a history of having voted for... at least 4 different political parties. Maybe 5? Not certain.  The problem being that the centre-right has been on the way out. And it's not simply me that thinks that. Malcolm Turnbull, the centre-right Prime Minister who was kicked out of leadership by his own party twice, made a very astute observation about the rise of centre-right independents in this country (we have an electoral system that makes independents winning seats viable) as his party shifted further right so that centrists had to turn somewhere else.

To be honest your question is a bit unclear, you refer to using climate change "as an excuse". For any policy there's a basic question whether it genuinely addresses the problem. My whole point thus far has been that we can't even get that far if people deny the problem exists, but if we're trying to move further to a situation where both sides of politics acknowledge that there IS a problem, it then becomes a question of judging whether a solution offered in good faith, not simply with a climate change badge slapped on it, is an effective solution and a relatively efficient one.

There's no real praise to be gained for designing a solution that doesn't actually do very much and costs a lot. This has been a criticism levelled at some efforts of our current right-wing government.  Any policy, no matter where it comes from, needs to be assessed for what it will achieve and what it will cost.

(One of the great ironies of all this, of course, is that there has been ample economic advice along the lines that the overall cost of combatting climate change would be less if we started earlier.)

Beyond that your question gets extremely hypothetical because I'm struggling, genuinely, to think of how it is that, say, spending on education or health care actually has a climate change impact, apart from perhaps the grisly reality that if a large part of the world's population dies off this will achieve a reduction in emissions which I'm sure is way too far along the cost-benefit analysis scale for anyone but extreme greens to advocate.  Putting aside those difficulties, though, if there was clear evidence from scientists and economists that a right-wing policy represented a good approach for reducing emissions, then that would very much be a mark in the favour of the party presenting that policy.

The other great irony here is that it's fairly clear the commercial world and market forces are likely to deal with climate change if governments dither, providing a more right-wing solution anyway. There is a lot of money to be made in developing new, more environmentally technologies. I've already referred to the fact that there are Chinese billionaires thanks to the development of the solar industry in that country. The term "peak coal" is not being used to refer to when production will be at a maximum but to when demand will be at a maximum. Running out of the stuff has ceased to be a concern exercising many minds, because most forecasters think we will stop wanting it before it's all gone.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 15, 2019, 03:47:08 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 15, 2019, 01:57:41 PM
Oh the irony.

I will refer to a story told of Rev Sydney Smith.  He saw two women arguing with each other from windows in adjacent houses, and remarked that they would never agree, since they were arguing from different premises.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on November 15, 2019, 03:51:56 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 15, 2019, 03:47:08 PM
I will refer to a story told of Rev Sydney Smith.  He saw two women arguing with each other from windows in adjacent houses, and remarked that they would never agree, since they were arguing from different premises.

Nice!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on November 15, 2019, 03:54:28 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 15, 2019, 03:23:05 PM
How the hell would that be a solution?

Also: "support climate change" is a weird and telling way of phrasing it.
Umm... looks like I have to be insanely 100% clear to be understood, thought that the point would have been clear.

Hypothetically, if that were a solution (obviously, it isn't, I'm speaking hypothetically), what would your reaction be?

I'm trying to force people to imagine themselves from the perspective of someone else, because the question asked here was "Why do so many conservatives deny the science?"


...(yeah, "support climate change" is me typing quickly, "supporting the climate change narrative", etc. whatever you call it).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 15, 2019, 04:08:10 PM
Sure: in an alternate universe with, apparently, different physical laws, I'd support that because it would obviously be a solution.

In this one, however, I'd say "how the hell is that a solution?"

I think what you're asking is: would a D support a science and data based solution put forward by Rs that would be undeniably be effective but also give them all the credit and ensure their reelection? Then I would think: yes. (though, again, we are probably describing an alternate universe.)

...or you could phrase the hypothetical as: would you support the Rs drastically cut government spending on the poor, education, health care, etc. and cut taxes for the rich if they also had a proven science and data based solution for climate change?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 15, 2019, 04:23:47 PM
I will try to clarify Greg's point with this article as a parallel

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/11/13/europe/insect-apocalypse-report-scn/index.html

Notice that it calls for individuals doing things with their own property and making their own decisions to take action. It doesn't call for government banning or restricting  pesticides now in use, doesn't call for government programs to reverse population decline, or anything else.

That's the conservative approach.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 15, 2019, 04:29:41 PM
The Agribusiness multinationals don't let individuals make decisions, and what few individuals can are a drop in the bucket in comparison.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on November 15, 2019, 04:31:59 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 15, 2019, 03:37:38 PM
I don't know if I can answer this because I don't identify as "liberal". In my country's political landscape I am slightly left of centre, and a swinging voter.

At least I try to be one, with a history of having voted for... at least 4 different political parties. Maybe 5? Not certain.  The problem being that the centre-right has been on the way out. And it's not simply me that thinks that. Malcolm Turnbull, the centre-right Prime Minister who was kicked out of leadership by his own party twice, made a very astute observation about the rise of centre-right independents in this country (we have an electoral system that makes independents winning seats viable) as his party shifted further right so that centrists had to turn somewhere else.

To be honest your question is a bit unclear, you refer to using climate change "as an excuse". For any policy there's a basic question whether it genuinely addresses the problem. My whole point thus far has been that we can't even get that far if people deny the problem exists, but if we're trying to move further to a situation where both sides of politics acknowledge that there IS a problem, it then becomes a question of judging whether a solution offered in good faith, not simply with a climate change badge slapped on it, is an effective solution and a relatively efficient one.

There's no real praise to be gained for designing a solution that doesn't actually do very much and costs a lot. This has been a criticism levelled at some efforts of our current right-wing government.  Any policy, no matter where it comes from, needs to be assessed for what it will achieve and what it will cost.

(One of the great ironies of all this, of course, is that there has been ample economic advice along the lines that the overall cost of combatting climate change would be less if we started earlier.)

Beyond that your question gets extremely hypothetical because I'm struggling, genuinely, to think of how it is that, say, spending on education or health care actually has a climate change impact, apart from perhaps the grisly reality that if a large part of the world's population dies off this will achieve a reduction in emissions which I'm sure is way too far along the cost-benefit analysis scale for anyone but extreme greens to advocate.  Putting aside those difficulties, though, if there was clear evidence from scientists and economists that a right-wing policy represented a good approach for reducing emissions, then that would very much be a mark in the favour of the party presenting that policy.

The other great irony here is that it's fairly clear the commercial world and market forces are likely to deal with climate change if governments dither, providing a more right-wing solution anyway. There is a lot of money to be made in developing new, more environmentally technologies. I've already referred to the fact that there are Chinese billionaires thanks to the development of the solar industry in that country. The term "peak coal" is not being used to refer to when production will be at a maximum but to when demand will be at a maximum. Running out of the stuff has ceased to be a concern exercising many minds, because most forecasters think we will stop wanting it before it's all gone.
I'm not sure you'd count then in my story (don't know anything about Australian politics).

"as a reason," is also another wording.




Quote from: SimonNZ on November 15, 2019, 04:08:10 PM
Sure: in an alternate universe with, apparently, different physical laws, I'd support that because it would obviously be a solution.

In this one, however, I'd say "how the hell is that a solution?"

I think what you're asking is: would a D support a science and data based solution put forward by Rs that would be undeniably be effective but also give them all the credit and ensure their reelection? Then I would think: yes. (though, again, we are probably describing an alternate universe.)
I really have my doubts it would be that way. Maybe for you it would be.

I could imagine that many would make up some reason that the scientists are corrupted because the majority are male, therefore influenced by the "patriarchy" or something and want to push an agenda of conservative policies (men are more conservative, on average, to begin with). Or some other reason.


Quote from: JBS on November 15, 2019, 04:23:47 PM
I will try to clarify Greg's point with this article as a parallel

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/11/13/europe/insect-apocalypse-report-scn/index.html

Notice that it calls for individuals doing things with their own property and making their own decisions to take action. It doesn't call for government banning or restricting  pesticides now in use, doesn't call for government programs to reverse population decline, or anything else.

That's the conservative approach.
Actually I'm not really seeing how this relates to my point...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 15, 2019, 04:38:36 PM
Quote from: greg on November 15, 2019, 04:31:59 PM

I could imagine that many would make up some reason that the scientists are corrupted because the majority are male, therefore influenced by the "patriarchy" or something and want to push an agenda of conservative policies (men are more conservative, on average, to begin with). Or some other reason.


I don't know where you're getting this stuff from. Is it Fox?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 15, 2019, 04:40:13 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 15, 2019, 04:29:41 PM
The Agribusiness multinationals don't let individuals make decisions, and what few individuals can are a drop in the bucket in comparison.

So you're reflexively rejecting a conservative solution.
(Maybe you don't intend to do so, but that's how your answer sounds.)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 15, 2019, 04:42:21 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 15, 2019, 04:38:36 PM
I don't know where you're getting this stuff from. Is it Fox?

That's how social justice advocates talk here in the States.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 15, 2019, 04:55:34 PM
I'd like you to address that consideration...no matter how "reflexive" you think it sounds
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 15, 2019, 05:02:20 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 15, 2019, 04:55:34 PM
I'd like you to address that consideration...no matter how "reflexive" you think it sounds

In the actual context of the article, Agribusiness isn't relevant. The article is talking about backyard gardeners and people planting their own vegetables, not commercial farming.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 15, 2019, 05:10:37 PM
But insect life doesn't confine itself to one backyard, and if agribusiness are dumping heavy pesticides across large sections of the land then those individual efforts amount to little. It requires the regulating of damaging business practices.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 15, 2019, 05:19:57 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 15, 2019, 05:10:37 PM
But insect life doesn't confine itself to one backyard, and if agribusiness are dumping heavy pesticides across large sections of the land then those individual efforts amount to little. It requires the regulating of damaging business practices.

That doesn't invalidate the ideas proposed in the article.

I do note that I made a mistake. The article does refer tangentially to government action via targets for pesticide reduction.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 16, 2019, 12:32:49 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 15, 2019, 01:45:47 PM
Do you see the irony in hunting out a paper on confirmation bias to the end of confirming your bias?

I didn't exactly hunt it out. The article is cited in the bibliography of Wikipedia's entry on "Confirmation Bias".

In the bibliography for "Argument from Authority" I found this one, which is not related to the topic (except perhaps the next-to-last paragraph) but is fun to read and aligns rather well with my own experience with mathematicians as described a few pages above.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160304042349/http://users-cs.au.dk/danvy/the-ideal-mathematician.pdf (https://web.archive.org/web/20160304042349/http://users-cs.au.dk/danvy/the-ideal-mathematician.pdf)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 16, 2019, 12:59:35 AM
Quote from: greg on November 15, 2019, 04:31:59 PM
I could imagine that many would make up some reason that the scientists are corrupted because the majority are male, therefore influenced by the "patriarchy" or something and want to push an agenda of conservative policies (men are more conservative, on average, to begin with). Or some other reason.

Feminist attacks on science is actually yesterday's news.

Quote from: Richard Dawkins, 1998The feminist 'philosopher' Luce Irigaray is another who gets whole-chapter treatment from Sokal and Bricmont. In a passage reminiscent of a notorious feminist description of Newton's Principia (a "rape manual"), Irigaray argues that E=mc2 is a "sexed equation". Why? Because "it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us" (my emphasis of what I am rapidly coming to learn is an 'in' word). Just as typical of this school of thought is Irigaray's thesis on fluid mechanics. Fluids, you see, have been unfairly neglected. "Masculine physics" privileges rigid, solid things. Her American expositor Katherine Hayles made the mistake of re-expressing Irigaray's thoughts in (comparatively) clear language. For once, we get a reasonably unobstructed look at the emperor and, yes, he has no clothes:

    "The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids... From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders. "

You do not have to be a physicist to smell out the daffy absurdity of this kind of argument (the tone of it has become all too familiar), but it helps to have Sokal and Bricmont on hand to tell us the real reason why turbulent flow is a hard problem: the Navier-Stokes equations are difficult to solve.

RTWT here: https://physics.nyu.edu/sokal/dawkins.html (https://physics.nyu.edu/sokal/dawkins.html)

See also here: https://philpapers.org/archive/SOBIDO (https://philpapers.org/archive/SOBIDO)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 16, 2019, 01:31:34 AM
I can't imagine how you lot got to here from the original 'And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020' and I'm too scared of all the philosophic word salad to read my way back through it all. My simple comment on the original post is to simply state my bias. Even though an Australian and unable to vote in US elections I'm sporting a 20PETE20 T-shirt and am over the moon to have lived long enough to see Mr Buttigieg, an openly gay candidate, run for the US presidency.
And no, I'm not willing to debate the minutia of the various candidates policies or list Trumps sins on this forum.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 16, 2019, 05:59:14 AM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 16, 2019, 01:31:34 AM
I can't imagine how you lot got to here from the original 'And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020' and I'm too scared of all the philosophic word salad to read my way back through it all. My simple comment on the original post is to simply state my bias. Even though an Australian and unable to vote in US elections I'm sporting a 20PETE20 T-shirt and am over the moon to have lived long enough to see Mr Buttigieg, an openly gay candidate, run for the US presidency.
And no, I'm not willing to debate the minutia of the various candidates policies or list Trumps sins on this forum.

Mayor Pete is one of the few candidates who radiates normalcy and wholesomeness, and therefore probably doesn't stand a chance.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 16, 2019, 06:12:41 AM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 16, 2019, 01:31:34 AM
I can't imagine how you lot got to here from the original 'And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020' and I'm too scared of all the philosophic word salad to read my way back through it all. My simple comment on the original post is to simply state my bias. Even though an Australian and unable to vote in US elections I'm sporting a 20PETE20 T-shirt and am over the moon to have lived long enough to see Mr Buttigieg, an openly gay candidate, run for the US presidency.
And no, I'm not willing to debate the minutia of the various candidates policies or list Trumps sins on this forum.

So it's not an issue for you Buttigieg takes corporate/millionaire money, doesn't support real medicare for all (instead talks about "choice", what choice? Choice to select which mafia takes your money?). You think Buttigieg is for real systematic change? No. He is an establishment candidate, plan B if Biden goes down (as he will). Buttigieg is young, gay, educated, intelligent and speaks Norwegian. That's nice, but he is not what the US needs, especially taking into account what he did or rather didn't do to racism in South Bend police department. It is a clear signal he is in the race for himself, his own political career, not to make a real change that would help regular people.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 16, 2019, 06:27:16 AM
I wonder what position Deval Patrick is angling for since he obviously can't get the top job.  Maybe Education.  I would have thought his job at Bain Capital cushy enough to preclude any further public self-aggrandizement.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 16, 2019, 06:42:39 AM

     Science is not affected by the interpretations of advocates. That's an individual choice. The advocate is always you. Pushing advocacy back onto the fact finders is a way of justifying a weak choice.

     Arguing the facts won't work. They will catch up with you. It doesn't matter how socialist you believe climate science is or how Jewish you think physics has become. Ideology can warp your perspective, especially if you approve of the warpage. I prefer to let what's true guide my beliefs to letting my beliefs determine what's true. By continuing to do that I have no difficulty understanding the difference between what finders of fact are saying and what advocates say about what they have found.

Quote from: Florestan on November 16, 2019, 12:59:35 AM
Feminist attacks on science is actually yesterday's news.



     Such attacks are being resurrected in a thinly disguised form and that's what I'm arguing against. I think there is more wrong with "feminist epistemology" than they chose the wrong epistemology/god. You do see my point, don't you?

     

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 16, 2019, 06:43:08 AM
Quote from: Todd on November 16, 2019, 06:27:16 AM
I wonder what position Deval Patrick is angling for since he obviously can't get the top job.  Maybe Education.  I would have thought his job at Bain Capital cushy enough to preclude any further public self-aggrandizement.

How about "Change is not possible, because my rich donors don't what it." ?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 16, 2019, 06:51:07 AM
Quote from: drogulus on November 16, 2019, 06:42:39 AM
     Science is not affected by the interpretations of advocates. That's an individual choice. The advocate is always you. Pushing advocacy back onto the fact finders is a way of justifying a weak choice.

     Arguing the facts won't work. They will catch up with you. It doesn't matter how socialist you believe climate science is or how Jewish you think physics has become. Ideology can warp your perspective, especially if you approve of the warpage. I prefer to let what's true guide my beliefs to letting my beliefs determine what's true. By continuing to do that I have no difficulty understanding the difference between what finders of fact are saying and what advocates say about what they have found.

     Such attacks are being resurrected in a thinly disguised form and that's what I'm arguing against. I think there is more wrong with "feminist epistemology" than they chose the wrong epistemology/god. You do see my point, don't you?


Ten bucks to the person who can take away something meaningful from this.


Quote from: 71 dB on November 16, 2019, 06:43:08 AM
How about "Change is not possible, because my rich donors don't what it." ?


I thought you were using the "ignore" feature on me.  Oh well, all good things must come to an end.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 16, 2019, 06:58:43 AM
Quote from: JBS on November 15, 2019, 04:42:21 PM
That's how social justice advocates talk here in the States.

     Being a social justice advocate usually means you're arguing with other social justice advocates over who signals virtue better. I approve of the process. It does work better if the parties stipulate to facts outside the boundaries of interpretation.

     Advocacy must be judged first on fidelity to underlying facts, and then on other grounds. It's not a good move to try to disestablish a common fact basis in advance as though the facts were fiddled with before any consideration of their consequences began. This clearly regresses into faith based relativism.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 16, 2019, 07:20:50 AM
     
Quote from: JBS on November 16, 2019, 05:59:14 AM
Mayor Pete is one of the few candidates who radiates normalcy and wholesomeness, and therefore probably doesn't stand a chance.

     Ideological normalcy changes over time. Not all voters subscribe to "pundit determinism". Voters will choose the candidate that will get them more of what they want, partly based on a candidates programs and partly on the candidates chances of getting elected. A more flexible understanding of normalcy will include how voters will modify it.

     Voters elected a Kenyan Socialist President who created a new normal with OCare, which was unpopular enough that Repubs took control of Congress and dedicated their sacred honor to destroying it. Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act.

     What will normal be next? I figure it will be redefined repeatedly the way it has been. The future is not fixed, the past is.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on November 16, 2019, 07:40:48 AM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 16, 2019, 01:31:34 AM
I can't imagine how you lot got to here from the original 'And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020' and I'm too scared of all the philosophic word salad to read my way back through it all. My simple comment on the original post is to simply state my bias. Even though an Australian and unable to vote in US elections I'm sporting a 20PETE20 T-shirt and am over the moon to have lived long enough to see Mr Buttigieg, an openly gay candidate, run for the US presidency.
And no, I'm not willing to debate the minutia of the various candidates policies or list Trumps sins on this forum.


More than once have I longed for the climate issue(s) to have a separate thread.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 16, 2019, 07:57:17 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 16, 2019, 06:12:41 AM
So it's not an issue for you Buttigieg takes corporate/millionaire money, doesn't support real medicare for all (instead talks about "choice", what choice? Choice to select which mafia takes your money?). You think Buttigieg is for real systematic change? No. He is an establishment candidate, plan B if Biden goes down (as he will). Buttigieg is young, gay, educated, intelligent and speaks Norwegian. That's nice, but he is not what the US needs, especially taking into account what he did or rather didn't do to racism in South Bend police department. It is a clear signal he is in the race for himself, his own political career, not to make a real change that would help regular people.

     I don't think voters are going to choose a candidate the way you think they should. Voters want things to happen, and they want someone who can succeed at getting the things they want. What voters want in terms of health care, the economy and the environment doesn't neatly fit the boxes of political philosophy, and over time what voters have chosen changes what pundits think is radical versus mainstream. Radicals might have a model of revolutionary change in their radical heads. From a more distant perspective change is evolutionary.

     One idea is that change is good in itself, routine change and the big "nothing ever" changes, too, like SS and Medicare. An economy has to rebuild itself on the fly while running somewhere close to full capacity.

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on November 16, 2019, 08:20:39 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 15, 2019, 04:38:36 PM
I don't know where you're getting this stuff from. Is it Fox?
I don't watch TV.

The only fox news clip I've seen about climate change (on youtube) was when they had on Bill Nye, and they didn't doubt that climate change was real. Instead, he was asked if it was man-made, and all he did was look at him with contempt and didn't answer the question.

Already many on the liberal side that reject science with the whole gender issue. And also reject race-related statistics. They even reject words in the dictionary, because it was probably written by a white man who is part of the "patriarchy."

Seriously, people should stop being so attached to one side, it completely blinds them to its flaws. Each side has many, many people that will reject what is true in favor of their rigid ideology. Tribalism is just retarded.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 16, 2019, 08:48:52 AM
Normalcy doesn't mean things can't be better. In North Korea brutal dictatorship is normalcy. Doesn't mean democracy wouldn't be better. In the US oligarchy/crony capitalism is normalcy. Doesn't mean social democratic ideas/well regulated capitalism wouldn't be better.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 16, 2019, 09:01:20 AM
Quote from: greg on November 16, 2019, 08:20:39 AM


Seriously, people should stop being so attached to one side, it completely blinds them to its flaws. Each side has many, many people that will reject what is true in favor of their rigid ideology. Tribalism is just retarded.

     How do you know what side you're on if you don't try to find out what is true from an independent standpoint? Are you just born into a side?

     It's just as important how people defeat tribalism about what's true as how they are defeated by tribal identification. Since people do it all the time in their everydays lives, it can be done on purpose, as an essential goal.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 16, 2019, 09:05:23 AM
Quote from: drogulus on November 16, 2019, 07:57:17 AM
     I don't think voters are going to choose a candidate the way you think they should. Voters want things to happen, and they want someone who can succeed at getting the things they want.

Like Obama? Not good enough. People are done with that centrist BS. There are different kind of voters, some better informed that others and so on. It's a matter of what kind of voters go out and actually vote.

Quote from: drogulus on November 16, 2019, 07:57:17 AMWhat voters want in terms of health care, the economy and the environment doesn't neatly fit the boxes of political philosophy, and over time what voters have chosen changes what pundits think is radical versus mainstream. Radicals might have a model of revolutionary change in their radical heads. From a more distant perspective change is evolutionary.

English please. That's such mumbo jumbo I don't have a clue what you are trying to say. Medicare for all is not radical. All other developped countries have one or another type of single payer system. The healthcare system in the US is the radical system, radical in leaving millions of people without access to healthcare and driving people to bankruptcy over medical bills. That is RADICAL! For decades the corporate media was able to smear medicare for all effectively, but that's over now. People get information elsewhere and learn about the benefits of a single payer healthcare. Millenials are not as scared of "socialistic" ideas as older generations and can feel how crony capitalism screws them.

Quote from: drogulus on November 16, 2019, 07:57:17 AMOne idea is that change is good in itself, routine change and the big "nothing ever" changes, too, like SS and Medicare. An economy has to rebuild itself on the fly while running somewhere close to full capacity.

Of course change is not always good. It depends what the change is about.

 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 16, 2019, 09:23:59 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 16, 2019, 09:05:23 AM
Medicare for all is not radical.

     It's not radical any more. How did that happen?

Quote from: 71 dB on November 16, 2019, 09:05:23 AM
All other developped countries have one or another type of single payer system.

     Only some countries have single payer universal systems. As far as I'm concerned much of the ferocious argument about howyougonna is not what people think it's about. People think it's about the one true path under which we can afford health care versus other paths where we can't. I think this is nonsensical, countries can get there in a variety of ways and be rich and get good outcomes. The choice for good outcomes is the important choice, the howyougonna is how it can be done consistent with the political environment, a factor which is subject to change itself. What looks like a "nothing ever" change now may look very different in 5 years.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 16, 2019, 12:28:42 PM
Quote from: drogulus on November 16, 2019, 09:23:59 AM
     It's not radical any more. How did that happen?

It has never been "radical". Corporate media has smeared it. Progressives have finally gotten their message out.

Quote from: drogulus on November 16, 2019, 09:23:59 AM
     Only some countries have single payer universal systems. As far as I'm concerned much of the ferocious argument about howyougonna is not what people think it's about. People think it's about the one true path under which we can afford health care versus other paths where we can't. I think this is nonsensical, counties can get there in a variety of ways and be rich and get good outcomes. The choice for good outcomes is the important choice, the howyougonna is how it can be done consistent with the political environment, a factor which is subject to change itself. What looks like a "nothing ever" change now may look very different in 5 years.

Healthcare becomes affordable when mafia-like middle men (insurance companies) go away and rich pay more for healthcare than poor. That's when it's affordable for everyone. There is perhaps many ways to do it, but getting rid of private healthcare insurance (other than for supplemental care) is the thing that makes it work. You remove profit incentive to deny care and you maximize the risk pool. How healthcare providers are done is another issue. Many option. For the US public funding of private healthcare providers is probably the way to go. Canada and France has that.

The US is lucky to have public option in the future if a corporate Dem gets elected. The Republicans have gone totally insane and will fight to stop ANY improvement on the healthcare system. They want to repeal ObamaCare (their OWN plan from the 80's!) and make healthcare 100 % free market based no matter how many millions lose healthcare. For them healthcare is a priviledge for the rich and the poor can die away!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 16, 2019, 12:42:24 PM
Duplicate post deleted.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 16, 2019, 12:45:42 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 16, 2019, 05:59:14 AM
Mayor Pete is one of the few candidates who radiates normalcy and wholesomeness, and therefore probably doesn't stand a chance.
That thought has crossed my mind but in an effort not to surrender to political cynicism I've suppressed it. Given when Obama was standing I thought he had no chance for similar reasons I'm ( unrealistically?) hoping for another miracle. Not that I think Obama was perfect.
I haven't however failed to notice the particular form of homophobic loathing directed at Buttigieg nor have I repressed my doubts about his dismissal of the South Bend police chief. I'm also taking into account the amoral tactics Trump's people will unleash against Mayor Pete given Trump's nasty little Ukrainian plot.
Then there's the religious so called right to contend with but that's a can of worms I'd rather not discuss at the risk of unleashing a discussion of the last two hundred years of biblical studies. Anyone wanting to wander down that path could start with an open minded reading ( I am expecting miracles this time) of John Shelby Spong's 'The Sins of Scripture:Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love' (Publ' Harper Collins)

As to Republican allergy to medical care for all (who want it in Pete's case) the discussion never takes account of the economic costs of a high percentage of the population not being able to afford adequate medical care. In Australia the economic benefits of having a working population able to access subsidised medicine have been calculated in the billions. The kind of maths that would have Ayn Rand rolling in her grave if it ever crossed her mind.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 16, 2019, 03:00:51 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 16, 2019, 09:05:23 AM
English please. That's such mumbo jambo I don't have a clue what you are trying to say.
English please. The correct expression is mumbo jumbo
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 16, 2019, 04:06:55 PM
Quote from: greg on November 16, 2019, 08:20:39 AM
I don't watch TV.

The only fox news clip I've seen about climate change (on youtube) was when they had on Bill Nye, and they didn't doubt that climate change was real. Instead, he was asked if it was man-made, and all he did was look at him with contempt and didn't answer the question.

Already many on the liberal side that reject science with the whole gender issue. And also reject race-related statistics. They even reject words in the dictionary, because it was probably written by a white man who is part of the "patriarchy."

Seriously, people should stop being so attached to one side, it completely blinds them to its flaws. Each side has many, many people that will reject what is true in favor of their rigid ideology. Tribalism is just retarded.

This is just nonsense. If its not Fox then where are you getting this from? What source is telling you this is how "liberals" think and behave?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 16, 2019, 05:11:25 PM
Quote from: greg on November 16, 2019, 08:20:39 AM
I don't watch TV.
Nowadays that is no guarantee of respectability.

QuoteSeriously, people should stop being so attached to one side, it completely blinds them to its flaws. Each side has many, many people that will reject what is true in favor of their rigid ideology. Tribalism is just retarded.
No, tribalism is far far worse than retarded. It's a deep seated part of human nature and shows every sign of triggering the extinction of our species. But yes, being attached to one side, in an ideological sense, is as absurd as barracking for a football team. No single ideology is going to extract our species from the mess it has created. Add to this the aggressive core of human psychology as delineated ( and as yet not refuted) by Arthur Koestler in his now ignored "The Ghost in the Machine" and we are in real trouble.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on November 16, 2019, 05:15:54 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 16, 2019, 04:06:55 PM
This is just nonsense. If its not Fox then where are you getting this from? What source is telling you this is how "liberals" think and behave?
Um, there is thing called youtube. There are thousands and thousands of videos commenting on articles written from a liberal perspective. From there you can learn about how that side thinks. And also you can question whether the commentary is valid so that you don't just blindly agree with the commentator. Either that, or just read the articles directly online that have a liberal perspective, which I do on occasion.


Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 16, 2019, 05:11:25 PM
Nowadays that is no guarantee of respectability.
Of course.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 16, 2019, 05:27:32 PM
Ah, YT political commentary...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 16, 2019, 05:31:54 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 16, 2019, 05:27:32 PM
Ah, YT political commentary...


A self-unaware post from someone who links to Huffington Post articles.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 16, 2019, 05:46:18 PM
Quote from: Todd on November 16, 2019, 05:31:54 PM

A self-unaware post from someone who links to Huffington Post articles.

Couldn't remember which Huffington Post article I linked to recently so went and checked. You mean this one:?

Trump Grants Pardons To Army Officers Charged With War Crimes
President Donald Trump called Major Matthew Golsteyn, who was accused of murder, a "hero" (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-pardons-army-officers-war-crimes_n_5dcf419ce4b0d2e79f8cde41)

I'm not seeing the relevance or the point you're trying to make. (What with my being "self-unaware"etc.)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 16, 2019, 05:50:54 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 16, 2019, 05:46:18 PM
Couldn't remember which Huffington Post article I linked to recently so went and checked. You mean this one:?

Trump Grants Pardons To Army Officers Charged With War Crimes
President Donald Trump called Major Matthew Golsteyn, who was accused of murder, a "hero"[/img]

I'm not seeing the relevance or the point you're trying to make. (What with my being "self-unaware"etc.)
(https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-pardons-army-officers-war-crimes_n_5dcf419ce4b0d2e79f8cde41)


First, of course you can't see the point.  That reinforces my prior post.  Second, you were so excited in your initial response that you forgot how to quote and respond properly.  (Who knows if you clean up your post?  Who cares?)  You're a veritable wellspring of amusement.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 16, 2019, 05:55:32 PM
Quote from: Todd on November 16, 2019, 05:50:54 PM

First, of course you can't see the point.  That reinforces my prior post. 


By all means enlighten me then.

And yes, I'edit posts when I see I haven't formatted them properly. Shameful.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 16, 2019, 05:56:57 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 16, 2019, 05:55:32 PMAnd yes, I'edit posts when I see I haven't formatted them properly.


You keep yourself busy.


Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 16, 2019, 05:59:53 PM
If there's a point you wanted to make in comparing YT commentary to Huffington Post then make it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 16, 2019, 06:01:07 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 16, 2019, 05:59:53 PM
If there's a point you wanted to make in comparing YT commentary to Huffington Post then make it.


You are making it for me.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 16, 2019, 06:02:45 PM
Right. "Good talk".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on November 16, 2019, 06:14:54 PM
There was a study conducted on MSNBC and its coverage of Bernie Sanders. Predictable results.

[http://inthesetimes.com/features/msnbc-bernie-sanders-coverage-democratic-primary-media-analysis.html]
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 16, 2019, 06:29:24 PM
Quote from: drogulus on November 16, 2019, 07:20:50 AM
     
     Ideological normalcy changes over time. Not all voters subscribe to "pundit determinism". Voters will choose the candidate that will get them more of what they want, partly based on a candidates programs and partly on the candidates chances of getting elected. A more flexible understanding of normalcy will include how voters will modify it.

     Voters elected a Kenyan Socialist President who created a new normal with OCare, which was unpopular enough that Repubs took control of Congress and dedicated their sacred honor to destroying it. Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act.

     What will normal be next? I figure it will be redefined repeatedly the way it has been. The future is not fixed, the past is.

When I talked about Buttigieg's normalcy, I wasn't talking about that.
By normalcy I meant a decent human being who, if he were your neighbor,  you'd gladly ask to watch your kids while you ran an emergency, and who would gladly watch your kids for you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 16, 2019, 06:34:48 PM
Quote from: Todd on November 16, 2019, 06:01:07 PM

You are making it for me.

Pathetic. Truly.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on November 16, 2019, 07:01:14 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 16, 2019, 05:27:32 PM
Ah, YT political commentary...
Right, all political commenters on youtube aren't good and should be ignored.

I don't know (shrugging). Maybe I should just only pay attention to the same news sources that as you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 16, 2019, 07:12:33 PM
Quote from: greg on November 16, 2019, 07:01:14 PM
Right, all political commenters on youtube aren't good and should be ignored.

I don't know (shrugging). Maybe I should just only pay attention to the same news sources that as you.

I don't need or want you to be reading the same sources as me (well, okay, that's not quite true - I'd like you to put some of them in the mix), and perhaps you can lead me to the good YT stuff, because most of it - left or right - seems to me on the level of the guy at the bar sounding off on his pet peeves.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on November 16, 2019, 08:04:47 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 16, 2019, 06:29:24 PM
When I talked about Buttigieg's normalcy, I wasn't talking about that.
By normalcy I meant a decent human being who, if he were your neighbor,  you'd gladly ask to watch your kids while you ran an emergency, and who would gladly watch your kids for you.

What's your point? That can be said of each and every candidate.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 17, 2019, 01:29:58 AM
Quote from: JBS on November 16, 2019, 06:29:24 PM
By normalcy I meant a decent human being who, if he were your neighbor,  you'd gladly ask to watch your kids while you ran an emergency, and who would gladly watch your kids for you.

Sure, babysitters are currently needed in the White House, but once Trump is gone the next person occupying the Oval Office hopefully is someone who's capabilities go much further than watching your kids while you ran an emergency.

If Buttigieg truly was a decent human being maybe he would have done more (read: something) to the racism of South Bend police department?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 17, 2019, 01:52:51 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 17, 2019, 01:29:58 AM
Sure, babysitters are currently needed in the White House, but once Trump is gone the next person occupying the Oval Office hopefully is someone who's capabilities go much further than watching your kids while you ran an emergency.

If Buttigieg truly was a decent human being maybe he would have done more (read: something) to the racism of South Bend police department?
Unfortunately we don't know the full story of what appears to be the wrong decision made by Buttigieg in firing his police chief. As to 'read something' what I'd really like to 'read' is what's on those tapes the police chief made and what detailed advice the FBI gave Buttigieg.
What I'm finding interesting about opposition to Buttigieg is how he's being held to absurdly high moral standards when other candidates, and the thug in the Whitehouse, are allowed to commit any errors, crimes and lie their heads off without being questioned by their supporters.
As to requiring someone who's capabilities go much further then watching your kids while running the Whitehoure since when has Buttigieg ever offered up his childminding abilities as evidence of being fit for running the US executive branch?
In the end though he'll probably not gain that office due to a mindless homophobia held by parts of the US community. A community that produces and consumes more gay pornography ( both of the African American kind and white!) than any other nation on earth whilst pretending to be closer to God than any other.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 17, 2019, 02:10:41 AM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 17, 2019, 01:52:51 AM
As to requiring someone who's capabilities go much further then watching your kids while running the Whitehoure since when has Buttigieg ever offered up his childminding abilities as evidence of being fit for running the US executive branch?

English please. The correct expressions are whose and than.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 17, 2019, 02:42:36 AM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 17, 2019, 01:52:51 AM
What I'm finding interesting about opposition to Buttigieg is how he's being held to absurdly high moral standards when other candidates, and the thug in the Whitehouse, are allowed to commit any errors, crimes and lie their heads off without being questioned by their supporters.

My problem with Pete Buttigieg is his lack of principles. He started the campaign as someone on the left supporting medicare for all, but after realizing the lefty lane is full (Sanders/Warren) he became a corporate fake progressive who is happy to take the money of the millionaires and speak against real single payer healthcare with his "choice" nonsense* in order to have the support of corporate media ("strong fourth") panicking over the weakening poll numbers of Biden. For anyone paying attention this is a sign of what kind of person Buttigieg is. He is more interested of becoming the president than the issues. He is willing to speak for and against medicare for all depending on the situation. So he doesn't believe in anything other than his own poltical career. He is no different from Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Smart, educated and presidential, but doesn't bring real systematic change. Tweaks around the corners is all you get. That's not enough.

* For Big Pharma and insurance companies "choice" is a dog whistle of no real change, so no worries. For people who don't know the details, this is a dog whistle of Buttigieg "supporting" medicare for all so it's smart.

Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 17, 2019, 01:52:51 AMAs to requiring someone who's capabilities go much further then watching your kids while running the Whitehoure since when has Buttigieg ever offered up his childminding abilities as evidence of being fit for running the US executive branch?

Never I guess, but what is he really offering? He tries to sound smart and serious hoping people will fall for it. A lot of people have fallen for it (his poll numbers are pretty good) and he has the corporate media support, but there are people who can see through his act, the lack of principles.

Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 17, 2019, 01:52:51 AMIn the end though he'll probably not gain that office due to a mindless homophobia held by parts of the US community. A community that produces and consumes more gay pornography ( both of the African American kind and white!) than any other nation on earth whilst pretending to be closer to God than any other.

Homophobia is the wrong reason to be against him. I don't care if he is gay or not. I care about his principles and what he is offering politically. Is he fighting for medicare for all? Is he fighting for free collage? Is he fighting for living wage? Is he fighting for systematic change that would help regular people? No, he clearily isn't. He is not the worst candidate in this race, but he isn't the best either, not even close. Even Elizabeth Warren is superior candidate not to mention Bernie Sanders who is the real fighter, real progressive who we know will never flip flop on medicare for all.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 17, 2019, 02:52:09 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 17, 2019, 02:10:41 AM
English please. The correct expressions are whose and than.

I think I started this "English please!" trend here. What have I done?  :o

I wasn't after typos. I was after nonsensical sentences.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 17, 2019, 03:01:38 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 17, 2019, 02:52:09 AM
I think I started this "English please!" trend here. What have I done?  :o

I wasn't after typos. I was after nonsensical sentences.

You missed my point, but that's probably because you also missed this:

Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 16, 2019, 03:00:51 PM
English please. The correct expression is mumbo jumbo

To summarize: he corrected your English orthography yet his is no better. Pot calling the kettle black.

So see, in this instance I am on your side.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 17, 2019, 03:09:33 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 17, 2019, 03:01:38 AM
You missed my point, but that's probably because you also missed this:

To summarize: he corrected your English orthography yet his is no better. Pot calling the kettle black.

So see, in this instance I am on your side.

Huh? I was commenting on how much people suddenly use "English please!" after I used it, not who is on whose side...  :P

Anyway, thanks for being on my side.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 17, 2019, 05:36:22 AM
Quote from: JBS on November 16, 2019, 06:29:24 PM
When I talked about Buttigieg's normalcy, I wasn't talking about that.
By normalcy I meant a decent human being who, if he were your neighbor,  you'd gladly ask to watch your kids while you ran an emergency, and who would gladly watch your kids for you.

     Yes, I agree he's normal like that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 17, 2019, 06:03:28 AM
I'm the first to admit that I haven't been following the Democrat race too terribly closely this time around since it is dominated by geriatric assclowns who want to raise my taxes.  Since I would never vote for whatever piece of shit emerges as the party's candidate, it doesn't matter anyway.  That written, I saw a 2020 ad for president last night on TV.  From Tom Steyer!  That means the Dems have twice as many actual billionaires running for or taking steps to run for president than Republicans have ever fielded.  Dems is the party of The People!  Good stuff.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 17, 2019, 07:15:24 AM
     
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 16, 2019, 07:12:33 PM
I don't need or want you to be reading the same sources as me (well, okay, that's not quite true - I'd like you to put some of them in the mix), and perhaps you can lead me to the good YT stuff, because most of it - left or right - seems to me on the level of the guy at the bar sounding off on his pet peeves.

     YT is the same as watching TV. What you can get from it depends on what you're looking for. If you have spent your life not distinguishing between "guy in a bar" and earned expertise, you'll take that disability with you wherever you go.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 17, 2019, 08:57:13 AM
'No discipline. No plan. No strategy.': Kamala Harris campaign in meltdown
Campaign manager Juan Rodriguez is taking the most heat for the failings, but his defenders point their finger at the candidate's sister, Maya Harris. (https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/15/kamala-harris-campaign-2020-071105)

"Kamala Harris' campaign is careening toward a crackup.

As the California senator crisscrosses the country trying to revive her sputtering presidential bid, aides at her fast-shrinking headquarters are deep into the finger-pointing stages. And much of the blame is being placed on campaign manager Juan Rodriguez.

After Rodriguez announced dozens of layoffs and re-deployments in late October to stem overspending, three more staffers at headquarters here were let go and another quit in recent days, aides told POLITICO. Officials said they've become increasingly frustrated at the campaign chief's lack of clarity about what changes have been made to right the ship and his plans to turn the situation around. They hold Rodriguez responsible for questionable budget decisions, including continuing to bring on new hires shortly before the layoffs began.

Amid the turmoil, some aides have gone directly to campaign chair Maya Harris, the candidate's sister, and argued that Rodriguez needs to be replaced if Harris has any hope of a turnaround, according to two officials.

"It's a campaign of id," said one senior Harris official, laying much of the blame on Rodriguez, but also pointing to a leaderless structure at the top that's been allowed to flail without accountability. "What feels right, what impulse you have right now, what emotion, what frustration," the official added. The person described the current state of the campaign in blunt terms: "No discipline. No plan. No strategy."

This account is based on interviews with more than a dozen current and former staffers as well as others close to the campaign, including donors. The sources were granted anonymity to speak freely about the turmoil within the organization and protect them from repercussions."[...]


Buttigieg busts out to first place in Iowa
The latest Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom survey shows the small-city mayor has big momentum. (https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/16/buttigieg-busts-out-to-first-place-in-iowa-071294)

"Pete Buttigieg has soared to the top of the Democratic field in Iowa, according to the state's latest flagship poll released Saturday.

Buttigieg easily outpaced the field with 25 percent support, a 16-point gain from September, according to the Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom survey. Three candidates were statistically tied for second: Elizabeth Warren at 16 percent, and Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders at 15 percent.

The results, coming three months before the Iowa caucuses, showed Warren slipping 6 points from September, when she placed first in the Register poll. Biden's support also continued to soften in the state: He dropped 5 points since September. But Sanders rebounded, gaining 4 points."[...]
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 17, 2019, 11:51:29 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 17, 2019, 02:42:36 AM
My problem with Pete Buttigieg is his lack of principles. He started the campaign as someone on the left supporting medicare for all, but after realizing the lefty lane is full (Sanders/Warren) he became a corporate fake progressive who is happy to take the money of the millionaires and speak against real single payer healthcare with his "choice" nonsense* in order to have the support of corporate media ("strong fourth") panicking over the weakening poll numbers of Biden. For anyone paying attention this is a sign of what kind of person Buttigieg is. He is more interested of becoming the president than the issues. He is willing to speak for and against medicare for all depending on the situation. So he doesn't believe in anything other than his own poltical career. He is no different from Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Smart, educated and presidential, but doesn't bring real systematic change. Tweaks around the corners is all you get. That's not enough.

* For Big Pharma and insurance companies "choice" is a dog whistle of no real change, so no worries. For people who don't know the details, this is a dog whistle of Buttigieg "supporting" medicare for all so it's smart.

Never I guess, but what is he really offering? He tries to sound smart and serious hoping people will fall for it. A lot of people have fallen for it (his poll numbers are pretty good) and he has the corporate media support, but there are people who can see through his act, the lack of principles.

Homophobia is the wrong reason to be against him. I don't care if he is gay or not. I care about his principles and what he is offering politically. Is he fighting for medicare for all? Is he fighting for free collage? Is he fighting for living wage? Is he fighting for systematic change that would help regular people? No, he clearily isn't. He is not the worst candidate in this race, but he isn't the best either, not even close. Even Elizabeth Warren is superior candidate not to mention Bernie Sanders who is the real fighter, real progressive who we know will never flip flop on medicare for all.
You may be correct in your take on Buttigieg's changing positions, however if I was a US citizen I'd still be voting for him. As to medicare for all I fail to see why the removal of private medical insurance gains us anything. I live in Australia where we have a universal public medical scheme and private schemes. Both appear to funtion better than any alternative system I've lived under. Regarding a living wage I suspect Buttigieg and a few other Democrat candidiate know this and similarly left positions would be electoral suicide. The time to have a widespread discusssion between employers, unions etc about this would be after being elected.
On the other hand I totally disagree with your take on headphones. Well designed headphones can remove a lot of that 'in the head' feeling without the necessity for any form of 'blending'.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 17, 2019, 12:24:46 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 17, 2019, 11:51:29 AM
As to medicare for all I fail to see why the removal of private medical insurance gains anything.
It gains coverage for everyone, lower prices for 95 %, improves "choice" as the "network" under medicare for all is everything + insurance is not tied to your job so you are not "married" to a job you hate because of healthcare.

Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 17, 2019, 11:51:29 AM
On the other hand I totally disagree with your take on headphones. Well designed headphones can remove a lot of that 'in the head' feeling without the necessity for any form of 'blending'.

Oh please not you too! "Blending" happens acoustically with speakers (both ears hear sound from both speakers, at low frequencies almost the same sound and recordings are mixed for this scheme so yes, "blending" aka crossfeed can be beneficial no matter how expensive cans you use).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on November 17, 2019, 12:55:22 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 17, 2019, 08:57:13 AM
'No discipline. No plan. No strategy.': Kamala Harris campaign in meltdown
Campaign manager Juan Rodriguez is taking the most heat for the failings, but his defenders point their finger at the candidate's sister, Maya Harris. (https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/15/kamala-harris-campaign-2020-071105)

"Kamala Harris' campaign is careening toward a crackup.

As the California senator crisscrosses the country trying to revive her sputtering presidential bid, aides at her fast-shrinking headquarters are deep into the finger-pointing stages. And much of the blame is being placed on campaign manager Juan Rodriguez.

After Rodriguez announced dozens of layoffs and re-deployments in late October to stem overspending, three more staffers at headquarters here were let go and another quit in recent days, aides told POLITICO. Officials said they've become increasingly frustrated at the campaign chief's lack of clarity about what changes have been made to right the ship and his plans to turn the situation around. They hold Rodriguez responsible for questionable budget decisions, including continuing to bring on new hires shortly before the layoffs began.

Amid the turmoil, some aides have gone directly to campaign chair Maya Harris, the candidate's sister, and argued that Rodriguez needs to be replaced if Harris has any hope of a turnaround, according to two officials.

"It's a campaign of id," said one senior Harris official, laying much of the blame on Rodriguez, but also pointing to a leaderless structure at the top that's been allowed to flail without accountability. "What feels right, what impulse you have right now, what emotion, what frustration," the official added. The person described the current state of the campaign in blunt terms: "No discipline. No plan. No strategy."

This account is based on interviews with more than a dozen current and former staffers as well as others close to the campaign, including donors. The sources were granted anonymity to speak freely about the turmoil within the organization and protect them from repercussions."[...]


Buttigieg busts out to first place in Iowa
The latest Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom survey shows the small-city mayor has big momentum. (https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/16/buttigieg-busts-out-to-first-place-in-iowa-071294)

"Pete Buttigieg has soared to the top of the Democratic field in Iowa, according to the state's latest flagship poll released Saturday.

Buttigieg easily outpaced the field with 25 percent support, a 16-point gain from September, according to the Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom survey. Three candidates were statistically tied for second: Elizabeth Warren at 16 percent, and Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders at 15 percent.

The results, coming three months before the Iowa caucuses, showed Warren slipping 6 points from September, when she placed first in the Register poll. Biden's support also continued to soften in the state: He dropped 5 points since September. But Sanders rebounded, gaining 4 points."[...]

At least, Bernie's "a strong second" *snort*
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 17, 2019, 12:58:38 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 17, 2019, 11:51:29 AM
As to medicare for all I fail to see why the removal of private medical insurance gains us anything. I live in Australia where we have a universal public medical scheme and private schemes. Both appear to funtion better than any alternative system I've lived under.

     If you mean both function together I can see why that would be the case. In the U.S. universal solutions of any kind have been blocked, and that's a factor in what kind of choice might be made to defeat the sociopaths doing the blocking. It's a practical matter how this is done. Any way it's done will work.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 17, 2019, 01:11:56 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 17, 2019, 12:24:46 PM
It gains coverage for everyone, lower prices for 95 %, improves "choice" as the "network" under medicare for all is everything + insurance is not tied to your job so you are not "married" to a job you hate because of healthcare.
I need to explain the way public health insurance works in Australia as it's far more complex a system here than the 'medicare for all ' as being proposed for the US.
We have two schemes that run separately. One for medical treatment, another for drugs. This last is called the 'Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme' and manages to lower the cost of prescriptions by huge amounts. Newly developed ultra expensive drugs are often not subsidised however for some time after their release.
There's never been any form of 'tied to the job' medical insurance in Australia. Interestingly that approach in the US has resulted in the unemployed ( read uninsured) often remaining so ill they simply cannot be effectively employed so the problem just goes around in circles. The right in America has never done the arithmetic on the economic cost to the nation of this defect.

QuoteOh please not you too! "Blending" happens acoustically with speakers (both ears hear sound from both speakers, at low frequencies almost the same sound and recordings are mixed for this scheme so yes, "blending" aka crossfeed can be beneficial no matter how expensive cans you use).
To suggest 'blending happens acoustically with speakers' is so simplistic an assertion as to be almost meaningless. What kind of speakers? Directional? Omnidirectional? Bi-polar? Near field? How much crosstalk is being inflicted by the amplifier?  And that's before we dive into the complex swamp of room accoustics.
I can't see the reason you mention 'no matter how expensive the cans you use'. The geometry of drivers placed to mitigate the 'in the head' feeling isn't an exclusive feature of expensive headphones. I have tried blending stereo recordings only to experience the subjective impression of the sound taking place more centrally inside my head. Maybe my ear/brain mechanism is atypical or defective? Lets just say that trick doesn't work for me.
I won't list the details of the system/phones etc I use. I stupidly listed all my gear on an audio forum a few years ago only to have my address tracked down and get burgled of the lot. I learnt from police there's a highly organised, web based racket that uses sophisticated software to locate all manner of goods, not just audio gear, and connect them with addresses. Luckily I got back most of my gear but lost forever a significant collection of private recordings on reel to reel and LP of US jazz and blues performances just as I was organising the commercial release of most of them. Lost forever.
How did we get here from The Democratic Candidates? The mods will soon come down on us for wandering far, far off topic.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 17, 2019, 01:25:50 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 17, 2019, 01:11:56 PM
To suggest 'blending happens acoustically with speakers' is so somplistic an assertion as to be almost meaningless. What kind of speakers? Directional? Omnidirectional? Bi-polar? Near field? How much crosstalk is being inflicted by the amplifier?  And that's before we dive into the complex swamp of room accoustics.

The type of speakers etc. affect how much blending happens, but it happens nevertheless and together with the room acoustics it means the ILD (Interaural Level Difference) experienced by the listener remains within a few decibels at low frequencies. Crosstalk introduced by the amplifier is insignificant, headphones leaks sound more to the other ear, but not enough. So, crossfeed is beneficial with many recording with high channel separation at low frequencies.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on November 17, 2019, 01:26:38 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 17, 2019, 01:11:56 PMThe right in America has never done the arithmetic on the economic cost to the nation of this defect.
They have, and have concluded it's outweighed by the savings of having most of the poorest people die before they can start collecting social security paychecks or any other government benefits, plus the benefit of having a working class that's too poor and sick (or dependent on employer-provided insurance) to go on strike or organise for its own interests—thereby keeping wages low and profits high. The healthcare situation in the USA is not a mistake; it's entirely calculated. It just so happens that the wealthiest 10% or so of Americans are all utter sociopaths.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 17, 2019, 01:37:03 PM
Quote from: amw on November 17, 2019, 01:26:38 PM
They have, and have concluded it's outweighed by the savings of having most of the poorest people die before they can start collecting social security paychecks or any other government benefits, plus the benefit of having a working class that's too poor and sick (or dependent on employer-provided insurance) to go on strike or organise for its own interests—thereby keeping wages low and profits high. The healthcare situation in the USA is not a mistake; it's entirely calculated. It just so happens that the wealthiest 10% or so of Americans are all utter sociopaths.
Totally agree with your diagnosis of 'sociopaths' but suggest the accounting they've indulged in focuses on what they imagine to be their selfish benefit, not the economic cost to the entire nation of having so many capable citizens unable to work or work below their full capacity.
I find it somewhat jarring to read '. . . . . . . the benefit of having a working class that's too poor and sick'  . . . . . when the US system can very quickly demote middle class citizens status ( if that's what it is) to that of working class or 'unable to work class'. Essentially I suspect we have a similar view of all this it's just our understanding of the details is different. I admit too it's very difficult for me to get my head around the American 'system' of healthcare.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on November 17, 2019, 02:02:15 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 17, 2019, 01:37:03 PM
I find it somewhat jarring to read '. . . . . . . the benefit of having a working class that's too poor and sick'  . . . . . when the US system can very quickly demote middle class citizens status ( if that's what it is) to that of working class or 'unable to work class'.
Apologies for the lack of clarity—I don't think there is such thing as a "middle class" because of my political views (currently the forum's only communist) but it is common parlance & I should be better at adjusting the way I speak to social setting. (Nonetheless I still recommend everyone read Capital.) I think we agree otherwise.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 17, 2019, 02:25:10 PM
Quote from: amw on November 17, 2019, 01:26:38 PMIt just so happens that the wealthiest 10% or so of Americans are all utter sociopaths.


What differentiates utter sociopaths from regular sociopaths?  And are any psychopaths mixed in the top decile?  Inquiring minds.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on November 17, 2019, 02:42:38 PM
Quote from: Todd on November 17, 2019, 02:25:10 PM

What differentiates utter sociopaths from regular sociopaths?  And are any psychopaths mixed in the top decile?  Inquiring minds.
An utter sociopath is someone in the top 10% (every single member of which is probably a pedophile, war criminal, corporate shareholder, #MeToo accusee, cop, and/or perennial bootlicker). A regular sociopath is someone in the next 10% down who aspires to become part of the top 10%, and a psychopath is anyone from the bottom 80% who acts like people in the top 10% but doesn't have the privilege to stay out of jail for it. Technical psychology terms.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 17, 2019, 02:45:31 PM
Quote from: amw on November 17, 2019, 02:42:38 PM
An utter sociopath is someone in the top 10% (every single member of which is probably a pedophile, war criminal, corporate shareholder, #MeToo accusee, cop, and/or perennial bootlicker). A regular sociopath is someone in the next 10% down who aspires to become part of the top 10%, and a psychopath is anyone from the bottom 80% who acts like people in the top 10% but doesn't have the privilege to stay out of jail for it. Technical psychology terms.


Thanks for clearing that up.  It will help when visiting less intellectually rigorous sites than this one.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on November 17, 2019, 02:51:20 PM
No problem, always happy to raise the intellectual level with all my very true and correct takes.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 17, 2019, 02:53:43 PM
Quote from: amw on November 17, 2019, 02:02:15 PM
Apologies for the lack of clarity—I don't think there is such thing as a "middle class" because of my political views (currently the forum's only communist) but it is common parlance & I should be better at adjusting the way I speak to social setting. (Nonetheless I still recommend everyone read Capital.) I think we agree otherwise.
'Forums only communist' could cover a multitude of sins. I was briefly under the spell of Marxism in my early teens . My view in my dottage is that no single ideology can protect our species from it's advancing self distruction until and unless the central core of human nature is admitted to and altered.
( Arthur Koestler's 'The Ghost in The Machine' refers )The chances of that happening are sadly worse than minimal. I lost track of Marxism around the time I read Émile Durkheim having been diverted by, of all things, Ayn Rand's 'Objectivism' whose political philosophy I now reject. I still hold to the central tenets of her epistemology though in that I believe we are capable of knowing reality. Problem is we find that far too challenging especially in the context of what we are as a species. You may disagree I suspect but I claim the worst aspect of this is manifest in our collective behavior, especially when mindless tribalism mixes with either nationalism, religion & rigid ideologies or any combination of those.

I appreciate your clarification of the middle class/working class classification. In Australia and other 'advanced ' nations class snobbery has seen the working class re-classify themselves as middle class only to discover the resultant castration of trade unions etc has seen them pushed further down the economic ladder.

This discussion, although taking place in the context of a US election thread, should I suspect be undertaken elsewhere.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 17, 2019, 02:59:10 PM
Quote from: Todd on November 17, 2019, 02:45:31 PM

Thanks for clearing that up.  It will help when visiting less intellectually rigorous sites than this one.
Very tempting to throw a brick in the wasp's nest with that one but I desist.

Can I politely suggest more intellectual rigour would be attained by a brief reading of https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-intropsychmaster/chapter/diagnosing-and-classifying-psychological-disorders/ ?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 17, 2019, 03:00:07 PM
Bernie Sanders' message increasingly resonates with Latino voters
As growing numbers of Latinos are voting, Sanders has gained their support in California simply by outworking the competition (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/17/bernie-sanders-message-increasingly-resonates-with-latino-voters)

[...]"Latino turnout has historically lagged behind other voting groups, but that appears to be changing under Trump. Latino turnout in the 2018 midterms hit 11.7m, nearly doubling from 2014, according to figures from Pew Research. A statewide poll released by LCF and Latino Decisions, which conducts research on political opinions, found that a historic 74% of registered Latino voters said they were certain they were going to vote in the 3 March presidential primary.

Organizers and political observers say Sanders has taken the lead simply by outworking the competition – putting boots on the ground and opening five offices across the state since June, with plans to open 10 to 15 more by the year's end.

"We are knocking on doors others haven't knocked on before. The campaign has focused on really meeting people where they're at," said Anna Bahr, California press secretary for Bernie Sanders 2020. "We've got an office in the Central Valley, where no one else has really touched."

The stakes are high for Democratic candidates. California has 400 pledged delegates, more than any other state, which means that any candidate who wins California is boosted toward winning the nomination to represent the Democratic party. The fact the state now votes early in the process amplifies the spoils, setting them in a leadership position for the remainder of the primary.

Sanders narrowly lost the state to Hillary Clinton in 2016, but political observers say the fact that he ran once before will help Sanders' name recognition this time around.

And with a record share of the 7.7 million eligible Latino voters expected to turn out for the 3 March election, the largest share of those votes already expected to go to Sanders, the Vermont senator sits in a coveted spot.

Latinos in California have a long history of organizing social and political movements that have made real change, uniting around the rights of farm workers and pushing for civil rights.

In Sanders, Latinos see the grit and scrappiness that's propelled their own causes, said Bahr, the campaign press secretary. "They've seen the black and white photos of Bernie and I think they recognize someone who's an organizer and someone who's been on the picket lines. His campaign has always been about mobilizing working class people. He appeals to people who want to see real change against a system that's worked against them."

Bahr said the campaign has 40 staffers pounding the pavement in the state, has held more than 3,000 events and made contact with more than eight million potential voters. She estimates Sanders' California operation is two or three times bigger than that of any other candidates'.

Latinos make up 80 of the 400 staffers Sanders' campaign has on the ground nationally, according to the New York Times. And that represetation keeps issues relevant to Latinos in focus says Christain Arana, LCF policy director.

"If you're hiring Latinos on your staff, if you're talking about the issues we care about, and you're talking directly to us, of course you're going to rise to the top of the polls – and you just might win the primary," Arana said.

Talking about the issues that matter to Latinos means not focusing exclusively on immigration, Arana says."[...]
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 17, 2019, 03:05:48 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 17, 2019, 02:59:10 PM
Very tempting to throw a brick in the wasp's nest with that one but I desist.

Can I politely suggest more intellectual rigour would be attained by a brief reading of https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-intropsychmaster/chapter/diagnosing-and-classifying-psychological-disorders/ ?


Whiff.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on November 17, 2019, 03:43:25 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 17, 2019, 03:00:07 PM
Bernie Sanders' message increasingly resonates with Latino voters
As growing numbers of Latinos are voting, Sanders has gained their support in California simply by outworking the competition (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/17/bernie-sanders-message-increasingly-resonates-with-latino-voters)

[...]"Latino turnout has historically lagged behind other voting groups, but that appears to be changing under Trump. Latino turnout in the 2018 midterms hit 11.7m, nearly doubling from 2014, according to figures from Pew Research. A statewide poll released by LCF and Latino Decisions, which conducts research on political opinions, found that a historic 74% of registered Latino voters said they were certain they were going to vote in the 3 March presidential primary.

Organizers and political observers say Sanders has taken the lead simply by outworking the competition – putting boots on the ground and opening five offices across the state since June, with plans to open 10 to 15 more by the year's end.

"We are knocking on doors others haven't knocked on before. The campaign has focused on really meeting people where they're at," said Anna Bahr, California press secretary for Bernie Sanders 2020. "We've got an office in the Central Valley, where no one else has really touched."

The stakes are high for Democratic candidates. California has 400 pledged delegates, more than any other state, which means that any candidate who wins California is boosted toward winning the nomination to represent the Democratic party. The fact the state now votes early in the process amplifies the spoils, setting them in a leadership position for the remainder of the primary.

Sanders narrowly lost the state to Hillary Clinton in 2016, but political observers say the fact that he ran once before will help Sanders' name recognition this time around.

And with a record share of the 7.7 million eligible Latino voters expected to turn out for the 3 March election, the largest share of those votes already expected to go to Sanders, the Vermont senator sits in a coveted spot.

Latinos in California have a long history of organizing social and political movements that have made real change, uniting around the rights of farm workers and pushing for civil rights.

In Sanders, Latinos see the grit and scrappiness that's propelled their own causes, said Bahr, the campaign press secretary. "They've seen the black and white photos of Bernie and I think they recognize someone who's an organizer and someone who's been on the picket lines. His campaign has always been about mobilizing working class people. He appeals to people who want to see real change against a system that's worked against them."

Bahr said the campaign has 40 staffers pounding the pavement in the state, has held more than 3,000 events and made contact with more than eight million potential voters. She estimates Sanders' California operation is two or three times bigger than that of any other candidates'.

Latinos make up 80 of the 400 staffers Sanders' campaign has on the ground nationally, according to the New York Times. And that represetation keeps issues relevant to Latinos in focus says Christain Arana, LCF policy director.

"If you're hiring Latinos on your staff, if you're talking about the issues we care about, and you're talking directly to us, of course you're going to rise to the top of the polls – and you just might win the primary," Arana said.

Talking about the issues that matter to Latinos means not focusing exclusively on immigration, Arana says."[...]

Most interesting. Good on him.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 17, 2019, 04:23:47 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on November 16, 2019, 08:04:47 PM
What's your point? That can be said of each and every candidate.

There are actually very few of whom I think I  would say that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 17, 2019, 04:27:42 PM
Really? Which ones would you not let babysit your kids?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 17, 2019, 04:36:27 PM
Quote from: Todd on November 17, 2019, 03:05:48 PM

Whiff.
Not being a citizen of the Land of the Brave and the Free I had to look that up as I have no knowledge of baseball terminology which I presume is the meaning you intended.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 17, 2019, 04:57:29 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 17, 2019, 04:27:42 PM
Really? Which ones would you not let babysit your kids?

Most of them give me the vibe that they would feel too busy or too important to actually watch the kids:  Harris, Warren, Sanders, Gabbard, Beto, Steyer would fail.  Booker would okay by this test, so would Yang. Williamson would obviously be too loopy.  Most of the others are too insubstantial for me to form a usable impression.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 17, 2019, 05:04:42 PM
Quote from: JBS on November 17, 2019, 04:57:29 PM
Most of them give me the vibe that they would feel too busy or too important to actually watch the kids:  Harris, Warren, Sanders, Gabbard, Beto, Steyer would fail.  Booker would okay by this test, so would Yang. Williamson would obviously be too loopy.  Most of the others are too insubstantial for me to form a usable impression.
Buttigieg insubstantial? Maybe the common delusion all gays are pedophiles is in operation here despite the fact the majority of child sex abuse happens to be inflicted by male family members within the home. Granted I doubt Mayor Pete would think he had time to take on baby sitting for some time but his husband could step in or would he too be subject to the usual delusion all male homosexuals are potential pedophiles?
Me, I'd take Chasten or Pete as baby sitters anytime, they could even bring their dogs along so long as they didn't start reading scripture to the little ones.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 17, 2019, 05:25:03 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 17, 2019, 05:04:42 PM
Buttigieg insubstantial? Maybe the common delusion all gays are pedophiles is in operation here despite the fact the majority of child sex abuse happens to be inflicted by male family members within the home. Granted I doubt Mayor Pete would think he had time to take on baby sitting for some time but his husband could step in or would he too be subject to the usual delusion all male homosexuals are potential pedophiles?
Me, I'd take Chasten or Pete as baby sitters anytime, they could even bring their dogs along so long as they didn't start reading scripture to the little ones.

No, no, you may remember the original comment was that Buttigieg was one of the few  whom  I would trust to watch my kids!  That's why I didn't mention him in this comment.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on November 17, 2019, 08:42:31 PM
Quote from: amw on November 17, 2019, 02:42:38 PM
An utter sociopath is someone in the top 10% (every single member of which is probably a pedophile, war criminal, corporate shareholder, #MeToo accusee, cop, and/or perennial bootlicker). A regular sociopath is someone in the next 10% down who aspires to become part of the top 10%, and a psychopath is anyone from the bottom 80% who acts like people in the top 10% but doesn't have the privilege to stay out of jail for it. Technical psychology terms.
If that's the case then perhaps the just thing is to burn down all of civilization.

Once we do that and start living in tribes and small villages, we might notice that the sociopaths will pop up again. In the case, we should all burn down our own villages and wipe out humanity.

Especially bad are the #MeToo accusees, they are all guilty by default, for sure. Hashtags are a magical connection to the truth of the universe, after all.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 17, 2019, 09:28:57 PM
Quote from: amw on November 17, 2019, 02:02:15 PMcurrently the forum's only communist apologist for mass-murderers such as Stalin, Mao, Castro and Hamas.

Fixed.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 17, 2019, 10:09:45 PM
Quote from: Florestan on November 17, 2019, 09:28:57 PM
Fixed.

LOL. Hamas is not communist.  The original Hamas Charter blames Jews for communism.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 17, 2019, 11:20:45 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 17, 2019, 10:09:45 PM
LOL. Hamas is not communist.  The original Hamas Charter blames Jews for communism.

I know it alright. Nevertheless, amw likes them. Go figure!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 17, 2019, 11:24:43 PM
Quote from: greg on November 17, 2019, 08:42:31 PM
If that's the case then perhaps the just thing is to burn down all of civilization.

Once we do that and start living in tribes and small villages

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Zerzan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Zerzan)

Quotewe might notice that the sociopaths will pop up again. In the case, we should all burn down our own villages and wipe out humanity.

http://www.vhemt.org/ (http://www.vhemt.org/)



Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 17, 2019, 11:59:12 PM
Quote from: Florestan on November 17, 2019, 09:28:57 PM
currently the forum's only communist apologist for mass-murderers such as Stalin, Mao, Castro and Hamas.

That doesn't follow.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 18, 2019, 07:42:25 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 17, 2019, 11:20:45 PM
I know it alright. Nevertheless, amw likes them. Go figure!

I don't remember amw defending Stalin, Mao, or Castro at any time on GMG.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 18, 2019, 07:57:02 AM
Quote from: JBS on November 18, 2019, 07:42:25 AM
I don't remember amw defending Stalin, Mao, or Castro at any time on GMG.

Let me refresh your memory.

Quote from: amw on July 05, 2018, 04:57:59 AM
I'll grant you the resource extraction, but a few hundred thousand prisoners in labour camps were not exactly the Soviet Union's engine of growth & the relocation of populations had nothing to do with economics. (Stalin was essentially attempting to erase ethnic & national divisions by encouraging migration from the imperial core to the more distant republics. Didn't work out very well, as one can see in hindsight.) I don't think the PRC even had any kind of forced labour or migration; most of its problems were due to natural disasters (especially the 1959-61 famine) which Mao's government was unable to handle effectively.

Quote from: amw on December 10, 2018, 10:50:29 PM
Relatively speaking, Stalin committed fewer crimes against humanity in 1939-45 than Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt, Churchill, the Japanese Empire etc. You can draw what conclusions you like from that statement, but it is (as far as I know) true. 1931-36 or 1948-51 would be different stories obviously.

Quote from: amw(also, Stalin was actually good)

(I couldn't quote it directly because it's from a closed thread; read the whole post here: https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,28224.msg1149548.html#msg1149548 (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,28224.msg1149548.html#msg1149548))

I'll give you Castro, I confused her with someone else, but I wouldn't be surprised if she actually does like him.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 18, 2019, 08:10:55 AM
Well, this one
QuoteRelatively speaking, Stalin committed fewer crimes against humanity in 1939-45 than Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt, Churchill, the Japanese Empire etc. You can draw what conclusions you like from that statement, but it is (as far as I know) true. 1931-36 or 1948-51 would be different stories obviously.

Is fairly accurate if you take the view that things like the bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, and bombing of civilian populations are indeed crimes against humanity. The main inaccuracy is including Mussolini on the list.  And it doesn't deny that Stalin did commit crimes against humanity (most obvious victims in the war years being the Poles and his own army).

and this is euphemistic but true
QuoteStalin was essentially attempting to erase ethnic & national divisions by encouraging migration from the imperial core to the more distant republics

It just fails to mention how malign his motivations were.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 18, 2019, 08:22:52 AM
Quote from: JBS on November 18, 2019, 08:10:55 AM
Well, this one
Is fairly accurate if you take the view that things like the bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, and bombing of civilian populations are indeed crimes against humanity.

So is raping, killing and looting civilian populations, which the Red Army in its advance towards Berlin did with gusto. You might not be aware of that but Romanians, Poles, Baltics, Hungarians, Austrians and Germans are.

Quote
The main inaccuracy is including Mussolini on the list. 

Mussolini and Roosevelt. The bombing of Hiroshima took place under Truman's presidency.

Quote
and this is euphemistic but true
It just fails to mention how malign his motivations were.

I beg your pardon? It clearly states that his motivation were actually commendable. Read again: "Stalin was essentially attempting to erase ethnic & national divisions ". This is a lie. Stalin wanted to get rid of entire populations which stood in his way. As for "encouraged migration" as an euphemism for the forced and brutal deportation of entire ethnic groups, no comment.


EDIT: I'm surprised you didn't address the assertion that Mao did not have any policy of forced labor.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 22, 2019, 10:20:51 AM
Emerson Poll, Democratic Primary Preference, November 17-20, ±4.6 % pts:

Joe Biden --- 27 %
Bernie Sanders --- 27 %
Elizabeth Warren --- 20 %
Pete Buttigieg --- 7 %
Andrew Yang --- 4 %

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 22, 2019, 10:42:03 AM
No Kamala Harris? Pity. From this distance she seems much more worthy than the locals seem to feel.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 22, 2019, 11:23:08 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 22, 2019, 10:42:03 AM
No Kamala Harris? Pity. From this distance she seems much more worthy than the locals seem to feel.

Indeed, what a pity Americans choose their leaders without ever asking the opinion of the world at large.







Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 22, 2019, 11:42:56 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 22, 2019, 11:23:08 AM
Indeed, what a pity Americans choose their leaders without ever asking the opinion of the world at large.
Most Americans would need to attend classes in basic geography before they even knew where most of the world at large was.
I'm reminded of a conversation I overheard whilst viewing the Taj Mahal.
Female American "But where are the camels George?"
Male American "No Doris, that's the Parthenon. We see that on Tuesday"
I've learnt over the decades not to get bad tempered when telling Americans I'm from Australia only to have them think I'm Austrian.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 22, 2019, 12:26:28 PM
Quote from: Florestan on November 22, 2019, 11:23:08 AM
Indeed, what a pity Americans choose their leaders without ever asking the opinion of the world at large.

Like thats what I was saying.

On the other hand...if the would has a consensus of horror it should count for something.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 22, 2019, 12:27:28 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 22, 2019, 11:42:56 AM
Most Americans would need to attend classes in basic geography before they even knew where most of the world at large was.
I'm reminded of a conversation I overheard whilst viewing the Taj Mahal.
Female American "But where are the camels George?"
Male American "No Doris, that's the Parthenon. We see that on Tuesday"
I've learnt over the decades not to get bad tempered when telling Americans I'm from Australia only to have them think I'm Austrian.

Lets not go down this road - we both have plenty of home-grown idiots.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 22, 2019, 12:42:17 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 22, 2019, 12:27:28 PM
Lets not go down this road - we both have plenty of home-grown idiots.
True but for some reason Americans amongst westerners specialise in geographic ignorance.
The part of Australia I live in, Tasmania, attracts the ignorant from the mainland who 'Just want to get away from the wogs'.
Wogs is Australian slang for anyone not white and anglo-saxon.
This however takes us to an even more dangerous subject, the question arising from the ignorance and stupidity of a large percentage of any population in relation to the right to vote. Plato's 'Republic' refers.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 22, 2019, 02:00:14 PM
     We get richer, not poorer, solving the biggest problems. Dems don't seem to get this and play the same dreary howyougonna games about green new infrastructure as they play about health care.

     Pulling CO2 out of the air and using it could be a trillion-dollar business (https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/9/4/20829431/climate-change-carbon-capture-utilization-sequestration-ccu-ccs)

     It will be a huge business, no doubt. We should capture as much future industry as we can, and you can be sure China will do it. I would prefer not to hand the future over to them to "save dollars".

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 22, 2019, 02:08:39 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 22, 2019, 10:42:03 AM
No Kamala Harris? Pity. From this distance she seems much more worthy than the locals seem to feel.

Not a pity at all.

1) Kamala Harris is an uninspiring centrist.
2) Tulsi Gabbard destroyed her in the debates.

She was a corporate media favorite in the beginning because she is a centrist black woman so identity politics is easy (people who are against her can be called sexist and rasist). However, people saw fast how uninspiring she is and then Tulsi Gabbard did the rest...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 22, 2019, 02:15:28 PM
Quote from: drogulus on November 22, 2019, 02:00:14 PM
   
     Pulling CO2 out of the air and using it could be a trillion-dollar business

   

Is that meant to be a link? If not where are you getting this info?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 22, 2019, 03:14:10 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 22, 2019, 02:15:28 PM
Is that meant to be a link? If not where are you getting this info?

     Why are you being so judgmental? Have you never made a mistake?

     That's it, I'm outta here..... I'm sure all of you will be very happy when I'm gone and will say bad things about me as soon as I'm out the door, or sooner. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/angry.gif)

     OK, I fixed it. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 22, 2019, 09:39:16 PM
Heh. Thanks.

Interesting article.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 22, 2019, 10:32:56 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on November 22, 2019, 10:08:27 PM
I completely agree, because you are in the minority. The world at large would elect Sanders.

I actually doubt that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 22, 2019, 10:43:28 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 22, 2019, 10:32:56 PM
I actually doubt that.

The only reason would be Bernie Sanders isn't that well known outside the US. I didn't know him just 3 years ago! You think Finnish media is "pro Bernie"? No. Those lazy reporters think the US is right wing and want Biden or Buttigieg as their president. They don't see a "socialist" being elected. I don't know how they are so clueless, but Finnish news media doesn't understand the left wing movement in the US. That's why I was totally clueless myself just 3 years.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 22, 2019, 11:19:42 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 22, 2019, 02:15:28 PM
Is that meant to be a link? If not where are you getting this info?

CO2 capture research in Finland: Food from air!  0:)

https://www.lut.fi/web/en/news/-/asset_publisher/lGh4SAywhcPu/content/food-from-air-with-a-new-process-%E2%80%93-power-to-x-solution-and-pilot-equipment-by-lut-and-vtt (https://www.lut.fi/web/en/news/-/asset_publisher/lGh4SAywhcPu/content/food-from-air-with-a-new-process-%E2%80%93-power-to-x-solution-and-pilot-equipment-by-lut-and-vtt)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 22, 2019, 11:23:54 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 22, 2019, 12:42:17 PM
True but for some reason Americans amongst westerners specialise in geographic ignorance.

As opposed to Hobart, where I'm pretty sure that out of ten people randomly selected in the streets at least eight know the capital of Romania.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 22, 2019, 11:51:56 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 22, 2019, 12:42:17 PM
This however takes us to an even more dangerous subject, the question arising from the ignorance and stupidity of a large percentage of any population in relation to the right to vote. Plato's 'Republic' refers.

Is this a critique or an endorsement of Plato's political ideas? From the context it's not clear.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 23, 2019, 01:41:40 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 22, 2019, 11:23:54 PM
As opposed to Hobart, where I'm pretty sure that out of ten people randomly selected in the streets at least eight know the capital of Romania.

They would at least have a decent chance of knowing Romania was a country.

Seriously, there are ample studies on the lack of geographical awareness of Americans in comparison to other Western countries. This actually makes sense in some ways. But Americans simply don't travel as much to the rest of the world for several reasons.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 23, 2019, 02:07:08 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 22, 2019, 11:51:56 PM
Is this a critique or an endorsement of Plato's political ideas? From the context it's not clear.
Neither, simply drawing attention to one alterative to universal democracy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 23, 2019, 02:14:47 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 05, 2019, 10:29:52 AM
The Descent of the Bern [my headline ~kh]
I find it improbable he will win, and frankly, I'd give that South Bend mayor, Pete Buttigieg, who's still an unknown to most voters, a better chance of winding up in the top three or four candidates.
Buttigieg's unfortunate history with black voters may bring him undone. Hidden homophobia will also impel intense opposion to his candidacy. Shame, I was looking foward to living long enough to see an openly gay president in the White House and an intelligent one too. My main doubt about Mayor Pete comes from some of his recently made statements about Israel.
Also looks like I'll never discover if Pete or his husband will lead the innaugural dance at that ball and I'll never have the joy of watching Arab leaders squirm at having to kiss him on either cheek.
Still, of all the condenders I think he's the very best option we have.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 23, 2019, 02:36:24 AM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 23, 2019, 02:07:08 AM
Neither, simply drawing attention to one alterative to universal democracy.

Universal democracy has its problems but limiting the franchise to the educated citizens only is far from representing any sort of real-world alternative. It's pure fantasy, and a misguided one for that matter.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 23, 2019, 02:38:00 AM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 23, 2019, 02:14:47 AM
Still, of all the condenders I think he's the very best option we have.

We?  ???
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 23, 2019, 06:04:06 AM
A piece of no little existential dread from The Graun: 'No one out there': could Democrats' lack of star power see Trump re-elected by default? (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/22/democrats-2020-candidate-biden-warren-buttigieg-bloomberg)

Oh noes!  What if Trump gets reelected?!?!  (Aside from an internet explosion of mush-brained lefty righteous indignation, rage, sorrow, and virtue signaling the likes of which the world has never seen, that is.) 

I think it is safe to say Deval Patrick is not gonna be the guy to take on Donaldus Magnus:  Deval Patrick Cancels College Event After Two People Show up, Tells Organizers He Had to Catch Flight (https://www.newsweek.com/deval-patrick-cancels-event-morehouse-college-two-people-show-1473213)

Even if all he is angling for is a leg up in fundraising to fill Goofy Elizabeth Warren's seat should she take all the marbles, Patrick seems to be flailing a bit.  Tee-hee. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 23, 2019, 06:31:43 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 22, 2019, 10:43:28 PM
The only reason would be Bernie Sanders isn't that well known outside the US. I didn't know him just 3 years ago! You think Finnish media is "pro Bernie"? No. Those lazy reporters think the US is right wing and want Biden or Buttigieg as their president. They don't see a "socialist" being elected. I don't know how they are so clueless, but Finnish news media doesn't understand the left wing movement in the US. That's why I was totally clueless myself just 3 years.

     Voters are less "wing" than pundits and party operatives. A large number of them are more interested in what they want to see happen than which "ist" wants to do it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on November 23, 2019, 06:55:41 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 22, 2019, 10:43:28 PM
The only reason would be Bernie Sanders isn't that well known outside the US. I didn't know him just 3 years ago! You think Finnish media is "pro Bernie"? No. Those lazy reporters...

are a good deal less lazy than you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 23, 2019, 07:17:39 AM
Quote from: drogulus on November 23, 2019, 06:31:43 AM
     Voters are less "wing" than pundits and party operatives. A large number of them are more interested in what they want to see happen than which "ist" wants to do it.

True and also people don't know what labels mean. A lot of Americans identity themselves as "right wing", but when you go issue by issue it turns out they are not as right wing as they think they are. They may oppose abortion and gay marriage which are right wing position, but they may also support increasing minimum wage to $15 which is left wing position.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 23, 2019, 07:37:42 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 23, 2019, 06:55:41 AM
are a good deal less lazy than you.

So you are an expert on Finnish news media now?  :o

You can call me lazy on many things, but US politics is not one of those things.  >:D

Sorry, but the way Finnish news media handles US politics is naive and slow. Often they seem to "realize" things I have known myself for weeks or even months. For example it wasn't that long ago when they seemed to think Kamala Harris has a change! Jesus Christ! They seem to follow mostly US corporate media when they would have more "up to date" insight from lefty independent outlets.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 23, 2019, 12:24:53 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 23, 2019, 07:17:39 AM
True and also people don't know what labels mean.

     You don't know what my mumbo jumbo means.

Quote from: drogulus on November 16, 2019, 07:57:17 AM
     I don't think voters are going to choose a candidate the way you think they should. Voters want things to happen, and they want someone who can succeed at getting the things they want. What voters want in terms of health care, the economy and the environment doesn't neatly fit the boxes of political philosophy, and over time what voters have chosen changes what pundits think is radical versus mainstream. Radicals might have a model of revolutionary change in their radical heads. From a more distant perspective change is evolutionary.

     When voters change their behavior, the labels change what they mean. That's why Medicare isn't radical any more. Medicare didn't change, history happened and changed the context.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 24, 2019, 07:12:30 AM
It's official, there's a turd in the punchbowl: Michael Bloomberg confirms White House run and kicks off $30m ad buy (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/24/michael-bloomberg-2020-presidential-campaign-ad)

Congrats to Dems: they've managed to make their 2020 primaries as ridiculous as the Republicans did with their 2016 primaries.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Christabel on November 24, 2019, 12:00:09 PM
And a good thing too!  Looking forward to all those Democrats demanding to see his tax returns and complaining about his billions. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 24, 2019, 12:10:33 PM
Quote from: Todd on November 24, 2019, 07:12:30 AM
It's official, there's a turd in the punchbowl: Michael Bloomberg confirms White House run and kicks off $30m ad buy (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/24/michael-bloomberg-2020-presidential-campaign-ad)

Congrats to Dems: they've managed to make their 2020 primaries as ridiculous as the Republicans did with their 2016 primaries.
Thanks ever so for introducing me to the wonderful expression "There's a turd in the puchbowl' . I've been wracking my brain for a concise description of the occupant of the Whitehouse, now I have it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 24, 2019, 12:38:10 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 24, 2019, 12:10:33 PM
Thanks ever so for introducing me to the wonderful expression "There's a turd in the puchbowl' . I've been wracking my brain for a concise description of the occupant of the Whitehouse, now I have it.


Oh, you're new to the internet.  Got it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 24, 2019, 12:47:11 PM
Quote from: Todd on November 24, 2019, 12:38:10 PM

Oh, you're new to the internet.  Got it.
I've no idea what you're trying to say but rest assured I was here at the beginning, before forums, before newsgroups. - - - - - - - - - - - -
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 24, 2019, 12:49:16 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 24, 2019, 12:47:11 PM
I've no idea what you're trying to say but rest assured I was here at the beginning, before forums, before newsgroups. - - - - - - - - - - - -


This post tells me what I need to know.  Thanks
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 24, 2019, 12:57:01 PM
Quote from: Todd on November 24, 2019, 12:49:16 PM

This post tells me what I need to know.  Thanks
Your vast intelligence and staggeringly complete understanding of everything is astonishing.
Congratulations on your manifest genius.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 24, 2019, 01:00:10 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 24, 2019, 12:57:01 PM
Your vast intelligence and staggeringly complete understanding of everything is astonishing.
Congratulations on your manifest genius.


Thank you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 24, 2019, 01:10:51 PM
I wonder if Todd has any friends. Half of this tread is him "feuding" with others. If he tries to make himself look intelligent he fails in an epic fashion. I get it we all have bad days and we are unfriedly sometimes, but Todd is NEVER friendly to anyone. Even Trump isn't that bad. I wonder what is wrong with him. I have him on ignore but I see the feuding when other people reply to his stupid bully nonsense.  :P

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 24, 2019, 01:17:46 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 24, 2019, 01:10:51 PM
I wonder if Todd has any friends. Half of this tread is him "feuding" with others. If he tries to make himself look intelligent he fails in an epic fashion. I get it we all have bad days and we are unfriedly sometimes, but Todd is NEVER friendly to anyone. Even Trump isn't that bad. I wonder what is wrong with him. I have him on ignore but I see the feuding when other people reply to his stupid bully nonsense.  :P


See, this is one of the reasons this forum is a hoot.  I'm back on "ignore" for 71 dB, yet he just can't help but post about me anyway, using what he obviously thinks is cutting insight, while it's obviously more reflective of his personal reality, at least as he himself has described in multiple pathetic (in the true sense of the word) posts.  Good stuff.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 24, 2019, 01:31:59 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on November 24, 2019, 01:10:51 PM
I wonder if Todd has any friends. Half of this tread is him "feuding" with others. If he tries to make himself look intelligent he fails in an epic fashion. I get it we all have bad days and we are unfriendly sometimes, but Todd is NEVER friendly to anyone. Even Trump isn't that bad. I wonder what is wrong with him. I have him on ignore but I see the feuding when other people reply to his stupid bully nonsense.  :P
Forums are riddled with such characters. However Todd often makes it hard to know what it is he's actually trying to say. This results in inappropriate responses, which I'm sure I've made myself. Sometimes we encounter a similar problem in face to face conversation; very puzzling dialogue that can't be explained or understood.  Some individuals fail to distinguish between their internal thought processes and what they're actually saying imagining we're hearing both. I've no way of knowing if this is at work here but in the end the struggle to decode the 'message' just gets too hard.Either that or we make the problem worse ourselves by imagining we're responding in a relevant manner.
How did we get here from the Democratic candidates?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 24, 2019, 01:34:16 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 24, 2019, 01:31:59 PM
Forums are riddled with such characters. However Todd often makes it hard to know what it is he's actually trying to say. This results in inappropriate responses, which I'm sure I've made myself. Sometimes we encounter a similar problem in face to face conversation; very puzzling dialogue that can't be explained or understood.  Some individuals fail to distinguish between their internal thought processes and what they're actually saying imagining we're hearing both. I've no way of knowing if this is at work here but in the end the struggle to decode the 'message' just gets too hard.Either that or we make the problem worse ourselves by imagining we're responding in a relevant manner.
How did we get here from the Democratic candidates?


Elderly folks sure do ramble, don't they?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 24, 2019, 01:42:33 PM
Quote from: Todd on November 24, 2019, 01:34:16 PM

Elderly folks sure do ramble, don't they?
I've always rambled or as a friend commented recently when I told her I thought I was experiencing early signs of dementia " How would they know? You've always been demented"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 24, 2019, 01:44:33 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 24, 2019, 01:42:33 PM
I've always rambled or as a friend commented recently when I told her I thought I was experiencing early signs of dementia " How would they know? You've always been demented"


Good to know.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on November 24, 2019, 01:46:01 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 24, 2019, 01:42:33 PM
I've always rambled or as a friend commented recently when I told her I thought I was experiencing early signs of dementia " How would they know? You've always been demented"

:laugh:
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 02:00:03 PM
Todd is smug.

On other parts of the forum, Todd displays the fruits of a large amount of study and learning. But he comes onto this thread and constantly derides study and learning. Apparently, study and learning is okay so long as it's about developing an encylopaedic knowledge of classical music. You can be intellectual so long as it's about Beethoven piano sonatas and/or your name is Todd.

EDIT: Quite frankly, I think it would be quite entertaining to watch Todd visit a small Midwest town and explain how much he hates intellectualism just after telling the locals how many complete sets of Beethoven piano sonatas he owns. The facial expressions would be worth seeing. This thought helps me translate Todd's smugness from irritating to funny.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 24, 2019, 02:12:32 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 02:00:03 PM
Todd is smug.

On other parts of the forum, Todd displays the fruits of a large amount of study and learning. But he comes onto this thread and constantly derides study and learning. Apparently, study and learning is okay so long as it's about developing an encylopaedic knowledge of classical music. You can be intellectual so long as it's about Beethoven sonatas and/or your name is Todd.
Intellectualism and classical music are old bed-fellows but in some instances I've had to sit through concerts/recordings with someone analysing a work in detail in my ears as it's being performed. Drives me insane. Beethoven sonatas? How does he analyse Opus 131 I wonder or any of the other last quartets?
In my dotage I've developed somewhat of an allergy to over analysis of classical music anyhow, especially when issue of structure and form are involved. Lazy maybe but now I just want to be 'carried away'.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 02:19:23 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 24, 2019, 02:12:32 PM
Intellectualism and classical music are old bed-fellows but in some instances I've had to sit through concerts/recordings with someone analysing a work in detail in my ears as it's being performed. Drives me insane. Beethoven sonatas? How does he analyse Opus 131 I wonder or any of the other last quartets?
In my dotage I've developed somewhat of an allergy to over analysis of classical music anyhow, especially when issue of structure and form are involved. Lazy maybe but now I just want to be 'carried away'.

Fair enough. But you're not the one whose apparent main goal on the thread is to make fun of intellectuals. That's Todd.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 24, 2019, 02:39:25 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 02:00:03 PM
EDIT: Quite frankly, I think it would be quite entertaining to watch Todd visit a small Midwest town and explain how much he hates intellectualism just after telling the locals how many complete sets of Beethoven piano sonatas he owns. The facial expressions would be worth seeing. This thought helps me translate Todd's smugness from irritating to funny.


Your prejudice regarding people of the Midwest is quite delightful.  Urbane sorts, especially of the non-American variety, often fall prey to stereotypes of various Americans.  Extensive educations - for lawyers, say - sometimes exaggerate this tendency.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 02:55:22 PM
Quote from: Todd on November 24, 2019, 02:39:25 PM

Your prejudice regarding people of the Midwest is quite delightful.  Urbane sorts, especially of the non-American variety, often fall prey to stereotypes of various Americans.  Extensive educations - for lawyers, say - sometimes exaggerate this tendency.

What prejudice? Is it prejudice to assert that they are more likely to see through your bullshit?

I don't know exactly what you are imagining I imagine about the Midwest, but the education I'm relying on is not a formal one and there's nothing negative in what I'm imagining in terms of the inhabitants. I'm just imagining that they would find your lack of self-awareness as bizarre as I do.

As for describing me as "urbane"... well, I can't help wondering if you're falling prey to stereotypes about me and my background. Perhaps I need to explain to you that in some other countries, unlike America, you don't have to come from a rich family to study law.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 24, 2019, 03:01:54 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 02:55:22 PM
What prejudice? Is it prejudice to assert that they are more likely to see through your bullshit?


Your last post and this most recent post are both premised on ignorance of what people in a proverbial small Midwest town are like. 

Also, and perhaps this is something learned, urbane sorts don't ever pick up in life, but it generally makes sense to adjust one's behavior depending on location.  I interact with locals slightly differently in Rapid City and New York, for instance.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 03:07:35 PM
Quote from: Todd on November 24, 2019, 03:01:54 PM
it generally makes sense to adjust one's behavior depending on location.  I interact with locals slightly differently in Rapid City and New York, for instance.

What you're telling me is you'd hide your Beethoven fetish because you know it would be a problem?

That just makes this funnier. You just finished telling me how wrong I was to have a stereotype, and now you go and confirm that in fact there is a cultural difference and that people would view you differently.

The hypocrisy is palpable.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 03:10:36 PM
Rapid City isn't that small anyway.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 24, 2019, 03:15:08 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 03:07:35 PMWhat you're telling me is you'd hide your Beethoven fetish because you know it would be a problem?


If the topic of Beethoven ever comes up, I discuss it, and have done so on a few occasions with acquaintances.  It rarely comes up in informal settings where small talk is the prevailing standard - not even in very sophisticated New York.  Maybe urbane, learned sorts make it a point to blabber on about things inappropriate to the moment in such settings.  Based on my experience, that is actually not uncommon.


Quote from: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 03:10:36 PM
Rapid City isn't that small anyway.


Thank goodness for Google, am I right? 

Would Gower suffice in your most learned estimation?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 03:20:03 PM
Quote from: Todd on November 24, 2019, 03:15:08 PM

If the topic of Beethoven ever comes up, I discuss it, and have done so on a few occasions with acquaintances.  It rarely comes up in informal settings where small talk is the prevailing standard - not even in very sophisticated New York.  Maybe urbane, learned sorts make it a point to blabber on about things inappropriate to the moment in such settings.  Based on my experience, that is actually not uncommon.

You really don't seem to grasp that I was describing a fictional encounter, do you?

The point is not to have it actually happen. The point is that it highlights the complete absurdity of you using terms like "intellectual" and "urbane" and "learned" as insults in the direction of others. As if you yourself are not in those categories.

Mate, you're as fucking urbane as they come.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 24, 2019, 03:27:41 PM
Doesn't "urbane" mean something like "charming in social situations"?

That's not Todd.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 24, 2019, 03:32:03 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 03:20:03 PM
You really don't seem to grasp that I was describing a fictional encounter, do you?

The point is not to have it actually happen. The point is that it highlights the complete absurdity of you using terms like "intellectual" and "urbane" and "learned" as insults in the direction of others. As if you yourself are not in those categories.

Mate, you're as fucking urbane as they come.


Oh, no, you misunderstand.  I am quite in awe of the immense intellectual prowess displayed day in and day out on this very forum.  The intricate knowledge of US law demonstrated by, of all people, non-Americans is most impressive.  The preternatural grasp of US politics by the same group is truly astounding, and the mastery of US politics by the native born posters is literally DC grade.  Better, even.  It is to this forum that I turn when I want an honest, objective take on the happenings of the day.  If I do not grasp the fine nuances of your imposing, lawyerly use of language, it is only because I cannot.



Quote from: SimonNZ on November 24, 2019, 03:27:41 PM
Doesn't "urbane" mean something like "charming in social situations"?

That's not Todd.


Now I know you confuse the internet for real life.  Truth to tell, I figured you did.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Daverz on November 24, 2019, 03:32:15 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 24, 2019, 03:27:41 PM
Doesn't "urbane" mean something like "charming in social situations"?

That's not Todd.

Todd is ex-urbane, somewhere outside Seattle IIRC.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 24, 2019, 03:33:40 PM
Quote from: Daverz on November 24, 2019, 03:32:15 PM
Todd is ex-urbane, somewhere outside Seattle IIRC.


Incorrect.  OK, technically, most of the world is outside Seattle, but you're still wrong.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 03:36:04 PM
Quote from: Todd on November 24, 2019, 03:32:03 PM

Oh, no, you misunderstand.  I am quite in awe of the immense intellectual prowess displayed day in and day out on this very forum.  The intricate knowledge of US law demonstrated by, of all people, non-Americans is most impressive.  The preternatural grasp of US politics by the same group is truly astounding, and the mastery of US politics by the native born posters is literally DC grade.  Better, even.  It is to this forum that I turn when I want an honest, objective take on the happenings of the day.  If I do not grasp the fine nuances of your imposing, lawyerly use of language, it is only because I cannot.


Nice sarcasm. Bit intellectual of you though.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Daverz on November 24, 2019, 03:36:50 PM
Quote from: Todd on November 24, 2019, 03:33:40 PM

Incorrect.  OK, technically, most of the world is outside Seattle, but you're still wrong.

OK, don't know where I got that impression.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 24, 2019, 03:38:03 PM
Quote from: Todd on November 24, 2019, 03:32:03 PM

Now I know you confuse the internet for real life.  Truth to tell, I figured you did.

You're saying you're not really a dick, you just play one on the internet?

No, I think you'd have no inclination to be an online dick if you weren't already a dick in the offline world.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 03:38:28 PM
Quote from: Daverz on November 24, 2019, 03:32:15 PM
Todd is ex-urbane, somewhere outside Seattle IIRC.

Think it's either Oregon or the part of Washington just across from Oregon.

They let the weirdos roam free in Portland, but they kicked Todd out.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 24, 2019, 03:43:17 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 24, 2019, 03:38:03 PM
You're saying you're not really a dick, you just play one on the internet?

No, I think you'd have no inclination to be an online dick if you weren't already a dick in the offline world.


Quote from: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 03:38:28 PM
Think it's either Oregon or the part of Washington just across from Oregon.

They let the weirdos roam free in Portland, but they kicked Todd out.


Yep, this is good stuff.  Big Brains is sooper smart.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 03:44:43 PM
Quote from: Todd on November 24, 2019, 03:43:17 PM


Yep, this is good stuff.  Big Brains is sooper smart.

Ooh look, he misspelled "super" so he could pretend he's not one of us. Isn't that sweet.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 24, 2019, 03:47:50 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 03:44:43 PM...he's not one of us...


You win the internet today.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 24, 2019, 03:50:12 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 03:38:28 PM
They let the weirdos roam free in Portland, but they kicked Todd out.

:laugh:  ;D  :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 24, 2019, 03:51:06 PM
I wonder how SimonNZ will respond to someone using only emojis in this instance?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 03:58:20 PM
Quote from: Todd on November 24, 2019, 03:47:50 PM

You win the internet today.

Selective quoting, Todd. You left out the word "pretend". You pretend to be different.

You're a smug intellectual, Todd. In fact you're one of the more intellectual posters on the forum. Which I might respect if it wasn't for the way you yourself use "intellectual" as an insult.

You're a smug intellectual. And after you've finished telling the forum, in a grand act of either disingenuousness or self-delusion, just how much more in touch with the concerns of the average American you are, you'll wander off to find out about the latest classical piano recordings released in Japan.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 24, 2019, 04:10:27 PM
Quote from: Todd on November 24, 2019, 03:51:06 PM
I wonder how SimonNZ will respond to someone using only emojis in this instance?

Depends on if I think they're trolling.

I wonder if Todd thinks that post he edited a few back is evidence of an over hasty knee jerk reaction with shaking hands?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 24, 2019, 04:29:38 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 03:58:20 PM
Selective quoting, Todd. You left out the word "pretend". You pretend to be different.

You're a smug intellectual, Todd. In fact you're one of the more intellectual posters on the forum. Which I might respect if it wasn't for the way you yourself use "intellectual" as an insult.

You're a smug intellectual. And after you've finished telling the forum, in a grand act of either disingenuousness or self-delusion, just how much more in touch with the concerns of the average American you are, you'll wander off to find out about the latest classical piano recordings released in Japan.


I have never, not even once, claimed to be in touch with whatever a supposedly average American cares about.  Feel free to quote a post where I made such an assertion. 

I am also not an intellectual.  Not even close. 


Quote from: SimonNZ on November 24, 2019, 04:10:27 PM
Depends on if I think they're trolling.


So, you're unprincipled.  (I knew that already.)


Quote from: SimonNZ on November 24, 2019, 04:10:27 PM
I wonder if Todd thinks that post he edited a few back is evidence of an over hasty knee jerk reaction with shaking hands?


Good to know that gets your goat.  (Of course, you fuck up posts with fewer than ten words and include your responses inside quotes and other easy tells of knee-jerkism on a routine basis.)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 24, 2019, 04:36:02 PM
Quote from: Todd on November 24, 2019, 04:29:38 PM


So, you're unprincipled.  (I knew that already.)


Despising trolls is a principle.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 04:37:21 PM
Quote from: Todd on November 24, 2019, 04:29:38 PM

I have never, not even once, claimed to be in touch with whatever a supposedly average American cares about.  Feel free to quote a post where I made such an assertion. 


Oh I see. So your whole role here is simply to make fun of other people for not being in touch with these things. You don't actually have anything of your own to contribute, do you?

You're just here to be an absolute wanker towards other people for daring to contribute their own thoughts, and to point out their perceived flaws which are in fact uncannily like your own, except that some of us have the extra sin of being from another country.

Which, by the way, probably gives you as an American a completely false impression about the extent of our knowledge of America. Just because America is famously insular and is big enough to not bother with news from elsewhere, you imagine that the rest of the world is like that too?

As for not being an intellectual yourself... so it's self-delusion then rather than disingenuousness. You honestly believe that scouring East Asia for new classical recordings is a perfectly typical form of behaviour for the average man.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 24, 2019, 04:47:33 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 04:37:21 PMYou don't actually have anything of your own to contribute, do you?


Not really, and I know the significance of what I post.  Others here obviously don't, especially ignorant non-Americans.


Quote from: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 04:37:21 PMWhich, by the way, probably gives you as an American a completely false impression about the extent of our knowledge of America. Just because America is famously insular and is big enough to not bother with news from elsewhere, you imagine that the rest of the world is like that too?


In other words, I am very clearly not an intellectual.  Thank you.


Quote from: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 04:37:21 PMYou honestly believe that scouring East Asia for new classical recordings is a perfectly typical form of behaviour for the average man.


You'd have to point out where I ever made such an assertion.


Quote from: JBS on November 24, 2019, 04:36:02 PMDespising trolls is a principle.


One thing is for certain, words assume flexible definitions on GMG.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 24, 2019, 04:58:18 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 02:19:23 PM
Fair enough. But you're not the one whose apparent main goal on the thread is to make fun of intellectuals. That's Todd.
'Intellectuals' covers a multitude of sins one of which is imagining there's ever been much agreement as to what constitutes being one. Given my encounters with members of Mensa I suggest their particular definition is no more than self serving delusion. Then we have that eccentric, and at times downright dangerous, layer of academia who specialise in interacting ( if that's what it is) with the world through torturous piles of over tossed word salad signifying little if anything. The French deconstructionists come to mind.

Isn't it wonderful a body such as Democratic candidates can trigger such arcane and probably pointless speculation?
We are a peculiar species.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 05:13:01 PM
Quote from: Todd on November 24, 2019, 04:47:33 PM

In other words, I am very clearly not an intellectual.  Thank you.


Your whole premise has been that it's possible to be an intellectual and ignorant/stupid at the same time. So YOU don't get out of it by displaying ignorance or stupidity.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 24, 2019, 05:23:20 PM
Quote from: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 05:13:01 PM
Your whole premise has been that it's possible to be an intellectual and ignorant/stupid at the same time. So YOU don't get out of it by displaying ignorance or stupidity.


Clearly, we have different definitions of what the word "intellectual" even means.  I can state that I've met real deal intellectuals (eg, college professors, practicing attorneys, published writers) who possess copious knowledge in specific areas and are complete dumbshits in other areas, sometimes most other areas.  It happens all the time, actually.  Wait, look at that, I'm relying on anecdotal evidence, thus demonstrating, in absolute intellectual terms, that I am not an intellectual.  Case closed.  Bold type doesn't alter that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on November 24, 2019, 05:26:33 PM
I'm done responding to your trolling.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 24, 2019, 05:31:03 PM
Gosh, and I was waiting for you to point out where I claimed I was an average American or that buying CDs from Japan was something average people do.  Maybe the next bona fide intellectual will be able to point to documentary evidence to support those incredibly potent intellectual fusillades of yours.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 24, 2019, 09:25:31 PM
Has anyone read the book on dealing with climate change that Michael Bloomberg wrote with the Sierra Club's Carl Pope?

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32816557-climate-of-hope


also:

Mike Bloomberg is running for president. These are the causes he supports and industries they will affect (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/24/mike-bloombergs-presidential-platform-and-industries-it-will-affect.html)


and:

Michael Bloomberg launches campaign for president (https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/24/michael-bloomberg-campaign-2020-president-073271)

[...]"Bloomberg routinely made his tax returns public when he was mayor. A spokesperson said he would make his returns public now that he is seeking the presidency.

The former mayor, who is worth an estimated $54.1 billion, plans to forgo competing in early voting states and instead focus his resources on Super Tuesday, when 15 states head to the polls March 3. His aides believe the strategy will help him lay claim to delegate-rich territory that has been somewhat overlooked as the top-tier candidates focus their energies in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

They say their polling also showed Trump dominating in six swing states where they believe Bloomberg can perform well: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

[...]Where Bloomberg's record on public health initiatives, guns and climate change is in step with much of the Democratic Party, he will have to overcome some well-known weaknesses to win the nomination.

For starters, he is an unabashed defender of Wall Street who let public housing conditions and homelessness deteriorate during his tenure. His advisers are quick to point out he is self made, having begun Bloomberg LP after getting laid off from an investment bank job when he was 39. But his public posture has shaped a narrative that he is out of touch with people of ordinary means.

He once advised New Yorkers snowed in during a blizzard in 2010 to take in a Broadway show. He fired a $27,000-a-year aide whom he caught playing solitaire on his computer during work hours, saying it was "not appropriate behavior."

And in order to exceed New York City's two-term limit for mayors, he successfully pushed for a change in the law to give himself the option of running for a third term, only to revert the policy back to two terms for his successors. The change ran counter to voters, who in previous ballot questions had supported a ceiling of two consecutive terms for mayors. Though Bloomberg outspent his opponent 14 to 1 in the subsequent election in 2009, he won by fewer than 5 points.

[...]Supporters hail him as a strong manager who helped New York City recover from the Sept. 11 terror attacks and shepherded it through a recession, all while driving crime down and school test scores up. He spearheaded sweeping redevelopment projects that helped secure the city's reputation as a premier destination but did less to provide adequate affordable housing for its poorest residents.

"He was anything but politically correct, which was refreshing," said Kathy Wylde, who leads the pro-business Partnership for New York City. "It was refreshing for the business community and certainly created an economic momentum that has carried us through the last decade."

As he prepared to launch his campaign in recent weeks, Bloomberg sought to counter some of his biggest vulnerabilities.

When a story surfaced about comments he'd made over the years denigrating women, Bloomberg's long-time spokesman was contrite. "Mike has come to see that some of what he has said is disrespectful and wrong. He believes his words have not always aligned with his values and the way he has led his life," Stu Loeser told the New York Times.

Last Sunday, Bloomberg took the rare step of admitting fault and apologizing for his police department's controversial use of a tactic known as "stop and frisk," which a federal judge determined in 2013 violated the constitutional rights of racial minorities. The former mayor had vehemently defended the policy after he left office, arguing it was necessary to achieve the dramatic drop in crime that happened on his watch. He even once argued that statistically white people were stopped too frequently.

Some black clergy and politicians forgave him, and his change of heart earned him the endorsement of Columbia, S.C. Mayor Stephen Benjamin.

Others were circumspect.

Rev. Al Sharpton said he was pleased to hear the admission but added, "It will take more than one speech for people to forgive and forget a policy that so negatively impacted entire communities."

The headstrong former mayor who had doubled down on the NYPD's use of the policy for years got up before hundreds of black parishioners in a church in Brooklyn and said that after much reflection he realized he "got something really wrong."

This all amounts to an unlikely path for someone who prides himself on being apolitical.

Wearing a purple tie to indicate his nonpartisan bearing, Bloomberg began his searing indictment of Trump at the Democratic National Convention in 2016 by announcing he was "not here as a member of any party."

He was a Democrat until realizing he had a better shot at winning the mayoralty as a Republican. He switched registration and, with the crucial post-Sept. 11 endorsement from then-mayor Rudy Giuliani, he won the race in November 2001. Shortly after taking office, he sought to abolish partisan municipal elections.

He then dropped his party affiliation during his first flirtation with a White House bid in 2007. And though he never went through with running the following year, he remained unaffiliated with a party until he became a Democrat last year."[...]
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 25, 2019, 12:04:43 AM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 24, 2019, 01:42:33 PM
I've always rambled or as a friend commented recently when I told her I thought I was experiencing early signs of dementia " How would they know? You've always been demented"

This can actually be deduced from your signature line.

The human race is insane, dissily Mordentroge belongs to the human race, ergo he is insane.



Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on November 25, 2019, 02:26:29 AM
Quote from: Florestan on November 25, 2019, 12:04:43 AM
This can actually be deduced from your signature line.

The human race is insane, dissily Mordentroge belongs to the human race, ergo he is insane.
As I believe I've hinted at previously, the power of your deductive faculties is astonishing.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on November 25, 2019, 03:16:28 AM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 25, 2019, 02:26:29 AM
As I believe I've hinted at previously, the power of your deductive faculties is astonishing.

Thanks but it's really nothing else than basic logic.



Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on November 25, 2019, 07:20:02 AM
Bloomberg is an ideal candidate to get conservatives who don't like Trump to vote for Trump nevertheless, because of his advocacy for gun control.  And restricting sodas while he was mayor....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on November 25, 2019, 11:17:02 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on November 25, 2019, 09:37:52 PM
The only thing he'll end up doing is taking votes away from Biden.
He's got Judge Judy's vote, but not Judge Wapner.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on November 26, 2019, 02:33:48 AM
Quote from: schnittkease on November 25, 2019, 09:37:52 PM
The only thing he'll end up doing is taking votes away from Biden.

Pretty much and and that's why the progressives welcome him to the race, even if billionaires joining elections with their money is crazy.  :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on November 27, 2019, 06:35:52 AM
     The NYTimes had an article on the influence of the economist Mariana Mazzucato. I found a better article here:

     I Have Seen the Next Big Thing, and it is Mariana Mazzucato (https://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/10/seen-next-big-thing-mariana-mazzucato.html)

Mazzucato's central message is that standard accounts of the economic role of the state are incomplete. These accounts focus on the provision of public goods and the state's role in compensating for negative externalities and other market failures. But Mazzucato believes economists and the public need a better understanding of the role of states in driving economic innovation. She argues that government spending has been most effective when that spending is directed towards large missions, and that missions such as putting a man on the moon or tackling climate change require strong government intervention. Mazzucato builds on her account of mission-oriented investment to explain how to develop public-private partnerships that are symbiotic rather than parasitic.

     It sounds like "build to grow". That's where I came in. We know what direction to build towards because we know where the biggest problem is. The left and right agree, the left by advocating for a solution and the right by advocating that this is exactly where we need to run out of dollars. It's climate change and new energy investment that shouldn't be done. Bulls-eye!

     The author of the article raise another point:

My only reservation on this last point is that I think Mazzucato slightly over-emphasizes the need for rewards to go to states in the form of tax revenues. I would propose that the focus should be on rewards going to the publics which are the democratic foundation of these states. Governments do not necessarily need to recoup rewards in the form of tax revenues, so long as fiscal mechanisms of some kind exist for the provision of public services and the broad distribution of the rewards of state investment throughout the economy.

     The currency monopolist doesn't do howyougonnas for net provision of currency, so the only point in faking it is the politics of bad economics the public imbibes from the libraservatives that dominate public discussion.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on November 30, 2019, 06:20:15 AM
Why Baby Yoda should scare Michael Bloomberg and Deval Patrick (https://www.axios.com/baby-yoda-2020-democrats-michael-bloomberg-deval-patrick-b3bf5f78-436a-42a5-8904-7c33ac15b85c.html)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on November 30, 2019, 02:34:31 PM
Kamala Harris aide says in resignation letter: 'I have never seen an organization treat its staff so poorly' (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/472455-kamala-harris-aide-says-in-resignation-letter-ive-never-seen-staff-treated)

"An aide to Sen. Kamala Harris blasted the treatment of staff on the California Democrat's presidential campaign in a resignation letter this month.

"This is my third presidential campaign and I have never seen an organization treat its staff so poorly," wrote state operations director Kelly Mehlenbacher in the Nov. 11 letter, which was obtained by The New York Times.

"While I still believe that Senator Harris is the strongest candidate to win in the General Election in 2020, I no longer have confidence in our campaign or its leadership," she added.

She wrote that "the treatment of our staff over the last two weeks was the final straw in this very difficult decision."

"It is not acceptable to me that we encouraged people to move from Washington, DC to Baltimore only to lay them off with no notice, with no plan for the campaign, and without thoughtful consideration of the personal consequences to them or the consequences that their absence would have on the remaining staff," Mehlenbacher said it her letter. "It is unacceptable that we would lay off anyone that we hired only weeks earlier. It is unacceptable that with less than 90 days until Iowa we still do not have a real plan to win."

"Our campaign For the People is made up of diverse talent which is being squandered by indecision and a 'lack of leaders who will lead,'" she continued. "[...]
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on December 01, 2019, 02:08:53 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 24, 2019, 03:38:03 PM
You're saying you're not really a dick, you just play one on the internet?

No, I think you'd have no inclination to be an online dick if you weren't already a dick in the offline world.
A crack in the armor? Seems like someone believes he's really nice guy? Perhaps this should be encouraged - holiday season and all.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on December 01, 2019, 07:47:26 AM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 24, 2019, 04:58:18 PM
'Intellectuals' covers a multitude of sins one of which is imagining there's ever been much agreement as to what constitutes being one. Given my encounters with members of Mensa I suggest their particular definition is no more than self serving delusion.

     Mensa is an association of people with high IQs. Some of them are no doubt intellectuals, that is something they do with their aptitude. People with less than genius IQs are sometimes intellectuals. I think of it like a combination of speed and patience. IQ is speed, so being an intellectual with an average IQ requires more patience than most people have.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on December 01, 2019, 08:30:06 AM

     The Case for Bernie (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/30/opinion/sunday/bernie-sanders.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage)

     A theo-conservative thinks Bernie would be OK, and I think his reason is interesting. Douhat hates the culture wars, mostly the losing part I think, but he does see that Sanders isn't much of a threat in that respect. What impresses me, though, is how unimportant he thinks the supposedly earthshaking howyougonnas are. He may be only accidentally right, but it's possible he's aware that the rich are never going to be taxed into poverty by paying more on their gains than they are presently.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on December 01, 2019, 09:38:47 AM
'I Need Help': Cory Booker Pleads for Campaign Donations, Reiterates Message of Love and Unity. (https://www.newsweek.com/cory-booker-pleads-campaign-donations-i-need-help-2020-fundraising-1474940)

Turns out Spartacus is a pussy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 01, 2019, 11:14:22 AM
Quote from: Todd on December 01, 2019, 09:38:47 AM
'I Need Help': Cory Booker Pleads for Campaign Donations, Reiterates Message of Love and Unity. (https://www.newsweek.com/cory-booker-pleads-campaign-donations-i-need-help-2020-fundraising-1474940)

Turns out Spartacus is a pussy.

Maybe Cory Booker should look at the polls, call it a day and drop out? Money, love and "unity" won't help him at this point.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 02, 2019, 09:56:56 AM
Kamala Harris dropping out soon?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 02, 2019, 10:37:37 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 02, 2019, 09:56:56 AM
Kamala Harris dropping out soon?

If you believe some of the talking heads in the MSM, those are false narratives being touted by the MSM to stifle the candidacy of a woman of color.

I don't particularly care for Ms Harris, so I would see her dropping out of the race as being a good thing.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 02, 2019, 02:19:45 PM
Quote from: JBS on December 02, 2019, 10:37:37 AM
If you believe some of the talking heads in the MSM, those are false narratives being touted by the MSM to stifle the candidacy of a woman of color.

I don't particularly care for Ms Harris, so I would see her dropping out of the race as being a good thing.

I don't need to "believe talking heads." I am able to use my own head and see her campaign is in trouble. I am not into identity politics. To me it doesn't matter if you are a man or a woman or a transvestite, white, black, young, old, straight, gay etc. All I care about is policy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on December 02, 2019, 05:50:11 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 01, 2019, 11:14:22 AM
Maybe Cory Booker should look at the polls, call it a day and drop out? Money, love and "unity" won't help him at this point.
Maybe so. Brave guy though. Ran into a burning building to save people. True story. Let's give him another few weeks.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 02, 2019, 05:56:39 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 02, 2019, 02:19:45 PM
I don't need to "believe talking heads." I am able to use my own head and see her campaign is in trouble. I am not into identity politics. To me it doesn't matter if you are a man or a woman or a transvestite, white, black, young, old, straight, gay etc. All I care about is policy.

So you trust the MSM narrative regarding Senator Harris but don't accept the MSM narrative regarding Bernie.

But it's all the same source...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 03, 2019, 12:11:36 AM
Quote from: Que on June 27, 2019, 10:48:11 PM
Sorry to intrude at another American political party...

But in my humble outsider opinion the problem with the US is not that Democrats are not in power.

Your presidential, two party system has been malfunctioning for a long time and is now close to a breakdown. This political crisis is combined with a huge divisions in an increasing violent society and a general and deep rooted lack of trust in federal government
Getting "the right people" into office is not going to fix this.... I think... ::)
Q
Some truth in that but not the main problem which is the delusion the US is anything like a full democracy. With an Executive Branch holding under the present constitution the kind of powers Trump has been unleashing on the nation any idea of the US being a full democracy wilfully ignores the truth.
Then we have the electoral system ( if that's what you can call it) which permits the disenfranchisement of large groups of citizens making a mockery of any idea of universal suffrage. Add to this a society armed to the teeth, stir in a mentally unstable President who could very probably refuse to step down if he loses the next election and the prospect of a second civil war becomes very real. Knowing thugs like Putin are gleefully manipulating this mess behind the scenes , add an irrational, hypocritical religious right and doubt things aren't going to improve for a very long time.Why should any of this bother those of us living outside the Land of The Brave and The 'Free'? Because a childish, impulsive fool has his fingers on the red button.   
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 03, 2019, 12:14:18 AM
duplicate post removed. No idea why this keeps happening/
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 03, 2019, 01:43:10 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 02, 2019, 05:56:39 PM
So you trust the MSM narrative regarding Senator Harris but don't accept the MSM narrative regarding Bernie.

But it's all the same source...

Why do you think only SMS talks about Kamala Harris? They were the the one thinking she had a change! You know I trust independent lefty outlets.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 03, 2019, 01:50:36 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 03, 2019, 01:43:10 AM
Why do you think only SMS talks about Kamala Harris? They were the the one thinking she had a change! You know I trust independent lefty outlets.
Would you care to nominate the US outfits you think are independent?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 03, 2019, 01:55:16 AM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on December 03, 2019, 01:50:36 AM
Would you care to nominate the US outfits you think are independent?

Secular Talk, David Pakman Show, TYT, The Humanist Report, Mike Malloy Show, The Jimmy Dore Show and The Progressive Voice for example.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 03, 2019, 02:01:19 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 03, 2019, 01:55:16 AM
Secular Talk, David Pakman Show, TYT, The Humanist Report, Mike Malloy Show, The Jimmy Dore Show and The Progressive Voice for example.
Just listened to Mike Malloy on Trump. Very refreshing. I'll follow up on the others tomorrow, none of which I'm aware of getting any coverage in Australia.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 03, 2019, 02:26:37 AM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on December 03, 2019, 02:01:19 AM
Just listened to Mike Malloy on Trump. Very refreshing. I'll follow up on the others tomorrow, none of which I'm aware of getting any coverage in Australia.

Why would they get any coverage in Australia or elsewhere for that matter? They are independent outlets. You have to discover them yourself. Luckily Youtube recommends others when you discover one, or at least it used to. Nowawadays Youtube tries to lead people to mainstream channels because of the stupid decisions they have been making, but it is what it is.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 03, 2019, 05:57:05 AM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on December 03, 2019, 02:01:19 AM
Just listened to Mike Malloy on Trump. Very refreshing. I'll follow up on the others tomorrow, none of which I'm aware of getting any coverage in Australia.

I ought to give you fair warning: 71db's favorites are, in US terms, well to the Left of the mainstream, and are heavily biased towards the Left.  When you listen to them, keep in  mind their presentation is just as inaccurate as Breitbart, only to the other side . 71db persistently mistakes their advocacy as accurate because of his own Leftism accords with theirs. 

By all means, listen to them, but remember they don't actually give you an accurate presentation of how most Americans think and feel.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 03, 2019, 08:32:29 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 03, 2019, 05:57:05 AM
71db's favorites are, in US terms, well to the Left of the mainstream, and are heavily biased towards the Left.

Yes, and they admit to that. They tell their bias. It's not a secret to anyone. In US society where the political Overton Window has moved a mile and a half right, their bias looks heavily lefty. In reality their bias is rather center or a little bit left from center and reflects the views of most Americans, althou the corporate media renders a different faulty narrative. People like AOC and Bernie Sanders have moved the Overton Window a little bit back to the where it should be and "fringe" ideas like medicare for all aren't considered "fringe" anymore by most Americans and Americans know the current healthcare system is the "fringe" one in leaving millions uninsured and costing much more than healthcare in other countries.

Quote from: JBS on December 03, 2019, 05:57:05 AMWhen you listen to them, keep in  mind their presentation is just as inaccurate as Breitbart, only to the other side . 71db persistently mistakes their advocacy as accurate because of his own Leftism accords with theirs.

Not true at all. You cannot compare Breitbart to these lefty outlets I listed. Maybe you can't see the difference because you are totally brainwashed by the corporate media, but people in other countries can see the difference.

Quote from: JBS on December 03, 2019, 05:57:05 AMBy all means, listen to them, but remember they don't actually give you an accurate presentation of how most Americans think and feel.

Actually they do. Polls show that. The lefty politics they advocate are massively popular, althou as I said the corporate media brainwashes people like you to think otherwise and try to smear things for example fearmongering about medicare for all.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on December 03, 2019, 08:41:52 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 03, 2019, 05:57:05 AM
I ought to give you fair warning: 71db's favorites are, in US terms, well to the Left of the mainstream, and are heavily biased towards the Left.  When you listen to them, keep in  mind their presentation is just as inaccurate as Breitbart, only to the other side . 71db persistently mistakes their advocacy as accurate because of his own Leftism accords with theirs. 

By all means, listen to them, but remember they don't actually give you an accurate presentation of how most Americans think and feel.

You've given yourself the responsibility of providing trigger warnings for 71dB posts? :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 03, 2019, 08:48:37 AM
Quote from: Ratliff on December 03, 2019, 08:41:52 AM
You've give. Yourself the responsibility of providing trigger warnings for 71dB posts? :)

He clearly can't stand the humiliation of a Finnish guy undertanding US politics better than himself.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: AlberichUndHagen on December 03, 2019, 08:58:58 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 03, 2019, 08:48:37 AM
He clearly can't stand the humiliation of a Finnish guy undertanding US politics better than himself.

Your understanding of English could be better, though.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 03, 2019, 09:08:27 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 03, 2019, 08:32:29 AM
Yes, and they admit to that.

How?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 03, 2019, 09:18:39 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 03, 2019, 08:48:37 AM
He clearly can't stand the humiliation of a Finnish guy undertanding US politics better than himself.

I guess you'll never tire of flattering yourself.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 03, 2019, 09:19:22 AM
Kamala Harris is dropping out.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 03, 2019, 11:42:28 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 03, 2019, 08:48:37 AM
He clearly can't stand the humiliation of a Finnish guy undertanding US politics better than himself.
Most of us outside the US can see the madness of American politics but not that many can understand it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 03, 2019, 11:53:49 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 03, 2019, 09:18:39 AM
I guess you'll never tire of flattering yourself.

This is not me flattering myself. I do follow US politics quite closely for a Finn, but I am not expert. I was right about Kamala Harris demonstrating I am not clueless as some members here suggest, ironically being themselves often somewhat clueless believers of the MSM.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 03, 2019, 12:38:19 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on December 03, 2019, 11:42:28 AM
Most of us outside the US can see the madness of American politics but not that many can understand it.

Well, I didn't understand much anything myself just 3 years ago. I was ignorant, but Trump's victory made me interested of understanding how it was possible and why Hillary Clinton lost so I started educating myself and it didn't take long before I discovered the likes of Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk and learned things that explained what happened in the 2016 election.

My mistake was to assume the Democrats are all "good guys" while the Republicans are the "bad guys", but it's much worse. Almost everyone are "bad guys" and only the left wing of the Democrats and third party members are "good guys" with almost zero political power. My mistake was to assume Americans want right-wing policies when it's about an oligarchy where the rich buy the elections to serve themselves and other rich people. Some American are socially conservative (against gay marriage, abortion etc.), but on economic issues Americans are on the left, often not even realizing it themselves. They are for increasing minimum wage, medicare for all, free college, etc. In the American corporate media the left-right devide is on social issues as they all are on the right on economic issues serving the top 1 %. MSNBC serves billionaires and millionaires who are on the left on social issues (against medicare for all, bur for gay marriage) while Fox News is for billionaires and millionaires who are on the right on social issues. That's the spectrum.

Trump's madness is on it's own level, but US politics has been quite crazy for decades even before Trump, starting from the "money is speech" Supreme Court decisions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo) back in the late 70's which made oligarchy possible and followed by the "trickle down economics" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics) scam of Reagan in the 80's. Ever since the Overton Window has moved more and more to the right so that The Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi are where the Republicans used to be a few decades ago so that for example Obamacare was what the Republicans wanted in the 80's! Hillary Clinton used to be for medicare for all in the early 1990's before she got corrupt. All of this madness has created income inequaty so vast that it's unsustainable, as crazy as it was just before the great regression of 1930. The three wealthiest families in the US own as much wealth as the bottom half (165 million people) of Americans. Nowhere in the US minimum wage pays for a two room apartment. Half of Americans don't have $400 emergency funds and so on. That's why the US needs huge structural changes and the only person of the candidates who can bring that is Bernie Sanders.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 03, 2019, 12:51:51 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 03, 2019, 11:53:49 AM
This is not me flattering myself. I do follow US politics quite closely for a Finn, but I am not expert. I was right about Kamala Harris demonstrating I am not clueless as some members here suggest, ironically being themselves often somewhat clueless believers of the MSM.

You just don't perceive how that post to which I replied makes you out to be a supremely self-satisfied ass. You may not st first believe it, but I speak as a friend.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 03, 2019, 01:29:34 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 03, 2019, 12:38:19 PM
Well, I didn't understand much anything myself just 3 years ago. I was ignorant, but Trump's victory made me interested of understanding how it was possible and why Hillary Clinton lost so I started educating myself and it didn't take long before I discovered the likes of Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk and learned things that explained what happened in the 2016 election.

My mistake was to assume the Democrats are all "good guys" while the Republicans are the "bad guys", but it's much worse. Almost everyone are "bad guys" and only the left wing of the Democrats and third party members are "good guys" with almost zero political power. My mistake was to assume Americans want right-wing policies when it's about an oligarchy where the rich buy the elections to serve themselves and other rich people. Some American are socially conservative (against gay marriage, abortion etc.), but on economic issues Americans are on the left, often not even realizing it themselves. They are for increasing minimum wage, medicare for all, free college, etc. In the American corporate media the left-right devide is on social issues as they all are on the right on economic issues serving the top 1 %. MSNBC serves billionaires and millionaires who are on the left on social issues (against medicare for all, bur for gay marriage) while Fox News is for billionaires and millionaires who are on the right on social issues. That's the spectrum.

Trump's madness is on it's own level, but US politics has been quite crazy for decades even before Trump, starting from the "money is speech" Supreme Court decisions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo) back in the late 70's which made oligarchy possible and followed by the "trickle down economics" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics) scam of Reagan in the 80's. Ever since the Overton Window has moved more and more to the right so that The Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi are where the Republicans used to be a few decades ago so that for example Obamacare was what the Republicans wanted in the 80's! Hillary Clinton used to be for medicare for all in the early 1990's before she got corrupt. All of this madness has created income inequaty so vast that it's unsustainable, as crazy as it was just before the great regression of 1930. The three wealthiest families in the US own as much wealth as the bottom half (165 million people) of Americans. Nowhere in the US minimum wage pays for a two room apartment. Half of Americans don't have $400 emergency funds and so on. That's why the US needs huge structural changes and the only person of the candidates who can bring that is Bernie Sanders.
Thanks for that, can't wait for you to write the definitive reference on today's US political madness. From my perspective the madest thing about US politics is Americans can't or won't see their so called democracy is seriously compromised by the system they've constructed.
Disagree though about Sanders. If I was a US citizen I'd be voting for Pete Buttigieg with only one doubt. Who's going to lead the presidential dance at the inaugural ball? Pete or his hubby?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 03, 2019, 03:10:56 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 03, 2019, 08:32:29 AM
Yes, and they admit to that. They tell their bias.

You've said this a number of times and I really want to know how you justify this belief.

So: how do they "tell their bias"?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 03, 2019, 05:26:53 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on December 03, 2019, 01:29:34 PM
Thanks for that, can't wait for you to write the definitive reference on today's US political madness. From my perspective the madest thing about US politics is Americans can't or won't see their so called democracy is seriously compromised by the system they've constructed.
Disagree though about Sanders. If I was a US citizen I'd be voting for Pete Buttigieg with only one doubt. Who's going to lead the presidential dance at the inaugural ball? Pete or his hubby?

Buttigieg is an opportunistic conman who just wants to be the president. He doesn't care about fixing the system.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 03, 2019, 05:44:29 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 03, 2019, 03:10:56 PM
You've said this a number of times and I really want to know how you justify this belief.

So: how do they "tell their bias"?

Like this:

Description
Home of news & politics commentary from the libertarian-left; populist; social democratic; agnostic-atheist perspective.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 03, 2019, 06:14:45 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 03, 2019, 05:26:53 PM
Buttigieg is an opportunistic conman who just wants to be the president. He doesn't care about fixing the system.
I disagree so completley with your evaluation there's no point in discussing it with you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 03, 2019, 06:16:44 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on December 03, 2019, 06:14:45 PM
I disagree so completley with your evaluation there's no point in discussing it with you.

That is prudent, because no one changes his mind, he already knows it all.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 03, 2019, 06:25:15 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 03, 2019, 06:16:44 PM
That is prudent, because no one changes his mind, he already knows it all.
Maybe he could lecture in politics at Harvard?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 03, 2019, 06:56:34 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on December 03, 2019, 06:25:15 PM
Maybe he could lecture in politics at Harvard?

Gotta aim high!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 03, 2019, 07:23:33 PM
Quote from: Ratliff on December 03, 2019, 08:41:52 AM
You've given yourself the responsibility of providing trigger warnings for 71dB posts? :)

DiMo is a new member, so I thought it appropriate to warn him that 71db's endorsement of the Young Turks should be taken with a heaping pile of salt grains.

Quote from: 71 dB on December 03, 2019, 05:44:29 PM
Like this:

Description
Home of news & politics commentary from the libertarian-left; populist; social democratic; agnostic-atheist perspective.


Umm, libertarian means wanting as little government intervention as possible. People like me. Not people who want to increase government control of health care, the economy, and most everything else....which is what progressivism is about.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 03, 2019, 08:22:35 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 03, 2019, 05:44:29 PM
Like this:

Description
Home of news & politics commentary from the libertarian-left; populist; social democratic; agnostic-atheist perspective.


Oh is that all you meant by it.

I thought you were suggesting they draw attention to and illustrate the ways their selection process and interpretations for a predetermined narrative throughout each and every one of their articles or shows.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 04, 2019, 01:37:58 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 03, 2019, 07:23:33 PM
Umm, libertarian means wanting as little government intervention as possible. People like me. Not people who want to increase government control of health care, the economy, and most everything else....which is what progressivism is about.

Sometimes government is good, sometimes bad. Evidence, reason etc. tells us when.
Libertarian in government not banning big sodas (Bloomberg).
Goverment intervention has to have benefits
It's case by case.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 04, 2019, 01:39:37 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 03, 2019, 08:22:35 PM
Oh is that all you meant by it.

I thought you were suggesting they draw attention to and illustrate the ways their selection process and interpretations for a predetermined narrative throughout each and every one of their articles or shows.

Sorry, but you need to actually listen to them. It's not their fault you have delusions about their predetermined narratives.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 04, 2019, 02:20:43 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 03, 2019, 12:51:51 PM
You just don't perceive how that post to which I replied makes you out to be a supremely self-satisfied ass. You may not st first believe it, but I speak as a friend.

I don't really care. I did care in the 80's. In the 90's I started care a bit less, but I still cared. Nowadays I just don't care because I am too cynical to care.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 04, 2019, 02:29:31 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 03, 2019, 02:26:37 AM
Why would they get any coverage in Australia or elsewhere for that matter? They are independent outlets. You have to discover them yourself. Luckily Youtube recommends others when you discover one, or at least it used to. Nowawadays Youtube tries to lead people to mainstream channels because of the stupid decisions they have been making, but it is what it is.

Youtube changed its algorithms precisely because they discovered that the old algorithm was leading people further and further down niche cul-de-sacs, feeding and encouraging whatever particular quirk they started with.  Maybe not so bad when it comes to the kind of political commentary you're interested in, but it was also leading people towards violent extremism and terrorism and the like.

Nevertheless, if your political education over the last few years consisted of "hey, this is great what Youtube is showing me based on what I already saw", and you're unhappy that Youtube is no longer doing this... that doesn't actually bode terribly well for the quality of the political education you've been receiving.

And just to be clear, the way I learned about Youtube's algorithm problems has absolutely nothing to do with politics.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 04, 2019, 03:04:05 AM
Quote from: Madiel on December 04, 2019, 02:29:31 AM
Youtube changed its algorithms precisely because they discovered that the old algorithm was leading people further and further down niche cul-de-sacs, feeding and encouraging whatever particular quirk they started with.  Maybe not so bad when it comes to the kind of political commentary you're interested in, but it was also leading people towards violent extremism and terrorism and the like.

Nevertheless, if your political education over the last few years consisted of "hey, this is great what Youtube is showing me based on what I already saw", and you're unhappy that Youtube is no longer doing this... that doesn't actually bode terribly well for the quality of the political education you've been receiving.

And just to be clear, the way I learned about Youtube's algorithm problems has absolutely nothing to do with politics.

What exactly would bode well for the quality of the political education I've been receiving?

YOU do not know HOW I have gotten into US politics. YOU think I am a braindeath person who believes everything a lefty says. I am not. I use my own head. These lefties make sense most of the time while the corporate media is HORRIBLE propaganda for the rich. If YOU don't see that it's NOT my problem!!!

The left has disagreements. Cenk Uygur believe Trumps is history soon (tick tick tick). Kyle Kulinski believes Trump is ok. We don't know what happens

I didn't say I am unhappy about the algorithms. They are what they are. Sometimes it gets my nerves when I watch one cat video Youtube starts to forcefeed me cat videos.

The point is lefty opinions are almost non-existing in corporate media. They invate celebrities (Michael Moore etc,) that's it. Corporate propaganda is everywhere. Think yourself!!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 04, 2019, 03:32:03 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 04, 2019, 03:04:05 AM
YOU do not know HOW I have gotten into US politics. YOU think I am a braindeath person who believes everything a lefty says. I am not. I use my own head. These lefties make sense most of the time while the corporate media is HORRIBLE propaganda for the rich. If YOU don't see that it's NOT my problem!!!

And YOU are reading WAY too much into MY comment.

But YOU are the one who SAID how GREAT it was that YOUTUBE led you to all YOUR favourites.

I've given up exclamation marks for today.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 04, 2019, 05:47:43 AM
Quote from: Madiel on December 04, 2019, 03:32:03 AM
And YOU are reading WAY too much into MY comment.

But YOU are the one who SAID how GREAT it was that YOUTUBE led you to all YOUR favourites.

I've given up exclamation marks for today.

Youtube is the only thing that can do that, because these lefties are there. The "greatness" is that Youtube gives a platform also to non-corporates so that one can listen to Kyle Kulinski, Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow and make up their mind of who makes most sense.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 04, 2019, 06:46:24 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 04, 2019, 01:37:58 AM
Sometimes government is good, sometimes bad. Evidence, reason etc. tells us when.
Libertarian in government not banning big sodas (Bloomberg).
Goverment intervention has to have benefits
It's case by case.
Liberatarianism starts off on the presumption that government is always bad, unless there is evidence otherwise.

For instance, Big Pharma gets to keep drug prices high because it uses patents and the regulatory process to limit competition.  Patents and regulation are obviously government phenomena.  The Young Turk solution of allowing government to set prices is therefore merely adding on more government control to solve a problem that is caused by too much government. The real solution is reforming the patent and regulation process so it can't be manipulated. And as I pointed out before, the Young Turk group never seems to mention the role that patent and regulation abuse have in keeping drug prices high.  That alone should tell you how unreliable they are as a source of accurate information.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 04, 2019, 08:49:58 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 04, 2019, 06:46:24 AM
Liberatarianism starts off on the presumption that government is always bad, unless there is evidence otherwise.

For instance, Big Pharma gets to keep drug prices high because it uses patents and the regulatory process to limit competition.  Patents and regulation are obviously government phenomena.  The Young Turk solution of allowing government to set prices is therefore merely adding on more government control to solve a problem that is caused by too much government. The real solution is reforming the patent and regulation process so it can't be manipulated. And as I pointed out before, the Young Turk group never seems to mention the role that patent and regulation abuse have in keeping drug prices high.  That alone should tell you how unreliable they are as a source of accurate information.

You holding the patents doesn't mean you can ask anything. The buyer needs to be willing to pay. Drugs are problematic in the way that you need the drugs, you REALLY need, so you can't say no. The mess is an government phenomena because of corruption. If the government functioned normally, we would not be in this situation.  The solution is to remove corruption. That's the "TYT" solution. That's how it works elsewhere like Canada. They have patents and the regulatory processes too, but also much less corruption so things work and the prices are much lower. That's why TYT doesn't "mention" it, because the real problem is corruption, Big Pharma buying the politicians.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on December 04, 2019, 12:12:55 PM
Quote from: JBS on December 03, 2019, 07:23:33 PM
DiMo is a new member, so I thought it appropriate to warn him that 71db's endorsement of the Young Turks should be taken with a heaping pile of salt grains.

New to the site doesn't mean born yesterday. :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 04, 2019, 01:03:18 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 04, 2019, 01:39:37 AM
Sorry, but you need to actually listen to them. It's not their fault you have delusions about their predetermined narratives.
Today narratives, if that's what they are, are also predetermined by mobile software (cell phones in the US) facilitating our ability with a single click on 'Not interested in Trump's sexual kinks', or some such. We are given a powerful means of constructing our own reality. Not that 'reality' is ever involved.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 04, 2019, 01:20:00 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 04, 2019, 05:47:43 AM
Youtube is the only thing that can do that

No, the bibliography and footnotes in a nice thick book will do that. As will reading book reviews and recommended reading lists from people you respect. Or just browsing a library or bookshop.

Does your Kyle ever recommend books to his followers?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 04, 2019, 01:39:42 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 04, 2019, 01:20:00 PM
No, the bibliography and footnotes in a nice thick book will do that. As will reading book reviews and recommended reading lists from people you respect. Or just browsing a library or bookshop.

Does your Kyle ever recommend books to his followers?

Kyle often mentions Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent), but otherwise I haven't seen him recommend books, but he has 13,000 videos on Youtube and I have seen a fraction of them all. It's possible he mentions books he has read and recommends in his chats with Cory.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 04, 2019, 01:42:56 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on December 04, 2019, 01:03:18 PM
Today narratives, if that's what they are, are also predetermined by mobile software (cell phones in the US) facilitating our ability with a single click on 'Not interested in Trump's sexual kinks', or some such. We are given a powerful means of constructing our own reality. Not that 'reality' is ever involved.

So, what kind of reality have you constructed for yourself?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 04, 2019, 01:53:27 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 04, 2019, 01:42:56 PM
So, what kind of reality have you constructed for yourself?
I cleave to Ayn Rand's epistemology in this (not her political philosophy)
We are capable of knowing reality. If we choose to ignore it, it will soon catch up with us.
In fact it may be about to remove us all from the planet.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 04, 2019, 02:29:15 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 04, 2019, 01:39:42 PM
Kyle often mentions Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent), but otherwise I haven't seen him recommend books, but he has 13,000 videos on Youtube and I have seen a fraction of them all. It's possible he mentions books he has read and recommends in his chats with Cory.

Will you get a copy of Manufacturing Consent and read it?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 04, 2019, 02:51:13 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 04, 2019, 08:49:58 AM
You holding the patents doesn't mean you can ask anything. The buyer needs to be willing to pay. Drugs are problematic in the way that you need the drugs, you REALLY need, so you can't say no. The mess is an government phenomena because of corruption. If the government functioned normally, we would not be in this situation.  The solution is to remove corruption. That's the "TYT" solution. That's how it works elsewhere like Canada. They have patents and the regulatory processes too, but also much less corruption so things work and the prices are much lower. That's why TYT doesn't "mention" it, because the real problem is corruption, Big Pharma buying the politicians.

On the contrary, the patent and regulation abuse is the source of the corruption. It's a very clear example of what you call the oligarchy at work.  Canada and the other places don't allow the abuse, and that's how they get lower prices. Under the TYT solution, that abuse, and the corruption would remain, and in fact get worse because of government's involvement in price control. Big Pharma would still be buying the politicians and regulators. In fact, they would be buying them more because they would need them more. But if the process was reformed, buying politicians and regulators would be of no benefit to them, so the corruption would end of itself.

So you see, TYT's solution is just a formula for increased corruption. It's a very clear instance where your reliance on them is causing you to not understand the actual problem.

The more government involvement, the more chance for corruption to develop. It's a very simple idea. If you want less oligarchy, you want less government. You want more government, you get more oligarchy whether or not you want oligarchy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 04, 2019, 03:26:55 PM
Quote from: JBS on December 04, 2019, 02:51:13 PM
On the contrary, the patent and regulation abuse is the source of the corruption. It's a very clear example of what you call the oligarchy at work.  Canada and the other places don't allow the abuse, and that's how they get lower prices. Under the TYT solution, that abuse, and the corruption would remain, and in fact get worse because of government's involvement in price control. Big Pharma would still be buying the politicians and regulators. In fact, they would be buying them more because they would need them more. But if the process was reformed, buying politicians and regulators would be of no benefit to them, so the corruption would end of itself.

So you see, TYT's solution is just a formula for increased corruption. It's a very clear instance where your reliance on them is causing you to not understand the actual problem.

The more government involvement, the more chance for corruption to develop. It's a very simple idea. If you want less oligarchy, you want less government. You want more government, you get more oligarchy whether or not you want oligarchy.
A very simple idea? It's simplistic Randian nonsense. The delusion that political ideology of any kind can mitigate human behaviour is the prime misconception of all such systems. Instance The Chinese People's Republic. Putting aside for now the blatant contradiction that in no way is it 'the peoples', witness the scale of corruption within China. Contrast this with the assertion a totally free enterprise government has no power to issue 'commercial in confidence' favours to segments of industry. As we've seen over and over this is another delusion disproven by simple facts such as 'jobs for the boys' . There's no need for members of such governments to hand out exclusive licences/favours etc to their industry supporters. All such moves can and do happen behind the scenes when necessary with nice little contributions to electoral funds as a tempting reward.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 04, 2019, 04:03:27 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on December 04, 2019, 03:26:55 PM
A very simple idea? It's simplistic Randian nonsense. The delusion that political ideology of any kind can mitigate human behaviour is the prime misconception of all such systems. Instance The Chinese People's Republic. Putting aside for now the blatant contradiction that in no way is it 'the peoples', witness the scale of corruption within China. Contrast this with the assertion a totally free enterprise government has no power to issue 'commercial in confidence' favours to segments of industry. As we've seen over and over this is another delusion disproven by simple facts such as 'jobs for the boys' . There's no need for members of such governments to hand out exclusive licences/favours etc to their industry supporters. All such moves can and do happen behind the scenes when necessary with nice little contributions to electoral funds as a tempting reward.

The idea is not to modify human behavior  but to limit its impact as much as possible.

Are you aware that Rand herself said that capitalism and free markets, as she defined them, has never existed in human history? I've blown a few Objectivist minds with that bit of info over the years.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 04, 2019, 04:19:44 PM
Quote from: JBS on December 04, 2019, 04:03:27 PM
The idea is not to modify human behavior  but to limit its impact as much as possible.

Are you aware that Rand herself said that capitalism and free markets, as she defined them, has never existed in human history? I've blown a few Objectivist minds with that bit of info over the years.
I'm well aquainted with every published word that came from her, and a few not published but that's another story.
I am both optimistic and profoundly pessimistic when it comes to human behavior claiming that until and unless we change what we are, especially in relation to group tribal behaviour we are doomed to engineer the extinction of our species. We've already shown a profound skill in removing thousands of others from the planet .
Within this perspective I experience all discussions of ideology as no more than dancing on the deck of the Titanic just before  - - - - - - - - -
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 04, 2019, 04:21:52 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 04, 2019, 02:29:15 PM
Will you get a copy of Manufacturing Consent and read it?

I don't have such plans, but you never know.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 04, 2019, 04:25:04 PM
Quote from: JBS on December 04, 2019, 02:51:13 PM
On the contrary, the patent and regulation abuse is the source of the corruption. It's a very clear example of what you call the oligarchy at work.  Canada and the other places don't allow the abuse, and that's how they get lower prices. Under the TYT solution, that abuse, and the corruption would remain, and in fact get worse because of government's involvement in price control. Big Pharma would still be buying the politicians and regulators. In fact, they would be buying them more because they would need them more. But if the process was reformed, buying politicians and regulators would be of no benefit to them, so the corruption would end of itself.

So you see, TYT's solution is just a formula for increased corruption. It's a very clear instance where your reliance on them is causing you to not understand the actual problem.

The more government involvement, the more chance for corruption to develop. It's a very simple idea. If you want less oligarchy, you want less government. You want more government, you get more oligarchy whether or not you want oligarchy.

TYT says US should do what Canada does. Anyway, I have wasted enough time on you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 04, 2019, 04:45:05 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 04, 2019, 04:25:04 PM
TYT says US should do what Canada does. Anyway, I have wasted enough time on you.

Problem is, Canada does two things. TYT is picking the one that doesn't actually work and ignoring the one that does solve the problem. And until you understand that fact, you are wasting YOUR time.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 05, 2019, 01:55:35 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 04, 2019, 06:46:24 AM
The real solution is reforming the patent and regulation process so it can't be manipulated.

Reforming how?

There are undoubtedly situations where patents are granted too readily. I'm not sure that drugs are a case in point, though...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 05, 2019, 02:52:05 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 04, 2019, 04:45:05 PM
Problem is, Canada does two things. TYT is picking the one that doesn't actually work and ignoring the one that does solve the problem. And until you understand that fact, you are wasting YOUR time.

Frankly I don't know the details and definitely not what Canada does. I know Canada is much less corrupt and has lower drug prices. I know Big Pharma buy the politicians and I know TYT is against corruption.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 05, 2019, 04:29:37 AM
Quote from: Madiel on December 05, 2019, 01:55:35 AM
Reforming how?

There are undoubtedly situations where patents are granted too readily. I'm not sure that drugs are a case in point, though...

For one thing, the pharma companies are able by minute changes to the product, to extend patents well beyond the original span.
It's actually the regulatory process which is most abused. Thanks to the pharma companies, it's excessively hard to bring a generic to market. Other countries are better at it, from my understanding.

71db is right about "Big Pharma". But he is depending on sources that omit mention of the most important part of the problem. TYT's "solution" merely offers up another group of regulators for Big Pharma to buy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 05, 2019, 04:38:38 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 05, 2019, 04:29:37 AM
71dB is right about "Big Pharma". But he is depending on sources that omit mention of the most important part of the problem. TYT's "solution" merely offers up another group of regulators for Big Pharma to buy.

Have you watched TYT enough to know what their "solution" is? I can't say if they agree with you or not. Can you? Also, this is only ONE issue you keep talking about. Even if TYT was wrong about this (I doubt it) how about everything else?

Abuse of patent laws doesn't mean you can automatically milk money. Someone needs to be willing to pay for your patented product. If Canadian cheaper drugs were allowed to be imported into the US, the people would choose them over pricy American drugs meaning Big Pharma would have to lower their prices to compete with Canadian drugs, but politicians don't allow import of Canadian drugs because they have been bought. There are ways to avoid the problem of patent/regulation law abuse, but they are not used because of corruption.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 05, 2019, 04:51:22 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 05, 2019, 04:38:38 AM
Have you watched TYT enough to know what their "solution" is? I can't say if they agree with you or not. Can you? Also, this is only ONE issue you keep talking about. Even if TYT was wrong with this (I doubt it) how about everything else?

Abuse of patent laws doesn't mean you can automatically milk money. Someone needs to be willing to pay for your patented product. If Canadian cheaper drugs were allowed to be imported into the US, the people would choose them over pricy American drugs meaning Big Pharma would have to lower their prices to compete with Canadian drugs, but politicians don't allow import of Canadian drugs because they have been bought. There are ways to avoid the problem of patent/regulation law abuse, but they are not used because of corruption.

I keep using this problem because it's a clear case of TYT giving out bad information. It's a perfect illustration of why you should not accept what they say at face value.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on December 05, 2019, 05:36:13 AM
In Canada, active ingredients (chemicals) in prescription drugs are imported from China and India. The pills are then produced locally. We buy from China what we need, not more. There is no inventory, no warehouses with mountains of pills. Considering the very real possibility of a commercial war btw China and Canada (because of boiling political tensions), it would be suicidal (litterally) of the US to import drugs from Canada. There's a very real possibility that we might have to find another supplier in a hurry.

Not everything can be factored in your narrative, 71dB. It's a complex world out there...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 05, 2019, 10:51:23 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 05, 2019, 04:51:22 AM
I keep using this problem because it's a clear case of TYT giving out bad information. It's a perfect illustration of why you should not accept what they say at face value.

Well, I don't. Just as people should not accept what corporate media says.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 05, 2019, 10:56:04 AM
Quote from: André on December 05, 2019, 05:36:13 AM
Not everything can be factored in your narrative, 71dB. It's a complex world out there...

Yes, but if insulin costs 10 times more in US than in Canada changes are something can be done no matter how complex it is. The big picture is remove of money in politics. Surely you admit that would make things better, more democratic?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 05, 2019, 11:11:46 AM
New poll in California taken just before Kamala Harris dropped out:

Bernie Sanders    24 %
Elizabeth Warren  22 %
Joe Biden         14 %
Pete Buttigieg    12 %


The of 1,694 likely California Democratic primary voters was taken from Nov. 21-27 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. With Harris voters reallocated based on their second choice, Mr. Sanders would be in the lead at 25%, followed by Ms. Warren at 24%, Mr. Biden at 17%, and Mr. Buttigieg at 13%.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on December 05, 2019, 11:35:24 AM
I wouldn't trust the people of California to vote for my hair stylist, let alone the US president.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on December 05, 2019, 11:36:05 AM
Drug prices in the U.S. are a complicated problem. The underlying issue is that the "market" has failed for various reasons. The famous Pharma Bro was able to boost the price of a decades old drug from less than a dollar a pill to thousands of dollars a pill because of unintended effects of FDA rules. To sell a generic drug you don't just say "here, it's the same chemical." You have to experimentally demonstrate that the drug works the same. He used various strategies to make it impossible for other companies to meet that criteria, despite the fact that the drug was off patent and eligible for generic substitution. In other cases drug companies use various strategies to make old, inexpensive drugs unavailable, compelling the use of more expensive new drugs which are no more effective.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 05, 2019, 11:36:46 AM
Quote from: greg on December 05, 2019, 11:35:24 AM
I wouldn't trust the people of California to vote for my hair stylist, let alone the US president.

:laugh:
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 05, 2019, 11:42:33 AM
Quote from: greg on December 05, 2019, 11:35:24 AM
I wouldn't trust the people of California to vote for my hair stylist, let alone the US president.

::) (if we're responding in emojis)

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 05, 2019, 11:48:29 AM
Quote from: greg on December 05, 2019, 11:35:24 AM
I wouldn't trust the people of California to vote for my hair stylist, let alone the US president.

If you didn't know, according to polls if it is Bernie vs Trump, Bernie could win Trump EVEN in Texas! For Bernie the hard part is getting the nomination, not beating Trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on December 05, 2019, 12:16:46 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 05, 2019, 11:48:29 AM
If you didn't know, according to polls if it is Bernie vs Trump, Bernie could win Trump EVEN in Texas! For Bernie the hard part is getting the nomination, not beating Trump.
Which polls? All I see is this one from Nov. 4.

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/11/04/democrats-dont-have-candidate-who-would-beat-trump-texas-today-poll/
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 05, 2019, 05:29:11 PM
Quote from: greg on December 05, 2019, 12:16:46 PM
Which polls? All I see is this one from Nov. 4.

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/11/04/democrats-dont-have-candidate-who-would-beat-trump-texas-today-poll/

As you see, Bernie is closest to Trump so if anyone can beat Trump in Texas it's Bernie.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/tx/texas_trump_vs_sanders-6819.html

In one poll (DMN/Emerson) Bernie is +2.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 05, 2019, 06:21:15 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 05, 2019, 05:29:11 PM
As you see, Bernie is closest to Trump so if anyone can beat Trump in Texas it's Bernie.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/tx/texas_trump_vs_sanders-6819.html

In one poll (DMN/Emerson) Bernie is +2.

That poll still does not support your claim.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 05, 2019, 06:29:39 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 05, 2019, 06:21:15 PM
That poll still does not support your claim.

That one poll does support my claim. It's the others that do not, but even they tell Bernie is closest to Trump in Texas.
Is it THAT difficult to believe Bernie Sanders is the most electable of the bunch? Biden is maybe on the same level, but is weakening.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on December 05, 2019, 06:33:53 PM
Quote from: greg on December 05, 2019, 11:35:24 AM
I wouldn't trust the people of California to vote for my hair stylist, let alone the US president.

Well said, well said. 8)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 05, 2019, 07:32:01 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 05, 2019, 06:33:53 PM
Well said, well said. 8)

Now substitute "the flyover states" or "the Bible belt" or, I dunno, Texas, and ask yourself if you'd say "well said" at someone dismissing an entire sector of the electorate so casually.

I myself was also given a nudge recently about how diverse California is on this very thread for asking how they could elect Devin Nunes four times in a row.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 05, 2019, 07:42:27 PM
Quote from: greg on December 05, 2019, 11:35:24 AM
I wouldn't trust the people of California to vote for my hair stylist, let alone the US president.

Dude, you left your can of aerosol mousse in the loo.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on December 05, 2019, 07:50:16 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 05, 2019, 07:32:01 PM
Now substitute "the flyover states" or "the Bible belt" or, I dunno, Texas, and ask yourself if you'd say "well said" at someone dismissing an entire sector of the electorate so casually.

I myself was also given a nudge recently about how diverse California is on this very thread for asking how they could elect Devin Nunes four times in a row.

You have as much of a right to comment on the United States as I have to comment on why Quebec hasn't succeeded from Canada yet. I have no personal experience with Quebec or Canada in general, so what gives me the right to tell people who do live in that country what's right or wrong? The same kind of logic should apply to you. Have you been to California? Do you know people in your personal everyday life that have come from there? Have you interacted with them in person and got a firm understanding of what the state is like? Of course you haven't, you live in New Zealand. ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 05, 2019, 07:59:26 PM
I think I have as much of a right to comment on US politics as you do on NZ politics - by which I mean: go right ahead, wont bother me at all. There will be the expectation, for both of us,  that local knowledge will correct an illuminate some misconception made without ant assumption of perfect or complete knowledge.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on December 05, 2019, 08:09:16 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 05, 2019, 07:59:26 PM
I think I have as much of a right to comment on US politics as you do on NZ politics - by which I mean: go right ahead, wont bother me at all. There will be the expectation, for both of us,  that local knowledge will correct an illuminate some misconception made without ant assumption of perfect or complete knowledge.
I hope you are aware of the current situation in California.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on December 05, 2019, 08:13:43 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 05, 2019, 07:59:26 PM
I think I have as much of a right to comment on US politics as you do on NZ politics - by which I mean: go right ahead, wont bother me at all. There will be the expectation, for both of us,  that local knowledge will correct an illuminate some misconception made without ant assumption of perfect or complete knowledge.

And yet you totally missed my point. I think you've drank too many L&Ps. :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 05, 2019, 08:26:32 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 05, 2019, 08:13:43 PM
And yet you totally missed my point. I think you've drank too many L&Ps. :)

You better draw me a picture then.

What gives me the right? Trumpism is a global issue not just an American one, and American politics have a global impact anyway. Also all of the left/right debates are playing out globally and with the same spins and fallacies.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on December 05, 2019, 08:31:28 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 05, 2019, 08:26:32 PM
You better draw me a picture then.

What gives me the right? Trumpism is a global issue not just an American one, and American politics have a global impact anyway. Also all of the left/right debates are playing out globally and with the same spins and fallacies.

So tell me, how has Trumpism affected New Zealand?

[Pulls up chair.]
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 05, 2019, 08:57:03 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 05, 2019, 08:31:28 PM
So tell me, how has Trumpism affected New Zealand?

[Pulls up chair.]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Events in London or New York have as much significance here as events in Auckland. The rise of far right xenophobia as acceptable and whimsical market fluctuations tied to the tweets of One man certainly have an impact. As do other foreign leaders and trading partners winning elections through hate baiting and divisive nativist tactics.

Or did you mean just locally? Well a mosque shooter wore a MAGA hat and quoted Trump  in his manifesto responding to heated race baiting rhetoric.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 05, 2019, 09:53:06 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 05, 2019, 07:42:27 PM
Dude, you left your can of aerosol mousse in the loo.
This is getting interesting. Can we start another thread in the Diner section? A collectively written movie script centred on Californian eccentricities. First off we need to choose a director. Sadly Fellini is no longer with us.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on December 06, 2019, 12:43:12 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 05, 2019, 11:48:29 AM
If you didn't know, according to polls if it is Bernie vs Trump, Bernie could win Trump EVEN in Texas! For Bernie the hard part is getting the nomination, not beating Trump.

Texas should just split.

No JFK assassination; no Dubya, no Dallas Cowboys, no Miss Texas every year.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 01:33:18 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 05, 2019, 08:31:28 PM
So tell me, how has Trumpism affected New Zealand?

I don't know about NZ but I'l tell you how Trumpism affected Romania. Since Trump has been elected the Social-Democratic Party* went from winning general elections with 46% to losing EU elections with 22% and presidential elections with 34%. They also lost a confidence vote and consequently their government was replaced by a Liberal (which in Romania means center-right) one.

* the name is misleading; they are nationalist, xenophobic and kleptocratic.

So I'd say Mr. Trump did a nice job. Give him four more years and the Socialists will be history in Romania.

:P :P :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Jo498 on December 06, 2019, 01:36:11 AM
Do you seriously think that this a Trump effect? Why and how did Trump affect Romanian politics in such a way?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 01:38:39 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on December 06, 2019, 01:36:11 AM
Do you seriously think that this a Trump effect? Why and how did Trump affect Romanian politics in such a way?

Oh, gosh! I should have bracketed my post thus:

<irony> Post </irony>

but I thought it would be obvious even without it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Jo498 on December 06, 2019, 01:50:02 AM
I thought so, but I honestly was not sure. Because in Germany Trump is actually often used as scapegoat for any kind of development the milieu juste dislikes. I think he is also blamed for encouraging brexiteers, so sinister influence on Romanian politics should not be excluded a priori.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 02:50:53 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on December 06, 2019, 01:50:02 AM
I thought so, but I honestly was not sure. Because in Germany Trump is actually often used as scapegoat for any kind of development the milieu juste dislikes. I think he is also blamed for encouraging brexiteers, so sinister influence on Romanian politics should not be excluded a priori.

In Romanian politics Trump is a non issue. We have been maintaining excellent relationships with the USA (including NATO-wise) regardless of who was president, and we'll keep doing that in the future.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 06, 2019, 02:58:56 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 05, 2019, 08:57:03 PM
Or did you mean just locally? Well a mosque shooter wore a MAGA hat and quoted Trump  in his manifesto responding to heated race baiting rhetoric.

I, for one, could sadly see a response along these lines coming.

While we're here, I'd like to apologise for one of our most awful exports.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 06, 2019, 03:07:05 AM
By the way, I can certainly think of one way that Trumpism affects my own country (and quite possibly New Zealand as well): trade policies.

The USA is our closest ally (and indeed, we're arguably your closest ally, in terms of willingness to pitch in to various international/military operations, we've spent upwards of 70 years following your lead on just about everything).

China is our biggest trading partner.

Mummy and Daddy are fighting a lot lately and it makes us extremely nervous. We would very much prefer not being put in a position where we have to choose sides.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Jo498 on December 06, 2019, 03:51:09 AM
There is of course a very similar dilemma in Germany. The establishment dislikes Trump but needs NATO (and is mostly quite fond of hawks like Hilary) and decent trade relations to both the US AND China. Therefore one sees the politicians getting into all kinds of contortions wriggling through these contradictions.
Because of horrible internal and European politics all kinds of tensions arose and led to an unprecedently strong right-wing party (which is except for a few cranks not further to the right than most mainstream conservatives used to be 25 years ago and began as a somewhat libertarian anti-Euro party), but instead of themselves the establishment blame the stupid people and the evil populist Trump who gave them ideas that one could give the establishment the finger.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 05:15:27 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on December 06, 2019, 03:51:09 AM
There is of course a very similar dilemma in Germany. The establishment dislikes Trump but needs NATO

Yeah but they apparently need NATO for themselves only. Just yesterday I saw a poll conducted in the US, the UK, France and Germany. The question whether NATO should defend Romania in case of an attack was answered in the positive in US and UK only while French and Germans rejected the idea*. Now, given that "all  for one and one for all" is the very raison d'etre of NATO, I wonder whether France or Germany are really and genuinely committed to the collective defense and security or whether Trump was absolutely right in denouncing these countries as wanting to reap all the benefits of NATO without sharing any of its burdens.

* A fact which is corroborated by another one: NATO drills in Romania are attended exclusively by American, British, Canadian and Eastern European countries. No French or German soldier was ever seen on such occasions. I think Macron might have been right about "cerebral death" but in a different sense than he thought.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 05:17:28 AM
Quote from: Madiel on December 06, 2019, 02:58:56 AM
While we're here, I'd like to apologise for one of our most awful exports.

Which is...?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on December 06, 2019, 05:58:19 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 05, 2019, 08:57:03 PM
The rise of far right xenophobia as acceptable and whimsical market fluctuations tied to the tweets of One man certainly have an impact.
Is far right xenophobia really on the rise? Or is it just sensationalized through media stories?

And assuming it is, simply blaming it on Trump is nonsense. You can call it far right xenophobia or whatever, but it is a reaction against globalism. Let's say Trump really were as xenophobic as you say- he would be a symptom of a reaction against something that is being forced on others, not the cause.

It's not like people look at him and go, "Oh, he's so cool. He sounds like he's racist, so I'll be racist, too!"




Quote from: SimonNZ on December 05, 2019, 08:57:03 PM
Or did you mean just locally? Well a mosque shooter wore a MAGA hat and quoted Trump  in his manifesto responding to heated race baiting rhetoric.
Yeah, and you are falling for the bait, as expected. He even mentioned PewDiePie, so I wouldn't take him seriously.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 06, 2019, 06:27:12 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 01:33:18 AM
I don't know about NZ but I'l tell you how Trumpism affected Romania. Since Trump has been elected the Social-Democratic Party* went from winning general elections with 46% to losing EU elections with 22% and presidential elections with 34%. They also lost a confidence vote and consequently their government was replaced by a Liberal (which in Romania means center-right) one.

* the name is misleading; they are nationalist, xenophobic and kleptocratic.

So I'd say Mr. Trump did a nice job. Give him four more years and the Socialists will be history in Romania.

:P :P :P

I know nothing about Romanian poltiics. Does the Social-Democratic Party of Romania have a post-capitalistic philosophy? Usually social democracy operates withing capitalism, just a well regulated one to avoid the problems of crony capitalism.

Looks like worker's rights, unions, living wage etc. are not important issues to you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 06, 2019, 06:40:51 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 05:17:28 AM
Which is...?

A mosque shooter.

A thoroughly racist mosque shooter who reacted against globalism...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 06, 2019, 07:26:59 AM
Quote from: greg on December 06, 2019, 05:58:19 AM
Is far right xenophobia really on the rise? Or is it just sensationalized through media stories?

And assuming it is, simply blaming it on Trump is nonsense. You can call it far right xenophobia or whatever, but it is a reaction against globalism. Let's say Trump really were as xenophobic as you say- he would be a symptom of a reaction against something that is being forced on others, not the cause.

It's not like people look at him and go, "Oh, he's so cool. He sounds like he's racist, so I'll be racist, too!"



Yeah, and you are falling for the bait, as expected. He even mentioned PewDiePie, so I wouldn't take him seriously.

Trump lets you bring your racism out into the open. Normalizes it and makes it acceptable.

What does "falling for the bait" mean? And what does "wouldn't take him seriously" mean?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 08:32:31 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 06, 2019, 06:27:12 AM
I know nothing about Romanian poltiics. Does the Social-Democratic Party of Romania have a post-capitalistic philosophy? Usually social democracy operates withing capitalism, just a well regulated one to avoid the problems of crony capitalism.

Looks like worker's rights, unions, living wage etc. are not important issues to you.

Looks like you reply to posts just for the sake of replying, paying no attention whatever to their content. I explained the "philosophy" of the Social-Democratic Party of Romania in three words. Can you remember them without going back to my post?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 08:35:20 AM
Quote from: Madiel on December 06, 2019, 06:40:51 AM
A mosque shooter.

A thoroughly racist mosque shooter who reacted against globalism...

But how is he an Australian export?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on December 06, 2019, 10:41:02 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 06, 2019, 07:26:59 AM
Trump lets you bring your racism out into the open. Normalizes it and makes it acceptable.

What does "falling for the bait" mean? And what does "wouldn't take him seriously" mean?
Because doing something like bringing Pewdiepie into it is very telling of his motives.

The guy just wanted to ignite the fire. The most reactive is the sensationalist leftist media. It was the catalyst for all of the riots in the US the last few years, for example. And the media often attacks Pewdiepie for silly things because they need an enemy to write about, when he's obviously not some rightwing redneck.

I suspect that shooter was a homocidal nihilist more than anything.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 06, 2019, 11:18:21 AM
And how exactly is " the sensationalist leftist media" the "catalyst for all of the riots in the US the last few years"? Are you talking about the riots that follow white cops killing unarmed black people?

Also: I've not read any article anywhere attacking this "Pewdiepie" for anything, or showing any sign they're aware of his existence.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 06, 2019, 11:20:26 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 08:32:31 AM
Looks like you reply to posts just for the sake of replying, paying no attention whatever to their content. I explained the "philosophy" of the Social-Democratic Party of Romania in three words. Can you remember them without going back to my post?

If those three words are an accurate description of the Social-Democratic Party of Romania all I can say is oh boy does the politics suck in your country!  :o
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 11:30:28 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 06, 2019, 11:20:26 AM
If those three words are an accurate description of the Social-Democratic Party of Romania

Trust me, they are very accurate. And I didn't even mention their animosity towards EU, which they present to their constituency as being a dictatorial and colonial foreign power.

Quote
all I can say is oh boy does the politics suck in your country!  :o

No. In my country it's the self-styled Social-Democratic politics that sucks --- actually, it stinks. Liberal (European style, not US) politics is neither worse nor better  than elsewhere.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on December 06, 2019, 11:36:00 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 06, 2019, 11:18:21 AM
And how exactly is " the sensationalist leftist media" the "catalyst for all of the riots in the US the last few years"? Are you talking about the riots that follow white cops killing unarmed black people?
You're leaving out the fact that they just finished committing a crime, but yeah.

Police on black crime happens way less than black on black crime. So when the media reports it, people lose their minds. No one is rioting over gang violence.

Hate crime causes national outrage. Gang violence causes not much. Maybe some sadness in the local area.

The shooter knew that. Manipulate the media and manipulate the world. Easy.




Quote from: SimonNZ on December 06, 2019, 11:18:21 AM
Also: I've not read any article anywhere attacking this "Pewdiepie" for anything, or showing any sign they're aware of his existence.
Do you never use youtube?  ???

I don't understand people not knowing him. The most subscribed channel for years. Over 100 million subscribers.

And yes, it was a huge issue before. So he sometimes jokingly self-censors nowadays. Gotta walk on eggshells when the PC police are out.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 11:47:28 AM
Greg, I must say it loud: my esteem for you has skyrocketed since you've made your appearance again. 

:-* :-* :-*
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on December 06, 2019, 11:51:18 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 11:47:28 AM
Greg, I must say it loud: my esteem for you has skyrocketed since you've made your appearance again. 

:-* :-* :-*
Thanks lol. :D

Don't know why I'm posting on political threads, though. I freaking hate politics lol.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 06, 2019, 12:20:40 PM
Quote from: greg on December 06, 2019, 11:36:00 AM
You're leaving out the fact that they just finished committing a crime, but yeah.

Police on black crime happens way less than black on black crime. So when the media reports it, people lose their minds. No one is rioting over gang violence.

Hate crime causes national outrage. Gang violence causes not much. Maybe some sadness in the local area.

The shooter knew that. Manipulate the media and manipulate the world. Easy.



Do you never use youtube?  ???

I don't understand people not knowing him. The most subscribed channel for years. Over 100 million subscribers.

And yes, it was a huge issue before. So he sometimes jokingly self-censors nowadays. Gotta walk on eggshells when the PC police are out.

The outrage is because the police are in a position of trust, which they are betraying - like a corrupt politician, and this is not justice fitting any crime that may or may not have happened, and because it follows a lower level of harassment and racism from the police. And because its the continuation of a long history of injustice against blacks.

You won't be interested by I just finished and can recommend a very good book on this subject, told through interviews with victims families and grassroots level activists:

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71uBO6MqVAL.jpg)


What are your main news sources on Youtube?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 12:35:15 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 06, 2019, 12:20:40 PM
The outrage is because the police are in a position of trust, which they are betraying - like a corrupt politician, and this is not justice fitting any crime that may or may not have happened, and because it follows a lower level of harassment and racism from the police. And because its the continuation of a long history of injustice against blacks.


Are you implying that the US police is a racist and white-suprematist institution? Are you implying that there is not a single one justified case of the US police shooting a black person? Are you implying that, because sometimes in the past the US police was indeed the instrument of racism, all of their present actions are racist?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 06, 2019, 12:51:04 PM
I didn't say or imply anything of the sort.

Lovely reductio ad absurdum, there.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 06, 2019, 12:52:59 PM
Quote from: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 12:35:15 PM
Are you implying that the US police is a racist and white-suprematist institution? Are you implying that there is not a single one justified case of the US police shooting a black person? Are you implying that, because sometimes in the past the US police was indeed the instrument of racism, all of their present actions are racist?

That's not how systemic issues work and it's silly to suggest that was the implication.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 06, 2019, 12:53:47 PM
Quote from: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 08:35:20 AM
But how is he an Australian export?

The murderer in Christchurch was Australian.

He's an idiotic arsehole who somehow thought that the way to react to too many Muslims being in the white homeland of Europe was to go kill some in New Zealand.

Which is typical of such arseholes, who despite professing belief in the natural home of races always somehow allow white folk to own Australia, New Zealand and North America.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 01:14:14 PM
Quote from: Madiel on December 06, 2019, 12:53:47 PM
The murderer in Christchurch was Australian.

Ah, I didn't know that. Your post makes sense then.

Quote
He's an idiotic arsehole who somehow thought that the way to react to too many Muslims being in the white homeland of Europe was to go kill some in New Zealand.

Honestly, I do think there are too many (idle) Muslim immigrants in (Western) Europe. But you won't hear about Florestan's shooting people in a mosque.

Quote
Which is typical of such arseholes, who despite professing belief in the natural home of races always somehow allow white folk to own Australia, New Zealand and North America.

This is true, but then again, here's a question: where is someone with African descent going to feel nore free and to have more opportunities for climbing the social ladder: in the USA or in any country south of Sahara? Besides, need I remind you that taking and selling African slaves has been the regular business of Arabian and African warlords throughout the centuries? Or that slavery is right now when I'm typing this post a gruesoem reality in Africa?

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 06, 2019, 01:20:57 PM
You just said that the way to deal with racism is to make it the victim's responsibility to avoid it.

I suggest you stop talking before you say something truly abhorrent.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 01:34:33 PM
Quote from: Madiel on December 06, 2019, 01:20:57 PM
You just said that the way to deal with racism is to make it the victim's responsibility to avoid it.

I've consciously said or implied nothing of this sort, but if you could show me that the above proposition can be logically infered from what I said I will gladly stand corrected and disavow it.

Quote
I suggest you stop talking before you say something truly abhorrent.

You know me only too well. To the best of your knowledge have I ever said something truly abhorrent?

Besides, I reject any suggestion that I should stop talking. By all means, refute my points but please, never ever tell me I should stop talking --- that's what Communist censors told us.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 06, 2019, 01:58:21 PM
You've said Africans would be better off staying in Africa where they wouldn't have to face the issues they would face in America.

It's the people creating those issues that need to change their behaviour. Not the Africans who are experiencing them.

This is not any different to how girls and women are told they have to dress so as not to be a temptation to boys and men, instead of telling boys and men they need to learn how to control themselves.

Stop talking was explicitly a suggestion, not an order, so any mention of censorship is misconceived.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 06, 2019, 02:03:48 PM
As to whether there are too many immigrants in Europe, I fail to see why the religion of the immigrants is relevant.

People have the same basic infrastructure requirements, which IS a relevant issue when it comes to population, regardless of exactly where they came from.

And worrying that people might change a place because they're "different" ignores the way that places are always, always changing.

Some Europeans seem desperately keen to preserve a religion that doesn't actually come from Europe and kept picking up bits of existing local material as it spread over the continent.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 02:12:36 PM
Quote from: Madiel on December 06, 2019, 01:58:21 PM
You've said Africans would be better off staying in Africa where they wouldn't have to face the issues they would face in America.

I don't know how you came to this conclusion but it's the exact opposite of what I said and implied.

I say and imply this: people of African descent are better off in the USA than in any African country their ancestors originated in. And this is actually incorrect since prior to the arrival of the Europeans, and many centuries after, there were no countries in Africa, just tribes constantly warring with each other, and constantly selling their war prisoners as slaves to the highest bider. Horrendous things which are still happening right now, this very moment.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 06, 2019, 02:20:02 PM
Quote from: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 01:14:14 PM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I remind you that taking and selling African slaves has been the regular business of Arabian and African warlords throughout the centuries? Or that slavery is right now when I'm typing this post a gruesoem reality in Africa?
A reality the world appears to want to ignore. Our age has more deliberately ignored elephants in the room than ever.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 06, 2019, 02:23:41 PM
Quote from: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 02:12:36 PM
I don't know how you came to this conclusion but it's the exact opposite of what I said and implied.

I say and imply this: people of African descent are better off in the USA than in any African country their ancestors originated in. And this is actually incorrect since prior to the arrival of the Europeans, and many centuries after, there were no countries in Africa, just tribes constantly warring with each other, and constantly selling their war prisoners as slaves to the highest bider. Horrendous things which are still happening right now, this very moment.

You might have meant to imply this, but you certainly didn't say this. You just threw out a rhetorical question.

I'm not going to get into a detailed discussion about Africa and what goes on there, but I wish I knew the difference between a "country" and a "tribe". Tribes are apparently warring entities, whereas countries...?

Europeans have been incredibly good at assuming that if they don't recognise a government and a property system and various other societal systems, that none exist.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on December 06, 2019, 02:28:09 PM
     Africans are doing pretty well in America. They tend to be more highly educated than the native born population.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 02:29:37 PM
Quote from: Madiel on December 06, 2019, 02:03:48 PM
As to whether there are too many immigrants in Europe, I fail to see why the religion of the immigrants is relevant.

Go live in a French no-go zone and you'll see.

Quote
People have the same basic infrastructure requirements

This is an argument for any dictatorship which meets basic infrastructure requirements. I've heard it countless times in this form: "Had Ceausescu provided food and shelter to all Romanians, he'd have still been ruling the country."

That's bullshit on  stilts.

Quote
And worrying that people might change a place because they're "different" ignores the way that places are always, always changing.

That's true, but then again changing from the rule of law to Sharia is not a natural change.

Quote
Some Europeans seem desperately keen to preserve a religion that doesn't actually come from Europe

No. Some Europeans wants to preserve their way of life.



Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 06, 2019, 02:30:15 PM
Quote from: drogulus on December 06, 2019, 02:28:09 PM
     Africans are doing pretty well in America. They tend to be more highly educated than the native born population.
What is meant here by 'Native born population?' Are we talking about those born in Africa who have migrated to the US? Or all African Americans?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 02:37:16 PM
Quote from: Madiel on December 06, 2019, 02:23:41 PM
I wish I knew the difference between a "country" and a "tribe".

If you really don't know this difference then I'm afraid our discussion is useless. Honestly, I suspect you know it only too well but you're just being contrarian for the sake of it.

Been there, done that. Not anymore. Good night.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 06, 2019, 02:46:13 PM
Quote from: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 02:37:16 PM
If you really don't know this difference then I'm afraid our discussion is useless. Honestly, I suspect you know it only too well but you're just being contrarian for the sake of it.

Been there, done that. Not anymore. Good night.
There is a difference in the strict definition yet far too often the behavior of nations, especially towards each other, fails to rise above tribalism.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 06, 2019, 02:48:21 PM
Quote from: drogulus on December 06, 2019, 02:28:09 PM
     Africans are doing pretty well in America. They tend to be more highly educated than the native born population.
That doesn't take much.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on December 06, 2019, 02:50:42 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 06, 2019, 12:20:40 PM
The outrage is because the police are in a position of trust, which they are betraying - like a corrupt politician, and this is not justice fitting any crime that may or may not have happened, and because it follows a lower level of harassment and racism from the police. And because its the continuation of a long history of injustice against blacks.

You won't be interested by I just finished and can recommend a very good book on this subject, told through interviews with victims families and grassroots level activists:

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71uBO6MqVAL.jpg)


What are your main news sources on Youtube?
I don't disagree with there being outrage, and understand why it exists. I disagree with there being outrage over that, but not over gang violence.

Pretty much just Tim Pool as my main news source. But that's not really so important since I think about what I hear rather than just accept whatever people tell me.

A few more thoughts that I think is important to keep in mind.

The root cause of mass shooters that act alone is most likely just men with aggressive tendencies that lack direction.

The thing that mass shooters typical have in common is: 1) no girlfriend/wife or life goals 2) on antidepressants

The first will give you direction. The second sometimes has side effects of increased aggression. We need to look at these problems. The ideology is always secondary, and so are the weapons used. So I can say the same for Muslim terrorists who act alone.

If your cause is more important to you than acting out your own personal aggression, then you will get others to join and start tribal warfare. You won't just shoot random people and commit suicide. Way less death that way.


Quote from: drogulus on December 06, 2019, 02:28:09 PM
     Africans are doing pretty well in America. They tend to be more highly educated than the native born population.
Maybe... same situation with people from Asia. It's often jobs that bring them here because they are smart and skilled, so they end up making good money.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 06, 2019, 02:57:15 PM
Quote from: Florestan on December 06, 2019, 02:37:16 PM
If you really don't know this difference then I'm afraid our discussion is useless. Honestly, I suspect you know it only too well but you're just being contrarian for the sake of it.

Been there, done that. Not anymore. Good night.

When you wake up, take a good hard proper look at the history of Europe.

The conception of countries you're so damn keen on is no more than a couple of centuries old, and arguably didn't take hold until the end of World War I.

Your other post has a bunch of stuff about no go zones and Sharia law, and some weird argument that infrastructure like roads and schools and shops and hospitals are communist, that I'm going to ignore because you were obviously tired and emotional.

As is evidenced by the childish "I'm not going to explain what I think the difference is between a tribe and a country" post that you just wrote.

Africa had fucking kingdoms. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 06, 2019, 03:13:51 PM
Quote from: greg on December 06, 2019, 02:50:42 PM
I don't disagree with there being outrage, and understand why it exists. I disagree with there being outrage over that, but not over gang violence.

Pretty much just Tim Pool as my main news source. But that's not really so important since I think about what I hear rather than just accept whatever people tell me.

A few more thoughts that I think is important to keep in mind.

The root cause of mass shooters that act alone is most likely just men with aggressive tendencies that lack direction.

The thing that mass shooters typical have in common is: 1) no girlfriend/wife or life goals 2) on antidepressants

The first will give you direction. The second sometimes has side effects of increased aggression. We need to look at these problems. The ideology is always secondary, and so are the weapons used. So I can say the same for Muslim terrorists who act alone.

If your cause is more important to you than acting out your own personal aggression, then you will get others to join and start tribal warfare. You won't just shoot random people and commit suicide. Way less death that way.


I don't see how you jumped from the subject of police shootings to mass shooters. Or why you need to bring outrage at gang violence into this (which there is, its just expressed in different ways). Unless you think its okay for these police to see every black man as a violent gang member.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Daverz on December 06, 2019, 03:33:04 PM
Quote from: greg on December 06, 2019, 02:50:42 PM
I don't disagree with there being outrage, and understand why it exists. I disagree with there being outrage over that, but not over gang violence.

This is the worst sort of whataboutism.  Are we all supposed to pretend you give a shit about gang violence?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on December 06, 2019, 04:02:10 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 06, 2019, 03:13:51 PM
I don't see how you jumped from the subject of police shootings to mass shooters. Or why you need to bring outrage at gang violence into this (which there is, its just expressed in different ways). Unless you think its okay for these police to see every black man as a violent gang member.
"Jump from police shooting to mass shooters"- Jumped back to the subject of mass shooters because I was elaborating on my previous post about the NZ shooter.

"Why I need to bring gang violence into this-" I explain below.


Quote from: Daverz on December 06, 2019, 03:33:04 PM
This is the worst sort of whataboutism.  Are we all supposed to pretend you give a shit about gang violence?
Obviously no ability to read between the lines.

It's not about which specific issue I care about. My point is tying back to the media being manipulative (all forms of media, but we're talking about leftist media).

Do you think police shooting unarmed black men accounts for more deaths than gang violence among black men? If you're talking about power, well then people have the power to not shoot at other people as well.

So then why is all the focus on police violence instead of gang violence?

Because people are largely non-racist nowadays, so they don't like to hear about racism. So those stories sell, or get clicks, because of the outrage. Gang violence is just boring non-stories to people in comparison (it's more of a local news thing). People in Seattle won't care about the specific people involved in a Chicago shooting that happens every day, but Chicago residents might be interested.

The media, the people who tell you that you should care, doesn't care about the lives of black men. If they did, they would be activists against gang violence, which would be an ambition to save more lives. But that isn't profitable.

If you don't see the obvious manipulation then you are part of the problem.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 06, 2019, 05:29:03 PM
Quote from: greg on December 06, 2019, 05:58:19 AM
Is far right xenophobia really on the rise? Or is it just sensationalized through media stories?

And assuming it is, simply blaming it on Trump is nonsense. You can call it far right xenophobia or whatever, but it is a reaction against globalism. Let's say Trump really were as xenophobic as you say- he would be a symptom of a reaction against something that is being forced on others, not the cause.

It's not like people look at him and go, "Oh, he's so cool. He sounds like he's racist, so I'll be racist, too!"



Yeah, and you are falling for the bait, as expected. He even mentioned PewDiePie, so I wouldn't take him seriously.

Trump did not originate the virulent racism. He is a uniquely dangerous bigot, all the same.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 07, 2019, 12:25:32 AM
Quote from: Madiel on December 06, 2019, 02:57:15 PM
you were obviously tired and emotional.

I admit I was, but either you misunderstood me or I didn't express myself clear. I have never claimed that schools, roads and hospitals are communist. I was tired, not nuts. What I wanted to say is that the idea that people have the same infrastructure necessities, which is true, can be construed as an argument for "benevolent" dictatorships: if they provide people with schools, roads, hospitals, homes and food, what else do they need and why would they object to being ruled by dictators? I have seen this argument made in Romania's case; some people seriously think that if Ceausescu's rule had been succesful economically people would have never revolted against him. So my idea is, I agree that a good government should see to it that roads, schools and hospitals are built, maintained and operated properly, but there's more to it than that.

Africa had kingdoms, yes. Now, there I was really tired. Actually, I posted that about 2 AM so my mind wasn't particularly awaken. I should really never post anything after 10 PM.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 07, 2019, 01:09:13 AM
Quote from: Florestan on December 07, 2019, 12:25:32 AM
So my idea is, I agree that a good government should see to it that roads, schools and hospitals are built, maintained and operated properly, but there's more to it than that.

But I wasn't talking about governments. At all. I was talking about people. The people who make use of roads, schools, hospitals and so on.

I didn't make the slightest indication as to whether or not those things were being built by governments or private corporations or whatever. The topic was immigration and/or population. An increase in the number of people requires management of the infrastructure in some way, was the general point, and the more specific point was that it doesn't matter WHERE those people have come from. Their basic infrastructure needs are the same.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 07, 2019, 01:15:12 AM
Quote from: Madiel on December 07, 2019, 01:09:13 AM
But I wasn't talking about governments. At all. I was talking about people. The people who make use of roads, schools, hospitals and so on.

I didn't make the slightest indication as to whether or not those things were being built by governments or private corporations or whatever.

Yep, definitely I should not post during late night hours, when my reading comprehension skills seems to decline significantly. Honestly, there was a mess in my head. After wishing you good night I fell asleep in a matter of minutes.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 07, 2019, 01:16:14 AM
Quote from: Madiel on December 07, 2019, 01:09:13 AM
An increase in the number of people requires management of the infrastructure in some way, was the general point, and the more specific point was that it doesn't matter WHERE those people have come from. Their basic infrastructure needs are the same.

Yes, agreed.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 07, 2019, 01:22:43 AM
Well I'm glad you got some rest.  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on December 07, 2019, 04:31:33 AM
I want to watch Joe do pushups.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on December 07, 2019, 11:59:27 AM
Bloomberg on his Democratic rivals: 'Trump will eat 'em up' (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-bloomberg/bloomberg-on-his-democratic-rivals-trump-will-eat-em-up-idUSKBN1YA1VG)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 07, 2019, 01:20:09 PM
Quote from: Todd on December 07, 2019, 11:59:27 AM
Bloomberg on his Democratic rivals: 'Trump will eat 'em up' (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-bloomberg/bloomberg-on-his-democratic-rivals-trump-will-eat-em-up-idUSKBN1YA1VG)

Bloomberg is totally out of touch in his elite bubble and provides zero evidence for his claims. Elizabeth Warren might struggle with Trump, but not Bernie Sanders, who is really strong in the important rust belt. Bloomberg himself has nothing to offer. The man who bans sodas? Yeah right.  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Scion7 on December 07, 2019, 02:02:35 PM
I'd vote for Cylon Number Six if she ran.

rowRRRRRrrrrr!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 07, 2019, 02:41:17 PM
Quote from: Todd on December 07, 2019, 04:31:33 AM
I want to watch Joe do pushups.
Whatever turns you on. ???
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 07, 2019, 03:48:49 PM
Look, American politics has merged with "reality" television a fair bit already. If you want to select a candidate by creating a special edition of American Ninja Warrior or some such, it wouldn't be that different.

Although I think the typical contestant in that show might be below your minimum age for a President.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on December 07, 2019, 04:09:55 PM
Quote from: Madiel on December 07, 2019, 03:48:49 PM
Look, American politics has merged with "reality" television a fair bit already. If you want to select a candidate by creating a special edition of American Ninja Warrior or some such, it wouldn't be that different.

Although I think the typical contestant in that show might be below your minimum age for a President.


I know, isn't it awesome?!  Hopefully, a couple more cycles like this and total federal paralysis can be achieved
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 07, 2019, 04:34:47 PM
Quote from: Madiel on December 07, 2019, 03:48:49 PM
Look, American politics has merged with "reality" television a fair bit already. If you want to select a candidate by creating a special edition of American Ninja Warrior or some such, it wouldn't be that different.

Although I think the typical contestant in that show might be below your minimum age for a President.
And what do we think is the mental age of the present occupant of the Whitehouse?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 07, 2019, 04:45:15 PM
Quote from: Todd on December 07, 2019, 04:09:55 PM

I know, isn't it awesome?!  Hopefully, a couple more cycles like this and total federal paralysis can be achieved

Yes, yes, your desire to break what little federalism the "United" States actually has is well known.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 07, 2019, 04:47:14 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on December 07, 2019, 04:34:47 PM
And what do we think is the mental age of the present occupant of the Whitehouse?

There is no constitutional nor legislative requirement in that regard, so what we think isn't terribly relevant.

But the kind of jokes he makes about women or the disabled roughly suggest early adolescence.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on December 07, 2019, 05:05:36 PM
Quote from: Madiel on December 07, 2019, 04:45:15 PM
Yes, yes, your desire to break what little federalism the "United" States actually has is well known.


A potent retort from a bona fide Big Brain.  (So big.)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 07, 2019, 05:41:07 PM
It wasn't a retort.

Your shtick is getting really predictable.

THAT, just to help you out because clearly your brain is a little lacking in capacity, IS a retort.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on December 07, 2019, 05:50:57 PM
Quote from: Madiel on December 07, 2019, 05:41:07 PM
It wasn't a retort.

Your shtick is getting really predictable.

THAT, just to help you out because clearly your brain is a little lacking in capacity, IS a retort.


Thanks for that.  I can always rely on an actual intellectual to sort out the tough stuff!  Your expert, lawyerly use of capitalization is really helpful, too. 


(https://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/mf_image_16x9/public/550096-youtube_0.jpg?itok=NR2nkTQ6&resize=1100x1100)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 08, 2019, 12:55:31 AM
It is one of the great mysteries of GMG why an otherwise meaningful contributor comes to threads like this basically to be a troll.

The only variation is either to:

1) Talk about how powerful America is; or

2) In contradiction, take delight in the paralysis and destruction of the government that would actually wield that power.

But mostly it's just generic trolling of anyone foreign.

Of course, there's no sign that the moderators give a fuck about this arsehole behaviour.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on December 08, 2019, 01:09:31 AM
The equiv would be trolling all those "Look How Many Beethoven Cycles I Have" topics by rebutting that that's all very artsy / intellectual, but Elton John is a much better pianist.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 08, 2019, 03:49:31 AM
Quote from: Madiel on December 08, 2019, 12:55:31 AM
It is one of the great mysteries of GMG why an otherwise meaningful contributor comes to threads like this basically to be a troll.

The only variation is either to:

1) Talk about how powerful America is; or

2) In contradiction, take delight in the paralysis and destruction of the government that would actually wield that power.

But mostly it's just generic trolling of anyone foreign.

Of course, there's no sign that the moderators give a fuck about this arsehole behaviour.

My problem is my low self-esteem which makes me see other people, especially those who speak with a confident voice, knowledgeable. When these people disagree with me (as happens quite often) I get angry because my low self-esteem doesn't protect me from "being attacked". When it comes to talking about classical music, people on this forum seem to know A LOT, but the last three years have demonstrated me only maybe 20 % of members here understand well things like politics and society. Some members here struggle a lot with the concept of humanism It took me a few years to realize this (as an Asperger I am a slow learner), but the last few months have made this really clear to me.

Now that I have understood (accepted really) all of this, I am more relaxed and I don't get so angry. Posts of some members here make me annoyed and sad. It's sad to see some people with intellectual interest to explore classical music are not intellectuals on other issues such as politics, society and humanism. Not even on economics! It's amazing how people so easily believe in right-wing propaganda on economic issues such as trickle-down economics (which has never been proven to actually work) while laughing at left-wing ideas such as trickle-up economics which has plenty of success in Nordic countries for example.

One needs to balance the self-confidence to the level that is justified and that's the hard part. I have compensated my lack of self-esteem with overtly arrogant style of posting. I have to assume this applies to other members too. Maybe their arrogance is not to point out my ignorance but to hide their own insecurity? When I trust myself I can post better more politely, just explaining patiently what I know and understand without calling others morons, ignoramuses or idiots. I don't know everything and I have more to learn, but that doesn't mean I don't already understand and know a lot.

I have all the reason to feel good about believing in Bernie Sanders. He is doing fine! He has been surging and taking the lead position in many places. He has a steady cash flow of tons of individual donors who won't max out donating him $20 monthly. He has the movement, Bernie signs wall to wall. The corporate media tries to hide these facts but they can't. At this point it takes a lot to stop Bernie Sanders becoming the next president. I can see this. Can you?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on December 08, 2019, 05:57:49 AM
Quote from: schnittkease on December 07, 2019, 09:17:29 PM
You are so goddamn annoying.


Tough stuff from Stumptown.  You live in Montavilla, or something?


Quote from: Madiel on December 08, 2019, 12:55:31 AM
It is one of the great mysteries of GMG why an otherwise meaningful contributor comes to threads like this basically to be a troll.

The only variation is either to:

1) Talk about how powerful America is; or

2) In contradiction, take delight in the paralysis and destruction of the government that would actually wield that power.


See, now I question your intellectual bona fides.  The two broad ideas do not contradict each other.  One is descriptive, one prescriptive.


Quote from: Madiel on December 08, 2019, 12:55:31 AMBut mostly it's just generic trolling of anyone foreign.


Demonstrably incorrect.  Mush-brained lefties of all nationalities deserve ridicule and therefore are ridiculed.  It is true that ignorant non-Americans blabber on about America rather a lot, and that deserves and receives attention.

Also, use of the word "troll" and its derivatives simply denotes intellectual laziness.  It amuses me whenever I see it, especially coming from Big Brains.


Quote from: Madiel on December 08, 2019, 12:55:31 AM
Of course, there's no sign that the moderators give a fuck about this arsehole behaviour.


I love the self-unawareness contained in such posts.


Quote from: Herman on December 08, 2019, 01:09:31 AM
The equiv would be trolling all those "Look How Many Beethoven Cycles I Have" topics by rebutting that that's all very artsy / intellectual, but Elton John is a much better pianist.


Your writing skill is in decline there, Herman. 


Quote from: 71 dB on December 08, 2019, 03:49:31 AM
My problem is my low self-esteem which makes me see other people, especially those who speak with a confident voice, knowledgeable. When these people disagree with me (as happens quite often) I get angry because my low self-esteem doesn't protect me from "being attacked". When it comes to talking about classical music, people on this forum seem to know A LOT, but the last three years have demonstrated me only maybe 20 % of members here understand well things like politics and society. Some members here struggle a lot with the concept of humanism It took me a few years to realize this (as an Asperger I am a slow learner), but the last few months have made this really clear to me.

Now that I have understood (accepted really) all of this, I am more relaxed and I don't get so angry. Posts of some members here make me annoyed and sad. It's sad to see some people with intellectual interest to explore classical music are not intellectuals on other issues such as politics, society and humanism. Not even on economics! It's amazing how people so easily believe in right-wing propaganda on economic issues such as trickle-down economics (which has never been proven to actually work) while laughing at left-wing ideas such as trickle-up economics which has plenty of success in Nordic countries for example.

One needs to balance the self-confidence to the level that is justified and that's the hard part. I have compensated my lack of self-esteem with overtly arrogant style of posting. I have to assume this applies to other members too. Maybe their arrogance is not to point out my ignorance but to hide their own insecurity? When I trust myself I can post better more politely, just explaining patiently what I know and understand without calling others morons, ignoramuses or idiots. I don't know everything and I have more to learn, but that doesn't mean I don't already understand and know a lot.

I have all the reason to feel good about believing in Bernie Sanders. He is doing fine! He has been surging and taking the lead position in many places. He has a steady cash flow of tons of individual donors who won't max out donating him $20 monthly. He has the movement, Bernie signs wall to wall. The corporate media tries to hide these facts but they can't. At this point it takes a lot to stop Bernie Sanders becoming the next president. I can see this. Can you?


How much lint is in that navel?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 08, 2019, 07:18:24 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 08, 2019, 03:49:31 AM
My problem is my low self-esteem which makes me see other people, especially those who speak with a confident voice, knowledgeable. When these people disagree with me (as happens quite often) I get angry because my low self-esteem doesn't protect me from "being attacked". When it comes to talking about classical music, people on this forum seem to know A LOT, but the last three years have demonstrated me only maybe 20 % of members here understand well things like politics and society. Some members here struggle a lot with the concept of humanism It took me a few years to realize this (as an Asperger I am a slow learner), but the last few months have made this really clear to me.

Now that I have understood (accepted really) all of this, I am more relaxed and I don't get so angry. Posts of some members here make me annoyed and sad. It's sad to see some people with intellectual interest to explore classical music are not intellectuals on other issues such as politics, society and humanism. Not even on economics! It's amazing how people so easily believe in right-wing propaganda on economic issues such as trickle-down economics (which has never been proven to actually work) while laughing at left-wing ideas such as trickle-up economics which has plenty of success in Nordic countries for example.

One needs to balance the self-confidence to the level that is justified and that's the hard part. I have compensated my lack of self-esteem with overtly arrogant style of posting. I have to assume this applies to other members too. Maybe their arrogance is not to point out my ignorance but to hide their own insecurity? When I trust myself I can post better more politely, just explaining patiently what I know and understand without calling others morons, ignoramuses or idiots. I don't know everything and I have more to learn, but that doesn't mean I don't already understand and know a lot.

I have all the reason to feel good about believing in Bernie Sanders. He is doing fine! He has been surging and taking the lead position in many places. He has a steady cash flow of tons of individual donors who won't max out donating him $20 monthly. He has the movement, Bernie signs wall to wall. The corporate media tries to hide these facts but they can't. At this point it takes a lot to stop Bernie Sanders becoming the next president. I can see this. Can you?

Yes,  Trump will beat him soundly because he's so obviously far to the Left that every Republican will feel motivated to vote for Trump.  Same for Warren and every candidate whose policies you like.

That's a simple truth about American politics.   The better you like a candidate's policies, the less chance that candidate has of beating Trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 08, 2019, 09:31:30 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 08, 2019, 03:49:31 AM

I have all the reason to feel good about believing in Bernie Sanders. He is doing fine! He has been surging and taking the lead position in many places. He has a steady cash flow of tons of individual donors who won't max out donating him $20 monthly. He has the movement, Bernie signs wall to wall. The corporate media tries to hide these facts but they can't. At this point it takes a lot to stop Bernie Sanders becoming the next president. I can see this. Can you?

There's nothing wrong with believing in Bernie; there's s lot to like about him.  We've tried to explain to you why your sources of information and opinion-reinforcement are not the pure well-water you imagine them to be. And why, even if Bernie should become the nominee (which I personally doubt, though of course there remains the possibility) he will lose to Trump, in a huuuuge landslide.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on December 08, 2019, 11:26:40 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 08, 2019, 09:31:30 AM
And why, even if Bernie should become the nominee (which I personally doubt, though of course there remains the possibility) he will lose to Trump, in a huuuuge landslide.

You have no proof of that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 08, 2019, 11:53:13 AM
Quote from: schnittkease on December 08, 2019, 11:26:40 AM
You have no proof of that.

Not yet.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 08, 2019, 02:33:04 PM
Quote from: JBS on December 08, 2019, 07:18:24 AM
Yes,  Trump will beat him soundly because he's so obviously far to the Left that every Republican will feel motivated to vote for Trump.  Same for Warren and every candidate whose policies you like.

That's a simple truth about American politics.   The better you like a candidate's policies, the less chance that candidate has of beating Trump.

Politics is multidimensional. You can be on the left socially or/and economically. Americans are largely on the left on economic issues. Half of American are struggling in the richest country in the world. No wonder lefty ideas are popular. If lefty ideas were not popular Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren wouldn't be high in the poll, now would they? Kamala Harris started dropping when she moved on the right. The only corporates doing well are Biden (because of huge name recognition and "default" support from ignorant people) and Buttigieg who is a conman. Trump won because he campaigned more lefty than Hillary. Sorry, the evidence is on my side.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 08, 2019, 02:35:56 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 08, 2019, 09:31:30 AM
There's nothing wrong with believing in Bernie; there's s lot to like about him.  We've tried to explain to you why your sources of information and opinion-reinforcement are not the pure well-water you imagine them to be. And why, even if Bernie should become the nominee (which I personally doubt, though of course there remains the possibility) he will lose to Trump, in a huuuuge landslide.

What are the reliable source telling you Trump would win Bernie in a landslide? Corporate media hates Bernie, because he is bad news for the establishment (and wonderful news for regular people). Of course they create narrative were Bernie is a loser. Think man, think!

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 08, 2019, 02:49:25 PM
^Do keep in mind how reliable the polling turned out to be in 2016
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 08, 2019, 03:17:52 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 08, 2019, 02:35:56 PM
What are the reliable source telling you Trump would win Bernie in a landslide?

Let's make a bet. If Bernie will be the next POTUS, I'll never ever post here on GMG. If Bernie will not be the next POTUS, you'll never ever post here on GMG.

Deal?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 08, 2019, 03:30:05 PM
What is the logic in that?

How about: if it goes against our expectations we have to admit our worldview is imperfect?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 08, 2019, 03:39:12 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 08, 2019, 03:30:05 PM
How about: if it goes against our expectations we have to admit our worldview is imperfect?

My worldview is imperfect. Still, let's make a bet,

Deal?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 08, 2019, 04:12:16 PM
My worldview is also imperfect.

(Hardly seems worth having the election now)

Or did you mean a deal where I have to leave?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 08, 2019, 04:28:02 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 08, 2019, 04:12:16 PM
My worldview is also imperfect.

Good then.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 08, 2019, 04:52:18 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 08, 2019, 02:49:25 PM
^Do keep in mind how reliable the polling turned out to be in 2016

Polling in 2016 was actually quite accurate. Hillary got 3 million more votes pretty much as predicted The problems was people weren't savvy enough to interpret the polls corretly. You need to get your votes in correct places. Hillary didn't. Trump did.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 08, 2019, 05:10:25 PM
I dunno...what it seemed like to me was saying if there's two bullets in a revolver meaning a 2 in 6 chance of shooting yourself in Russian roulette then it's safe to go ahead and pull the trigger.

I know it's a bad analogy but a lot of people at the time seemed to interpret a 40 percent chance as being no chance.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 08, 2019, 07:17:35 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 08, 2019, 02:35:56 PM
What are the reliable source telling you Trump would win Bernie in a landslide? Corporate media hates Bernie, because he is bad news for the establishment (and wonderful news for regular people). Of course they create narrative were Bernie is a loser. Think man, think!

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html

What you do not understand is that the key to the election is not the people who will vote for a candidate, but the people who will vote against a candidate.

Trump won because enough people voted against Hillary to give him victory.

The more progressive the candidate, the more people will be motivated to vote against him. What you want is a candidate who voters that lean right, don't particularly like Trump, and don't particularly like the Democratic Party,will feel comfortable enough with that they won't be motivated to vote against him, but instead stay home. Only the candidates you sneer at as corporate cronies will do that.

That's why it's safe to say that Bernie will lose.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 08, 2019, 07:20:22 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 08, 2019, 03:49:31 AM
My problem is my low self-esteem which makes me see other people, especially those who speak with a confident voice, knowledgeable. When these people disagree with me (as happens quite often) I get angry because my low self-esteem doesn't protect me from "being attacked". When it comes to talking about classical music, people on this forum seem to know A LOT, but the last three years have demonstrated me only maybe 20 % of members here understand well things like politics and society. Some members here struggle a lot with the concept of humanism It took me a few years to realize this (as an Asperger I am a slow learner), but the last few months have made this really clear to me.

Now that I have understood (accepted really) all of this, I am more relaxed and I don't get so angry. Posts of some members here make me annoyed and sad. It's sad to see some people with intellectual interest to explore classical music are not intellectuals on other issues such as politics, society and humanism. Not even on economics! It's amazing how people so easily believe in right-wing propaganda on economic issues such as trickle-down economics (which has never been proven to actually work) while laughing at left-wing ideas such as trickle-up economics which has plenty of success in Nordic countries for example.

One needs to balance the self-confidence to the level that is justified and that's the hard part. I have compensated my lack of self-esteem with overtly arrogant style of posting. I have to assume this applies to other members too. Maybe their arrogance is not to point out my ignorance but to hide their own insecurity? When I trust myself I can post better more politely, just explaining patiently what I know and understand without calling others morons, ignoramuses or idiots. I don't know everything and I have more to learn, but that doesn't mean I don't already understand and know a lot.

I have all the reason to feel good about believing in Bernie Sanders. He is doing fine! He has been surging and taking the lead position in many places. He has a steady cash flow of tons of individual donors who won't max out donating him $20 monthly. He has the movement, Bernie signs wall to wall. The corporate media tries to hide these facts but they can't. At this point it takes a lot to stop Bernie Sanders becoming the next president. I can see this. Can you?
This is the first post I recall in a long time giving an in depth, honest and self aware analysis or forum behaviour. Very refreshing. There are many peculiar motives for posting on forums, some of them downright psychotic, some self congratulatory arrogance, some the deluded elitism of an esoteric mutual admiration society (the Mensa of the web?). My excuse is living  a long way from anything like civil society thus having very few like minded souls to converse with until I drive into the nearest civilised outpost. That and attaining useful information of the kind I run across here frequently, mostly about composers I've never heard of or recordings I'd no idea existed. Plus all this blathering keeps my touch typing skills from totally falling apart.

I can't share you support of Bernie Sanders. As a geriatric gay hippie I hope to live long enough to see a fairy in the Whitehouse so if I was able to vote in the US elections Pete Buttigieg would be top of my list. I even have a 20PETE20 T-shirt. That I've lived long enough to see gay marriage legal in my country is in itself something I'd never have believed possible only a few decades ago. The mere idea of a queer (sorry, I'm but I'm proud of that term) president would also have struck me as insane not so long ago. So would the idea of having a juvenile, retarded real estate/hotelier thug willing to kiss Putin's arse as president.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 09, 2019, 01:28:29 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 08, 2019, 07:17:35 PM
What you do not understand is that the key to the election is not the people who will vote for a candidate, but the people who will vote against a candidate.

Trump won because enough people voted against Hillary to give him victory.

The more progressive the candidate, the more people will be motivated to vote against him. What you want is a candidate who voters that lean right, don't particularly like Trump, and don't particularly like the Democratic Party,will feel comfortable enough with that they won't be motivated to vote against him, but instead stay home. Only the candidates you sneer at as corporate cronies will do that.

That's why it's safe to say that Bernie will lose.

How do you explain progressive ideas polling well? Look outside your corporate bubble. People struggle and want progressive change that helps THEM after 4 decades of oligarchy. Hillary wasn't progressive at all. People in the rust belt saw Trump more progressive or at least a chance for being progressive because Trump lied about bringing the jobs back and not forgetting regular people etc. Many of those people would have voted for Bernie in 2016 and analyse suggest Bernie would have won.

The idea that Bernie is not electable is a corporate lie without any evidence. The establishment wants a narrative were people believe what you believe and go behind a corporate candidate. The US needs change badly after decades of brutal oligarchy that has decimated half of the population into auterity that is crazy in the richest country in the world. Bernie is the man to bring that change.

I linked to the polls of Trump vs Bernie scenario and in those Bernies beats Trump easily. Facts are facts.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 09, 2019, 04:00:35 AM
Warren says all-women Democratic presidential ticket can beat Trump
Candidate says she'd consider Kamala Harris as running mate (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/09/elizabeth-warren-democrat-presidential-2020-race)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 09, 2019, 06:09:14 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 08, 2019, 02:35:56 PM
What are the reliable source telling you Trump would win Bernie in a landslide? Corporate media hates Bernie, because he is bad news for the establishment (and wonderful news for regular people). Of course they create narrative were Bernie is a loser. Think man, think!

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html

Fear not, I do think.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 09, 2019, 06:12:36 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 09, 2019, 04:00:35 AM
Warren says all-women Democratic presidential ticket can beat Trump
Candidate says she'd consider Kamala Harris as running mate (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/09/elizabeth-warren-democrat-presidential-2020-race)

While Harris is possibly safe enough as a veep choice (It isn't as if the Trumpkins voted for Pence qua Pence) I doubt very much that Warren can woo the center.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 09, 2019, 08:07:49 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 09, 2019, 06:12:36 AM
While Harris is possibly safe enough as a veep choice (It isn't as if the Trumpkins voted for Pence qua Pence) I doubt very much that Warren can woo the center.

How large is the center? If you are on center you are for status quo which means you are doing fine, but you are not into Republican madness. That's not much. Corporate media keeps up this myth of centrism. Those inside the Washington elite club have gold plan healthcare and they CAN afford it. They are completely clueless of why regular people want medicare for all.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 09, 2019, 11:10:37 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 09, 2019, 08:07:49 AM
How large is the center? If you are on center you are for status quo which means you are doing fine, but you are not into Republican madness. That's not much. Corporate media keeps up this myth of centrism. Those inside the Washington elite club have gold plan healthcare and they CAN afford it. They are completely clueless of why regular people want medicare for all.

You've gone off on your riff, rather than paying attention to what JBS & yr svt have been saying.  The Democratic nominee needs to peel away Trump voters who found Hillary distasteful. Nominating a candidate who veers left enough for you to find appealing, will simply create a different element of repulsion.


This has nothing to do with your anti-"corporate media" boilerplate, and everything to do with actual voters.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 09, 2019, 11:29:30 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 09, 2019, 11:10:37 AM
You've gone off on your riff, rather than paying attention to what JBS & yr svt have been saying.  The Democratic nominee needs to peel away Trump voters who found Hillary distasteful. Nominating a candidate who veers left enough for you to find appealing, will simply create a different element of repulsion.


This has nothing to do with your anti-"corporate media" boilerplate, and everything to do with actual voters.

It's true of course that a lefty candidate will lose centrist voters, but also gain lefty voters (increase turnout among them because there is a reason to vote). My lefty sources claim more lefty voters are gained than centrist lost so that's why lefty candidates have a better change against Trump. Rich Democratic voters are a minority. Poor Democratic (and Republican) voters are majority and those people are inspired by progressive candidates.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 09, 2019, 11:55:42 AM
Your sources aren't sources. They're just the modern version of talk radio.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 09, 2019, 12:53:01 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on December 08, 2019, 07:20:22 PMI can't share you support of Bernie Sanders. As a geriatric gay hippie I hope to live long enough to see a fairy in the Whitehouse so if I was able to vote in the US elections Pete Buttigieg would be top of my list. I even have a 20PETE20 T-shirt. That I've lived long enough to see gay marriage legal in my country is in itself something I'd never have believed possible only a few decades ago. The mere idea of a queer (sorry, I'm but I'm proud of that term) president would also have struck me as insane not so long ago. So would the idea of having a juvenile, retarded real estate/hotelier thug willing to kiss Putin's arse as president.

Damning Video Shows Mayor Pete Struggling To Hide His Corruption

https://www.youtube.com/v/Peu4CIuQ4gw
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 09, 2019, 12:54:17 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 09, 2019, 11:55:42 AM
Your sources aren't sources. They're just the modern version of talk radio.

Still beats corporate media...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 09, 2019, 01:22:34 PM
No, actually, it really, really, doesn't - even considering all that one has to be critical of in whoever you call "corporate media" That a wide variety of people here with a wide variety of differing views can agree that your "sources" are leaving you blinkered should be some indication..

I'd almost go so far as to say that in some ways you'd be better served by Fox, and it should be clear that I loathe Fox. (do I really think that? no...but its a choice of evils)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 09, 2019, 01:45:24 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 09, 2019, 12:53:01 PM
Damning Video Shows Mayor Pete Struggling To Hide His Corruption

https://www.youtube.com/v/Peu4CIuQ4gw
If you swallow that, you'll swallow anything. About time you stepped outside the political echo-chamber.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 09, 2019, 01:50:17 PM
Duplicate post deleted
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 09, 2019, 03:11:50 PM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on December 09, 2019, 01:45:24 PM
If you swallow that, you'll swallow anything. About time you stepped outside the political echo-chamber.

Swallow what exactly? If I link a video here it doesn't mean I have swallowed something. If you think Kyle Kulinski's take on the Buttigieg video is incorrect in some ways, please explain how and we can depate about it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 09, 2019, 03:51:39 PM
Just for a start: its one thing to want more transparency, but another thing to suggest "corruption" in the title of the rant and assume corruption in the rant itself.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 09, 2019, 05:41:55 PM
It will be interesting to hear about his work for McKinsey and about their work more generally. But tellingly Kulinsky had nothing to offer about it. Stringing one contextless idea out for thirty minutes is the laziest form of non-journalism.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 09, 2019, 06:47:04 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on December 09, 2019, 04:24:18 PM
In 2016, Bernie won every state that Trump was able to flip in the general. This has nothing to do with left or right; it's who best represents the American people. From Biden calling someone at a town hall "fat" for questioning his nepotism to Buttigieg dodging questions about his wealthy bundlers, so-called 'moderates' are not the answer.

Here is an actual dialogue between reporters and Buttigieg regarding his lack of transparency:


  • Reporter: Mayor, earlier today you said you were open to having a conversation about opening your fundraisers, and that's a question that reporters have been asking for months now, so I'm wondering when do you expect to actually have that conversation and give us an answer on that.
  • Buttigieg: Again, I don't have a timeline for you.
  • R: But Mayor, as the candidate, can't you just direct your campaign to open those fundraisers?
  • B: What's that?
  • R: As the candidate, can't you just direct your campaign to open those fundraisers?
  • B: Yes.
  • R: Then why haven't you done so?
  • B: What's that?
  • R: Why haven't you done so yet?
  • B: There are a lot of considerations, and I'm taking that it.
  • R: Can you give us an example of those considerations?
  • B: No.

It's been clear for months that Buttigieg is full of shit. If that dialogue didn't raise any red flags, then I am astounded at your capacity for bribery and corruption in politics.

A candidate who thinks government programs and/or massive regulation are the best solutions to problems caused by earlier government programs (I am thinking of affordable housing and the tuition "crisis" in particular) does not represent the American people.  You do realize all those Trump voters voted for him despite the fact that he was promising to get rid of Obamacare? That alone should make it clear they have no interest in progressive ideas.

BTW, a candidate telling a reporter he is not obliged to explain how he runs his campaign is not a sign of corruption. It is rhe sign if a sensible person.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 09, 2019, 09:37:24 PM
Quote from: JBS on December 09, 2019, 06:47:04 PM
You do realize all those Trump voters voted for him despite the fact that he was promising to get rid of Obamacare? That alone should make it clear they have no interest in progressive ideas.

Jesus Chris!!! When campaigning, Trump promised to repeal ObamaCare AND replace it with BETTER healthcare, give affordable healthcare to everyone. Of course it was all a lie and all he has done is sabotage ObamareCare so that millions have lost their healthcare under Trump. Have you forgotten his "Knowbody knew healthcare is so complicated" realization back in 2017?

People have a lot of interest in progressive ideas. Trump pretented to be progressive in some issues such as healthcare so that he appeared more progressive than Hillary Clinton to a lot of voters.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 09, 2019, 09:45:56 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 09, 2019, 05:41:55 PM
It will be interesting to hear about his work for McKinsey and about their work more generally. But tellingly Kulinsky had nothing to offer about it. Stringing one contextless idea out for thirty minutes is the laziest form of non-journalism.

Kyle Kulinski is a political commentator rather than journalist so what he does includes commenting political journalism, much of it being so abyssmally bad, his commenting makes better journalism. Kulinski works long days to produce his videos so calling him lazy is something I wouldn't do.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on December 09, 2019, 11:33:06 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 09, 2019, 11:10:37 AM
This has nothing to do with your anti-"corporate media" boilerplate, and everything to do with actual voters.

Except, Karl, the actual not-quite-decided voters are to a degree getting manipulated by the media.

As I was watching some of the second round hearings last week I was struck by the way the commentators (I was watching CBS at that point) were sort pre-opining for the audience. Pretty much every utterance from the studio indicated that there was insufficient evidence, and not a single House or Senate member was going to budge. They were spoonfeeding the viewers the idea that the Democrats didn't have a case and Trump was funny weird sometimes, but still a legit President. This is how you create an electorate that isn't even going to vote, because the media has told people it's not worth the ride.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 10, 2019, 12:08:40 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 09, 2019, 12:54:17 PM
Still beats corporate media...

Oh look. There's a piece of the deceased equine you haven't quite bruised into oblivion. Give it another kick.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 10, 2019, 12:35:37 AM
Quote from: Herman on December 09, 2019, 11:33:06 PM
Except, Karl, the actual not-quite-decided voters are to a degree getting manipulated by the media.

As I was watching some of the second round hearings last week I was struck by the way the commentators (I was watching CBS at that point) were sort pre-opining for the audience. Pretty much every utterance from the studio indicated that there was insufficient evidence, and not a single House or Senate member was going to budge. They were spoonfeeding the viewers the idea that the Democrats didn't have a case and Trump was funny weird sometimes, but still a legit President. This is how you create an electorate that isn't even going to vote, because the media has told people it's not worth the ride.
Corporate, alternative et al . Whatever branch of the media you examine today there's a nauseating trend towards not reporting but editorialising.
Even good old Auntie BBC is getting in on the game. This goes deeper than just media behaviour.  I suggest we are witnessing the unconscious (?) consequences of recent 'relativistic' European philosophy from the likes of the French deconstructionists. It may appear a far stretch to make but there's that simple old Hungarian saying "The Fish rots from the head down" and that's before we even begin to examine the intellectual decay unleashed by Universities all over the developed world appointing M BA's as university deans/administrators.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on December 10, 2019, 07:17:16 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 09, 2019, 06:47:04 PM
A candidate who thinks government programs and/or massive regulation are the best solutions to problems caused by earlier government programs (I am thinking of affordable housing and the tuition "crisis" in particular) does not represent the American people.

Anyone who isn't for bailing out the American people after Congress did so to Wall Street has their priorities in the wrong place.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 10, 2019, 07:42:29 AM
Quote from: Herman on December 09, 2019, 11:33:06 PM
Except, Karl, the actual not-quite-decided voters are to a degree getting manipulated by the media.

As I was watching some of the second round hearings last week I was struck by the way the commentators (I was watching CBS at that point) were sort pre-opining for the audience. Pretty much every utterance from the studio indicated that there was insufficient evidence, and not a single House or Senate member was going to budge. They were spoonfeeding the viewers the idea that the Democrats didn't have a case and Trump was funny weird sometimes, but still a legit President. This is how you create an electorate that isn't even going to vote, because the media has told people it's not worth the ride.

The US News media certainly need to do their job better, much better:  we are all agreed on that head.

Still, there is a world of difference between your level-headed assessment, and 71dB's blinkered kneejerk yada-yada.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on December 10, 2019, 11:37:23 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 10, 2019, 07:42:29 AM
The US News media certainly need to do their job better, much better:  we are all agreed on that head.

Our media has been beyond redemption ever since the fairness doctrine was scrapped.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 10, 2019, 11:47:18 AM
Quote from: schnittkease on December 10, 2019, 07:17:16 AM
Anyone who isn't for bailing out the American people after Congress did so to Wall Street has their priorities in the wrong place.
Well said but there's still that question hanging in the air (besides the tax-payer funded bail out of Wall St). Why didn't the perpetrators get thrown in jail?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 10, 2019, 04:26:28 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 09, 2019, 09:37:24 PM
Jesus Chris!!! When campaigning, Trump promised to repeal ObamaCare AND replace it with BETTER healthcare, give affordable healthcare to everyone. Of course it was all a lie and all he has done is sabotage ObamareCare so that millions have lost their healthcare under Trump. Have you forgotten his "Knowbody knew healthcare is so complicated" realization back in 2017?

People have a lot of interest in progressive ideas. Trump pretented to be progressive in some issues such as healthcare so that he appeared more progressive than Hillary Clinton to a lot of voters.

I thought you knew the main focus of the GOP was on destroying Obamacare from the moment it was proposed?

There isn't a single thing that is progressive about Trump"s slogans or ideas. In fact his main appeal is to those voters who thought Hillary was too progressive.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 10, 2019, 04:33:12 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on December 10, 2019, 07:17:16 AM
Anyone who isn't for bailing out the American people after Congress did so to Wall Street has their priorities in the wrong place.

Sanders's programs bail out nobody. Most of them, like his housing proposal, will make things worse. Increasing employment for government bureaucrats and regulators bails out government bureaucrats and regulators, but no one else. It also increases the likelihood of corruption at the level of local implementation. Replacing corrupt politicians with corrupt bureaucrats is not an improvement.

Warren's original focus on restraining Wall Street was a good thing. But she seems to have abandoned that focus in running for President.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 11, 2019, 02:36:39 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 10, 2019, 04:26:28 PM
I thought you knew the main focus of the GOP was on destroying Obamacare from the moment it was proposed?

There isn't a single thing that is progressive about Trump"s slogans or ideas. In fact his main appeal is to those voters who thought Hillary was too progressive.

Yes, the GOP wants full free market healthcare so that the poor/lower middle class just don't have healthcare because they can't afford it. A lot of Republican voters are not doing well economically and seem to be unaware of the reality. It's the corporate media to blame for this ignorance. Trump said he wants to repeal ObamaCare, so that part is clear for everyone, BUT he lied about bringing something GREAT in return. He doesn't have ANY healthcare system plan. There is no TrumpCare. Bernie Sanders has a Healthcare system plan. Pramila Jayapal has a similar plan to Bernie Sanders. All Trump has done so far is make ObamaCare worse so that millions of people have lost their healthcare.

Trump is perhaps the dumbest US president ever (making even George W. Bush look like an intellectual in comparison), but he has got some areas where he is plain genius. One of these is speaking from the both ends of his mouth. Trump has his "progressive/lefty" sounding slogans such as:

- we will bring well paying jobs back
- the forgotten men will never be forgotten again
- repeal it, replace it [ObamaCare], get something great!

Slogans like this were a reason for many to vote for Trump rather than Hillary Clinton.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 11, 2019, 03:07:36 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 10, 2019, 04:33:12 PM
Sanders's programs bail out nobody.

I'd say canceling all student loan debt would bail out a lot of people. Those people would be able to participate in the economy much more greating a huge economical boost.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 11, 2019, 07:55:27 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 11, 2019, 02:36:39 AM
Yes, the GOP wants full free market healthcare so that the poor/lower middle class just don't have healthcare because they can't afford it. A lot of Republican voters are not doing well economically and seem to be unaware of the reality. It's the corporate media to blame for this ignorance. Trump said he wants to repeal ObamaCare, so that part is clear for everyone, BUT he lied about bringing something GREAT in return. He doesn't have ANY healthcare system plan. There is no TrumpCare. Bernie Sanders has a Healthcare system plan. Pramila Jayapal has a similar plan to Bernie Sanders. All Trump has done so far is make ObamaCare worse so that millions of people have lost their healthcare.

Trump is perhaps the dumbest US president ever (making even George W. Bush look like an intellectual in comparison), but he has got some areas where he is plain genius. One of these is speaking from the both ends of his mouth. Trump has his "progressive/lefty" sounding slogans such as:

- we will bring well paying jobs back
- the forgotten men will never be forgotten again
- repeal it, replace it [ObamaCare], get something great!

Slogans like this were a reason for many to vote for Trump rather than Hillary Clinton.

If you were better informed about American political history, you would recognize those slogans are rooted in right wing populism, not progressivism.  FDR made the "forgotten man" famous, but in doing so he totally redefined a phrase that was used to describe how right wing populists feel--that they are forced to suffer the burden (via taxes and other things) of government imposed progressive programs.

Quote from: 71 dB on December 11, 2019, 03:07:36 AM
I'd say canceling all student loan debt would bail out a lot of people. Those people would be able to participate in the economy much more greating a huge economical boost.

There actually is a government debt forgiveness program in place that would solve the problem for people who actually can't pay those loans back.  Trump's Education Department is trying to make it impossible to use.  But all that is needed is to allow the program to be administered properly, which any Democrat would do. 

You also seem to be unaware of why tuition prices and the resulting debts are so high.  It's because government guaranteed loans were given out to almost everyone, which sparked tuition increases (schools wanted to cash in, of course), even in fields where one wouldn't expect it (cosmetology, for instance).  But the student debt problem is a direct result of a government program aimed at helping everyone.  Had the program not existed in the first place, tuition would be lowere for everyone and the debt problem would be far less of a problem.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 12, 2019, 01:51:22 AM
The student debt is also significantly caused by government farming out the management of student debt to private companies, who get paid based on the number of accounts they are managing.

Which gives them every incentive to make it as difficult as possible for people to get rid of the debt, and no incentive at all to help students repay.

And yes, that's the government's fault. Working out the correct performance indicators in any system is vital. Otherwise you get behaviour that runs counters to the goal of the system.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on December 12, 2019, 10:32:01 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 11, 2019, 07:55:27 AM
You also seem to be unaware of why tuition prices and the resulting debts are so high.  It's because government guaranteed loans were given out to almost everyone, which sparked tuition increases (schools wanted to cash in, of course), even in fields where one wouldn't expect it (cosmetology, for instance).  But the student debt problem is a direct result of a government program aimed at helping everyone.  Had the program not existed in the first place, tuition would be lowere for everyone and the debt problem would be far less of a problem.
Wouldn't it be more related to the financial crises, since all of a sudden every non-poverty wage job required a bachelor's degree?

If government still gave the same aid and enrollment was cut in half, then as usual less demand would equal less expensive.

If I had gradiated in 1998 rather than 06 then I might not have needed to go to college.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on December 14, 2019, 05:35:59 AM
From Comedy News Network: Cory Booker is poised to miss the next debate. He's vowing to fight on anyway. (https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/12/politics/cory-booker-2020-debate/index.html)

Poor Spartacus.  (Of course, there might not be a next debate.)

Apparently, Big Gulp guy is currently spending $4.2 million a day on ads.  Can he buy the Dem nomination?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on December 14, 2019, 05:45:00 AM
Quote from: Herman on December 09, 2019, 11:33:06 PMPretty much every utterance from the studio indicated that there was insufficient evidence, and not a single House or Senate member was going to budge.


I don't believe you.  You would have to provide a link to the specific broadcast you saw as evidence.  I watch CBS from time to time, and your poorly written description is strikingly inaccurate, particularly regarding the insufficient evidence portion.  The bit about House and Senate votes is accurate reporting. 

Expect more Democrat than Republican defections in the full House vote, and acquittal in the Senate.  Maybe a handful of Republicans vote to remove, but only after McConnell and Thune procure the proper number of votes to ensure a Democrat defeat. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 14, 2019, 09:18:50 AM
Bloomberg has spent $100+ million on TV adds. It works and Bloomberg has pretty solid support at this point despite of just jumping into the race. Stayer has spend about $80 million on TV adds. That's oligarchy, billionaires almost buying presidency.

To put this into perspective, Joe Biden has used little over $2 million, and Bernie Sanders less than $9 million on TV adds.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 14, 2019, 09:49:43 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 14, 2019, 09:18:50 AM
Bloomberg has spent $100+ million on TV adds. It works and Bloomberg has pretty solid support at this point despite of just jumping into the race. Stayer has spend about $80 million on TV adds. That's oligarchy, billionaires almost buying presidency.

To put this into perspective, Joe Biden has used little over $2 million, and Bernie Sanders less than $9 million on TV adds.

I don't think the data point means what you think it means. I doubt Bloomberg will get much of anywhere.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on December 14, 2019, 10:44:21 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 14, 2019, 09:49:43 AM
I don't think the data point means what you think it means. I doubt Bloomberg will get much of anywhere.

That's not the point. Regardless of how far he gets, the fact that someone is able to do what he has done is a major problem.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 14, 2019, 11:12:39 AM
Quote from: schnittkease on December 14, 2019, 10:44:21 AM
That's not the point. Regardless of how far he gets, the fact that someone is able to do what he has done is a major problem.

Karl's ability to understand these things is surprisingly weak for a person with Ph.D.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 14, 2019, 12:15:53 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 14, 2019, 11:12:39 AM
Karl's ability to understand these things is surprisingly weak for a person with Ph.D.

Actually, the ability of the last 2 posts to read what Karl actually said is what's surprisingly weak.

You made a point. You're now trying to agree with schnittkease who DENIED YOUR POINT and claimed that something else was the point.

Either spending money to get results is right, or it's just about spending money regardless of results. It can't be both.

The fact that Bloomberg is spending lots of money is trite. The question is, is it buying him the election (you), is it not getting him far (Karl), or do we not care about the outcomes and just about the expenditure (schnittkease)?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 14, 2019, 12:52:56 PM
Quote from: Madiel on December 14, 2019, 12:15:53 PM
The fact that Bloomberg is spending lots of money is trite. The question is, is it buying him the election (you), is it not getting him far (Karl), or do we not care about the outcomes and just about the expenditure (schnittkease)?

I'm not saying this is buying him the election! Bloomberg HIMSELF thinks he has a chance because he is delusional and totally out of touch about what regular people think. People want medicare for all, not ban of sodas! So, I believe I think exactly the same schnittkease is thinking. Almost all of Bloomberg's support is thanks to the TV adds, not because he has something to offer.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 14, 2019, 01:24:03 PM
So when you said "it works", which is what Karl was responding to...

That wasn't actually your view. Right.

Maybe you shouldn't disparage someone's intelligence when they read what you wrote. Maybe you should disparage your own for writing things you don't actually mean.

Insulting Karl in that way does not commend you in any way to my somewhat left-leaning way of thinking. If you want to win an argument, you don't do it by making cheap jokes about PhDs when it's YOUR MISTAKE to say that Bloomberg's strategy is working and winning support. Karl said it wasn't really winning support. And now that is what YOU are saying.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 14, 2019, 01:27:28 PM
Quote from: Madiel on December 14, 2019, 01:24:03 PM
So when you said "it works", which is what Karl was responding to...

That wasn't actually your view. Right.

It works in getting high in the polls fast, but it won't work in getting the presidency, because the competition of too hard.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 14, 2019, 01:29:02 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 14, 2019, 01:27:28 PM
It works in getting high in the polls fast, but it won't work in getting the presidency, because the competition of too hard.

See edit above. You're insulting Karl while agreeing with him. Stop being an arsehole.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 14, 2019, 03:48:59 PM
Quote from: Madiel on December 14, 2019, 01:29:02 PM
See edit above. You're insulting Karl while agreeing with him. Stop being an arsehole.

I said I believe I agree with schnittkease. If Karl thinks it is a problem for the democracy when billionaires can spend obscene amount of money on TV adds to increase their support whether it's enough to win elections or not then I agree with him also, but schnittkease doesn't seem to agree with Karl and I believe I agree with schnittkease so the logical conclusion is I don't agree with Karl...  :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 14, 2019, 06:15:04 PM
Or you could try not being so binary.

Because then you might figure out that Karl said nothing one way or the other about whether billionaires ought to be able to spend money.

And then you might further figure out that schnittkease's disagreement with Karl consisted of denying that results were relevant. When it was you, not Karl, that had made results part of the conversation.

Quote from: 71 dB on December 14, 2019, 09:18:50 AM
Bloomberg has spent $100+ million on TV adds. It works and Bloomberg has pretty solid support at this point despite of just jumping into the race.

Understand? There were 2 different angles to your argument - spending, and results. Karl talked about results, whereupon schnittkease said we only should talk about spending.

The logical conclusion is not that we're dealing with "A" and "not A". We're actually dealing with "A and B" and "not B" and "A regardless of B". If you're going to talk about logic, this is my response.

If you don't think it matters whether or not Bloomberg gets anywhere, and that as a matter of principle it's wrong for a candidate to spend that kind of money, then the second sentence I've quoted was superfluous.

I don't really mind what your argument is, and I don't care who you agree or disagree with, but I definitely do mind when someone rationally responds to that sentence and your comeback is to say how dumb they are to miss the point. You wrote the sentence. If the sentence didn't have a point, you shouldn't have written it. Readers are entitled to assume that you actually MEANT SOMETHING by it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 14, 2019, 07:18:41 PM
Two observations
1) Bloomberg, as the former mayor of the City of New York, and a prominent voice for gun control, starts off with a huge amount of name recognition, just like Biden and Sanders did.

2) I agree with Schnittkease's point about the amount of money, but it is highly relevant to point out the $100 million is (as I understand it) his own money.  He claims he won't be taking donations.  So there are no donors to buy him. (In fact, he's donating to other politicians, so he's "buying" them.)

I have seen the ad he's running in Florida. He touts himself as a fighter who can successfully fight Trump, but no mention of policies.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 14, 2019, 07:25:23 PM
Quote from: JBS on December 14, 2019, 07:18:41 PM
I have seen the ad he's running in Florida. He touts himself as a fighter who can successfully fight Trump, but no mention of policies.
Maybe he understands this election is to a frightening extent like some horror movie "Who Can Kill The Orange Monster?"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Christabel on December 14, 2019, 07:48:21 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 14, 2019, 09:49:43 AM
I don't think the data point means what you think it means. I doubt Bloomberg will get much of anywhere.

I'd have to agree with this, mainly because he's just so old he could conk out at any time!!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 14, 2019, 07:54:59 PM
Quote from: Christabel on December 14, 2019, 07:48:21 PM
I'd have to agree with this, mainly because he's just so old he could conk out at any time!!

He's 77 to Trump's 73. And he's carrying considerably less weight, and, I'll wager, has a healthier diet.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on December 14, 2019, 10:12:09 PM
Let's clarify a few things.

What has Bloomberg done? He has spent $100 million of his own personal wealth to fund a campaign that may or may not be succeeding (depending on how one defines the word). Bloomberg is currently polling at an average of 5.2% nationally; this certainly fits 71 dB's description of "pretty solid support." 71 dB claimed—rightly, IMO—that Bloomberg's ad expenditure contributed to that 5% and Karl rebutted by saying that there is no correlation between ad expenditure and polling since Bloomberg has not gotten "much of anywhere." In Karl's view, this probably means joining the frontrunners, but for 71 dB the bar is lower.

The point I am making is that it is wrong for anyone to be able to completely self-fund a presidential campaign (irrespective of their polling).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 14, 2019, 11:11:42 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on December 14, 2019, 10:12:09 PM
The point I am making is that it is wrong for anyone to be able to completely self-fund a presidential campaign (irrespective of their polling).

Why? Would you rather they be bought by interests? I'm inclined to agree with JBS that someone who can self-fund this is less concerning than someone who has been given a lot of money and therefore is in a position of owing favours.

America is crying out for some kind of campaign finance reform. Perhaps there is merit in regulating spending generally (at least one jurisdiction in Australia has gone down this route, although they then managed to stuff it up when they tried to tighten the spending caps further), but I think the biggest priority ought to be regulating the donations.

One of the biggest barriers to any kind of reform, of course, is the view that money is speech. I think Citizens United is an idiotic decision, and our own High Court has given reasons why it has no intention of following it (essentially that corporations don't vote), but so long as that decision stands you don't have much hope of reining in the spending. And in fact that decision makes it even more implausible that private spending of an individual will be restricted because individuals clearly do have free speech and a role in the political process.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 15, 2019, 02:54:16 AM
Quote from: schnittkease on December 14, 2019, 10:12:09 PM
Let's clarify a few things.

What has Bloomberg done? He has spent $100 million of his own personal wealth to fund a campaign that may or may not be succeeding (depending on how one defines the word). Bloomberg is currently polling at an average of 5.2% nationally; this certainly fits 71 dB's description of "pretty solid support." 71 dB claimed—rightly, IMO—that Bloomberg's ad expenditure contributed to that 5% and Karl rebutted by saying that there is no correlation between ad expenditure and polling since Bloomberg has not gotten "much of anywhere." In Karl's view, this probably means joining the frontrunners, but for 71 dB the bar is lower.

The point I am making is that it is wrong for anyone to be able to completely self-fund a presidential campaign (irrespective of their polling).

Thanks for the support. There is also another issue with Bloomberg. Since he is a media mogule, the people working in the media are willing to be kind to him* in hopes of working under him in the future. No matter how the race goes for him it's a clear case of oligarchy and undermines democracy. If Karl understands this then I apologize and take my words back.

* We can compare how the media writes about Bloomberg compared to say Tulsi Gabbard.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 15, 2019, 03:06:26 AM
Quote from: Madiel on December 14, 2019, 11:11:42 PM
Why? Would you rather they be bought by interests? I'm inclined to agree with JBS that someone who can self-fund this is less concerning than someone who has been given a lot of money and therefore is in a position of owing favours.

America is crying out for some kind of campaign finance reform. Perhaps there is merit in regulating spending generally (at least one jurisdiction in Australia has gone down this route, although they then managed to stuff it up when they tried to tighten the spending caps further), but I think the biggest priority ought to be regulating the donations.

One of the biggest barriers to any kind of reform, of course, is the view that money is speech. I think Citizens United is an idiotic decision, and our own High Court has given reasons why it has no intention of following it (essentially that corporations don't vote), but so long as that decision stands you don't have much hope of reining in the spending. And in fact that decision makes it even more implausible that private spending of an individual will be restricted because individuals clearly do have free speech and a role in the political process.

Why are constly TV adds needed? It should be cheap to run. What you should have is good ideas and vision that resonates with the people. The candidates could have a webpage where they list what they are for and what they are against and what kind of vision they have for the country/future. Then you have the debates where those ideas are tested. Self-financing is perhaps better than corporate money, but it means the richer you are the better chances you have. Not very democratic. There are talks about "democracy dollars." Everyone is given say $500 to donate to the candidate of their choosing. Rich and poor would have the same political weight. That's democracy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on December 15, 2019, 05:17:57 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 15, 2019, 03:06:26 AM
Why are constly TV adds needed? It should be cheap to run. What you should have is good ideas and vision that resonates with the people. The candidates could have a webpage where they list what they are for and what they are against and what kind of vision they have for the country/future. Then you have the debates where those ideas are tested. Self-financing is perhaps better than corporate money, but it means the richer you are the better chances you have. Not very democratic. There are talks about "democracy dollars." Everyone is given say $500 to donate to the candidate of their choosing. Rich and poor would have the same political weight. That's democracy.


Democrats need more advisors like you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: schnittkease on December 15, 2019, 08:27:51 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 15, 2019, 03:06:26 AM
Self-financing is perhaps better than corporate money, but it means the richer you are the better chances you have. Not very democratic. There are talks about "democracy dollars." Everyone is given say $500 to donate to the candidate of their choosing. Rich and poor would have the same political weight. That's democracy.

This.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 15, 2019, 12:15:36 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 15, 2019, 03:06:26 AM
Why are constly TV adds needed? It should be cheap to run. What you should have is good ideas and vision that resonates with the people. The candidates could have a webpage where they list what they are for and what they are against and what kind of vision they have for the country/future. Then you have the debates where those ideas are tested. Self-financing is perhaps better than corporate money, but it means the richer you are the better chances you have. Not very democratic. There are talks about "democracy dollars." Everyone is given say $500 to donate to the candidate of their choosing. Rich and poor would have the same political weight. That's democracy.

Your website idea is a little loopy. All it does is the classic social media thing of funnelling people towards views they already have and websites they already know about.

People use TV ads because TV ads reach an audience. That's WHY THEY COST MONEY.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 15, 2019, 12:31:17 PM
Similarly, while I'm not against democracy dollars, if they're the sole source of funding then it just means those who are already known and popular get an advantage in increasing their popularity. It discourages new entrants or competing ideas.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 15, 2019, 03:19:27 PM
I love the "if Karl understands this, then I apologize for being an arsehole" claptrap. Poju, go teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 16, 2019, 03:36:45 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 15, 2019, 03:19:27 PM
I love the "if Karl understands this, then I apologize for being an arsehole" claptrap. Poju, go teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

Maybe you don't respect me at all anymore and I have myself to blame as I haven't been always kind/friendly to you, but maybe Krystal Ball makes you see what I and schnittkease mean:

Krystal Ball: Bloomberg's $100 million ad buy is class warfare

https://www.youtube.com/v/-MGY4YlR6WY
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 16, 2019, 03:55:12 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 16, 2019, 03:36:45 AM
Maybe you don't respect me at all anymore and I have myself to blame as I haven't been always kind/friendly to you, but maybe Krystal Ball makes you see what I and schnittkease mean:

Krystal Ball: Bloomberg's $100 million ad buy is class warfare

https://www.youtube.com/v/-MGY4YlR6WY

We know what you mean. When are you going to realise that?

The lack of comprehension is on your side when you assume that saying Bloomberg is not going to get anywhere is some kind of contrary opinion. It isn't. You yourself, when pressed, said you don't think he's going to get anywhere.

Most of this video isn't anything to do with Bloomberg of course.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 16, 2019, 04:38:29 AM
Quote from: Madiel on December 16, 2019, 03:55:12 AM
We know what you mean. When are you going to realise that?

The lack of comprehension is on your side when you assume that saying Bloomberg is not going to get anywhere is some kind of contrary opinion. It isn't. You yourself, when pressed, said you don't think he's going to get anywhere.

Most of this video isn't anything to do with Bloomberg of course.

Whether Bloomberg is getting anywhere or not is not the point. The point is he is rich enough to burn 100+ million on TV adds to gain enough support to be considered a serious candidate while surpassing more serious candidates such as Tulsi Gabbard who do not have such financial resourses. If Bloomberg was "only" a millionaire instead of a billinaire (say 1000 times poorer) he would not be able to jump on this race like this. His wealth made it possible. That's oligarchy, something YOU seem hard to understand.

Bloomberg alone of course is not the problem. The real problem is the nature of the US politics which makes this possible. Bloomberg is simply taking advantage of that. That's why the video is not 100 % about Bloomberg.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 16, 2019, 05:01:20 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 16, 2019, 04:38:29 AM
Whether Bloomberg is getting anywhere or not is not the point. The point is he is rich enough to burn 100+ million on TV adds to gain enough support to be considered a serious candidate while surpassing more serious candidates such as Tulsi Gabbard who do not have such financial resourses. If Bloomberg was "only" a millionaire instead of a billinaire (say 1000 times poorer) he would not be able to jump on this race like this. His wealth made it possible. That's oligarchy, something YOU seem hard to understand.

Bloomberg alone of course is not the problem. The real problem is the nature of the US politics which makes this possible. Bloomberg is simply taking advantage of that. That's why the video is not 100 % about Bloomberg.

Bloomberg is at least as serious a candidate as, if not more than, Gabbard and the rest. You seem to forget that he was mayor of New York, and the only reason he can't be called the most progressive mayor of NYC is because his successor, DiBlasio, is more progressive. Bloomberg's support comes from that, not his ad buys.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 16, 2019, 09:00:29 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 16, 2019, 05:01:20 AM
Bloomberg is at least as serious a candidate as, if not more than, Gabbard and the rest. You seem to forget that he was mayor of New York, and the only reason he can't be called the most progressive mayor of NYC is because his successor, DiBlasio, is more progressive. Bloomberg's support comes from that, not his ad buys.

Bloomberg was an unpopular mayor among the regular people, nowhere as popular as Bill de Blasio. The support he had came among the establishment. Calling this man who in 2012 blocked living wage and only now as a candidate is warming up to the idea to gain support because Bernie Sanders has dragged the Overton Window to the left on the issue and 80 % of Americans support it, is a firm advocate of racially discriminative stop-and-frisk policy and doesn't support medicare for all is hardly a progressive. Not even close.  He is a corporate candidate with oligarchic favor of money.

Matt Taylor says it well in his VICE article (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbmnma/michael-bloomberg-the-billionaire-no-one-likes-is-here-to-fuck-up-2020) about Bloomberg's presidential run:

"Bloomberg is a candidate from nowhere, for no one, with nothing to say. But he has the money to make sure everyone pays attention to him."

That said, the left welcomes Bloomberg in the race as in taking some support/votes away for other corporate candidates he only helps Bernie Sanders...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 16, 2019, 09:28:28 AM
Bloomberg is quite a flawed candidate, which is why I don't think he'll have legs. But JBS' point that he actually has experience in elective office (which is a significant distinction from the current POTUS) and that this is a reasonable driver for his poll results, stands.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on December 16, 2019, 10:15:25 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 15, 2019, 03:19:27 PM
Poju, go teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
Weirdest insult I've heard in a while.  :D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 16, 2019, 11:21:16 AM
Quote from: greg on December 16, 2019, 10:15:25 AM
Weirdest insult I've heard in a while.  :D

Quite an antique, it is.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 16, 2019, 11:41:44 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 16, 2019, 09:00:29 AM
Bloomberg was an unpopular mayor among the regular people, nowhere as popular as Bill de Blasio. The support he had came among the establishment. Calling this man who in 2012 blocked living wage and only now as a candidate is warming up to the idea to gain support because Bernie Sanders has dragged the Overton Window to the left on the issue and 80 % of Americans support it, is a firm advocate of racially discriminative stop-and-frisk policy and doesn't support medicare for all is hardly a progressive. Not even close.  He is a corporate candidate with oligarchic favor of money.

Matt Taylor says it well in his VICE article (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbmnma/michael-bloomberg-the-billionaire-no-one-likes-is-here-to-fuck-up-2020) about Bloomberg's presidential run:

"Bloomberg is a candidate from nowhere, for no one, with nothing to say. But he has the money to make sure everyone pays attention to him."

That said, the left welcomes Bloomberg in the race as in taking some support/votes away for other corporate candidates he only helps Bernie Sanders...

Short version: you don't like Bloomberg so he shouldn't be allowed to run.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 16, 2019, 12:37:22 PM
Quote from: Madiel on December 16, 2019, 11:41:44 AM
Short version: you don't like Bloomberg so he shouldn't be allowed to run.

I'm not saying that. This is not a "Bloomberg" problem. It is a "money in politics" problem, a problem candidates such as Pete Buttigieg illustrates in getting billionaire donations and Bloomberg & Steyer illustrate in spending obscene amount of their own money on TV adds.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 16, 2019, 01:13:04 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 16, 2019, 12:37:22 PM
I'm not saying that. This is not a "Bloomberg" problem. It is a "money in politics" problem, a problem candidates such as Pete Buttigieg illustrates in getting billionaire donations and Bloomberg & Steyer illustrate in spending obscene amount of their own money on TV adds.
The problem isn't with Bloomberg or Buttigieg, it lies with the legislation that permits such 'donations'.
On the other hand in many countries attempts to minimise such abuse has the big money going underground never to be traced to the donors.
In some instances where electoral expenditure has a limit placed on it media organisations can 'donate' favourable editorials etc.
Democracy is a strange beast but it's the best thing we have.
I'd rather large contributions were out in the open enabling us to trace favours the successfully elected grant their sponsors.
Besides, I'm very curious to learn what Mayor Pete is going to do for Zukerberg if he gets in. Something more practical than a free h**d J*b?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: dissily Mordentroge on December 16, 2019, 07:01:41 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 16, 2019, 12:37:22 PM
I'm not saying that. This is not a "Bloomberg" problem. It is a "money in politics" problem, a problem candidates such as Pete Buttigieg illustrates in getting billionaire donations and Bloomberg & Steyer illustrate in spending obscene amount of their own money on TV adds.
It's a lot better though that thugs like Putin having access to the State Treasury for their electoral propaganda.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 17, 2019, 03:45:53 AM
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on December 16, 2019, 01:13:04 PM
Democracy is a strange beast but it's the best thing we have.

Yes, but the US is a democracy ONLY on paper. In practise it is an oligarchy. You can say countries such as Norway or Netherlands have somewhat functioning democracy, but in the US the politic system works almost completely for the top 1 % making it an oligarchy. The corporate media benefits from the status quo and wants to protect it from progressive and democratic ideas and that's why corporate media loves corporate candidates (Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, etc.) and hates progressives. Have you seen the smear campaign New York Times has had against Cenk Uygur? NYT is losing all of it's credibility because of it and if this isn't a sign for you to not trust NYT you are dumber than an anvil.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 17, 2019, 07:38:49 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 17, 2019, 03:45:53 AM
Yes, but the US is a democracy ONLY on paper. In practise it is an oligarchy. You can say countries such as Norway or Netherlands have somewhat functioning democracy, but in the US the politic system works almost completely for the top 1 % making it an oligarchy. The corporate media benefits from the status quo and wants to protect it from progressive and democratic ideas and that's why corporate media loves corporate candidates (Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, etc.) and hates progressives. Have you seen the smear campaign New York Times has had against Cenk Uygur? NYT is losing all of it's credibility because of it and if this isn't a sign for you to not trust NYT you are dumber than an anvil.

Pointing out that a person was in his younger days a misogynistic jerk is not a smear campaign if that person was in fact a misogynistic jerk in his younger days.  And Mr Ugyur not only was one in his younger days, but also in his not-so-younger days
https://twitter.com/m_mendozaferrer/status/1200419960880799744

There's even a side course of anti-Semitism thrown in there.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 17, 2019, 08:50:05 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 17, 2019, 07:38:49 AM
Pointing out that a person was in his younger days a misogynistic jerk is not a smear campaign if that person was in fact a misogynistic jerk in his younger days.  And Mr Ugyur not only was one in his younger days, but also in his not-so-younger days
https://twitter.com/m_mendozaferrer/status/1200419960880799744

There's even a side course of anti-Semitism thrown in there.

Apparently you are another useful idiot (for the top 1 %) who has fallen for the smear campaign.

He has never hide his past opinions when he was still brainwashed to conservative/Republican mindset and has apologized them many times. It should be up to the voters how much they hold those past opinions against him. If you want money out of politics, medicare for all, free college, end unnecessory wars etc. progressive things you are well adviced to vote for him in the 25th district because he is superior candidate on those issues.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Christabel on December 17, 2019, 10:07:10 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 17, 2019, 03:45:53 AM
Yes, but the US is a democracy ONLY on paper. In practise it is an oligarchy. You can say countries such as Norway or Netherlands have somewhat functioning democracy, but in the US the politic system works almost completely for the top 1 % making it an oligarchy. The corporate media benefits from the status quo and wants to protect it from progressive and democratic ideas and that's why corporate media loves corporate candidates (Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, etc.) and hates progressives. Have you seen the smear campaign New York Times has had against Cenk Uygur? NYT is losing all of it's credibility because of it and if this isn't a sign for you to not trust NYT you are dumber than an anvil.

Something tells me you'd never have written that if Mrs. Clinton had won in 2016!!  So transparent.  And funny.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 17, 2019, 10:34:34 AM
Quote from: Christabel on December 17, 2019, 10:07:10 AM
Something tells me you'd never have written that if Mrs. Clinton had won in 2016!!  So transparent.  And funny.

Had Mrs. Clinton won I probably wouldn't have gotten better into US politics (I wanted to understand how it was possible Trump won) and my knowledge and understanding of US politics would still be almost as naive it was before the election. So, if anything good came from Trump's victory for me it was the motivation to educate myself about what is going on in the US thousands of miles away.

However, if Mrs. Clinton had won and I somehow had the knowledge I have now I would still say the exact same thing about democracy in the US. It will take massive efforts for Americans to restore the democracy. Electing Bernie Sanders as the next president is a good start, but much much more is needed. The US serves as a warning to democratic countries. Do not allow the establishment to rob all the power! Fight for your rights and vote for left leaning parties/politicians. UK didn't follow this principle and the Labor Party lost. The UK is in danger as a society. Soon a lot of people may live in extreme poverty similar to how it has been in the US. Sad, but people are dumb and vote against their on good.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 17, 2019, 12:31:19 PM
BREAKING: NYT Corrects Cenk Smear, CNN Doubles Down & Declares War

https://www.youtube.com/v/QIlknV4Xrcw

Quote from: JBS on December 17, 2019, 07:38:49 AM
https://twitter.com/m_mendozaferrer/status/1200419960880799744

The job of Mendoza Ferrer is to take the left down, smear like there wasn't tomorrow. That's protecting the top 1 %, keeping up the oligarchy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 17, 2019, 12:43:29 PM
You're outraged because Kyle Kulinsky is outraged? You're calling it a "smear" because Kulinsky is calling it a smear? You're hating the NYT because Kulinsky hates them?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 17, 2019, 12:52:01 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 17, 2019, 12:43:29 PM
You're outraged because Kyle Kulinsky is outraged? You're calling it a "smear" because Kulinsky is calling it a smear? You're hating the NYT because Kulinsky hates them?

Kyle Kulinski is one of my sources to hear about these things. I have no reason to disagree with him on this. Most of the time I agree with him. When I don't, it's about music or so, because he understands next to nothing about music (and admits it). A lot of people call it a smear because that's what it is. You don't see it? How dumb are you?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 17, 2019, 01:06:26 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 17, 2019, 12:31:19 PM
BREAKING: NYT Corrects Cenk Smear, CNN Doubles Down & Declares War

https://www.youtube.com/v/QIlknV4Xrcw

The job of Mendoza Ferrer is to take the left down, smear like there wasn't tomorrow. That's protecting the top 1 %, keeping up the oligarchy.

So posting clips from his Youtube channel is smearing him?

May I point out that "oligarchy" does not mean "rule by the rich". It means "rule by the few".   Progressivism advocates for programs in which bureaucrats and technocrats tell people what to do, with the average person having as little control over their life as they do now...possibly even less. IOW, progressives are merely advocating for a change on the way the oligarchs are staffed.

So enacting progressive goals is not restoring democracy. You seem to think that if people were fully and properly informed,  they would choose progressive ideas.  That's not necessarily so.  Especially when progressive ideas don't actually represent an improvement in the status quo for most people.

BTW, there is a lot of poverty in the US, but almost no extreme poverty. I assume you just picked up more propaganda from your unreliable sources when you say that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 17, 2019, 01:22:54 PM
Quote from: JBS on December 17, 2019, 01:06:26 PM
So posting clips from his Youtube channel is smearing him?

May I point out that "oligarchy" does not mean "rule by the rich". It means "rule by the few".   Progressivism advocates for programs in which bureaucrats and technocrats tell people what to do, with the average person having as little control over their life as they do now...possibly even less. IOW, progressives are merely advocating for a change on the way the oligarchs are staffed.

Few people are rich so "few" and "rich" are synonyms in this context. It's the top 1 %. They are rich (top) and they are few (1 %).
Why do people think  Progressivism advocates for programs in which bureaucrats and technocrats tell people what to do? Nordic countries are more progressive. What is it the bureaucrats and technocrats tell me to do here in Finland? What is it Bernie Sanders tells Americans to do? You have been brainwashed by the corporate media on this

Quote from: JBS on December 17, 2019, 01:06:26 PMSo enacting progressive goals is not restoring democracy. You seem to think that if people were fully and properly informed,  they would choose progressive ideas.  That's not necessarily so.  Especially when progressive ideas don't actually represent an improvement in the status quo for most people.

Yes it is. For most people progressive ideas do represent an improvements and progressive ideas are very popular, even among Republican voters. For example increasing minimum wage to living wage polls at ~80 %, because it's kind of no-brainer one should be able to make the ends meet if you work full time. Medicare for all polls high, because people don't want to go bankrupt for getting ill and pay double what other countries pay for healthcare that doesn't even cover everyone. You have been brainwashed by the corporate media on this.

Quote from: JBS on December 17, 2019, 01:06:26 PMBTW, there is a lot of poverty in the US, but almost no extreme poverty. I assume you just picked up more propaganda from your unreliable sources when you say that.

Of the western developped countries the US is actually perhaps the only one with third world problems and extreme poverty. The US is the richest country in the World. Why is there poverty at all? Because the political priorities are totally insane thanks to corruption and oligarchy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 17, 2019, 01:35:12 PM
Sorry, pujo, your ignorance of what life in America seems to be near total. So is your knowledge of the downside of progressive programs and their flaws.
Almost everything on that post is based in faulty information and flawed premises.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 17, 2019, 08:05:41 PM
Quote from: schnittkease on December 17, 2019, 07:55:43 PM
Taking statements out of context is certainly a form of smearing (unintentional or not). Note that the NYT issued a correction to their original article. Are they succumbing to the totalitarian left?

If there is enough of them, the statements become the context, as it were.  When Trump insults someone in the middle of his speech, the resulting clip is "out of context" but it's highly relevant to an accurate description of Trump, isn't it?  And the correction has nothing to do with Ugyur's rampant misogyny.

But my real focus was on the idea that pointing out the downsides and flaws of a progressive idea is corporate propaganda that slanders and brainwashes those ideas and is unfair to the candidates. It's not. It's what the media should be doing.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 18, 2019, 03:48:36 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 17, 2019, 01:35:12 PM
Sorry, pujo, your ignorance of what life in America seems to be near total. So is your knowledge of the downside of progressive programs and their flaws.
Almost everything on that post is based in faulty information and flawed premises.

So this is fake news?

https://www.newsweek.com/alabama-un-poverty-environmental-racism-743601

I live in Finland, so I'd say I know something about how well progressive programs work. So, who is ignorant? You or me?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 18, 2019, 04:10:15 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 17, 2019, 08:05:41 PM
But my real focus was on the idea that pointing out the downsides and flaws of a progressive idea is corporate propaganda that slanders and brainwashes those ideas and is unfair to the candidates. It's not. It's what the media should be doing.

Cenk Uygur has been running now for weeks. How much have you seen corporate media write about his political agenda? Isn't that relevant and what the media should be doing? He is called a radio host (it's been years since he was one). They don't mention he is the founder of the biggest independent political Youtube channel TYT. They don't mention he is the co-founder of Justice Democrats and founder of Wolf Pac. The corporate media doesn't mention he is for medicare for all, free college, legalizing marihuana, money of of politics, ending unnesessory wars, living wage and so on. Instead of all this information the media concentrates on some stupid shit he said long ago and tries to smear him 'till the cows come home. This is what you think the media should be doing? Wow! Just Wow!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 18, 2019, 10:47:59 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 18, 2019, 03:48:36 AM
So this is fake news?

https://www.newsweek.com/alabama-un-poverty-environmental-racism-743601

I live in Finland, so I'd say I know something about how well progressive programs work. So, who is ignorant? You or me?

The UN is not a place that provides accurate information on human rights or most anything else. Refer to the countries that are on the UN Human Rights Council as a blatant example. It's a bureaucracy with an agenda aimed at justifying the First World subsidizing the Third World.

The reference to the US poverty rate is, btw, misleading.   Comparing Finnish and American statistics is a bit like comparing apples to oranges,  but the income level at which Finland measures poverty is well below that used by the US--the Finnish standard is about 2/3rds of the American standard.   And if you fall below the American standard, you are eligible for government supplied health care and almost all the rest of the social welfare programs.

You are better informed on Finland, of course, but you obviously know a lot  less than you think you do about the US.  You think of "medicare for all" as a reference in general to government financed health care.  But in the US "Medicare" is a specific thing.  A program that is a source of much fraud, that does not provide medical care very efficiently, that has arbitrary rules and payment guidelines, that is as likely to not pay for medical procedures as any private insurer, that requires hefty deductibles and copayments that make it necessary to rely on private insurers to make up the difference.  IOW, Medicare works well only for people with money.  For those who don't have much money, it's not such a good thing.  So advocating Medicare for All is actually advocating forcing everyone into a system that doesn't work well, and when it works works only for the rich.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 18, 2019, 10:50:29 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 18, 2019, 04:10:15 AM
Cenk Uygur has been running now for weeks. How much have you seen corporate media write about his political agenda? Isn't that relevant and what the media should be doing? He is called a radio host (it's been years since he was one). They don't mention he is the founder of the biggest independent political Youtube channel TYT. They don't mention he is the co-founder of Justice Democrats and founder of Wolf Pac. The corporate media doesn't mention he is for medicare for all, free college, legalizing marihuana, money of of politics, ending unnesessory wars, living wage and so on. Instead of all this information the media concentrates on some stupid shit he said long ago and tries to smear him 'till the cows come home. This is what you think the media should be doing? Wow! Just Wow!

Given how bad most of the progressive agenda is,  Mr. Uygur should be glad they are not focusing on his agenda.  And since Justice Democrats and Wolf PAC and TYT are simply part of the Democrat left,  they're not nearly as important as you think they are.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 18, 2019, 12:42:33 PM
JBS, you are too far gone. I stop wasting my time on you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 18, 2019, 03:37:06 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 18, 2019, 12:42:33 PM
JBS, you are too far gone. I stop wasting my time on you.

Since you make no effort to understand what he has to say, truly, you are wasting your time.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 18, 2019, 04:12:03 PM
I listen to plenty of American podcasts and other American sources that reference the poor standard of living in America.

You do know, for example, that you have shockingly high rates of death in childbirth? Except in a couple of states that have done something about it.

There are any number of measures of quality of life that illustrate that the USA has a bigger gap between those doing well and those not doing well than most other 'First World' countries. If the UN was all about this supposed agenda, then you'd think they would guilt trip all of the West in the same way. And yet, there are all these international scores that show life is most likely better for you as a poorer person in Canada, Japan, Scandinavia, Switzerland, Australia or New Zealand than if you're a poorer person in the USA.

Americans do have a most peculiar habit of believing they have nothing to learn from anywhere else. Exceptionalism is pretty much ingrained in the national psyche. There's a belief that you're the greatest country in the world, which you probably were about 3 or 4 generations ago. But for several decades your ranking has been sliding, and one of the ways it's been sliding the most is that a huge gap has opened up between rich and poor. Bigger than in most comparable countries.

EDIT: And of course, the whole "Make America Great Again" logically depends on you not being so great anymore. Not that logic has a lot to do with it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 18, 2019, 04:38:19 PM
Quote from: Madiel on December 18, 2019, 04:12:03 PM
I listen to plenty of American podcasts and other American sources that reference the poor standard of living in America.

You do know, for example, that you have shockingly high rates of death in childbirth? Except in a couple of states that have done something about it.

There are any number of measures of quality of life that illustrate that the USA has a bigger gap between those doing well and those not doing well than most other 'First World' countries. If the UN was all about this supposed agenda, then you'd think they would guilt trip all of the West in the same way. And yet, there are all these international scores that show life is most likely better for you as a poorer person in Canada, Japan, Scandinavia, Switzerland, Australia or New Zealand than if you're a poorer person in the USA.

Americans do have a most peculiar habit of believing they have nothing to learn from anywhere else. Exceptionalism is pretty much ingrained in the national psyche. There's a belief that you're the greatest country in the world, which you probably were about 3 or 4 generations ago. But for several decades your ranking has been sliding, and one of the ways it's been sliding the most is that a huge gap has opened up between rich and poor. Bigger than in most comparable countries.

EDIT: And of course, the whole "Make America Great Again" logically depends on you not being so great anymore. Not that logic has a lot to do with it.

Pujo was claiming poor people in the US live at Third World levels. Not the same thing you are saying.

But most of the problems you are mentioning are linked in the US to racism and its legacies.  So comparing the figures to EU countries is not actually valid.  European countries don't really have the legacies of racism--both suppression of native populations and the heritage of slavery--we have in the US.

A valid comparison would be a comparison of statistics among the indigenous peoples of Australia and Canada on the one hand and those of the US on the other hand.  I know that Native Americans have extremely high rates of poverty. [You probably have heard of the Keystone Pipeline. The focus of opposition to it among the Lakota is a county which supposedly has the highest poverty rate in the entire US.] How do the Aborigines compare to them?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 18, 2019, 04:43:45 PM
Quote from: Madiel on December 18, 2019, 04:12:03 PMAmericans do have a most peculiar habit of believing they have nothing to learn from anywhere else. Exceptionalism is pretty much ingrained in the national psyche. There's a belief that you're the greatest country in the world, which you probably were about 3 or 4 generations ago. But for several decades your ranking has been sliding, and one of the ways it's been sliding the most is that a huge gap has opened up between rich and poor. Bigger than in most comparable countries.

The younger generation is more open to learn from other countries and unsurprisingly the younger generation is overhelmingly for progressive ideas.  I have understood that the US used to be much more left wing decades ago (50's) and that's when the middle class was super strong. Almost anyone could have a house with picked fences not to mention FDR earlier who was so popular and left wing that the Republicans came up with the idea of term limits. Even the early 70's was ok, but then money in politics was allowed and the decline of democracy started. Four decades later people are so pissed of how rigged the system is for the top 1 % and desperate they elect a reality tv baffoon as the president.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 18, 2019, 04:49:16 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 18, 2019, 03:37:06 PM
Since you make no effort to understand what he has to say, truly, you are wasting your time.

Do you agree with him UN is useless in providing accurate information?
Do you think people in Alabama are just fine?

What he is saying is that he believes corporate media. He doesn't show interest in learning alternate perspective so...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 18, 2019, 04:55:32 PM
Quote from: JBS on December 18, 2019, 04:38:19 PM
Pujo was claiming poor people in the US live at Third World levels. Not the same thing you are saying.

Well then, let me say it. Because various bits of data say it. Including the bit about mothers dying in childbirth. There are parts of America where that happens at rates otherwise only seen in the Third World.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 18, 2019, 05:10:57 PM
Quote from: Madiel on December 18, 2019, 04:55:32 PM
Well then, let me say it. Because various bits of data say it. Including the bit about mothers dying in childbirth. There are parts of America where that happens at rates otherwise only seen in the Third World.

Very well. And I am saying that those statistics have more to due with racism (both past and present) than anything else.

That UN report talked about Alabama. It's no coincidence that the first capital of the Confederate States was the capitol of Alabama. The UN fellow went looking where he knew he could find the result he wanted.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 18, 2019, 05:13:37 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 18, 2019, 04:49:16 PM
. He doesn't show interest in learning alternate perspective so...

You should be the last person to complain about not learning alternate perspectives.

I did not say people in Alabama were fine.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 18, 2019, 05:21:16 PM
Quote from: Madiel on December 18, 2019, 04:55:32 PM
Well then, let me say it. Because various bits of data say it. Including the bit about mothers dying in childbirth. There are parts of America where that happens at rates otherwise only seen in the Third World.

According to Wikipedia, even Russia ( 18.7 ) and China ( 17.7 ) have lower maternal mortality rates than the US ( 26.4* ). As a comparison in Finland ( 3.8 ), one of the lowest in the World.

(per 100.000 live births, 2015 data)

* varies a lot from 14-to 26.4, but high nevertheless for a developped country (less than 10 elsewhere)

Maternal Mortality Is Rising in the U.S. As It Declines Elsewhere.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 18, 2019, 05:44:48 PM
Quote from: JBS on December 18, 2019, 05:10:57 PM
Very well. And I am saying that those statistics have more to due with racism (both past and present) than anything else.

That UN report talked about Alabama. It's no coincidence that the first capital of the Confederate States was the capitol of Alabama. The UN fellow went looking where he knew he could find the result he wanted.

I don't doubt that racism is involved. But if that's the case you must be getting more racist over time as your rates are going up.

And mysteriously, racism drops off markedly if you happen to live in California, Nevada or Massachusetts.

And racism in Alabama is about 4 times less than in Georgia...

According to these stats, there's no doubt it's worse being a black woman in Georgia. But it's appallingly bad being a WHITE woman in Georgia. I mean, a white woman in Georgia is still about 10 times more likely to die than anyone in California.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2019-06-12/these-states-have-the-highest-maternal-mortality-rates
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 18, 2019, 06:00:25 PM
About racism.
Sorry for the long copy pasta. It's from the same Wikipedia article.
QuoteAfrican American women are four times as likely to suffer from maternal morbidity and mortality than Caucasian women,[3] and there has been no large-scale improvement over the course of 20 years to rectify these conditions.[34] Furthermore, women of color, especially "African-American, Indigenous, Latina and immigrant women and women who did not speak English", are less likely to obtain the care they need. In addition, foreign-born women have an increased likelihood of maternal mortality, particularly Hispanic Women.[35] Cause of mortality, especially in older women, is different among different races. Caucasian women are more likely to experience hemorrhage, cardiomyopathy, and embolism whereas African American women are more likely to experience hypertensive disorders, stroke, and infection.

The US has shown to have the highest rate of pregnancy related deaths o/c maternal mortality amongst all the industrialized countries. The CDC first implemented the Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System in 1986 and since then maternal mortality rates have increased from 7.2 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1987 to 17.2 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2015. The issue of maternal mortality disproportionately affects women of colour when compared with the rate in white non-Hispanic women. The following statistics were retrieved from the CDC and show the rate of maternal mortality between 2011 and 2015 per 100000 live births: Black non-Hispanic -42.8, American Indian/Alaskan Native non-Hispanic-32.5, Asian/Pacific Islander on-Hispanic -14.2, White non-Hispanic-13.0, and Hispanic -11.4. Black non-Hispanic women tend to have limited access to pre- and post-natal healthcare services. Additionally, they experience higher rates of discrimination, disrespect and abuse than white non-Hispanic women.

That's why I referred to Australian Aborigines as a good comparison to US Native Americans.

The reference to California, Massachusetts, and Nevada helps prove my point. They are very "blue" states.  Almost all the states in the bottom portion of the list have high minority populations and history of racism against blacks and/or Native Americans. (Indiana at the bottom and Alabama at the top are definite anomolies.)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 18, 2019, 06:05:30 PM
There is, btw, this little complication
QuoteMeasurement and data collection   Edit
According to a 2016 article in Obstetrics and Gynecology by MacDorman et al., one factor affecting the US maternal death rate is the variability in calculation of maternal deaths. The WHO deems maternal deaths to be those occurring within 42 days of the end of pregnancy, whereas the United States Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System measures maternal deaths as those occurring within a year of the end of pregnancy.[4] Some states allow multiple responses, such as whether death occurred during pregnancy, within 42 days after pregnancy, or within a year of pregnancy, but some states, such as California, ask simply whether death occurred within a year postpartum.[4]

IOW, the US rate may be higher because of a difference in its definition.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 18, 2019, 06:12:49 PM
Quote from: JBS on December 18, 2019, 06:00:25 PM
The reference to California, Massachusetts, and Nevada helps prove my point. They are very "blue" states.  Almost all the states in the bottom portion of the list have high minority populations and history of racism against blacks and/or Native Americans. (Indiana at the bottom and Alabama at the top are definite anomolies.)

If you'd take your blinkers off for just a second (and for instance notice the huge Hispanic population in California), I can explain to you that it's got nothing to do with them being "blue" states, unless a characteristic of "blue" states is to recognise the mechanisms that other countries have implemented, learn from them and implement them as well.

I mean, why just 3 "blue" states? What about all the other "blue" ones that don't do nearly as well? Those 3 states have a death rate about 50% of the next best state.

What those states have in common is that they have systems where any instance of maternal death is documented and researched and learned from. To be better prepared for the next patient.

Anyway, I don't know what the purpose of your argument is. The claim was that there are people in the US living in third world conditions. Responding "oh, that's just because we're racist" is no kind of sensible answer and does you no credit. Do you want some kind of congratulations if it's just black people living in third world conditions (which isn't true anyway, even though black people are more affected there are predominantly white areas of your country with lousy outcomes too)? Is your argument that your statistics are only so bad because your black population is too big compared to the racial minorities of other countries?

Sorry, but that's a fucking weird argument. When it comes to bare statements that factually, there are people in the US living in bad conditions you seem to be wanting to come up with reasons why as if there are nice reasons why. When the fundamental point is that these are fixable problems, and the US is doing a really shit job of fixing them.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 18, 2019, 06:14:38 PM
Quote from: JBS on December 18, 2019, 06:05:30 PM
There is, btw, this little complication
IOW, the US rate may be higher because of a difference in its definition.

You do notice that California is given as an example of a state with the looser definition, that would lead to a higher rate?

And yet California has the lowest rate in the country. Easily.

I continue to not understand why you are grasping at the straws you are grasping at. Why is it so difficult to accept that not everyone in your country owns a golfing resort?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 18, 2019, 06:37:56 PM
Quote from: Madiel on December 18, 2019, 05:44:48 PM
I don't doubt that racism is involved. But if that's the case you must be getting more racist over time as your rates are going up.

And mysteriously, racism drops off markedly if you happen to live in California, Nevada or Massachusetts.

And racism in Alabama is about 4 times less than in Georgia...

According to these stats, there's no doubt it's worse being a black woman in Georgia. But it's appallingly bad being a WHITE woman in Georgia. I mean, a white woman in Georgia is still about 10 times more likely to die than anyone in California.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2019-06-12/these-states-have-the-highest-maternal-mortality-rates


And yet, the places like backwater Alabama where conditions are the worst, are solidly for Trump, and will vote against any candidate that Poju likes.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 18, 2019, 06:38:21 PM
Madiel, you seem to be missing my main point.  Which is not about the quality of medical care in California.
The point is that most poverty in the US is directly linked to racism. You can't fix one unless you can fix the other. So the "solutions" that might work in other countries won't work as well here. And racism, and its legacies,  has a huge role in American society that exists in no other First World country.  The only real parallel I know of is Australia's treatment of its First Peoples, and even that parallels only the US treatment of Native Americans, not blacks.  Pretty much all the "third world" conditions exist in communities that are black or Native American, and that's not a coincidence. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 18, 2019, 11:52:59 PM
Quote from: JBS on December 18, 2019, 06:38:21 PM
Madiel, you seem to be missing my main point.  Which is not about the quality of medical care in California.
The point is that most poverty in the US is directly linked to racism. You can't fix one unless you can fix the other. So the "solutions" that might work in other countries won't work as well here. And racism, and its legacies,  has a huge role in American society that exists in no other First World country.  The only real parallel I know of is Australia's treatment of its First Peoples, and even that parallels only the US treatment of Native Americans, not blacks.  Pretty much all the "third world" conditions exist in communities that are black or Native American, and that's not a coincidence.

I'm not missing your point. I'm saying it's not true, because there are areas of the US that are predominantly white and which suffer poverty. West Virginia springs to mind.

I'm also pointing out to you that there areas of the country where being white might be better than being black, but it's STILL bad. So no, it's not directly linked to racism. I've repeatedly acknowledged that race is a factor, but this simplistic notion that it's all about race and therefore that's THE key to fixing things is just not accurate.

And I'm still mystified why you think whether or not it's racism is any kind of response to the original point about whether or not there's serious poverty in the United States. You're not denying, then, that there are people who have Third World living standards in the USA?

I honestly can't figure out what you're trying to say, because it feels like you spend half the time trying to deny the information that 71db and I have put forward, and the other half of the time trying to explain that racism is the cause of that information. Those two approaches can't sit together.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 19, 2019, 07:41:13 PM
Quote from: Madiel on December 18, 2019, 11:52:59 PM
I'm not missing your point. I'm saying it's not true, because there are areas of the US that are predominantly white and which suffer poverty. West Virginia springs to mind.

I'm also pointing out to you that there areas of the country where being white might be better than being black, but it's STILL bad. So no, it's not directly linked to racism. I've repeatedly acknowledged that race is a factor, but this simplistic notion that it's all about race and therefore that's THE key to fixing things is just not accurate.

And I'm still mystified why you think whether or not it's racism is any kind of response to the original point about whether or not there's serious poverty in the United States. You're not denying, then, that there are people who have Third World living standards in the USA?

I honestly can't figure out what you're trying to say, because it feels like you spend half the time trying to deny the information that 71db and I have put forward, and the other half of the time trying to explain that racism is the cause of that information. Those two approaches can't sit together.

I think what you mean by Third World poverty is not what I mean by Third World poverty.  What I mean by the term is the extreme sort of poverty where people live with no running water, dirt floors, and no assets beyond their own labor.  That exists in the US, on Indian reservations and among some blacks in the rural South, and it's a direct legacy of racism. It doesn't exist among whites in West Virginia or  anywhere else. Where poverty is worse in the US than the rest of the First World, it's a direct link from racism. Until and unless we Americans fix racism, poverty won't be fixed.  That's a complicating factor that exists almost nowhere else in the First World. And the legacies of racism have a much higher impact on poverty than the percentage of billionaires in the population.

.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on December 19, 2019, 08:00:53 PM
Quote from: JBS on December 19, 2019, 07:41:13 PM
Until and unless we Americans fix racism, poverty won't be fixed.
Good luck with that. At this point China is probably more racist than the US.

Since racism isn't very widespread anymore here, reducing it greatly at this point would be impossible without some sort of thought detection system.

And eradicating it entirely would be 100% impossible. It's easier to reduce it a lot when it's widespread and out in the open.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 20, 2019, 01:30:09 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 18, 2019, 06:37:56 PM
And yet, the places like backwater Alabama where conditions are the worst, are solidly for Trump, and will vote against any candidate that Poju likes.

We'll see how people of Alabama vote, but sadly a lot of people are easily brainwashed to vote against their own good. As we know, Trump has done ablolutely nothing to help people of Alabama. On the contrary, I'm sure many people in Alabama have lost their healthcare under Trump. Despite of this ignorance is ignorance and Trump probably beats any Democrat candidate in Alabama, but if it is Trump vs Bernie I am sure Bernie does much better than Hillary Clinton in 2016 (was Trump's 62.08 % to Hillary Clinton's 34.36 %).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 20, 2019, 04:08:44 AM
The quick take from last night seems to be: good performances by the B's (Biden & Buttigieg) so there may be hope for a centrist nominee, after all.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Harry on December 20, 2019, 04:35:53 AM
I just hope that the American people have sense enough not the elect Trump for the second time. In Europe we are utterly amazed about the fact that he was at all elected as the president. He is seen as re creating the cold war, lying through his teeth about everything, cheating his way to the top. And much more.
Actually we would put him away somewhere in an old dungeon, and forget about him.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 20, 2019, 04:53:31 AM
Here's hoping, mijn goede vriend!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 20, 2019, 05:18:07 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 20, 2019, 04:08:44 AM
The quick take from last night seems to be: good performances by the B's (Biden & Buttigieg) so there may be hope for a centrist nominee, after all.

Centrists are the reason why we have Trump. Why vote someone who tells people what they can't have (even thou many if not all other developped countries have have those things for decades) ? Biden is offering nostalgy of Obama years (with a twist of mental decline). Buttigieg offers nothing except clever word salad. He just wants to be the president and says whatever he thinks helps him to get to the White House.

Bernie Sanders offers medicate for all, free college, living wage, higher taxes to ultrarich etc.
Elizabeth Warren offers regulation of banks and some sort of healthcare reform (not as good as Bernie)
Andrew Yang offers UBI and a vision of how to handle the problems of automation in the future.
Tulsi Gabbard offers end of costly and deadly interventionism.

Those are the candidates who offer something. The corporates (centrists) offer nothing except status quo for the rich. Why are you excited about that Karl? Is your net worth $50+ million? Haven't you seen how this has led to Trump? The Democrats lost over 1000 seats under Obama's presidency. Centrism clearly didn't work. Going further right didn't help. The answer is going left. You have to give people a reason to vote for you whether it's medicare for all, bank regulation, UBI or ending the unnecessory wars to save lives and money.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 20, 2019, 05:35:15 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 20, 2019, 05:18:07 PM
Centrists are the reason why we have Trump. Why vote someone who tells people what they can't have (even thou many if not all other developped countries have have those things for decades) ? Biden is offering nostalgy of Obama years (with a twist of mental decline). Buttigieg offers nothing except clever word salad. He just wants to be the president and says whatever he thinks helps him to get to the White House.

Bernie Sanders offers medicate for all, free college, living wage, higher taxes to ultrarich etc.
Elizabeth Warren offers regulation of banks and some sort of healthcare reform (not as good as Bernie)
Andrew Yang offers UBI and a vision of how to handle the problems of automation in the future.
Tulsi Gabbard offers end of costly and deadly interventionism.

Those are the candidates who offer something. The corporates (centrists) offer nothing except status quo for the rich. Why are you excited about that Karl? Is your net worth $50+ million? Haven't you seen how this has led to Trump? The Democrats lost over 1000 seats under Obama's presidency. Centrism clearly didn't work. Going further right didn't help. The answer is going left. You have to give people a reason to vote for you whether it's medicare for all, bank regulation, UBI or ending the unnecessory wars to save lives and money.

Pujo, go outside (at this time of year, in suitably warm clothes, of course), and look to your west. 135 miles or so to your west. You will see a country which spent most of the 20th century proving that leftism doesn't work. They had all the things you want us to have. Yet, strangely, everyone ended up either dead or thoroughly miserable.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 20, 2019, 05:37:19 PM
BTW, about Tulsi
https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2019/12/19/sent-lead-aoc-jabs-tulsi-gabbard-voting-present-impeachment/
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 20, 2019, 05:48:54 PM
Quote from: JBS on December 20, 2019, 05:35:15 PM
Pujo, go outside (at this time of year, in suitably warm clothes, of course), and look to your west. 135 miles or so to your west. You will see a country which spent most of the 20th century proving that leftism doesn't work. They had all the things you want us to have. Yet, strangely, everyone ended up either dead or thoroughly miserable.

The country you are talking about adopted capitalism some 30 years ago. How well are they doing? The things Bernie talks about are normal in Nordic countries and if you Google how Nordic countries are doing it's not that bad, certainly in many ways better than the US.

It' not a black and white thing. Have capitalism do what it does best (e.g. smartphones and cars) and socialism what it does best (e.g. healthcare and education) and also well functioning democracy and the results are good. Bernie isn't extending leftism to everything, just where it makes sense and work better.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 20, 2019, 06:06:04 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 20, 2019, 05:48:54 PM
The country you are talking about adopted capitalism some 30 years ago. How well are they doing? The things Bernie talks about are normal in Nordic countries and if you Google how Nordic countries are doing it's not that bad, certainly in many ways better than the US.

It' not a black and white thing. Have capitalism do what it does best (e.g. smartphones and cars) and socialism what it does best (e.g. healthcare and education) and also well functioning democracy and the results are good. Bernie isn't extending leftism to everything, just where it makes sense and work better.

Russia abandoned socialism because socialism wasn't working. They didn't convert to capitalism. They converted to cronyism.

I'll be not flippant here...you haven't comprehend the basic principle of American conservatism
Government is a necessary evil. Therefore, in those areas where government is not necessary, get rid of it.

Healthcare and education are a mess in the United States. The main reason they are a mess is because for the last several decades government has been heavily involved in them. So the progressive "solutions" boil down to forcing the victim of poison to ingest even more poison.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: North Star on December 20, 2019, 06:16:32 PM
Quote from: JBS on December 20, 2019, 05:35:15 PM
Pujo, go outside (at this time of year, in suitably warm clothes, of course), and look to your west. 135 miles or so to your west. You will see a country which spent most of the 20th century proving that leftism doesn't work. They had all the things you want us to have. Yet, strangely, everyone ended up either dead or thoroughly miserable.
Those poor Swedish people...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 20, 2019, 06:20:47 PM
Quote from: North Star on December 20, 2019, 06:16:32 PM
Those poor Swedish people...
Aargh!

I meant 135 miles east.
My apologies to any and all Swedes who might be reading this.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: North Star on December 20, 2019, 06:30:53 PM
Quote from: JBS on December 20, 2019, 05:35:15 PM
Pujo, go outside (at this time of year, in suitably warm clothes, of course), and look to your west. 135 miles or so to your west. You will see a country which spent most of the 20th century proving that leftism doesn't work. They had all the things you want us to have. Yet, strangely, everyone ended up either dead or thoroughly miserable.
Quote from: JBS on December 20, 2019, 06:20:47 PM
Aargh!

I meant 135 miles east.
My apologies to any and all Swedes who might be reading this.
Ironically enough, Sweden did, and still does, indeed have all those things Poju wishes that the US would have too..

This recent opinion piece in the NY Times seems germane to the discussion.
Finland Is a Capitalist Paradise
Can high taxes be good for business? You bet. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/07/opinion/sunday/finland-socialism-capitalism.html)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 20, 2019, 07:35:16 PM
Quote from: North Star on December 20, 2019, 06:30:53 PM
Ironically enough, Sweden did, and still does, indeed have all those things Poju wishes that the US would have too..

This recent opinion piece in the NY Times seems germane to the discussion.
Finland Is a Capitalist Paradise
Can high taxes be good for business? You bet. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/07/opinion/sunday/finland-socialism-capitalism.html)

Thanks for that. The column does omit mention of one very important fact: Finland is by US standards a small country. More people live in Nrw York City than in the entire country of Finland, by a considerable amount (6.5 million Finns vs 8.6 million New Yorkers). MIchael Bloomberg was mayor of a city bigger than Finland. (There seem to be at least 30 US cities larger than Helsinki.) Four US states--Alaska, Texas, California, Montana--have larger land areas than Finland. Economies of scale in delivering services are therefore much easier to accomplish in Finland.

Finland of course does not have the military expenditures the US had, but of course the obvious answer there is that the US shouldn't be spending what it spends on military.

But there is one thing that helps the conservative argument. Almost all the problems  Pujo mentions--the price of college, health care, education--can be traced rather directly to earlier attempts to use government to make those things cheap, if not absolutely free. It's government involvement which made them expensive.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on December 20, 2019, 09:05:22 PM
Quote from: JBS on December 20, 2019, 06:06:04 PM
Government is a necessary evil. Therefore, in those areas where government is not necessary, get rid of it.
That's  the correct approach. Make it a last resort.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 21, 2019, 01:22:35 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 20, 2019, 07:35:16 PM
Thanks for that. The column does omit mention of one very important fact: Finland is by US standards a small country.

No American has ever convincingly explained to me why that fact is so important. Apart from as some kind of excuse.

Especially not when you frequently operate as 50 separate small countries anyway. You shouldn't, but you do. Or you go even further and make it about counties and cities that all behave as their own tiny entities.

I mean, your "economies of scale" argument makes zero sense. You're a bigger country? Then YOU can achieve bigger economies of scale. Land area is rarely anywhere near as relevant as the size of the market in population terms.

And if you want to talk a sparse, spread out population, then Australia utterly has you beat. We have less than 10% of your population, in a space about the same size as the 48.

If any of those factors about the USA are actually a problem, then with all the bright minds and vast resources you have you ought to be bloody well able to solve the problem. The fact that you don't has nothing to do with the physical factors that you cite and everything to do with an ideological unwillingness to solve them.

Including your iron-clad belief that government creates problems. There's nothing inherent in that association, because there are plenty of counterexamples. But Americans have a persistent, sometimes pathological fear of "The Government" and would rather wreck any chance of government functioning properly than have it work properly.

You fragment governance into thousands of tiny pieces, and then wonder why it never manages to achieve anything. Try breaking up a large corporation into thousands of little units that aren't allowed to co-ordinate and see how that works. You have profoundly corrupt electoral systems where the people who are going to participate get to set the gerrymanders, and then wonder why there's a lack of accountability.

There's nothing inherently evil about government. It's just that most of you have only ever seen incredibly shit versions of it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on December 21, 2019, 05:32:54 AM
I agree with all of Madiel's points.  A  'circle the wagons', isolationist mentality with not a little bit of paranoïa is never far from the surface in US minds. It defies understanding that such an advanced country, with more Nobel prizes and great universities than anywhere in the world feels so suspicious of its own institutions.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 21, 2019, 06:39:42 AM
Quote from: Madiel on December 21, 2019, 01:22:35 AM
No American has ever convincingly explained to me why that fact is so important. Apart from as some kind of excuse.

Especially not when you frequently operate as 50 separate small countries anyway. You shouldn't, but you do. Or you go even further and make it about counties and cities that all behave as their own tiny entities.

I mean, your "economies of scale" argument makes zero sense. You're a bigger country? Then YOU can achieve bigger economies of scale. Land area is rarely anywhere near as relevant as the size of the market in population terms.

And if you want to talk a sparse, spread out population, then Australia utterly has you beat. We have less than 10% of your population, in a space about the same size as the 48.

If any of those factors about the USA are actually a problem, then with all the bright minds and vast resources you have you ought to be bloody well able to solve the problem. The fact that you don't has nothing to do with the physical factors that you cite and everything to do with an ideological unwillingness to solve them.

Including your iron-clad belief that government creates problems. There's nothing inherent in that association, because there are plenty of counterexamples. But Americans have a persistent, sometimes pathological fear of "The Government" and would rather wreck any chance of government functioning properly than have it work properly.

You fragment governance into thousands of tiny pieces, and then wonder why it never manages to achieve anything. Try breaking up a large corporation into thousands of little units that aren't allowed to co-ordinate and see how that works. You have profoundly corrupt electoral systems where the people who are going to participate get to set the gerrymanders, and then wonder why there's a lack of accountability.

There's nothing inherently evil about government. It's just that most of you have only ever seen incredibly shit versions of it.

Think of it this way. How far does someone in the Outback need to travel to get medical care? And if they have an illness requiring specialized care, how much further?

And how much more expense, and travel distance, does that person need to go to to get their normal supplies of food, clothing, and shelter  compared to a person in Melbourne?

80 percent of the US population lives in urban areas, a slightly less percentage than that of Australia . But that still leaves 60 million or more people--twice the population of Australia--in rural areas, some of them as sparsely populated as anywhere in Australia.  Making first class health care as readily available to them as any city dweller is not going to happen.

We have all those local governments fragmented and broken up by design. The less power and geographic spread a governmental entity has, the better.  Government is sometimes good...but generally speaking, if there is a problem, governmental intrusion makes it worse, and usually there's a nongovernmental solution that works better.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Jo498 on December 21, 2019, 07:04:17 AM
Quote from: Todd on December 21, 2019, 06:44:23 AM

Well, that's just common sense.
yes, like that the earth clearly cannot be moving, otherwise we would fall off. That's also common sense.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on December 21, 2019, 07:07:26 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on December 21, 2019, 07:04:17 AM
yes, like that the earth clearly cannot be moving, otherwise we would fall off. That's also common sense.


Very odd, your conception of common sense in this instance directly contradicts established scientific fact. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on December 21, 2019, 07:10:33 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 21, 2019, 06:39:42 AM
Think of it this way. How far does someone in the Outback need to travel to get medical care? And if they have an illness requiring specialized care, how much further?

And how much more expense, and travel distance, does that person need to go to to get their normal supplies of food, clothing, and shelter  compared to a person in Melbourne?

80 percent of the US population lives in urban areas, a slightly less percentage than that of Australia . But that still leaves 60 million or more people--twice the population of Australia--in rural areas, some of them as sparsely populated as anywhere in Australia.  Making first class health care as readily available to them as any city dweller is not going to happen.

We have all those local governments fragmented and broken up by design. The less power and geographic spread a governmental entity has, the better.  Government is sometimes good...but generally speaking, if there is a problem, governmental intrusion makes it worse, and usually there's a nongovernmental solution that works better.


    The expense of health care matters relative to outcomes. If you can cover everyone at a base level for 20% less than another way, it's preferable to do it that way.

    This is almost never the case. The U.S. has worse outcomes that cost more. These are related, both the high cost and lack of coverage come from treating health care as a luxury and not a public good.

    Currency affordability is a dodge, resource affordability is what counts. That's why developed countries have universal health coverage, they have the resources so they see no advantage to running out of money for the use of them. Oddly the U.S. substitutes dollar run outs for resource run outs as though if we decide to run out of one, the abundance of the other disappears, too.

     Not one of the developed countries will cut people off health care if they become 10% less rich. Even from the U.S. perspective we could see that getting money poorer wouldn't cause doctors, nurses and clinics to disappear. In fact, common sense would say that idling resources would make us poorer still.

     Universal coverage makes it possible to lower costs, even while maintaining a role for health care profiteers. With costs better controlled we can strive for better outcomes, something that is extremely difficult with the current patchwork arrangement.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on December 21, 2019, 07:27:45 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 21, 2019, 06:39:42 AM


We have all those local governments fragmented and broken up by design. The less power and geographic spread a governmental entity has, the better.  Government is sometimes good...but generally speaking, if there is a problem, governmental intrusion makes it worse, and usually there's a nongovernmental solution that works better.


     This is theology. Government is the tool for public purposes. It's neither good nor bad in itself. Even when it's the case that government creates problems in the process of solving others, government action is needed, as when damage to the economy from deregulation/recorruption of financial institutions requires the government to right such wrongs. Capitalism is one of the most successful government programs ever implemented. Though it receives more coddling than it needs, it certainly couldn't long survive in a government free environment. Markets as we know them are creatures of the law, as is the national currency.

     Continuous adjustment will always take place. The anti-government priesthood needs government as much as normal people do. How else could they abolish public services and "right wrongs" if they couldn't "intrude"?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 21, 2019, 07:34:27 AM
Quote from: drogulus on December 21, 2019, 07:27:45 AM
     This is theology. Government is the tool for public purposes. It's neither good nor bad in itself. Even when it's the case that government creates problems in the process of solving others, government action is needed, as when damage to the economy from deregulation/recorruption of financial institutions requires the government to right such wrongs. Capitalism is one of the most successful government programs ever implemented. Though it receives more coddling than it needs, it certainly couldn't long survive in a government free environment. Markets as we know them are creatures of the law, as is the national currency.

     Continuous adjustment will always take place. The anti-government priesthood needs government as much as normal people do. How else could they abolish public services and "right wrongs" if they couldn't "intrude"?

There are public purposes, and public goods. There are things which pretend to be public purposes and public goods, but are not actually public purposes and public goods. The latter category is far larger than the former.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on December 21, 2019, 08:00:31 AM
Quote from: greg on December 20, 2019, 09:05:22 PM
That's  the correct approach. Make it a last resort.

     It is a last resort for you? My guess is you resort to government as much as any so called statist. Most anti-government theology has to do with what government does for other people. What it does for you is taken for granted. But those people over there, they don't deserve government. So long as you are not an over there people, you're good.

    If there is a government, one should want it to provide for those needs that can't otherwise be met, not according to the a priori judgments of theologians, but the practical judgments of the citizenry as outlined in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which says the purpose of government is to "promote the general welfare". What this means is then up to a self-governing people to decide.

Quote from: JBS on December 21, 2019, 07:34:27 AM
There are public purposes, and public goods. There are things which pretend to be public purposes and public goods, but are not actually public purposes and public goods. The latter category is far larger than the former.

     Make the arguments on the merits for each case, just as they were when the programs were first established. Regulation and deregulation can be seen as discrete steps, or
as I see it, continuous adjustment. Nothing is gained by the judgment that the process lacks legitimacy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on December 21, 2019, 10:52:01 AM
Quote from: drogulus on December 21, 2019, 08:00:31 AM
     It is a last resort for you? My guess is you resort to government as much as any so called statist. Most anti-government theology has to do with what government does for other people. What it does for you is taken for granted. But those people over there, they don't deserve government. So long as you are not an over there people, you're good.

    If there is a government, one should want it to provide for those needs that can't otherwise be met, not according to the a priori judgments of theologians, but the practical judgments of the citizenry as outlined in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which says the purpose of government is to "promote the general welfare". What this means is then up to a self-governing people to decide.
If you are thinking I'm against something like unemployment or food stamps, then um, no, you'd be wrong. That would be a last-case scenario thing for many people.

What I have in mind is more like how the Chinese government is trying to reverse the trend of China being the least charitable nation on earth, by using the social credit system (or at least, one of the reasons for it?). Surely, better solutions can come within (though I think mostly it would be a matter of time for charitability to rise). Government stepping in just makes things worse, creating many new problems. (And the reason they are so uncharitable to begin with is due to the government). Create problems, act like you are solving them by creating new problems, and then the spiral ends in complete totalitarianism.  :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 21, 2019, 12:27:33 PM
Quote from: JBS on December 21, 2019, 06:39:42 AM
We have all those local governments fragmented and broken up by design. The less power and geographic spread a governmental entity has, the better.  Government is sometimes good...but generally speaking, if there is a problem, governmental intrusion makes it worse, and usually there's a nongovernmental solution that works better.

I rest my case. This is nothing more than an ideological assertion.

The same person who tells me he wants to solve racism in his country is happy to have hundreds or thousands** of institutionally racist police forces, so long as each one of them is only being institutionally racist in a small area to a small number of black people.

We wouldn't want any lessons from the police forces that are addressing the problem to spread.

Plus private security firms are so much better at this anyway, right?


**You reportedly have 17,985.  Nearly 18,000 separate institutions all doing the same basic police force job. It must be damn fun coordinating investigations any time a jurisdictional boundary is crossed. But hey, the less power and geographic spread a governmental entity has, the better.

How many different agencies do you have to fight forest fires?

How many different services responsible for vaccination rates?

Who's working on the opioid crisis?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 21, 2019, 01:08:58 PM
A system of governance that made sense when most people spent their whole lives in one local community doesn't make sense when lots of people drive across several jurisdictions during their daily commute.

You expect your cell phone company to provide seamless service over that distance, but celebrate the inability of government to do the same.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 21, 2019, 01:24:32 PM
Quote from: JBS on December 20, 2019, 06:06:04 PM
Russia abandoned socialism because socialism wasn't working. They didn't convert to capitalism. They converted to cronyism.

I'll be not flippant here...you haven't comprehend the basic principle of American conservatism
Government is a necessary evil. Therefore, in those areas where government is not necessary, get rid of it.

Healthcare and education are a mess in the United States. The main reason they are a mess is because for the last several decades government has been heavily involved in them. So the progressive "solutions" boil down to forcing the victim of poison to ingest even more poison.

The left in the US is not calling for Soviet Union type of undemocratic socialism* or Russian type of crony/oligarchiccapitalism (which the US also has). They advocate Nordic model, tell me what is so bad in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland if you want to bring out why Bernie's ideas are bad...

Yes, healthcare and education are a mess in the United States. The US can look for examples of countries which have managed to build successful systems. Even Slovenia has free (tax payer funded) education, a Eastern European country quite poor compared to the US. They managed to do it and have a good education system. The US doesn't have these progressive things because the rich have all the power and they don't want to pay their fair share of taxes and give away a rigged system that makes massive profits possible for the expense of regular people. In real democracy the masses don't allow that and vote for politicians who change the system. This election may turn out democratic enough in the US that a candidate like Bernie Sanders gets elected.

*All countries have mixed economies, mixture of socialism and capitalism. The US has socialism too, for example fire department and police.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 21, 2019, 02:35:07 PM
It's got nothing to do with what's "proper". Simply what actually works. The whole POINT is that Americans have a fixed idea of what's "proper" and won't let go of it. The fact that you expect me to respond to what I describe as ideology with nothing more than a different ideology speaks volumes for the mindset. You're a country founded on ideals and steeped in them.

I repeat, any time it's pointed out to Americans that other countries actually achieve measurably better results, there's a response based on ideology as to why America could not possibly follow suit.

The American way is the "proper" way even when it's statistically demonstrable that it doesn't work. And if that point is ever conceded, it's along the lines of the "Finland is a small country" excuse.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 21, 2019, 02:56:33 PM
Quote from: Todd on December 21, 2019, 02:52:48 PM
One reason there are so many different state, county, and municipal entities engaged in law enforcement, and other public services, is because that is how voters like it, meaning the institutions enjoy democratic legitimacy. 

Well, that's the main thing, isn't it. What you like. Popularity. Bugger outcomes.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 21, 2019, 02:57:22 PM
Quote from: Todd on December 21, 2019, 02:52:48 PM
Any supposed superiority of other nations' institutional arrangements is basically irrelevant and simply does not apply to the US, and never will.

No wait, THIS is the main thing.

Classic. American. Ideology.

EDIT: I'm quite sure you're proud of the gerrymander because it's a local American invention.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 21, 2019, 03:29:00 PM
Oh look, I can't be arsed Todd. You just gave me a purely ideological rant about why you'll ignore data as a matter of national pride. Your country actually has a law forbidding the collection of data on gun violence.

I haven't bothered reading your last post properly and I won't bother reading the next one. There's simply no point. I'm a foreigner, therefore I know nothing, therefore the conversation is nothing more than an opportunity for you to thump your chest.

You'll continue to live life in a happy little bubble, unless something goes badly wrong at which point it will be the government's fault.  Bye.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 21, 2019, 03:59:52 PM
Quote from: Madiel on December 21, 2019, 03:29:00 PM
Oh look, I can't be arsed Todd. You just gave me a purely ideological rant about why you'll ignore data as a matter of national pride. Your country actually has a law forbidding the collection of data on gun violence.

I haven't bothered reading your last post properly and I won't bother reading the next one. There's simply no point. I'm a foreigner, therefore I know nothing, therefore the conversation is nothing more than an opportunity for you to thump your chest.

You'll continue to live life in a happy little bubble, unless something goes badly wrong at which point it will be the government's fault.  Bye.

Ignoring Todd is a wise decision.  0:)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 21, 2019, 07:35:09 PM
Quote from: Madiel on December 21, 2019, 12:27:33 PM
I rest my case. This is nothing more than an ideological assertion.

The same person who tells me he wants to solve racism in his country is happy to have hundreds or thousands** of institutionally racist police forces, so long as each one of them is only being institutionally racist in a small area to a small number of black people.

We wouldn't want any lessons from the police forces that are addressing the problem to spread.

Plus private security firms are so much better at this anyway, right?


**You reportedly have 17,985.  Nearly 18,000 separate institutions all doing the same basic police force job. It must be damn fun coordinating investigations any time a jurisdictional boundary is crossed. But hey, the less power and geographic spread a governmental entity has, the better.

How many different agencies do you have to fight forest fires?

How many different services responsible for vaccination rates?

Who's working on the opioid crisis?

Of course our way works better.

Consider a national police force that is institutionally racist. There's no escape from it,  is there? Whereas among our 18,000  police forces, some are not racist, and can be used as examples to prod the others, and as places to escape the racism.

That's why we think fragmented government is a good thing.  Your preference for centralization is really just your own ideological assertion.

Put it another way: we Americans think inefficient government is a good thing. The Constitution was designed to be fundamentally inefficient. An inefficient government can not be tyrannical.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on December 21, 2019, 08:05:46 PM
What on earth makes you think I have a preference for centralization?

It entirely depends on the subject. I'm not the one making blanket statements on the topic. Nor am I the one creating fantasyland scenarios instead of discussing the real word situation of policing in the USA.

And I live in a federal country, not a unitary one.

Whatever. This thread is spectacularly pointless in general.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 22, 2019, 12:26:12 AM
Quote from: Madiel on December 21, 2019, 08:05:46 PM
This thread is spectacularly pointless in general.

At least Americans can tell us non-Americans we can't know anything...  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 22, 2019, 07:49:34 AM
Quote from: Todd on December 22, 2019, 05:24:30 AM
I'd say this applies to every political thread on GMG where ignorant non-Americans prattle on about American politics, but that's not strictly true.  It makes for cheap amusement.

You know we have this thing called the Internet these days. Even non-Americans can educate themselves about US politics. I probably knew about AOC for example months before you did. That's because I watch Youtube videos by the guy (Kyle Kulinski) who wrote her political program as the co-founder of Justice Democrats. I suppose you didn't because to you he is a lefty lunatic. Just shows how ignorant you are yourself, out of touch of what's happening in US politics thanks to the brainwashing of corporate media.

That said, have your delusional amusement reading the posts by us non-Americans. Probably the only amusement you have in your life... ...to me nothing about this is amusing. Depressing and sad if anything seeing how thoroughly brainwashed many Americans here are.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 22, 2019, 12:11:08 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 22, 2019, 07:49:34 AM
You know we have this thing called the Internet these days. Even non-Americans can educate themselves about US politics.

sigh...

We've had these things called books and newspapers for somewhat longer.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Christabel on December 22, 2019, 01:18:19 PM
Last night I watched and enjoyed a film called "Hell and High Water", starring Jeff Bridges (he grows increasingly annoying, though).  It was set in Texas and empty towns everything had closed and people lived in poverty.  It struck me that this is and was Trump Heartland.  The bien pensant from Washington and the eastern and western seaboards couldn't care one iota about those people.  The Democrats can put up any geriatric or fringe loony radical - it won't make a scintilla of difference and Trump will be re-elected because the unemployment rate has dropped magnificently.

It's the economy, stupid.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 22, 2019, 03:25:24 PM
And yet poverty hasn't disappeared or even decreased at a rate faster than it was lowering under Obama. And if you go to those rural towns they wont be changed or changing. Especially if they're farming communities where things will be getting worse.

So there's either something wrong with the figures or how they're being read.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 22, 2019, 03:38:09 PM
Quote from: Christabel on December 22, 2019, 01:18:19 PM
The Democrats can put up any geriatric or fringe loony radical - it won't make a scintilla of difference and Trump will be re-elected because the unemployment rate has dropped magnificently.

It's the economy, stupid.

The unemployment rate has dropped magnificently since 2010. The jobs created are mostly low wage jobs. What's the point of working if you struggle and  can't make the ends meet? The economy is good for the rich. They got their tax cuts, again. Trickle down economics is a myth so regular people keep struggling, salaries barely keeping up with inflation.

It's the economy, stupid. That's why Bernie Sanders is polling well.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 22, 2019, 05:40:54 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 22, 2019, 03:25:24 PM
And yet poverty hasn't disappeared or even decreased at a rate faster than it was lowering under Obama. And if you go to those rural towns they wont be changed or changing. Especially if they're farming communities where things will be getting worse.

So there's either something wrong with the figures or how they're being read.

Christabel is a typical Trumpnik, immune to facts and morals, secure in his (or her) ability to sneer and snark and pretend Ford's in his flivver and all's well with the world as long as Trump has his Twitter.

I wonder if Christabel realizes how many of those poor Texans are the Mexicans Trump wants to rid the US of.

PS
Extra point if you recognize the literary quote.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 23, 2019, 01:47:20 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 22, 2019, 05:40:54 PM
Extra point if you recognize the literary quote.

Robert Browning.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on December 23, 2019, 01:50:45 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 22, 2019, 05:40:54 PM
Extra point if you recognize the literary quote.
Aldous Huxley.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 23, 2019, 01:57:58 AM
I had to Google it. Despite having read quite a bit of Huxley in my 20s I've still never read Brave New World.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on December 23, 2019, 02:01:07 AM
Quote from: ritter on December 23, 2019, 01:50:45 AM
Aldous Huxley.

Quote from: SimonNZ on December 23, 2019, 01:57:58 AM
I had to Google it. Despite having read quite a bit of Huxley in my 20s I've still never read Brave New World.

It's a paraphrase on a line from Robert Browning's Pippa Passes: God's in his Heaven, all's right with the world.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 23, 2019, 06:32:36 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 23, 2019, 01:57:58 AM
I had to Google it. Despite having read quite a bit of Huxley in my 20s I've still never read Brave New World.

I am not sure if it stands being read more than once, but it's the sort of book that deserves reading at least once. I actually haven't read much of what Aldous wrote. His grandfather actually had a much more prominent place in my high school curriculum.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on December 23, 2019, 06:52:20 AM
Quote from: Christabel on December 22, 2019, 01:18:19 PM
Last night I watched and enjoyed a film called "Hell and High Water", starring Jeff Bridges (he grows increasingly annoying, though).  It was set in Texas and empty towns everything had closed and people lived in poverty.  It struck me that this is and was Trump Heartland.  The bien pensant from Washington and the eastern and western seaboards couldn't care one iota about those people.


     That is a very widespread viewpoint from Trump Heartland, that Blue Zone people should care about their misery more than the politicians Heartlanders elect do. From my own experience of Red wasteland country, people there care very much about how ignored they are. They do feel left behind, looked down on and so forth.

     The economy is heading the same way under Trump as it did under Obama, with the Blue zones increasing their lead over much of Trump Heartland. For entirely practical reasons I think the Blues should learn to care more effectively about Red prosperity than the Reds can about themselves, given their resentment based outlook. As for how Blues feel about Heartland people, it shouldn't matter any more than it matters how Heartland people feel about Blues.


     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 29, 2019, 01:31:39 AM
Corporate media is finally acknowedging that Bernie Sanders can win this election. It only took them a year or so.  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 29, 2019, 08:49:41 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 29, 2019, 01:31:39 AM
Corporate media is finally acknowedging that Bernie Sanders can win this election. It only took them a year or so.  ;D

Merry Christmas!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 29, 2019, 08:52:30 AM
So now, if I still believe that Bernie has about the same chance as a snowball in hell, you can acknowledge that I'm not "brainwashing by the corporate media."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 29, 2019, 09:07:18 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 29, 2019, 01:31:39 AM
Corporate media is finally acknowedging that Bernie Sanders can win this election. It only took them a year or so.  ;D

Have you noted a change in reporting in a variety of sources? If so, which?

Or are you repeating something Kyle said and taking it as gospel?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 29, 2019, 10:26:18 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 29, 2019, 09:07:18 AM
Have you noted a change in reporting in a variety of sources? If so, which?

Or are you repeating something Kyle said and taking it as gospel?

MSNBC.

https://www.youtube.com/v/T0eVZkK9lzI

Why do you think Kyle (and other progressives for that matter) says these things?

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 29, 2019, 08:52:30 AM
So now, if I still believe that Bernie has about the same chance as a snowball in hell, you can acknowledge that I'm not "brainwashing by the corporate media."

You can think whatever you want, but how do you justify your opinion? Why does Bernie have about the same chance as a snowball in hell? Is it just your feeling or do you have facts to support the claim? Because he has polled consistently high and is currently number 2 nationally? Does that mean only Biden has a change?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 29, 2019, 04:13:25 PM
1) MSNBC is the most leftward of the major networks.
2) As far as my viewing of the "corporate" media shows any trend, they have always treated Bernie as a serious candidate, and continue to give him the same treatment now.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 29, 2019, 04:25:21 PM
Quote from: JBS on December 29, 2019, 04:13:25 PM
1) MSNBC is the most leftward of the major networks.
2) As far as my viewing of the "corporate" media shows any trend, they have always treated Bernie as a serious candidate, and continue to give him the same treatment now.

1) Yep and even they hate Bernie because they are centrists*, far from real left. That's where the Overton Window is --- very right.
2) How positive is the treatment in your opinion? They have been "ignoring" Bernie a lot, but now even they have to admit Bernie is a strong candidate.

* On the left on social issue, but on the center/right on economic issues.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 29, 2019, 05:06:03 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 29, 2019, 04:25:21 PM
1) Yep and even they hate Bernie because they are centrists*, far from real left. That's where the Overton Window is --- very right.
2) How positive is the treatment in your opinion? They have been "ignoring" Bernie a lot, but now even they have to admit Bernie is a strong candidate.

* On the left on social issue, but on the center/right on economic issues.

They have always treated him as a serious candidate with a solid basis of support.

The rest is useless to discuss with you, given your fantasy that an oligarchic controlled media brainwashes the public into centrism.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 30, 2019, 04:18:17 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 29, 2019, 05:06:03 PM
They have always treated him as a serious candidate with a solid basis of support.

Joke of the year... ...this is like saying Trump loves windmills.

Quote from: JBS on December 29, 2019, 05:06:03 PMThe rest is useless to discuss with you, given your fantasy that an oligarchic controlled media brainwashes the public into centrism.

So if the media doesn't brainwash the public into centrism then why in the hell are they against medicare for all? Why in the hell are they for wars? Why do they resist Trump from the right?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 30, 2019, 10:17:44 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 30, 2019, 04:18:17 AM
Joke of the year... ...this is like saying Trump loves windmills.
If the sources you rely on paint a different picture, then you have yet another instance of how unreliable and inaccurate they are.
Quote
So if the media doesn't brainwash the public into centrism then why in the hell are they against medicare for all? Why in the hell are they for wars? Why do they resist Trump from the right?

There are several different things in that paragraph that need separate answers.
1) They are against Medicare for All because Medicare for All, to the extent it implies a single payer system,  is a bad idea.  Medicare for Seniors is a program that doesn't work very well unless you're not sick, and which requires private insurance to cover all the important things, and whose prime achievement is the creation of a large bureaucracy that presides over a system where it is easy to commit fraud to get government money.  There is a large number of people who don't have insurance, and obviously for them any system is better than their current situation.  But for everyone, the vast majority of Americans, switching to such a system would result in a situation where they would be at best no better off, and often worse off.   And they will probably end up paying more for the results, either directly through payments or indirectly through taxes.   Why would anyone support  something that will probably end up leaving them in a worse situation than before?

But in general the reason that the media doesn't brainwash the public into centrism is that for the most part the public started off as centrist.   You don't convert people into something they already are.

2) Most everyone, except the obvious neo-cons,  are actually anti war.   The start of the Iraq War was essentially a blip caused by the aftereffects of 9/11.   That's why any military endeavors since then have to be justified as temporary or not really a military intervention.  And the case for not withdrawing from the place we are now is always a negative one, meaning that the consequences of withdrawal would be worse than the consequences of staying.

3)The conservative never Trump movement is relatively small, and the only thing it shares with the Left is its disgust for Trump and his minions.  They get a lot of airtime because the media gets to claim it is presenting nonLeftist  criticism of Trump.    But the actual American Right is now solidly behind Trump, and the neverTrumpists have little influence.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 30, 2019, 10:27:00 AM
CNN's Moment Of Clarity: "Bernie Has A Realistic Shot"

https://www.youtube.com/v/TO2TKCLDuZs



Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 30, 2019, 10:32:31 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 30, 2019, 10:17:44 AM
1) They are against Medicare for All because Medicare for All, to the extent it implies a single payer system,  is a bad idea.  Medicare for Seniors is a program that doesn't work very well unless you're not sick, and which requires private insurance to cover all the important things, and whose prime achievement is the creation of a large bureaucracy that presides over a system where it is easy to commit fraud to get government money.  There is a large number of people who don't have insurance, and obviously for them any system is better than their current situation.  But for everyone, the vast majority of Americans, switching to such a system would result in a situation where they would be at best no better off, and often worse off.   And they will probably end up paying more for the results, either directly through payments or indirectly through taxes.   Why would anyone support  something that will probably end up leaving them in a worse situation than before?

Empirical evidence shows medicare for all is a brilliant idea. Everyone is covered, costs are lower. No medical bankruptcies. No people avoiding doctors. More choice because you can see ANY doctor, not only those in the network. Do you really want to remain an ignoramus? Jesus!

Medicare for all is build on medicare program, but it is MUCH better. It is actually financed properly and includes dental, hearing and vision. Do you really want to remain an ignoramus? Jesus!

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 30, 2019, 10:33:59 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 30, 2019, 10:32:31 AM
Empirical evidence shows medicare for all is a brilliant idea. Everyone is covered, costs are lower. No medical bankruptcies. No people avoiding doctors. Do you really want to remain an ignoramus? Jesus!

Medicare for all is build on medicare program, but it is MUCH better. It is actually financed properly and includes dental, hearing and vision. Do you really want to remain an ignoramus? Jesus!

You are mistaking promises for facts.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 30, 2019, 10:36:40 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 30, 2019, 10:33:59 AM
You are mistaking promises for facts.

Those promises are reality elsewhere in the world. They are not reality in the US because of corruption and oligarchy. When do you wake up? Never?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 30, 2019, 10:42:05 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 30, 2019, 10:36:40 AM
Those promises are reality elsewhere in the world. They are not reality in the US because of corruption and oligarchy. When do you wake up? Never?

In a wierd way, you are correct.  The US medical insurance system is corrupted, and got that way as a direct result of Medicare.  So to argue for MfA is to argue that we need to increase the corruption.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 30, 2019, 10:46:45 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 30, 2019, 10:36:40 AM
Those promises are reality elsewhere in the world.

That fact alone is not any use for improving the system in the US.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 30, 2019, 11:53:37 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 30, 2019, 10:46:45 AM
That fact alone is not any use for improving the system in the US.

That's what the insurance companies and Big Pharma want you to believe (because they benefit enourmously from the system as it is) and thanks to corporate media a lot of people believe it including you, it seems...  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 30, 2019, 11:59:54 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 30, 2019, 11:53:37 AM
That's what the insurance companies and Big Pharma want you to believe.

No, tireless evangelist: My statement is a naked, agenda-free fact. Your blinders are showing.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 30, 2019, 12:22:51 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 30, 2019, 10:32:31 AM
Empirical evidence shows medicare for all is a brilliant idea. Everyone is covered, costs are lower. No medical bankruptcies. No people avoiding doctors. More choice because you can see ANY doctor, not only those in the network. Do you really want to remain an ignoramus? Jesus!

Medicare for all is build on medicare program, but it is MUCH better. It is actually financed properly and includes dental, hearing and vision. Do you really want to remain an ignoramus? Jesus!

Physician: heal thyself.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 30, 2019, 01:12:39 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 30, 2019, 11:59:54 AM
No, tireless evangelist: My statement is a naked, agenda-free fact. Your blinders are showing.

What is my agenda?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 30, 2019, 01:42:58 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 30, 2019, 01:12:39 PM
What is my agenda?

To advance policies you sincerely believe in.
Your sincere belief in those policies, of course, is no guarantee that they are good ones.

But Karl's point is essentially the same as mine: whatever changes will be made in the US health system will start from what exists now, not what exists in Finland or Canada. And certainly  not from what exists in Kyle Kulinski's imagination. And what exists now is a large government run system for seniors that doesn't deliver better care, that has higher costs,  is rife with fraud and corruption, and which still makes private insurance a necessity. . What exists now is a government run system for veterans which may be among the worst in the world (read up on the US Veteran's Admimistration). The average American voter sees those and quite rationally says no to joining them if they have another option.

What is needed is a system that allows people to get care who are not in the system now, the people who don't have another option, without degrading the care everyone else gets.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 30, 2019, 02:33:28 PM
Quote from: JBS on December 30, 2019, 01:42:58 PM
To advance policies you sincerely believe in.

Yeah, that's what people tend to do, advance things they believe in...

Quote from: JBS on December 30, 2019, 01:42:58 PMYour sincere belief in those policies, of course, is no guarantee that they are good ones.

Of course not, but so aren't your beliefs.

Quote from: JBS on December 30, 2019, 01:42:58 PMBut Karl's point is essentially the same as mine: whatever changes will be made in the US health system will start from what exists now, not what exists in Finland or Canada. And certainly  not from what exists in Kyle Kulinski's imagination. And what exists now is a large government run system for seniors that doesn't deliver better care, that has higher costs,  is rife with fraud and corruption, and which still makes private insurance a necessity. . What exists now is a government run system for veterans which may be among the worst in the world (read up on the US Veteran's Admimistration). The average American voter sees those and quite rationally says no to joining them if they have another option.

What is needed is a system that allows people to get care who are not in the system now, the people who don't have another option, without degrading the care everyone else gets.

Canada and Finland aren't the same. Well, both are big in Ice Hockey... ...you keep talking about medicare, but it's not properly financed. Medicare for all works when there is not private insurers cherry picking. That's when it is properly financed with taxes and the middle man is taken away. Kyle Kulinski doesn't imagine these things. These things have been researched. There are studies. Kyle reads these studies. It is fact based. Your view of medicare for all is so wrong and I blame corporate media.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 30, 2019, 02:46:54 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 30, 2019, 02:33:28 PM
.you keep talking about medicare, but it's not properly financed.

And there you've stumbled upon a concomitant objection to your crusade.  As we've seen by ACA's Achilles heel, the system will not be improved, nor its financing be secured, without some kind of legislative consensus.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 30, 2019, 02:50:48 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 30, 2019, 02:33:28 PM
There are studies. Kyle reads these studies.


Which studies has Kyle read? Does he cite them, quote them directly and at length and provide links to them so his listeners can go deeper or check his accuracy?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 30, 2019, 03:35:44 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 30, 2019, 02:33:28 PM
Yeah, that's what people tend to do, advance things they believe in...

Of course not, but so aren't your beliefs.

Canada and Finland aren't the same. Well, both are big in Ice Hockey... ...you keep talking about medicare, but it's not properly financed. Medicare for all works when there is not private insurers cherry picking. That's when it is properly financed with taxes and the middle man is taken away. Kyle Kulinski doesn't imagine these things. These things have been researched. There are studies. Kyle reads these studies. It is fact based. Your view of medicare for all is so wrong and I blame corporate media.

My view of Medicare is based on my experience helping my mother deal with Medicare and insurers for the better part of two decades, and the experience of neighbors and co-workers in the same situation with their parents, and sometimes themselves. As I said, it works well only for people who are healthy.  Medicare for All means forcing that system on everyone.

Quoteproperly financed with taxes
Is a nice sounding phrase with no chance of being implemented in real life.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 30, 2019, 03:57:31 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 30, 2019, 02:50:48 PM

Which studies has Kyle read? Does he cite them, quote them directly and at length and provide links to them so his listeners can go deeper or check his accuracy?

What do you mean? Double-check The Oracle?!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 31, 2019, 02:44:50 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 30, 2019, 02:50:48 PM

Which studies has Kyle read? Does he cite them, quote them directly and at length and provide links to them so his listeners can go deeper or check his accuracy?

Why is it you think everything I or Kyle say comes out of a hat? Of course he cites these studies. He is a fact based person. I know you don't watch his videos so you wouldn't know.

Sorry if I don't have a link list for you or other ignorant people. Do your own homework. Just keep in mind the insurance companies publish pseudostudies to protect their business.

https://www.youtube.com/v/owRj79O6oH0

Mercatus, a Koch-funded think-tank, conducted a study and found that Medicare For All would save $2 trillion over a ten-year period. The University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) projected that the savings over the same period of time would be approximately $5 trillion.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 31, 2019, 03:03:06 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 30, 2019, 02:46:54 PM
And there you've stumbled upon a concomitant objection to your crusade.  As we've seen by ACA's Achilles heel, the system will not be improved, nor its financing be secured, without some kind of legislative consensus.

What would you do with the healthcare system Karl? Just accept it is what it is?

As long as there is for profit component it is hard to improve anything. That's why we need to get rid of the for profit stuff and go single payer.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on December 31, 2019, 03:39:23 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 31, 2019, 02:44:50 AM
Of course he cites these studies.

Name one.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 31, 2019, 03:55:10 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 31, 2019, 02:44:50 AM
Why is it you think everything I or Kyle say comes out of a hat? Of course he cites these studies. He is a fact based person. I know you don't watch his videos so you wouldn't know.

Sorry if I don't have a link list for you or other ignorant people. Do your own homework. Just keep in mind the insurance companies publish pseudostudies to protect their business.

https://www.youtube.com/v/owRj79O6oH0

Mercatus, a Koch-funded think-tank, conducted a study and found that Medicare For All would save $2 trillion over a ten-year period. The University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) projected that the savings over the same period of time would be approximately $5 trillion.

Wrong about the Mercatus study
https://economics21.org/blahous-study-didnt-find-medicare-for-all-lowers-costs-two-trillion
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 31, 2019, 04:06:45 AM
 the UMass study is really just a shill piece for Berniecare
https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2018/11/30/depth-analysis-team-umass-amherst-economists-shows-viability-medicare-all

But it assumes that employer provided insurance will have their premiums cut...which means it's not envisaging an actual single payer system.
It also includes a new federal sales tax on almost everything other than food and housing, and a wealth tax.  Good luck on passing that even in a Democratic Party controlled Congress.

If you got those two studies via the Young Turks, then you once again have clear evidence that they are feeding you garbage information.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 31, 2019, 04:18:12 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 31, 2019, 03:39:23 AM
Name one.

Sorry I am bad at remembering. Anyway, the studies are there and the message is real. If Medicare for all wasn't that good, nobody would advocate it, not even Bernie. Why would he?

I am done. I hope I can stay away 2020
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on December 31, 2019, 05:14:26 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 31, 2019, 04:18:12 AM
If Medicare for all wasn't that good, nobody would advocate it, not even Bernie. Why would he?

I am done. I hope I can stay away 2020

In your religious zeal, you fail to perceive the gorilla-sized fallacy there.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 31, 2019, 08:03:51 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 31, 2019, 05:14:26 AM
In your religious zeal, you fail to perceive the gorilla-sized fallacy there.

So, Biden is the next president, you are happy. Nothing changes and the US keeps electing new Trumps after Biden's one term. The US becomes a permanent laughing stock around the world. Whatever, because I am the religious one...  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 31, 2019, 08:12:10 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 31, 2019, 03:55:10 AM
Wrong about the Mercatus study
https://economics21.org/blahous-study-didnt-find-medicare-for-all-lowers-costs-two-trillion

It's a Koch funded study trying hard to make medicare for all look as bad as possible and they need this kind of damage control to do so.

Even if medicare for all costs more at least it covers everyone and prevents bankrupticies. The rich pay more. How rich are you? Are you rich enought to pay more? I doubt it. Regular people pay less. I'm sure you'd pay less too. So why are you against something that would be good to you and MOST people?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 31, 2019, 08:14:47 AM
Quote from: JBS on December 31, 2019, 04:06:45 AM
the UMass study is really just a shill piece for Berniecare
https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2018/11/30/depth-analysis-team-umass-amherst-economists-shows-viability-medicare-all

But it assumes that employer provided insurance will have their premiums cut...which means it's not envisaging an actual single payer system.
It also includes a new federal sales tax on almost everything other than food and housing, and a wealth tax.  Good luck on passing that even in a Democratic Party controlled Congress.

If you got those two studies via the Young Turks, then you once again have clear evidence that they are feeding you garbage information.

Why does anyone do "shill pieces" for Berniecare? US healthcare is a mess and needs to be fixed. Bernie has the solution. That's why.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on December 31, 2019, 04:46:15 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 31, 2019, 08:12:10 AM
It's a Koch funded study trying hard to make medicare for all look as bad as possible and they need this kind of damage control to do so.

Even if medicare for all costs more at least it covers everyone and prevents bankrupticies. The rich pay more. How rich are you? Are you rich enought to pay more? I doubt it. Regular people pay less. I'm sure you'd pay less too. So why are you against something that would be good to you and MOST people?

I have explained this before, but you seem unable to grasp it.
Medicare for All would leave most people worse off, or at best  no better than they are now, in terms of health care costs and access. Regular people would not in fact pay less.

Please explain to me why I would support such a plan.

BTW, it would do little or nothing to prevent bankruptcies. People get sick, lose their job, can't afford to pay the basics like food, housing, etc, so they end up in debt and eventually in bankruptcy. The amount of their medical bills has nothing to do with it. Which means they would be bankrupt with MfA just like they would be bankrupt now.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on December 31, 2019, 11:34:12 PM
Quote from: JBS on December 31, 2019, 04:46:15 PM
I have explained this before, but you seem unable to grasp it.
Medicare for All would leave most people worse off, or at best  no better than they are now, in terms of health care costs and access. Regular people would not in fact pay less.

Please explain to me why I would support such a plan.

That's a lie. A lie told to protect the profits of insurance companies and Big Pharma. That's what you don't seem to get. Only the richest people would be worse of because they would have to pay their fair share of taxes to finance the system and also they would not benefit of the rigged system as it is today.

Everyone should support medicare for all, because it's much better than the for profit system. Bernie Sanders is not bought by the corporations so he doesn't need to serve their interest. Instead he can serve the regular people. That's why he is high in the polls and has huge grassroot support and movement behind him, the most small donations of any candidate. That's because a lot of people unlike you have discovered the truth of American healthcare (oligarchy really) and what's wrong with it. People don't want to pay $2000-3000 for ambulance for example if it's practically free in other countries. People don't have $16.000 lying around in case they need it for deductibles if it's possible to have a system without such costs. Do YOU have $16.000 lying around? If you have then congratulations! Most Americans don't have.

Quote from: JBS on December 31, 2019, 04:46:15 PMBTW, it would do little or nothing to prevent bankruptcies. People get sick, lose their job, can't afford to pay the basics like food, housing, etc, so they end up in debt and eventually in bankruptcy. The amount of their medical bills has nothing to do with it. Which means they would be bankrupt with MfA just like they would be bankrupt now.

Of course it wouldn't prevent ALL bankruptcies, but since healthcare bills are the biggest reason for bankruptcies in the US the amount would drop significantly. Not having to pay $16.000 deductibles helps a lot avoiding bankruptcy. Stop believing the corporate lies. Stop being a useful idiot for the richest people, the top 1 %.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 01, 2020, 12:50:26 AM
This is a 15 minutes long comprehensive video about what's going on in the US:

The BIGGEST Threat To Medicare for All

https://www.youtube.com/v/_SOTYmWZ4Vg
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 01, 2020, 01:05:49 PM
^The tone of that was indistinguishable from that of Fox, but with red hats exchanged for blue. Cenk's near hysterical yelling was exactly that of Hannity or Carlson (or for that matter Keith Olberman, who I also have no respect for).

Seriously, dude: pick up a book.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 01, 2020, 03:57:39 PM
Bernie gets less MSNBC coverage than Klobuchar despite polling 7x higher


Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 01, 2020, 04:05:15 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 01, 2020, 03:57:39 PM
Bernie gets less MSNBC coverage than Klobuchar despite polling 7x higher




So complain to MSNBC, since they mean so much to you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 01, 2020, 04:15:30 PM
Or blame Sanders' own media strategists for not getting him the headlines.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 01, 2020, 06:26:40 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on December 31, 2019, 11:34:12 PM
That's a lie. A lie told to protect the profits of insurance companies and Big Pharma. That's what you don't seem to get. Only the richest people would be worse of because they would have to pay their fair share of taxes to finance the system and also they would not benefit of the rigged system as it is today.

Everyone should support medicare for all, because it's much better than the for profit system. Bernie Sanders is not bought by the corporations so he doesn't need to serve their interest. Instead he can serve the regular people. That's why he is high in the polls and has huge grassroot support and movement behind him, the most small donations of any candidate. That's because a lot of people unlike you have discovered the truth of American healthcare (oligarchy really) and what's wrong with it. People don't want to pay $2000-3000 for ambulance for example if it's practically free in other countries. People don't have $16.000 lying around in case they need it for deductibles if it's possible to have a system without such costs. Do YOU have $16.000 lying around? If you have then congratulations! Most Americans don't have.

Of course it wouldn't prevent ALL bankruptcies, but since healthcare bills are the biggest reason for bankruptcies in the US the amount would drop significantly. Not having to pay $16.000 deductibles helps a lot avoiding bankruptcy. Stop believing the corporate lies. Stop being a useful idiot for the richest people, the top 1 %.

Look, I'll be blunt.
You are the one who mistakes propaganda for truth. You are being lied to.

You seem to have no idea of how the American health system works. How much the rich pay is tangential. How much coverage the average person has right now is important.

Most people in the US have adequate health insurance that at least covers the basics. For those people Medicare for All would at best allow them the same level of care, and would often mean getting worse care. Grok that basic idea before you say anything more. If the Young Turks are telling you anything different, they are not telling you the truth.

The 16,000 dollar deductibles are a direct result of forcing people to get insurance that covers more than they need. (Obamacare) It's a direct result of government intervention. But the 2000 dollar ambulance rides are not a concern for most people. They have insurance that covers it.

The problem is those people who don't have adequate coverage. Medicare  For All will get them covered, but only at the cost of degrading for every one else. So why should everyone else want  Medicare for All?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on January 02, 2020, 05:15:32 AM
Your reasoning makes sense Jeffrey, but it's not useful. Since it's a big topic in the States, I suppose that numbers must exist for « most people », « those people » and « everyone else ». Until they are brought into the discussion it's going to be one's blablabla against someone else's blablabla  :-\.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 02, 2020, 05:22:00 AM
Julian Castro has dropped out.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 02, 2020, 05:28:01 AM
Darn that "corporate media" for reporting the facts, even when they're favorable to Bernie...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/02/bernie-sanders-fundraising-fourth-quarter
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 02, 2020, 06:52:25 PM
Quote from: André on January 02, 2020, 05:15:32 AM
Your reasoning makes sense Jeffrey, but it's not useful. Since it's a big topic in the States, I suppose that numbers must exist for « most people », « those people » and « everyone else ». Until they are brought into the discussion it's going to be one's blablabla against someone else's blablabla  :-\.

There are roughly 30 million people who don't have insurance in the US versus roughly 100 million who do.  Since Medicare for Seniors is essentially the bare minimum in coverage, and requires supplemental private insurance to reach even that level (Medigap is the usual term), it's fair to presume that Medicare for All would provide the same basic coverage. Hence my statement that MfA would result in most people being no better off than before, and possibly worse off.

There's also the fact that Medicare is a bureaucratic mess that consistently underpays providers, is easily defrauded by shady "providers" and is often hard to deal with if you are a senior who needs something beyond  basic care.

The problem is how to get those 30 million people  insurance. Medicare for All would do so at the cost of degrading coverage for everyone else.

FTR, I am in favor of the public option proposals like Biden's.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 03, 2020, 01:53:11 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 02, 2020, 06:52:25 PM
There are roughly 30 million people who don't have insurance in the US versus roughly 100 million who do.  Since Medicare for Seniors is essentially the bare minimum in coverage, and requires supplemental private insurance to reach even that level (Medigap is the usual term), it's fair to presume that Medicare for All would provide the same basic coverage. Hence my statement that MfA would result in most people being no better off than before, and possibly worse off.

There's also the fact that Medicare is a bureaucratic mess that consistently underpays providers, is easily defrauded by shady "providers" and is often hard to deal with if you are a senior who needs something beyond  basic care.

The problem is how to get those 30 million people  insurance. Medicare for All would do so at the cost of degrading coverage for everyone else.

FTR, I am in favor of the public option proposals like Biden's.

You don't need to "assume" anything. You can read what Bernie is actually proposing: https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-healthcare/ (https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-healthcare/)

How does Bernie's Medicare For All plan work? 
Bernie's plan calls for a phased roll-out over 4 years, to expand and scale up our current Medicare system to be more comprehensive.  The phased timing will enable a smooth transition, until everyone is covered:

- Increase Access & Choice:  Patients can see the doctors they want, since the "out of network" limitations of a private system will vanish with single payer. 

- Increase Quality: Covers primary and preventive care, mental health care, reproductive care, vision, hearing and dental care, and prescription drugs, as well as long-term services for the disabled and elderly.  Allows doctors to make decisions in the best interest of patients, rather than based on complex private plans engineered to deliver profits.

- Reduce Prescription Drug Costs:  Lowers prices dramatically, by empowering the federal government to negotiate with pharmaceutical corporations.  Some brand-name prescription drugs will have a copay.

- Eliminate Out-Of-Pocket Costs:  No premiums, deductibles or copays for any medical services. 

- Empower People:  Separates health coverage from employment, so everyone will have more flexibility to change employers, or even consider starting their own business, without the risk and fear of losing their health benefits.


Even if medicare for all covered only the same as the typical plans do people have, people would still be better off because of reduced costs and increased choice (no network limitations). However it covers more and care wouldn't be denied to make profit. Why would Bernie fight this hard to bring worse healthcare to Americans? He is not corrupt/bought so he doesn't serve the insurance companies/Big Pharma. He serves the people trying to give them better healthcare that costs less removing the "mafia" in between and making the rich pay their fair share of taxes.

Biden's public option would certainly be an improvement compared to the current system (ObamaCare aka RomneyCare sabotaged by Trump), but not a big improvement as it would leave a few million uninsured and create cherry picking where private ensurers pick healthy customers while leaving the sick ones to the public side. Biden is fine with that, Bernie is not. Biden supports public option because it allows the "mafia" to keep milking people. He is bought by the insurance companies/Big Pharma. Only Bernie seems to be raising a lot of money in the form of small dollar donations from regular people so other candidates need to go down to wine cellars to collect the cheques of millionaires and billionaires. Even Buttigieg used to support medicare for all before he was bought. Corporate media doesn't tell you this, but at least you hear the truth from a Finnish guy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 03, 2020, 04:18:21 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 03, 2020, 01:53:11 AM
You don't need to "assume" anything. You can read what Bernie is actually proposing: https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-healthcare/ (https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-healthcare/)

How does Bernie's Medicare For All plan work? 
Bernie's plan calls for a phased roll-out over 4 years, to expand and scale up our current Medicare system to be more comprehensive.  The phased timing will enable a smooth transition, until everyone is covered:

- Increase Access & Choice:  Patients can see the doctors they want, since the "out of network" limitations of a private system will vanish with single payer. 

- Increase Quality: Covers primary and preventive care, mental health care, reproductive care, vision, hearing and dental care, and prescription drugs, as well as long-term services for the disabled and elderly.  Allows doctors to make decisions in the best interest of patients, rather than based on complex private plans engineered to deliver profits.

- Reduce Prescription Drug Costs:  Lowers prices dramatically, by empowering the federal government to negotiate with pharmaceutical corporations.  Some brand-name prescription drugs will have a copay.

- Eliminate Out-Of-Pocket Costs:  No premiums, deductibles or copays for any medical services. 

- Empower People:  Separates health coverage from employment, so everyone will have more flexibility to change employers, or even consider starting their own business, without the risk and fear of losing their health benefits.


Even if medicare for all covered only the same as the typical plans do people have, people would still be better off because of reduced costs and increased choice (no network limitations). However it covers more and care wouldn't be denied to make profit. Why would Bernie fight this hard to bring worse healthcare to Americans? He is not corrupt/bought so he doesn't serve the insurance companies/Big Pharma. He serves the people trying to give them better healthcare that costs less removing the "mafia" in between and making the rich pay their fair share of taxes.

Biden's public option would certainly be an improvement compared to the current system (ObamaCare aka RomneyCare sabotaged by Trump), but not a big improvement as it would leave a few million uninsured and create cherry picking where private ensurers pick healthy customers while leaving the sick ones to the public side. Biden is fine with that, Bernie is not. Biden supports public option because it allows the "mafia" to keep milking people. He is bought by the insurance companies/Big Pharma. Only Bernie seems to be raising a lot of money in the form of small dollar donations from regular people so other candidates need to go down to wine cellars to collect the cheques of millionaires and billionaires. Even Buttigieg used to support medicare for all before he was bought. Corporate media doesn't tell you this, but at least you hear the truth from a Finnish guy.

1) Bernie won't write whatever law is eventually passes, nor will the Young Turks. Congress will.
2) Most of that verbiage can be used to describe Medicare right now. The exceptions are prescription drug coverage--I have explained to you before that the only way to solve that is reform of the patent and regulatory process, meaning Berniecare will leave Big Pharma untouched--and out of pocket costs--an idea that won't survive the legislative process.
3) Berniecare won't refuse payment because of profit motive. Berniecare will refuse payment because it will have to operate within the budget limits set by Congress. For the patient, the result will be the same.

FYI, Bernie's proposal for paying for this plan is bogus. He wants a wealth tax, which the Constitution expressly prohibits the federal government from levying, and a federal sales tax. There is no federal sales tax now, so even if Congress were to approve it (not likely), we would need a whole new bureaucracy (or at least a vastly expanded IRS) to implement and enforce, and which costs even more money. Plus sales taxes are regressive taxes. Bernie has a proviso to compensate the truly poor, but everyone else would pay more taxes.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on January 03, 2020, 07:23:38 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 02, 2020, 06:52:25 PM
There are roughly 30 million people who don't have insurance in the US versus roughly 100 million who do.  Since Medicare for Seniors is essentially the bare minimum in coverage, and requires supplemental private insurance to reach even that level (Medigap is the usual term), it's fair to presume that Medicare for All would provide the same basic coverage. Hence my statement that MfA would result in most people being no better off than before, and possibly worse off.

There's also the fact that Medicare is a bureaucratic mess that consistently underpays providers, is easily defrauded by shady "providers" and is often hard to deal with if you are a senior who needs something beyond  basic care.

The problem is how to get those 30 million people  insurance. Medicare for All would do so at the cost of degrading coverage for everyone else.

FTR, I am in favor of the public option proposals like Biden's.

IOW the money that now pays for 100 million people would have to be stretched to cover 130 millions ? To accommodate the extra insurees, coverage would be reduced for the existing 100 million or some sort of premium/deductible increase would be needed, if I understand correctly.

What coverage do the other 200 million Americans currently get?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 03, 2020, 01:45:49 PM
Quote from: André on January 03, 2020, 07:23:38 AM
IOW the money that now pays for 100 million people would have to be stretched to cover 130 millions ? To accommodate the extra insurees, coverage would be reduced for the existing 100 million or some sort of premium/deductible increase would be needed, if I understand correctly.

What coverage do the other 200 million Americans currently get?

Actually taxes would have to be raised on everyone. Bernie does it with a new federal sales tax and a wealth tax, both of which are problematic in and of themselves. The idea of no premiums and no deductibles can be thought of as campaign promises only the credulous think will come to pass.  But the main problem is that MfA will have to offer lower levels of coverage and lower reimbusements to providers (doctors, hospitals, etc), so people will often find themselves with worse health care than they have now.

The other 200 million would be seniors (now covered by Medicaid) and the poor (mostly covered by Medicaid), two government run insurance systems that might be textbook examples of badly managed, chronically underfunded programs.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 03, 2020, 02:27:54 PM
Are you on the payroll of Aetna JBS?

This is a serious issue. This is about Americans having healthcare they can afford and you keep repeating corporate lies. Not cool.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 03, 2020, 03:42:04 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 03, 2020, 02:27:54 PM
Are you on the payroll of Aetna JBS?

This is a serious issue. This is about Americans having healthcare they can afford and you keep repeating corporate lies. Not cool.

I will be very blunt.
You are merely channelling propaganda for some very bad policy ideas. I've pointed out instances where your sources distort and even outright lie, but they seem to sail right past your head.

You are impressed by all the small donors Sanders get. Did you ever look into the rankings for PAC donations? He does pretty well with them, according to something I saw yesterday.

Medicare For All won't do what it promises.  That's reality.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on January 03, 2020, 04:26:48 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 03, 2020, 01:45:49 PM
Actually taxes would have to be raised on everyone. Bernie does it with a new federal sales tax and a wealth tax, both of which are problematic in and of themselves. The idea of no premiums and no deductibles can be thought of as campaign promises only the credulous think will come to pass.  But the main problem is that MfA will have to offer lower levels of coverage and lower reimbusements to providers (doctors, hospitals, etc), so people will often find themselves with worse health care than they have now.

The other 200 million would be seniors (now covered by Medicaid) and the poor (mostly covered by Medicaid), two government run insurance systems that might be textbook examples of badly managed, chronically underfunded programs.

So 300 million Americans get some level of coverage, from basic (sometimes inadequate) to comprehensive, and 30 millions get...what?

The Treasury is 1 trillion$ short every year to pay the groceries. How much extra would be needed to provide coverage to 9% of the population? Can't the budget be reapportioned to eventually provide at least basic coverage for all?

In Canada the government is running record deficits (20b$ in USD, or 200b$ relative to the US economy) which will have to be repaid some day. And yet, our medicare system provides no dental, eye or drug coverage (with some exceptions). France is up in arms over a proposed overhaul of unfair, antiquated pension plans, whereas 'special retirement' is available to about half of the workers, while the rest fend for a meager pension. Of course those who will lose some money cry bloody murder. The country is paralyzed by transportation strikes.

Health care and minimum retirement income are two essentials for any modern, advanced country. Unfairness seems to be not just inbred, but seen as an entitlement by those who are on the 'good' side of the scale. Surely some sort of fiscal soundness, economic well-being and social fairness for all would be desirable.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 03, 2020, 04:44:54 PM
Quote from: André on January 03, 2020, 04:26:48 PM
So 300 million Americans get some level of coverage, from basic (sometimes inadequate) to comprehensive, and 30 millions get...what?

The Treasury is 1 trillion$ short every year to pay the groceries. How much extra would be needed to provide coverage to 9% of the population? Can't the budget be reapportioned to eventually provide at least basic coverage for all?

In Canada the government is running record deficits (20b$ in USD, or 200b$ relative to the US economy) which will have to be repaid some day. And yet, our medicare system provides no dental, eye or drug coverage (with some exceptions). France is up in arms over a proposed overhaul of unfair, antiquated pension plans, whereas 'special retirement' is available to about half of the workers, while the rest fend for a meager pension. Of course those who will lose some money cry bloody murder. The country is paralyzed by transportation strikes.

Health care and minimum retirement income are two essentials for any modern, advanced country. Unfairness seems to be not just inbred, but seen as an entitlement by those who are on the 'good' side of the scale. Surely some sort of fiscal soundness, economic well-being and social fairness for all would be desirable.

The 30 million get bupkis at the moment.  Not only is the money not there to cover them, it's not there to give proper funding to Medicare and Medicaid. One of Obamacare's major flaws is that it simply shifts a major portion of the costs onto the states via expanded Medicaid, and leaves the burden of funding all that to the states.  And Social Security is not properly funded, and an aging failing infrastructure that in some instances dates back 100 years or more needs renovating.  But we apparently need a war with Iran more than we need any of that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on January 03, 2020, 04:55:07 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 03, 2020, 04:44:54 PM
The 30 million get bupkis at the moment.  Not only is the money not there to cover them, it's not there to give proper funding to Medicare and Medicaid. One of Obamacare's major flaws is that it simply shifts a major portion of the costs onto the states via expanded Medicaid, and leaves the burden of funding all that to the states.  And Social Security is not properly funded, and an aging failing infrastructure that in some instances dates back 100 years or more needs renovating.  But we apparently need a war with Iran more than we need any of that.

A fair and honest assessment. Our governments' priorities are not a little responsible for the mess (name your country) is in  :-[
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 04, 2020, 05:17:37 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 03, 2020, 04:44:54 PM
Not only is the money not there to cover them,

When Trump wants 80 billion increase for military budget the money IS there.
When Wall Streets need to be bailed out the money IS there.
When the rich want a tax cut the money IS there.
:
When the regular people wants something, sorry no money!

It's about political priorities when there is money to cover things and what things. Change the priorities (elect Bernie/progressives) and there's money for different things that before such as healthcare and education. Pretty important and fundamental things if you ask me.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 04, 2020, 05:35:05 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 03, 2020, 03:42:04 PM
I will be very blunt.
You are merely channelling propaganda for some very bad policy ideas.
Funny how these "bad ideas" have been successful elsewhere. Why exactly is single payer healthcare a bad idea? If that is bad, then for profit healthcare must be REALLY BAD, because it doeasn't even cover everyone and costs 2 times more.

You can see this as lefty propaganda, but it's just about trying to make the world a better place. If the US was more social democratic the regular people wouldn't be so desperate to elect presidents like Trump.

Quote from: JBS on January 03, 2020, 03:42:04 PMI've pointed out instances where your sources distort and even outright lie, but they seem to sail right past your head.

You haven't demonstrated that convincingly. My sources have no reason to lie or distort facts. If they do that it's a human error and they are willing to admit and correct the mistake. Their errors are miniscule compared to corporate media which does smear the facts on purpose on daily basis.

Quote from: JBS on January 03, 2020, 03:42:04 PMYou are impressed by all the small donors Sanders get. Did you ever look into the rankings for PAC donations? He does pretty well with them, according to something I saw yesterday.
I have not, but I know Bernie gets union money. That's least harmful and corrupting.

OpenSecrets tells this:

Small Individual Contributions (< $200)    $42,692,961    57.83%
Large Individual Contributions    $18,763,550    25.42%
Other    $12,361,455    16.74%
PAC Contributions*    $5,029    0.00%
Candidate self-financing    $0    0.00%


Quote from: JBS on January 03, 2020, 03:42:04 PMMedicare For All won't do what it promises.  That's reality.
Who told you that? The problem isn't that Medicare For All won't do what it promises. The problem is getting it implemented in the first place. The rich who benefit from the current mafia system will oppose it fiercely and you are an useful idiot for them.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 04, 2020, 08:30:28 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 04, 2020, 05:35:05 AM

You haven't demonstrated that convincingly. My sources have no reason to lie or distort facts. If they do that it's a human error and they are willing to admit and correct the mistake. Their errors are miniscule compared to corporate media which does smear the facts on purpose on daily basis.
I have not, but I know Bernie gets union money. That's least harmful and corrupting.



A near hysterical and permanently outraged posture and clickbait headlines attracts more viewers - and advertising dollars - than a calm presentation of data and research.

Please give one example of when your sources admitted they were wrong.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 04, 2020, 08:35:07 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 04, 2020, 08:30:28 AM
A hysterical and permanently outraged posture attracts more viewers - and advertising dollars - than a calm presentation of data and research.

Please give one example of when your sources admitted they were wrong.

Heck, or when he's admitted he's wrong ....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 04, 2020, 09:11:59 AM
Progressives need to compete with corporate media which gets corporate money, a lot of it. So progressive uses clickbait headlines etc. to gain attention. It's not something I love, but what can you do? It's an asymmetric war when one side has the money and the other side can tell the truth.

Quote from: SimonNZ on January 04, 2020, 08:30:28 AM
Please give one example of when your sources admitted they were wrong.

Kyle Kulinski (and some other progressives) thought Kamala Harris will be one of the strongest corporate candidates and in the beginning she was (because she appeared as a progressive and people didn't know her well), but then her campaign imploded (Tulsi Gabbard sank her in the debates, she became less progressive etc.) and we all know what happened. Kyle Kulinski has admitted being wrong about Kamala Harris.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 04, 2020, 09:59:01 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 04, 2020, 09:11:59 AM
Progressives need to compete with corporate media which gets corporate money, a lot of it. So progressive uses clickbait headlines etc. to gain attention. It's not something I love, but what can you do? It's an asymmetric war when one side has the money and the other side can tell the truth.

Kyle Kulinski (and some other progressives) thought Kamala Harris will be one of the strongest corporate candidates and in the beginning she was (because she appeared as a progressive and people didn't know her well), but then her campaign imploded (Tulsi Gabbard sank her in the debates, she became less progressive etc.) and we all know what happened. Kyle Kulinski has admitted being wrong about Kamala Harris.

Admitting a prediction did not come to pass is not admitting a mistake on one's facts.

As an example, my reference to Bernie's contributions from PACs was based on a mistake in facts. The figure I saw included the money he transferred over from his 2016 campaign fund, and was not merely contributions for the 2020 campaign. So his PAC contributions were much less than I thought they were.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 04, 2020, 10:37:33 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 04, 2020, 05:35:05 AM
Funny how these "bad ideas" have been successful elsewhere. Why exactly is single payer healthcare a bad idea? If that is bad, then for profit healthcare must be REALLY BAD, because it doeasn't even cover everyone and costs 2 times more.
Single payer health care merely replaces money administered by insurance company bureaucrats with money administered by government bureaucrats under the limits of budgets imposed by politicians.  That in itself should explain why it's a bad idea.  Your own country exhibits some of the problems that come up when you depend on politicians to do the right thing.

And remember it's possible to cover everyone without going all the way to single payer. Several instances exist in Europe.
Quote
You can see this as lefty propaganda, but it's just about trying to make the world a better place. If the US was more social democratic the regular people wouldn't be so desperate to elect presidents like Trump.
Much of that desperation comes from the result of living with decades of lefty programs that didn't work nearly as well as promised, and bring other problems in their wake.The whole problem of student debt is one such situation.
Quote
You haven't demonstrated that convincingly. My sources have no reason to lie or distort facts. If they do that it's a human error and they are willing to admit and correct the mistake. Their errors are miniscule compared to corporate media which does smear the facts on purpose on daily basis.
Actually, every time I demonstrate their distortions and lies you yell that I'm a useful idiot channelling corporate propaganda.  Perhaps you are yourself  a useful idiot! The Young Turks are propagandists who distort and lie just as much as any other group of propagandists. Just because they advocate ideas you agree with does not give them any extra integrity.
Quote

Who told you that? The problem isn't that Medicare For All won't do what it promises. The problem is getting it implemented in the first place. The rich who benefit from the current mafia system will oppose it fiercely and you are an useful idiot for them.

The problem is the 30 million people without insurance and health care access. Medicare for All will get them (barely) minimal care at the price of forcing everyone else to also get (barely) minimal care.  Which means it's not a good solution.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 04, 2020, 12:48:16 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 04, 2020, 10:37:33 AMMedicare for All will get them (barely) minimal care at the price of forcing everyone else to also get (barely) minimal care.  Which means it's not a good solution.

I believe Medicare is the most popular healthcare program in the US, am I mistaken?
Maybe you think Medicare is (barely) minimal care, but if you read Bernies Bill, you'd know by now it EXPANDS from Medicare: IT IS BETTER than Medicare, in fact better than most people have right now!

Anyway, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 04, 2020, 04:58:00 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 04, 2020, 12:48:16 PM
I believe Medicare is the most popular healthcare program in the US, am I mistaken?
Maybe you think Medicare is (barely) minimal care, but if you read Bernies Bill, you'd know by now it EXPANDS from Medicare: IT IS BETTER than Medicare, in fact better than most people have right now!

Anyway, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

Medicare covers everyone over 65, so it undoubtedly  is the biggest. But it is far from "favorite", and as a practical matter requires private insurance to supplement the necessities and costs it doesn't cover.

Since Bernie's bill has no realistic chance of becoming law, what it says is simply public relations. Campaign literature. His promises amount to saying that you can see any doctor you want, have care provided by any hospital or facility you want, have any procedure you want, and the federal government will pay for it. Of course he says nothing about how long you will wait to see that doctor or get that procedure done, or how much the doctors and hospitals will get paid.

Saying Medicare for All will be better than Medicare for seniors is campaign fluff, in the league of Trump's easy to win trade wars and big beautiful wall paid for by Mexico.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 04, 2020, 08:21:20 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 04, 2020, 04:58:00 PM
Medicare covers everyone over 65, so it undoubtedly  is the biggest. But it is far from "favorite", and as a practical matter requires private insurance to supplement the necessities and costs it doesn't cover.

Since Bernie's bill has no realistic chance of becoming law, what it says is simply public relations. Campaign literature. His promises amount to saying that you can see any doctor you want, have care provided by any hospital or facility you want, have any procedure you want, and the federal government will pay for it. Of course he says nothing about how long you will wait to see that doctor or get that procedure done, or how much the doctors and hospitals will get paid.

Saying Medicare for All will be better than Medicare for seniors is campaign fluff, in the league of Trump's easy to win trade wars and big beautiful wall paid for by Mexico.

Care is rationed in every country. In the US it is rationed based on the size of your wallet. Elsewhere it is rationed based on your need, how serious/acute your illness is. The talk about waiting times is corporate propaganda.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 05, 2020, 10:21:56 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 04, 2020, 08:21:20 PM
Care is rationed in every country. In the US it is rationed based on the size of your wallet. Elsewhere it is rationed based on your need, how serious/acute your illness is. The talk about waiting times is corporate propaganda.

In single payer systems, it's rationed by the government budget, and what a government bureaucrat thinks "need" is.

Your continued insistence that any facts that don't agree with your biases are simply corporate propaganda says more about you than it does about the facts.

This is from a progressive writer who titles his article "Debunking Republican Myths".  Is he merely reciting corporate propaganda?

QuoteNow that we've looked at wait-time data in several different areas, let's see if we can draw some sort of a general conclusion about how certain countries or healthcare systems perform.

The United States has the shortest wait times in two of the four areas: specialist visits and elective surgery. In the other two areas, however—ER visits and regular doctor visits—the United States is outperformed by mixed systems. In the two areas where the United States does best, France, Germany and the Netherlands, with their mixed systems, don't trail too far behind.

The general conclusion we can reach about the United States is that it's not quite as exceptional as right-wingers would lead you to believe: in two areas, it does best, and in the other two areas, it does average. So we can say that the United States is above average in this area—that is to say, it has below average wait times.

How do the public healthcare systems perform? In all four cases, public systems, on average, were outperformed by the United States: in two cases—specialist visits and elective surgery—they were outperformed significantly, and in the other two cases—ER and doctor visits—they were only slightly outperformed.

Finally, the mixed systems, on average, had shorter wait times than the United States in two areas—doctor and ER visits—and longer wait times than the US in the two other areas—non-emergency surgery and specialist visits. And in all four cases, the mixed systems had shorter wait times than the public systems.

To summarize the general conclusions even more briefly, the United States and mixed systems have similar wait times, and public systems have the longest wait times. Obviously wait times are only one component of a healthcare system's quality, but now you and I finally know where the different countries and systems stand in relation to one another in this particular area.

https://askepticalhuman.com/politics/2018/9/10/debunking-right-wing-healthcare-myths-wait-times-rationing
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 05, 2020, 11:21:56 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 05, 2020, 10:21:56 AM
In single payer systems, it's rationed by the government budget, and what a government bureaucrat thinks "need" is.

Your continued insistence that any facts that don't agree with your biases are simply corporate propaganda says more about you than it does about the facts.

This is from a progressive writer who titles his article "Debunking Republican Myths".  Is he merely reciting corporate propaganda?

https://askepticalhuman.com/politics/2018/9/10/debunking-right-wing-healthcare-myths-wait-times-rationing

Why do insurance companies spend millions for tv adds smearing medicare for all?
Done!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 05, 2020, 11:26:42 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 05, 2020, 11:21:56 AM
Why do insurance companies spend millions for tv adds smearing medicare for all?
Done!

A single line of bullshit, and a skulking withdrawal. You are one blinkered piece of work.

"insurance companies spend millions for tv adds smearing medicare for all," do they? Where, in Finland? I've never seen one.

So show us one of these TV ads. Just one.   Do take your time.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 05, 2020, 11:28:24 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 05, 2020, 11:21:56 AM
Why do insurance companies spend millions for tv adds smearing medicare for all?
Done!

What ads are you talking about?

I have yet to see a single TV ad advocating against medicare for all.  In fact, the only ads I have seen are those by Democratic candidates promoting one or another version of  health care reform, and ads from unidentifiable groups wanting to pressure Congress to increase funding for Medicare.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 05, 2020, 11:48:59 AM
Ah, I see....

He's taking this video seriously
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNGqq6jU8Tk

Notice that the speaker says he is assuming that "One Nation" is funded by insurance companies, even though there is no publicly available information on its sources of money.

And his claims about wait times are not matched by the data.  (And I suspect if his father had to wait for months for heart surgery, he didn't need it very badly.  My father had a heart attack on a Monday, and got a triple bypass on Wednesday.)

And if you do a youtube search for such ads, you get this list
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=political+ads+about+medicare+for+all

The only GOP related videos are two from the Heritage Foundation,, the most recent of which dates from nine months ago, and an interview on Yahoo Finance by a CEO saying MfA would "collapse the system".
The One Nation video--which I have never seen, or heard of before today--does not seem to appear on the list.  (In fact, I've never heard of "One Nation" before today.)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: North Star on January 05, 2020, 12:25:40 PM
Big Pharma, insurers, hospitals team up to kill Medicare for All
(https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/03/big-pharma-insurers-hospitals-team-up-to-kill-medicare-for-all/)
QuotePharmaceutical manufacturers and health insurance companies don't agree on much these days. As Congress introduces bills to address rising drug prices, insurers and pharmacy benefit managers are engaged in a lobbying and public relations war with drugmakers over who is to blame.
But the giants of the healthcare industry agree on one thing: Medicare for All cannot become law.
Partnership for America's Health Care Future (PAHCF), a group comprised of major drugmakers, insurance companies and private hospitals, has spent the last several months lobbying members of Congress, running online ads and working with the media to drive down popularity of Medicare for All, a single-payer health platform that continues to gain popularity in the Democratic party.
The partnership includes some of the biggest names in the healthcare industry, including the American Medical Association (AMA), Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), Federation of American Hospitals (FAH) and Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
All told, the members of the partnership have a lot of money and influence to spend on Capitol Hill. They spent a combined $143 million lobbying in 2018 alone, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

...

"When you point a gun at somebody and say 'we're gonna kill you,' don't be surprised when they fight like it's life or death," McDonough said. "The ACA was not life or death for the insurance industry. Medicare for All is a death notice for a large chunk of the U.S. healthcare industry and they know it."
An insurance industry insider told The Hill in 2018 that the group had originally planned to stop Medicare for All from becoming a litmus test for Democrats in 2020. The Intercept obtained an internal document noting its lobbyists were successful in getting congressional Democratic candidates to adopt the partnership's "moderate" position on health care such as improving the Affordable Care Act.

...

PAHCF recently launched efforts to get the public on their side. The group has spent at least $80,594 on Facebook ads since it released its first ads in late January and at least $13,000 on Twitter ads.
According to Twitter's ad transparency database, the partnership is using FP1 Strategies, an Arlington, Virginia consultant that took in $18 million from conservative groups in 2018, to place at least some of its ads.
Though it might be best known for producing ads that helped take down Democrat Randy Bryce in the 2018 Wisconsin 1st District race, FP1 has delved into the healthcare world before.
Among FP1's 2018 clients was New Yorkers for Excellent Health Care, a new super PAC funded by Greater New York Hospital Association management that spent $341,093 in support of former Rep. Dan Donovan (R-N.Y.). The firm also notes it helped the Consumer Healthcare Products Association defeat legislation to require prescriptions for certain medications.
PAHCF isn't the only group working to defeat Medicare for All — its allies began their campaigns long ago and will continue to do so. America's Health Insurance Plans, for example, announced a six-figure ad campaign in June 2018 to spotlight millions of Americans covered by employer-provided health coverage. PAHCF has repeated similar numbers in its public relations push.


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851013001759
QuoteFifteen of the 23 countries included in the study monitor and publish national waiting time statistics. The 15 were Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. All those countries also have some form of national waiting time guarantee

It cannot be concluded that if a country does not monitor waiting time that waiting times are not a problem. In countries where waiting times are not registered and reported, accessibility may still be an issue. France's lack of national monitoring is often cited as evidence that the country has no waiting time problems. However, the large regional differences in terms of services provided and number of doctors have led to inequities in access [38]. Greece suffers from long waiting times, and informal payments to "jump the queue" are common [50]. In Germany the debate has revolved around the fact that people who are privately insured have faster access to health care [30], [31], [51]. In Austria, researchers have found that privately insured patients have faster access and they have refuted the notion that the country has no waiting times [52]. In the United States, access to care also varies with socioeconomic status and geographic area [53].

Sweden has repeatedly been mentioned as a country with relatively long waiting times [10], [18], but this cannot be confirmed, as it is not possible to compare to other countries using official national statistics.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 05, 2020, 12:32:29 PM
Quote from: North Star on January 05, 2020, 12:25:40 PM
Big Pharma, insurers, hospitals team up to kill Medicare for All

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851013001759
(https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/03/big-pharma-insurers-hospitals-team-up-to-kill-medicare-for-all/)


Thanks, Karlo. My two notes are: $80,594 is not (quoth Poju) "millions."

And Facebook ads basically feed the confirmation-bias crowd.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 05, 2020, 03:53:49 PM
Quote from: North Star on January 05, 2020, 12:25:40 PM
Big Pharma, insurers, hospitals team up to kill Medicare for All

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851013001759
(https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/03/big-pharma-insurers-hospitals-team-up-to-kill-medicare-for-all/)

I will only add that MfA, as proposed, will actually do little to bring down drug prices. The main reason we have high drug prices is that generics have a hard time getting approved here, in large part because Big Pharma is able to manipulate and outright abuse the regulatory and patent processes against them. (Canada has lower drug prices. Canada also allows a bunch of generics not approved here.) Reform on that front all by itself will bring prices down. MfA doesn't seem to do anything about it. Giving the government power to negotiate drug prices, which  MfA does, merely means the drug producers will have an easier time, since they will need to cut a deal with only one entity, and not cut multiple deals (with individual insurance companies) like they do now.

I was going to post that link from Sciencedirect, but opted for the Skeptical Human link because it seemed to have more data and more comparative discussion. And also I thought Poju would be less likely to ignore information from a progressive site...apparently I was too optimistic about his capacity for self inflicted ignorance.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 05, 2020, 04:15:14 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 05, 2020, 11:28:24 AM
What ads are you talking about?

I have yet to see a single TV ad advocating against medicare for all.  In fact, the only ads I have seen are those by Democratic candidates promoting one or another version of  health care reform, and ads from unidentifiable groups wanting to pressure Congress to increase funding for Medicare.

I posted this a few days ago:

The BIGGEST Threat To Medicare for All

https://www.youtube.com/v/_SOTYmWZ4Vg

Over one million in Iowa alone it says...  :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 05, 2020, 04:24:31 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 05, 2020, 03:53:49 PM
I will only add that MfA, as proposed, will actually do little to bring down drug prices. The main reason we have high drug prices is that generics have a hard time getting approved here, in large part because Big Pharma is able to manipulate and outright abuse the regulatory and patent processes against them. (Canada has lower drug prices. Canada also allows a bunch of generics not approved here.) Reform on that front all by itself will bring prices down. MfA doesn't seem to do anything about it. Giving the government power to negotiate drug prices, which  MfA does, merely means the drug producers will have an easier time, since they will need to cut a deal with only one entity, and not cut multiple deals (with individual insurance companies) like they do now.

I was going to post that link from Sciencedirect, but opted for the Skeptical Human link because it seemed to have more data and more comparative discussion. And also I thought Poju would be less likely to ignore information from a progressive site...apparently I was too optimistic about his capacity for self inflicted ignorance.

Maybe that's so difficult, but Bernie proposes $200 ceiling per year. Above that government pays. Big Pharma's ability to manipulate the market can be decimated changing the law + medicare for all means they have to negotiate with the goverment. That's what keeps prices down in other countries.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 05, 2020, 04:31:20 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 05, 2020, 04:15:14 PM
I posted this a few days ago:

The BIGGEST Threat To Medicare for All

https://www.youtube.com/v/_SOTYmWZ4Vg

Over one million in Iowa alone it says...  :P

You do realize that the Iowa caucuses are a month away? [Feb 3 to be exact] Hence the ad buys in Iowa.

The biggest threat to Medicare for All stems not from the health care industry, but from the fact that it won't do what it promises. Of course, the Young Turks need to distract from that fact, so they scare you with the "Oligarchy" bogeyman.

And of course there are other reasons to oppose Bernie. His housing proposal would completely screw up the housing and rental markets, impose federal control on what has always been a local issue in the US (meaning under state and city control, not national), and probably increase the number of homeless people as its main side effect.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 05, 2020, 04:39:24 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 05, 2020, 04:24:31 PM
Maybe that's so difficult, but Bernie proposes $200 ceiling per year. Above that government pays. Big Pharma's ability to manipulate the market can be decimated changing the law + medicare for all means they have to negotiate with the goverment. That's what keeps prices down in other countries.

Wrong. What keeps prices down is the availability of generics. IOW capitalist free market competition. Big Pharma manipulates things here to limit availability of generics. They abuse the government's control of drug approval to keep generics from being approved. MfA won't do anything about that. Price negotiation is window dressing.

But you seem incapable of understanding that simple fact.

You also seem incapable of understanding that $200 figure is just a campaign promise, and has little chance of getting through Congress.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 06, 2020, 03:49:53 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 05, 2020, 04:39:24 PM
Wrong. What keeps prices down is the availability of generics. IOW capitalist free market competition. Big Pharma manipulates things here to limit availability of generics. They abuse the government's control of drug approval to keep generics from being approved. MfA won't do anything about that. Price negotiation is window dressing.

But you seem incapable of understanding that simple fact.

You also seem incapable of understanding that $200 figure is just a campaign promise, and has little chance of getting through Congress.

Big Pharma manipulating things is not a law of nature. Politicians don't want to do anything about it because their are bribed not to. What you don't seem to understand is Big Pharma can ask high prices because the buyers have low position of negotiation. Medicare for all would changed that creating a superbuyer (the government) with high position of negotiation. The government can change laws and import drugs anywhere from the world. This means Big Pharma must keep prices down to sell anything. It's the same oligarchic bribery that has prevented single payer healthcare from happening in the US and made it possible for Big Pharma to manipulate and abuse government power. Do you think medicare for all is all Bernie Sanders would do? No, he fights ALL corruption.

Of course $200 figure is just a campaign promise but if you fight for it you may get $500 ceiling, but if you don't fight at all you gain nothing. Similarly if you fight for medicare for all you may get public option (more people covered), but if you start negotiating with the insane Republicans from public option you get NOTHING! You dont' start negotiating from the half-point.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 06, 2020, 04:38:22 AM
Your reliance on the phrase "What you don't seem to understand" is rich.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 06, 2020, 10:40:38 AM
We are getting near and soon the first votes are given. New CBS poll has the following numbers:

Iowa
Sanders 23 %
Biden 23 %
Buttigieg 23 %
Warren 16 %
Klobuchar 7 %
The rest 3 % or less

New Hampshire
Sanders 27 %
Biden 25 %
Warren 18 %
Buttigieg 13 %
Klobuchar 7 %
The rest 3 % or less

Based on these figures it's totally possible (but not sure at all) that Bernie wins both races.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 06, 2020, 06:11:00 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 06, 2020, 03:49:53 AM
Big Pharma manipulating things is not a law of nature. Politicians don't want to do anything about it because their are bribed not to. What you don't seem to understand is Big Pharma can ask high prices because the buyers have low position of negotiation. Medicare for all would changed that creating a superbuyer (the government) with high position of negotiation. The government can change laws and import drugs anywhere from the world. This means Big Pharma must keep prices down to sell anything. It's the same oligarchic bribery that has prevented single payer healthcare from happening in the US and made it possible for Big Pharma to manipulate and abuse government power. Do you think medicare for all is all Bernie Sanders would do? No, he fights ALL corruption.

Of course $200 figure is just a campaign promise but if you fight for it you may get $500 ceiling, but if you don't fight at all you gain nothing. Similarly if you fight for medicare for all you may get public option (more people covered), but if you start negotiating with the insane Republicans from public option you get NOTHING! You dont' start negotiating from the half-point.

Generics break Big Pharma monopolies. Approve generics, Big Pharma can't ask high prices. Government "negotiation" without generics will keep prices high.  It's a simple point that you obviously can't understand.

And Bernie is only against certain kinds of corruption. If he were against all corruption, he'd be trying to break up teacher unions and government employee unions. [If that sounds harsh, consider this: lousy teachers and school administrators are hard to fire because of teachers unions. Cops who shoot people without cause get to keep their job because of teacher's unions.]
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 07, 2020, 12:56:47 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 06, 2020, 06:11:00 PM
Generics break Big Pharma monopolies. Approve generics, Big Pharma can't ask high prices. Government "negotiation" without generics will keep prices high.  It's a simple point that you obviously can't understand.

And Bernie is only against certain kinds of corruption. If he were against all corruption, he'd be trying to break up teacher unions and government employee unions. [If that sounds harsh, consider this: lousy teachers and school administrators are hard to fire because of teachers unions. Cops who shoot people without cause get to keep their job because of teacher's unions.]

What makes approving generics impossible under M4A?

How does teacher unions make bad cops possible? Unions are not there to make it hard to fire lousy workers. They are there to balance the negotiation power.

Bernie is one of the only one fighting corruption. Has done that for decades. If anyone fights corruption it's Bernie. So...

I am totally fed up with debating with you and other useful idiots brainwashed by corporate media. YOU ALL ARE TOO FAR GONES!! Not much better than Trump supporters!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 07, 2020, 01:53:50 AM
Ffs...turn the record over.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: North Star on January 07, 2020, 07:01:34 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 06, 2020, 06:11:00 PMCops who shoot people without cause get to keep their job because of teacher's unions.]
???
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 07, 2020, 07:20:33 AM
Quote from: North Star on January 07, 2020, 07:01:34 AM
???

That's what I get for posting after a long work day.

What I meant to say was

QuoteCops who shoot people without cause get to keep their job because of police unions.]

Police unions have a settled policy of defending their members in all case of adminstrative review, even when they clearly should not be defended.  Result is that it's much harder to  fire bad cops except in the most outrageous cases.  And even then sometimes it's not easy.

Similar dynamics happen in the case of bad teachers and teacher unions.

Result is that we have schools partially staffed by people who shouldn't be teaching, and police forces partially staffed by people who shouldn't be policing.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 07, 2020, 07:28:41 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 07, 2020, 12:56:47 AM
What makes approving generics impossible under M4A?

MfA does nothing to make it easier to get generics approved.  Therefore MfA does nothing to actually lower the prices of prescription drugs.
If there is a part of MfA that makes direct changes to the patent and regulatory laws involved in approving drugs, point it out to me, and I will concede I'm wrong. As far as I know, there is no such thing in MfA.  (And government negotiating prices does nothing to help, so don't bother repeating a point I've already refuted.)
Quote
How does teacher unions make bad cops possible? Unions are not there to make it hard to fire lousy workers. They are there to balance the negotiation power.

Part of that was a typo.  See my preceding post.  Unions are there to protect their members, and they often do it in a way that hurts the public.

Quote
Bernie is one of the only one fighting corruption. Has done that for decades. If anyone fights corruption it's Bernie. So...
I guess that means no one is fighting corruption! 
Quote
I am totally fed up with debating with you and other useful idiots brainwashed by corporate media. YOU ALL ARE TOO FAR GONES!! Not much better than Trump supporters!

You are the one who mistakes propaganda for facts.  You are the one who is relying on bad sources and doesn't realize it. 
I know enough to be skeptical of the MSM and all the rest.  But I also know the same skepticism needs to be applied to all sources, including the ones you mistake for truthful ones.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 07, 2020, 08:22:57 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 07, 2020, 12:56:47 AM
I am totally fed up with debating with you and other useful idiots brainwashed by corporate media. YOU ALL ARE TOO FAR GONES!! Not much better than Trump supporters!

You don't debate, you're a bot tirelessly regurgitating the same claptrap time after time again:  That ain't debate, not even in Finland, I'll bet.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 07, 2020, 08:57:20 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 07, 2020, 01:53:50 AM
Ffs...turn the record over.

I don't know what is your problem. You are from New Zealand and yet you appear as brainwashed as Americans. It's weird to me. Is Fox News all they show down there? I would have thought New Zealand has implemented many left wing ideas in society successfully so that habitants know they work.

By the way, I am not anti New Zealand. Vincent Ward is one of my favorite directors.  $:)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 07, 2020, 01:50:07 PM
You've been asked many many times to stop telling people they're brainwashed.

That you persist in the face of these requests is the definition of " trolling".

Enough.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 07, 2020, 02:30:44 PM
More Dems face debate chopping block (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/07/democrats-debate-iowa-094981)

"The Democratic presidential debate stage is set to shrink again next week.

Only five candidates so far have earned spots in the Jan. 14 CNN/Des Moines Register debate in Iowa: Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Tom Steyer, Andrew Yang and Cory Booker will all watch from the sidelines unless they see polling surges before Friday's deadline to qualify."[...]
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 07, 2020, 03:40:16 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 07, 2020, 01:50:07 PM
You've been asked many many times to stop telling people they're brainwashed.

And my sources are constantly being called bad as if wanting the politicians to serve regular people instead of the top 1 % is a bad thing.

We are fundamentally divided into totally different ideologies and the result is endless name calling and feuding. Sorry, I am not for the top 1 %.
I am for the regular people! If it takes calling people brainwashed to give people healthcare, living wage, tuition free education, restore democracy, fight the climate change and end the wars then yes I will call people brainwashed. Wake up people! You are not rich! You don't have any power. You are not members of the 1 %. They have the power and they use it AGAINST YOU! I am on your side calling you brainwashed to make you wake up!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 07, 2020, 03:59:43 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 07, 2020, 03:40:16 PM
And my sources are constantly being called bad as if wanting the politicians to serve regular people instead of the top 1 % is a bad thing.

We are fundamentally divided into totally different ideologies and the result is endless name calling and feuding. Sorry, I am not for the top 1 %.
I am for the regular people! If it takes calling people brainwashed to give people healthcare, living wage, tuition free education, restore democracy, fight the climate change and end the wars then yes I will call people brainwashed. Wake up people! You are not rich! You don't have any power. You are not members of the 1 %. They have the power and they use it AGAINST YOU! I am on your side calling you brainwashed to make you wake up!

Your sources lie and distort  just as much as any other media outlet. That's why they are bad.
That you can't accept that fact suggests that you are the one who is brainwashed.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 07, 2020, 04:05:50 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 07, 2020, 03:59:43 PM
Your sources lie and distort  just as much as any other media outlet. That's why they are bad.
That you can't accept that fact suggests that you are the one who is brainwashed.

Am I to believe you are a genuine fact checker telling the truth about how my sources lie? Give me a break! I have said it many times: Yes, my sources make mistakes every now and then as everybody does, but they don't lie on purpose and they correct their mistakes and admit their mistakes. Whatever you think about them doesn't change the facts, but as long as you keep up your narrative of lying leftist I will call you brainwashed.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 07, 2020, 04:30:57 PM
It's not so much that your " sources" lie - it's that they're sloppy and superficial and encouraging a cult like devotion that accepts their conclusions as the final word rather than digging deeper.

And if you're saying you're going to keep doing what many have told you they find insulting then you're self identifying as a troll and there'd no reason I should respect or listen to you at all.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 07, 2020, 04:35:36 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 07, 2020, 04:05:50 PM
Am I to believe you are a genuine fact checker telling the truth about how my sources lie? Give me a break! I have said it many times: Yes, my sources make mistakes every now and then as everybody does, but they don't lie on purpose and they correct their mistakes and admit their mistakes. Whatever you think about them doesn't change the facts, but as long as you keep up your narrative of lying leftist I will call you brainwashed.

I've given you specific instances when your sources have, at the very least, not given the whole truth, and you consistently insist the facts I present are merely corporate propaganda. You insist that anyone who doesn't agree with their ideas is a corporate tool, as if there is only one to deal with those problems.

Your real failure is your inability to understand that implementing most of their ideas will actually increase the power of the 1% by concentrating decision making at the national level.  Medicare for All simply replaces insurance company technocrats with government bureaucrats operating under a politically imposed budget.  And so on down the list.

Assume the Young Turks lie as much as any other media outlet or political advocacy group does, and your understanding of  US politics and US problems  will increase exponentially.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 10, 2020, 08:57:28 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 07, 2020, 04:35:36 PM
I've given you specific instances when your sources have, at the very least, not given the whole truth, and you consistently insist the facts I present are merely corporate propaganda. You insist that anyone who doesn't agree with their ideas is a corporate tool, as if there is only one to deal with those problems.

You are giving up on lowering drug prices. To you it's a law of nature Big Pharma can abuse patents laws. Corruption is the root problem and electing lefty politician to power means that corruption will be addressed so that Big Pharma can't abuse patents laws and drug prices can be lowered. My sources have never said patent laws aren't a problem, at least I haven't heard that. So, your claim of them giving only half-truths is weak at best and meaningless considering what's the point of progressive politics. Drug prices is just one problem among may other.

Quote from: JBS on January 07, 2020, 04:35:36 PMYour real failure is your inability to understand that implementing most of their ideas will actually increase the power of the 1% by concentrating decision making at the national level.  Medicare for All simply replaces insurance company technocrats with government bureaucrats operating under a politically imposed budget.  And so on down the list.

No. The incentives aren't the same. Corporations make profit denying care. Government has a fixed budget to use which creates the more rational incentive to ration care based on need rather than size of wallet. If you were right then healthcare in countries with government run healthcare insurance (single payer) would be just as bad as in the US, but that's not the case. Somehow single payer countries are able to cover everyone with half of the costs. That wouldn't be the case if you were right, but it is the case. So, I AM RIGHT! You are wrong.

Quote from: JBS on January 07, 2020, 04:35:36 PMAssume the Young Turks lie as much as any other media outlet or political advocacy group does, and your understanding of  US politics and US problems  will increase exponentially.

I take critically everything TYT included, but so far the amount of lies they have told is on "non-existing" level compared to corporate media. You are repeating what the corporate media tells and you could think about how truthful that is yourself.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 10, 2020, 11:51:39 AM
Dr. Cornel West Explains Why Bernie Beats Trump

https://www.youtube.com/v/1gbKn4O5ZYw
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 10, 2020, 11:54:23 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 10, 2020, 11:51:39 AM
Dr. Cornel West Explains Why Bernie Beats Trump

https://www.youtube.com/v/1gbKn4O5ZYw

Hold onto that dream. Never question!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 10, 2020, 11:59:23 AM
Quote from: schnittkease on January 10, 2020, 07:02:54 AM
Madiel was right to abandon this thread. You are insufferable.

What is insufferable is 71db's insistence that he knows better than anyone else, his insistence that his sources, and only his sources, tell the truth, and that there are no other possible solutions, and (most laughable of all), Sen. Sanders is the only progressive politician capable of implementing the progressive agenda.  All this while he seems unable to actually understand the points I am making. Just look at his previous post, where he can't understand my points that patent and regulatory reform are necessary to get lower drug prices, and giving the government power to negotiate won't do anything important (I believe it will actually increase corruption); that government funded care does not really base its funding algorithms on actual need (his own Finland is right now exemplifying the mismatch of theory and practice, but he apparently can't even see that), that the Young Turks are advocates who tailor their information just like any other  media outfit, and of course the very basic one: that thinking there are serious problems with progressive ideas can only result from media brainwashing,  and not from the fact that there are serious problems with most of the progressive agenda...the biggest problem  of course being that as government control and regulation increase, corruption also increases.  You'll notice I don't harangue you, even though you in general hold the same ideas as him. But you don't go around announcing anyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: North Star on January 10, 2020, 12:46:17 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 10, 2020, 11:59:23 AMhis own Finland is right now exemplifying the mismatch of theory and practice
What precisely are you referring to?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 10, 2020, 12:58:36 PM
Quote from: North Star on January 10, 2020, 12:46:17 PM
What precisely are you referring to?

This
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/15/world/finland-health-care-intl/index.html

QuoteOf course, it's not all rosy. In March, the Finnish government resigned because it failed to get its health care reform through Parliament -- becoming the second government in a row to fail to do so.
Finnish's decentralized health care system is often managed by local municipalities with populations ranging from hundreds of thousands of people to fewer than 100. And that decentralized nature is not only very expensive to maintain but also can produce vast disparities in the quality of care.
Municipalities receive funding for health care services based on the size of the taxable population, which can make it more difficult to provide services in remote and larger areas -- where those services are also more expensive to begin with.
In March, just after Juha Sipila's government resigned, the governor of the bank of Finland, Ollie Rehn, warned that reform remained urgent "from the point of view of fiscal sustainability.
....
To make Finland's health care system financially sustainable, one of the aims of the last government's reform proposal was to cut costs by centralizing services and introducing more private options. But centralization is proving tricky in a country that is sparsely populated in some areas, and where the health care system was designed to serve even the most remote parts of a country that stretches all the way up to the Arctic Circle.
Way back in 2013, the international Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was already warning that Finland was lagging behind many other OECD countries in having high rates of unmet needs. At the time, more than 4% of Finnish people reported unmet medical needs due to cost, travel distance or waiting lists -- a proportion significantly higher than in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands.
As funding shrinks for future generations, even more Finns could find their needs unmet, warns Heikki Hiilamo, a social policy analyst who has advised successive governments on how they might reform the system.

Is that article inaccurate in any important detail?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 10, 2020, 01:54:30 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 10, 2020, 11:59:23 AM
1 --- What is insufferable is 71db's insistence that he knows better than anyone else,

2 --- his insistence that his sources, and only his sources, tell the truth, and that there are no other possible solutions,

3 --- and (most laughable of all), Sen. Sanders is the only progressive politician capable of implementing the progressive agenda.

4 --- All this while he seems unable to actually understand the points I am making. Just look at his previous post, where he can't understand my points that patent and regulatory reform are necessary to get lower drug prices, and giving the government power to negotiate won't do anything important (I believe it will actually increase corruption); that government funded care does not really base its funding algorithms on actual need (his own Finland is right now exemplifying the mismatch of theory and practice, but he apparently can't even see that), that the Young Turks are advocates who tailor their information just like any other  media outfit, and of course the very basic one: that thinking there are serious problems with progressive ideas can only result from media brainwashing,  and not from the fact that there are serious problems with most of the progressive agenda...the biggest problem  of course being that as government control and regulation increase, corruption also increases.  You'll notice I don't harangue you, even though you in general hold the same ideas as him. But you don't go around announcing anyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed.

1 --- It's not about knowing, but understanding why people say what they say.

2 --- It's not like "my" sources declare themselves divine creatus who tell the "truth" to others. It's about telling about things as they are without the need to smear things because someone pays you to do so.

3 --- Elizabeth Warren would certainly be able to implement some progressive ideas, but why not choose the best? A progressive who has been one for 50 years instead someone who used to be a Republican not long ago. Also, Bernie is stronger against Trump than E.W. and also polling better at this point (Warren did poll very well, but only briefly while Bernie has polled well consistenly). It's quite clear Bernie is a historical opportunity.

4 --- Did Trump do patent and regulatory reform? Would president Biden do patent and regulatory reform? Would president Bernie do patent and regulatory reform? If someone does it it's Benie, the one not taking Big Pharma money! Elsewhere in the World government power to negotiate DOES make a difference so it much be the same in the US when corruption is removed. The healthcare system in Finland is no way perfect. Every country has it's own strenghts and weaknesses, but I believe the healthcare system of Finland ranks pretty high (the second best after Norway for women to give birth for example) and I'm sure most Americans would want same kind of system if they knew about it instead of the for profit hell they have to endure now. TYT advocates better life for regular Americans and they tell the thing reflecting that. Better healthcare system = better life = single payer (as evidenced comparing US healthcare to other countries). Corporate media are advocates for corporate profits and oligarchy, BUT they act as if they were for regular Americans! That's the problem! If they said US should keep for profit healthcare so insurance companies can keep on maximizing profit denying care and keeping the price of healthcare high I would say at least they are honest. Instead they smear facts and fearmonger to force the facts support they ideology. It's mindblowing an intelligent person like you don't see that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 10, 2020, 02:10:22 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 10, 2020, 12:58:36 PM
Is that article inaccurate in any important detail?

The details are correct as far as I can tell, but you must understand this is a corporate article against Medicare for all, trying to make problem more dramatic than they are. All countries, Finland included, must figure out how to finance things when population gets older. Nordic model is still something that would help the US society, even taking the details of this article into account.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 10, 2020, 04:58:55 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 10, 2020, 02:10:22 PM
The details are correct as far as I can tell, but you must understand this is a corporate article against Medicare for all, trying to make problem more dramatic than they are. All countries, Finland included, must figure out how to finance things when population gets older. Nordic model is still something that would help the US society, even taking the details of this article into account.

My question was addressed to North Star, not you, because I trust his judgement.  I would have surprised if you didn't complain about  corporate propaganda, because that's your standard fallback when presented with facts that contradict your preferred narrative.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 10, 2020, 05:42:01 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 10, 2020, 04:58:55 PM
My question was addressed to North Star, not you, because I trust his judgement.  I would have surprised if you didn't complain about  corporate propaganda, because that's your standard fallback when presented with facts that contradict your preferred narrative.

Well, I don't care if you addressed your question to Mickey Mouse. This is an open discussion board and I answer questions if I feel like it. You are of course entitled to not trust what I say. Since you are so interested* of Finnish healthcare system, having answers from as many Finns as possible should be interesting to you, but if North Star is the only person you trust then you have to wait for him to have the time to answer you. I think his answer will be similar to mine, but we'll see.

The facts presented in the CNN article. do not contradict "my narrative." The conclusions do. If Finland had US style for profit healthcare system the problems would be 100-fold.

* I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be if it wasn't used against Bernie/MfA.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 10, 2020, 05:49:33 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 10, 2020, 05:42:01 PM
Well, I don't care if you addressed your question to Mickey Mouse. This is an open discussion board and I answer questions if I feel like it. You are of course entitled to not trust what I say. Since you are so interested* of Finnish healthcare system, having answers from as many Finns as possible should be interesting to you, but if North Star is the only person you trust then you have to wait for him to have the time to answer you. I think his answer will be similar to mine, but we'll see.


Karlo is by no means the only trustworthy chap; but better to wait for his sober reply, than bother with your predictable yada-yada.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 10, 2020, 05:59:13 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 10, 2020, 05:42:01 PM
.

The facts presented in the CNN article. do not contradict "my narrative." The conclusions do. If Finland had US style for profit healthcare system the problems would be 100-fold.


On the contrary, the facts depict the problems with all single payer plans: the limited resources are allocated by politicians*,  rural areas in particular are underserved, and none of those grand promises Bernie makes are delivered on.

*the corruption inherent in that all by itself should make anyone wary of single-payer programs.

Quote* I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be if it wasn't used against Bernie/MfA.

I'm interested in Finland because you're from Finland, so you ought to know first hand (or at least second hand, through family, etc) the problems with the system your own country uses.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 11, 2020, 01:20:28 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 10, 2020, 05:49:33 PM
Karlo is by no means the only trustworthy chap; but better to wait for his sober reply, than bother with your predictable yada-yada.

My predictable yada-yada indicates I am at least consistent in what I say. :)

Quote from: JBS on January 10, 2020, 05:59:13 PM
On the contrary, the facts depict the problems with all single payer plans: the limited resources are allocated by politicians*,  rural areas in particular are underserved, and none of those grand promises Bernie makes are delivered on.

*the corruption inherent in that all by itself should make anyone wary of single-payer programs.

As I said all countries have problems, but when healthcare systems are compared, the US is in the bottom of the list of healthcare systems ranked among developped countries. Your beloved corporate media doesn't want to talk about that: The 45.000 people who die each year because they don't have access to basic healthcare, the helf million bankruptcies every year caused mainly by healthcare bills, the fact that Americans avoid going to the doctor because they fear thay can't afford what the doctor finds and how many American ration medicine to afford it etc. Instead your beloved corporate media wearmonger medicare for all with ridiculoius claims and bringing up the problems of Finnish healthcare system this way is part of that.

Someone has to allocate resources and it's not taxi drivers so it's politicians. You can't have good services in rural areas. That would cost more than going to Moon, but you can have all people have access to healthcare closer to urban areas. Bernies has not made promises of rural services. People in rural areas can use cars to come to where ever the healthcare is provided and those people WILL have more options because everyone is covered and networks are no more to limit options. You can go to the nearist doctors, not the nearist doctor in the network of your plan.

Corruption is a thing in politics, but you can control it (e.g. election funding/political donations laws). Private bisnesses are out there to make profit and aren't better than corrupt politicians.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 10, 2020, 05:49:33 PMI'm interested in Finland because you're from Finland, so you ought to know first hand (or at least second hand, through family, etc) the problems with the system your own country uses.

Yeah, but you only want to hear what supports your beliefs...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: North Star on January 11, 2020, 03:59:01 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 10, 2020, 11:59:23 AMthat government funded care does not really base its funding algorithms on actual need (his own Finland is right now exemplifying the mismatch of theory and practice, but he apparently can't even see that)
Quote from: JBS on January 10, 2020, 12:58:36 PM
This
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/15/world/finland-health-care-intl/index.html

QuoteOf course, it's not all rosy. In March, the Finnish government resigned because it failed to get its health care reform through Parliament -- becoming the second government in a row to fail to do so.
Finnish's decentralized health care system is often managed by local municipalities with populations ranging from hundreds of thousands of people to fewer than 100. And that decentralized nature is not only very expensive to maintain but also can produce vast disparities in the quality of care.
Municipalities receive funding for health care services based on the size of the taxable population, which can make it more difficult to provide services in remote and larger areas -- where those services are also more expensive to begin with.
In March, just after Juha Sipila's government resigned, the governor of the bank of Finland, Ollie Rehn, warned that reform remained urgent "from the point of view of fiscal sustainability.
....
To make Finland's health care system financially sustainable, one of the aims of the last government's reform proposal was to cut costs by centralizing services and introducing more private options. But centralization is proving tricky in a country that is sparsely populated in some areas, and where the health care system was designed to serve even the most remote parts of a country that stretches all the way up to the Arctic Circle.
Way back in 2013, the international Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was already warning that Finland was lagging behind many other OECD countries in having high rates of unmet needs. At the time, more than 4% of Finnish people reported unmet medical needs due to cost, travel distance or waiting lists -- a proportion significantly higher than in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands.
As funding shrinks for future generations, even more Finns could find their needs unmet, warns Heikki Hiilamo, a social policy analyst who has advised successive governments on how they might reform the system.
Is that article inaccurate in any important detail?

Yes. The article claims that all municipalities regardless of size have the same responsibilities. In fact, smaller municipalities are required by law to work together in larger healthcare units as per the Act on Restructuring Local Government and Services (169/2007), demanding that municipalities of under 20,000 population arrange their healthcare in a group of municipalities that is over 20,000 population.

The article goes on about centralization being difficult in a country of long distances and sparsely populated areas. The real difficulty the previous government faced was the introduction of private healthcare options provided with taxpayer money, and the constitutional law committee. The reform would have passed without this, and being tied to a municipal reform didn't help. The current government with Social Democrats (along with the Center Party, Green Party, Left Alliance and Swedish People's Party) will doubtless be more successful with the reform without the extras thrown in. To be clear, unlike the article says, introducing more private options paid with taxes was not done to make the system be more financially sustainable, it was attempted because it would thicken the wallets of corporations, whose interests the National Coalition Party always looks for, and the Center Party as well, although perhaps more generously towards small businesses. There is no research or data whatsoever that legitimately suggested that the private option would save anyone money except the private healthcare providers. I'm sure it's true that the other Nordic countries are slightly ahead in most things related to health care, due to denser/larger population, shorter distances, and probably a bit better funding since the Finnish economy suffered more than they in the recession. And the Netherlands is another country that is doing a good job with their healthcare and has the bonus of high population density. But none of this means that the US shouldn't look at the rest of the world for a better healthcare model. The high rates of unmet needs is a good one to pick as you can make it sound as if 4% of Finns are dying of cancer because they don't live in the big cities, when it just means there are long lines to treatment or they have to wait for a taxi to drive them to the hospital.

(https://assets.weforum.org/editor/large_Ap_JN34kuZgY6sA6IPG_z5ad0oVT-NZPkSk0MX2bQvc.JPG)
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/which-countries-have-the-most-cost-effective-healthcare/



QuoteThough spending on healthcare is below the European average, the quality of healthcare service in Finland is high. According to a survey published by the European Commission in 2000, Finland has the highest number of people satisfied with their hospital care system in the EU: 88 percent of Finnish respondents were satisfied compared with the EU average of 41.3 percent.
https://healthmanagement.org/c/it/issuearticle/overview-of-the-healthcare-systems-in-the-nordic-countries


(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/OECD_health_expenditure_per_capita_by_country.svg/1920px-OECD_health_expenditure_per_capita_by_country.svg.png)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 11, 2020, 04:27:39 AM
Thanks North Star for your awesome answer to JBS demonstrating impressive level of patience. I don't have this level of patience anymore after explaining these things million times online and seeing it has near zero effect to anyone.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 11, 2020, 06:23:22 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 11, 2020, 01:20:28 AM
My predictable yada-yada indicates I am at least consistent in what I say. :)

As I said all countries have problems, but when healthcare systems are compared, the US is in the bottom of the list of healthcare systems ranked among developped countries. Your beloved corporate media doesn't want to talk about that: The 45.000 people who die each year because they don't have access to basic healthcare, the helf million bankruptcies every year caused mainly by healthcare bills, the fact that Americans avoid going to the doctor because they fear thay can't afford what the doctor finds and how many American ration medicine to afford it etc. Instead your beloved corporate media wearmonger medicare for all with ridiculoius claims and bringing up the problems of Finnish healthcare system this way is part of that.

Someone has to allocate resources and it's not taxi drivers so it's politicians. You can't have good services in rural areas. That would cost more than going to Moon, but you can have all people have access to healthcare closer to urban areas. Bernies has not made promises of rural services. People in rural areas can use cars to come to where ever the healthcare is provided and those people WILL have more options because everyone is covered and networks are no more to limit options. You can go to the nearist doctors, not the nearist doctor in the network of your plan.

Corruption is a thing in politics, but you can control it (e.g. election funding/political donations laws). Private bisnesses are out there to make profit and aren't better than corrupt politicians.

Yeah, but you only want to hear what supports your beliefs...

Mirror, berate yourself.
It obviously hasn't  occurred to that the  Young Turks are doing their oen fear mongering? For instance, that bankruptcy statistic is bogus, since it  doesn't separate people who declare bankruptcy solely because of astronomical medical bills from people who declare bankruptcy because illness leaves them unable to work and therefore can't pay any bills. I've seen no statistic that makes such a distinction. The Young Turks want you to think all those bankruptcies are from the first category because Medicare for All won't do anything to help the second category. (Also, the most common iteration of that statistic seems to date from 2005, and therefore does reflect the impacts of the Great Recession and Obamacare.)

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 11, 2020, 06:44:26 AM
Quote from: North Star on January 11, 2020, 03:59:01 AM
Is that article inaccurate in any important detail?

Yes. The article claims that all municipalities regardless of size have the same responsibilities. In fact, smaller municipalities are required by law to work together in larger healthcare units as per the Act on Restructuring Local Government and Services (169/2007), demanding that municipalities of under 20,000 population arrange their healthcare in a group of municipalities that is over 20,000 population.

The article goes on about centralization being difficult in a country of long distances and sparsely populated areas. The real difficulty the previous government faced was the introduction of private healthcare options provided with taxpayer money, and the constitutional law committee. The reform would have passed without this, and being tied to a municipal reform didn't help. The current government with Social Democrats (along with the Center Party, Green Party, Left Alliance and Swedish People's Party) will doubtless be more successful with the reform without the extras thrown in. To be clear, unlike the article says, introducing more private options paid with taxes was not done to make the system be more financially sustainable, it was attempted because it would thicken the wallets of corporations, whose interests the National Coalition Party always looks for, and the Center Party as well, although perhaps more generously towards small businesses. There is no research or data whatsoever that legitimately suggested that the private option would save anyone money except the private healthcare providers. I'm sure it's true that the other Nordic countries are slightly ahead in most things related to health care, due to denser/larger population, shorter distances, and probably a bit better funding since the Finnish economy suffered more than they in the recession. And the Netherlands is another country that is doing a good job with their healthcare and has the bonus of high population density. But none of this means that the US shouldn't look at the rest of the world for a better healthcare model. The high rates of unmet needs is a good one to pick as you can make it sound as if 4% of Finns are dying of cancer because they don't live in the big cities, when it just means there are long lines to treatment or they have to wait for a taxi to drive them to the hospital.

(https://assets.weforum.org/editor/large_Ap_JN34kuZgY6sA6IPG_z5ad0oVT-NZPkSk0MX2bQvc.JPG)
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/which-countries-have-the-most-cost-effective-healthcare/


https://healthmanagement.org/c/it/issuearticle/overview-of-the-healthcare-systems-in-the-nordic-countries


(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/OECD_health_expenditure_per_capita_by_country.svg/1920px-OECD_health_expenditure_per_capita_by_country.svg.png)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

Thank you for the reasoned explanation.

The business of health care expenditure per capita seems a bit misleading.  The US figures have to account  for people who are not insured, and people who get publicly funded health care (Medicaid, Medicare, Veteran's Administration are the primary vectors). It's the latter who typically get the worst health care.  Medicare for All thus represents expanding that to everyone.

What 71db doesn't seem to understand that Medicare for All would represent a degradation of the level of health care for most people. At best it would give them nothing better. The horror stories the Young Turks tell are atypical.

  The 30 million or so people without insurance are the problem.

But the problem's solution should not require making everyone else settle for care that's worse than what they have
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on January 11, 2020, 07:28:31 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 11, 2020, 06:23:22 AM
people who declare bankruptcy because illness leaves them unable to work and therefore can't pay any bills.

This notion baffles me. In Romania if you get sick and need treatment in hospital or at home that prevents you from going to work you get a paid sick leave for as long as the treatment is needed, extending up to one year in grave cases such as for instance cancer. After the year is over and if your condition still prevents you from returning to work you are entitled to early retirement. You don't pay the full drugs price, government takes care of some amount of them, in grave case you really pay nothing. The idea that someone can go bankrupt because illness prevents them to work is inconceivable here. A lowering of one's standard of life and an increase in expenses, yes, by all means --- but bankruptcy is really out of the question.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 11, 2020, 07:29:44 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 11, 2020, 01:20:28 AM
My predictable yada-yada indicates I am at least consistent in what I say. :)

Yada is consistent with yada, but remains gibberish all the same.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on January 11, 2020, 07:42:44 AM
Quote from: Florestan on January 11, 2020, 07:28:31 AM
This notion baffles me. In Romania if you get sick and need treatment in hospital or at home that prevents you from going to work you get a paid sick leave for as long as the treatment is needed, extending up to one year in grave cases such as for instance cancer. After the year is over and if your condition still prevents you from returning to work you are entitled to early retirement. You don't pay the full drugs price, government takes care of some amount of them, in grave case you really pay nothing. The idea that someone can go bankrupt because illness prevents them to work is inconceivable here. A lowering of one's standard of life and an increase in expenses, yes, by all means --- but bankruptcy is really out of the question.
:o :o :o Florestan has gone socialist!  :o :o :o The end is nigh!

;D ;D ;D ;) ;) ;)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on January 11, 2020, 07:58:29 AM
Quote from: ritter on January 11, 2020, 07:42:44 AM
:o :o :o Florestan has gone socialist!  :o :o :o The end is nigh!

;D ;D ;D ;) ;) ;)

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 11, 2020, 09:07:15 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 11, 2020, 06:23:22 AM
Mirror, berate yourself.
It obviously hasn't  occurred to that the  Young Turks are doing their oen fear mongering? For instance, that bankruptcy statistic is bogus, since it  doesn't separate people who declare bankruptcy solely because of astronomical medical bills from people who declare bankruptcy because illness leaves them unable to work and therefore can't pay any bills. I've seen no statistic that makes such a distinction. The Young Turks want you to think all those bankruptcies are from the first category because Medicare for All won't do anything to help the second category. (Also, the most common iteration of that statistic seems to date from 2005, and therefore does reflect the impacts of the Great Recession and Obamacare.)

TYT is not fearmongering because it's not "people would go bankrupt if US had for profit healtcare". They are commenting facts and the facts is thousands of people go bankrupt because of medical bills. Without the medical bills many would be able to pay their other bills, but medical bills make it impossible. The point is elsewhere in the world people don't get as huge medical bills as people get in the US. In Finland if you spend a month in hospital the bill is maybe $500. It's a hefty bill but doable for regular people. In the US the bill is hundreds of thousands and you are lucky if your insurance pays half of it! If you have say $200.000 to pay it's the same if you are working or not because regular people need to work for a decade or so to earn such money. Elsewhere in the world people have PAID SICK LEAVE so not being able to work isn't an issue, but the US doesn't even have paid vacation by law because it's an oligarchy.

As for the other sources of debt, progressive ideas can mitigate those too. Bernie is proposing eliminating all student loan debt. Together with medicare for all the amount of bankruptcies would certainly drop dramatically!

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 11, 2020, 10:38:29 AM
It's time to bust the (corporate) myth that Bernie can't win the nomination and beat Trump:

https://www.youtube.com/v/hjVPQ6iH1lQ
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on January 11, 2020, 11:24:10 AM
Reading this thread, the image that insistently comes to mind is Diane Keaton, in Woody Allen's Love and Death, saying "Succour! Succour!".  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 11, 2020, 11:51:25 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 11, 2020, 10:38:29 AM
It's time to bust the (corporate) myth that Bernie can't win the nomination and beat Trump:

https://www.youtube.com/v/hjVPQ6iH1lQ

Feel better? Good.

I still do not believe Bernie would beat Trump. I certainly think it possible that Bernie may be the nominee, though I think that would be a mistake.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 11, 2020, 12:45:26 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 11, 2020, 11:51:25 AM
I still do not believe Bernie would beat Trump.

Why do you think that? We know from experience a Hillary Clinton-type of candidate doesn't beat Trump (because the votes come from wrong places to win the electorate vote) and at least Bernie is not Hillary Clinton-type of candidate so he is able to get votes were Hillary Clinton didn't. If Hillary Clinton didn't beat Trump and you think Bernie wouldn't beat either, what kind of candidate would in you opinion? Why would for example "corn Bob" Biden do better than Hillary Clinton? Sure, Biden is perhaps less hated than Hillary was, but then again his head isn't that sharp anymore and Trump has got Ukraine to attack Biden for so it doesn't look good for him if it is Biden vs Trump.

To beat Trump the Democratic candidate needs to be strong in such places as the rust belt were Trump obliterated Hillary Clinton because voters in those areas are drawn to populist candidates and Trump acted like one even if he really is a corporate status quo president. Bernie is very strong in those places because he is a TRUE populists, a real progressive who can expose Trump's lies. That's why Bernie can win Trump easily, but getting the nomination is another story because he has "record player" Biden and "wine cave" Buttigieg to beat and the corporate media is against him.

https://jacobinmag.com/2019/12/bernie-sanders-vs-donald-trump (https://jacobinmag.com/2019/12/bernie-sanders-vs-donald-trump)

Excepts:

Trump's true electoral weakness is not his loutishness, his congenital lying, or even his personal corruption. It's his function as a tool of the rich man's Republican Party, and his blatant disinterest in making life better for the vast majority of Americans living paycheck to paycheck.

Over the last forty years, no politician in America has focused as frankly or relentlessly on the unnecessary economic hardship faced by ordinary people as Bernie Sanders. This bread-and-butter emphasis is part of what has made Sanders the most popular presidential candidate in the field, especially among independent voters. And in a general election — on a scale far larger than any primary contest — no one is better prepared than Sanders to use that popular economic weapon to annihilate Donald Trump.

In the 206 counties that went for Obama in 2008 and 2012 and then Trump in 2016, Sanders has out-fundraised all of his competitors — by a long shot. By September 2019, he pulled in 81,841 individual donations from 33,185 donors in these flipped counties. That's roughly three times as many as Biden, Warren, or Pete Buttigieg.

This high volume of individual small-dollar donations in Obama-Trump counties shows that Sanders has strong grassroots support in those places — which makes sense, given that his political message is targeted to people whose lives get harder as elites grow richer. That captures the experience of many working-class people in the deindustrialized Rust Belt, abandoned by corporations in search of cheaper labor and higher profits elsewhere.

But perhaps the strongest argument for Bernie Sanders concerns a much larger group than any slice of disaffected Obama voters: the tens of millions of people, over 40 percent of the country, who typically do not vote in presidential elections.

American nonvoters, including nonvoters in the battleground states, are disproportionately young, non-white, and working-class. Bernie is distinctly popular with all of these groups, suggesting that he is by far our best shot to mobilize this vast slumbering army in a general election against Trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 11, 2020, 02:14:43 PM
(https://media.tenor.com/images/083f6cc89a6f91b9f47066a27d7655b5/tenor.gif)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 11, 2020, 06:53:37 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 11, 2020, 10:38:29 AM
It's time to bust the (corporate) myth that Bernie can't win the nomination and beat Trump:

https://www.youtube.com/v/hjVPQ6iH1lQ

You don't seem to understand that the people who voted for Trump because he claimed to be a populist will never vote for Bernie or any other progressive candidate, and they won't vote for him precisely because he's a leftist. As far as Trump voters are concerned, Sanders, Warren, and the Young Turks are an integral part of the elite. They are the fake populists in the eyes of Trump voters, and they blame the elites for Trump's failure to fulfill his promises. They don't blame Trump.

Which is why the claim that Bernie can defeat Trump is fantasy.

Edit: btw, a very large proportion of Trump voters in 2016 were people who don't normally vote.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 11, 2020, 07:10:28 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 11, 2020, 09:07:15 AM
In r if you spend a month in hospital the bill is maybe $500. It's a hefty bill but doable for regular people. In the US the bill is hundreds of thousands and you are lucky if your insurance pays half of it! If you have say $200.000 to pay it's the same if you are working or not because regular people need to work for a decade or so to earn such money. Elsewhere in the world people have PAID SICK LEAVE so not being able to work isn't an issue, but the US doesn't even have paid vacation by law because it's an oligarchy.


In the US, the patient with standard insurance pays an amount that is set by their policy, with a yearly maximum for all medical expenses (usually including prescription drugs). Mine, for example, is $6500 this year, which qualifies for your description of hefty but doable. Above that the insurance company pays everything. Also, the hospital and doctors have standard arrangements that result in most of those skyhigh bills being written off, with actual bill being much less.  Which means most people in the US don't need to worry about that type of bill.

The people who do get stuck with  those  skyhigh bills are people with no insurance at all, or insurance that intentionally and explicitly covers only routine, minor medical care (and so in effect have no insurance).   And, as I said before, it's the  people with no insurance that are the problem. Medicare for All will be good for them, but nobody else.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 03:09:44 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 11, 2020, 06:53:37 PM
You don't seem to understand that the people who voted for Trump because he claimed to be a populist will never vote for Bernie or any other progressive candidate, and they won't vote for him precisely because he's a leftist. As far as Trump voters are concerned, Sanders, Warren, and the Young Turks are an integral part of the elite. They are the fake populists in the eyes of Trump voters, and they blame the elites for Trump's failure to fulfill his promises. They don't blame Trump.

Which is why the claim that Bernie can defeat Trump is fantasy.

Edit: btw, a very large proportion of Trump voters in 2016 were people who don't normally vote.

Do you have any evidence for these claims of yours or is this just how you feel and mistake it for facts? Many Trump voters say they would have voted for Bernie in 2016 had it been Bernie vs Trump. Sure, there are those who will never vote for Bernie, but nobody needs 100 % of the votes, just enough from right places to win the electorate. Just like Trump did in 2016 despite of being deeply hated by half of the population.

You tell me every day how I don't understand this or that while yourself demostrating total ignorance about what kind of political era the US is in. It's not 1992 anymore. That's when what you say actually was true, but the US is in totally different era now. In an era where populist candidates win elections. The Dems didn't realize this in 2016 and lost. If they fail to realize it again we have to endure 4 more years of Trump! Not only that, but the US will become a fascist shithole where half of people don't have healthcare nor education while 1000 richest families rob all the money. You want that? For once try to see things OUTSIDE your corporate bubble and recognize people from other countries can offer insight.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on January 12, 2020, 03:19:14 AM
Has 71db ever actually been to the US? Does he know what the living conditions in e.g., upstate New York, Florida, Indiana, you name it, are?  The "1000 families" quip appears to reflect complete ignorance of US demographics, I'm afraid...

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 04:11:06 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 11, 2020, 07:10:28 PM
In the US, the patient with standard insurance pays an amount that is set by their policy, with a yearly maximum for all medical expenses (usually including prescription drugs). Mine, for example, is $6500 this year, which qualifies for your description of hefty but doable. Above that the insurance company pays everything. Also, the hospital and doctors have standard arrangements that result in most of those skyhigh bills being written off, with actual bill being much less.  Which means most people in the US don't need to worry about that type of bill.

The people who do get stuck with  those  skyhigh bills are people with no insurance at all, or insurance that intentionally and explicitly covers only routine, minor medical care (and so in effect have no insurance).   And, as I said before, it's the  people with no insurance that are the problem. Medicare for All will be good for them, but nobody else.

Well, $6500 is pretty hard to pay for most people if you ask me (about half of Americans make $30.000 a year of less). I said $500 is doable. That doesn't mean 13 times more is doable. Also, the insurance doesn't always cover everything above. If the bill is $100.000, your insurence provider might arque the care you got is actully only worth $55.000 and refuses to pay more than that. Sometimes you may be able to negotiate with the hospital to reduce the bill (say from $100.000 to "only" $80.000) so $25.000 falls on to you to pay. That's doable only for people doing very well. For most it is the net income of one year. You probably have your insurance from your employer and your healthcare is in good order seen from American perspective. In other countries with universal single payer healthcare this is abyssmal. We don't have shit like this. For example the yearly maximum for drugs in Finland this year is 577.66 euros (about $600) after which you pay 2.50 euros for any drug product. Even this makes some people feel this is too much for poor people (and it is), but far from the horrors people experience in the US.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 04:17:19 AM
Quote from: ritter on January 12, 2020, 03:19:14 AM
Has 71db ever actually been to the US?

Yes, I have been to the US back in 1982 when I was just 11. In Florida. It was really cool! When my family flew to US, John Williams the movie composer was in the same plane returning home as he had a concert gig in Helsinki. Unfortunately I was too young to appeciate it, but my father recognized him after having read about the concert in the newspaper. 0:)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on January 12, 2020, 06:46:17 AM
Nice memories!  :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 08:49:58 AM
Quote from: ritter on January 12, 2020, 06:46:17 AM
Nice memories!  :)

Indeed! The Walt Disney World, Cape Canaveral Space Center, swimming in the Gulf of Mexico (we where staying in Belleair near Tampa), lot's of Reese's Peanut Butter Cups! Pac-Man toys! ;D 16 TV channels! (Finland had two back then). We where guests of my late uncle who worked in Nokia and was appointed to oversees for a few years.

The oligarchy in the US "started" in the late 70's and wasn't that bad in early 80's and Reagan's "trickle down economics lie" presidency had only just started. I was of course too young to understand anything of this, in fact I have come to know and understand these thing only lately while following US politics because of Trump.

Quote from: ritter on January 12, 2020, 03:19:14 AM
Does he know what the living conditions in e.g., upstate New York, Florida, Indiana, you name it, are?  The "1000 families" quip appears to reflect complete ignorance of US demographics, I'm afraid...

Living conditions vary from state to state and between socioeconomic classes, much more than in other western countries. You can find any kind of places within the US. Alabama is very different from California for example. It doesn't matter what the living condition are on a certain place because this is not about the governor of New York for example but the president of the United States.

The three richest families in the US own as much wealth as the bottom half (165 million people) of Americans so the idea that the 1000 richest families someday own pretty much everything isn't crazy. It's where uncontrolled oligarchy leads. Trump's tax cuts certainly advanced this: Over 80 % of the benefits went to the top 1%.

From 1989 to 2018 the top 1 % increased its total net worth by $21 trillion. The bottom 50 % saw its net worth decrease by $900 billion over the same period in 2018 dollars.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 12, 2020, 11:03:40 AM
They are nice memories.

But if I had been to Finland when I was 11, i should not from that visit understand all that much about Suomi.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 12:00:43 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 12, 2020, 11:03:40 AM
They are nice memories.

But if I had been to Finland when I was 11, i should not from that visit understand all that much about Suomi.

As I said, my understanding of the US society and politics is not at all based on my visit in Florida at age 11, but following US politics online for three years now. So, my visit to US didn't help me understand the country, but since I was asked I answered. The point is we have this thing called the internet. I don't need to be physically in New York to know about AOC. A few articles and videos online is enough to tell me what kind of politician she is and based on what some people say about her prove I understand her policies much better than many Americans. Some people are just astonishly clueless about politics, everywhere in the World Finland included, but it is especially true in the US thanks to the oligarchy and how the media is bought by the top 1 % to keep people clueless. The internet has changed that and oligarchs don't have monopoly on media anymore. There is also TYT, Kyle Kulinski etc. to tell about things from different perspective. It's just the question of which channels people discover and follow. There's also alt-right channels, people like Alex Jones.

Surely there are aspects to US politics that I don't know well enough, but I don't speak about thing concerning those things. I write about the "no-brainer" things that are easy to understand even for foreigners. The oligarchy in the US has created cruelty that is appalling to many here in the Europe and for example the need to move to a single payer healthcare system is a no-brainer. The US is the richest country in the World, but still half of the people make $30.000 a year or less? People working full time, even multiple jobs can't make the ends meet? Wow. That is pathetic. Clearly the US is doing something very wrong and is far from it's full potential as a society. The US should be the greatest country in the World. Instead Nordic countries kick it's ass in almost every aspect except for obesity, amount of people in prisons and size/power of military. In those things the US truly is number one. Congratulations! Meanwhile even in Slovenia, a country with 40 % of the GDP per capita of the US, people have tuition free education and healthcare. In the US the corporate media keeps asking "how are you going to pay for it?" Easy: Make the rich pay their fair share of taxes and use them on socially beneficial things instead of enriching the military industry. It is a choice. What are your priorities? Do you want to enrich the military industry? Do you want more wars? Do you want to make the middle east even more unstable? Do you want ISIS to regain it's power? If you say 'yes' then someone like Biden is your candidate. If you say 'no' then Bernie is your man. It's that easy. The US politics is so easy because everything is so extreme.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 12:15:17 PM
Former Obama campaign manager Derek Eadon endorses Bernie Sanders for president.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 12, 2020, 12:27:13 PM
How to dump Trump: Rick Wilson on Running Against the Devil
He was a Republican ad man but now he's a bestselling author out to bring down a president. He says Democrats must listen (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/11/donald-trump-rick-wilson-running-against-the-devil)

[...]

"Take Bernie Sanders. Wilson doesn't just say he thinks the democratic socialist from Vermont would be the opponent of Trump's dreams, "the easiest person in the world to turn into the comic opera villain Republicans love to hate, the Castro sympathiser, the socialist, the Marxist, the guy who wants to put the aristos in the tumbril as they cart them off to the guillotine".

He also hits Sanders for echoing Trump in harking back to an America that never was – "only with more unions" – and pillories him for his reaction to defeat in 2016. In Wilson's view, Sanders damaged Clinton at the polls and then, after she "beat him fair and square, he took his ball and went home", failing to support her in November. Wilson contrasts that starkly with Republican support for Trump.

The president has the "awesome" advantage of incumbency and money but also "a completely unified party apparatus. There's no sniping in the background; there's no Bernie out there after the nomination is done, like in the old days with George HW Bush and Pat Buchanan."

It's provocative to compare Sanders the socialist to the paleo-conservative proto-Trump who played spoiler in 92. But there's always the happy distraction of listening to Wilson turn his guns on Trump.

Running Against the Devil is pugnacious and profane. Before a break so Wilson can take a call from a "tech billionaire" he's sadly reluctant to name, he calls the president "a liar and a corrupt asshole and a scumbag". He marvels at Trump's graft, at the way a billionaire who claimed to be un-buyable turned out to be so cheap. He does seem to think Trump is the devil. But then, the devil gets the best lines and "plenty of smart, evil guys" are working on his re-election push.

If Obama campaigns as only he can do in American political life, that would be a meaningful lift for the Democrats
Asked which Democrat is best suited for the fight, Wilson admits to being impressed by Warren's willingness to work hard and how she champions the little guy. But he still goes for Joe Biden.

"I think it will be Biden because name ID is very powerful," he says of the former senator and vice-president. "He is the one candidate who has shown the most ability to contrast with Trump in terms of a broader, bigger picture that isn't just locked into what's the hot flavor of Democratic messaging this year.

"He's talking about that big American sense of unity and reconciliation and saying we've got to work with Republicans too."

It's true you don't get much policy detail at a Biden rally, but you do see plenty of slightly hokey appeals to the better angels of America's nature.

"There's nothing in Joe Biden that scans as evil or dark or weird or out of touch," Wilson says. "He can be a little goofy but that's not bad, not the worst thing in the world right now."

[...]
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 12, 2020, 12:31:27 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 12:00:43 PM
As I said, my understanding of the US society and politics is not at all based on my visit in Florida at age 11, but following US politics online for three years now. So, my visit to US didn't help me understand the country, but since I was asked I answered. The point is we have this thing called the internet. I don't need to be physically in New York to know about AOC. A few articles and videos online is enough to tell me what kind of politician she is and based on what some people say about her prove I understand her policies much better than many Americans. Some people are just astonishly clueless about politics, everywhere in the World Finland included, but it is especially true in the US thanks to the oligarchy and how the media is bought by the top 1 % to keep people clueless. The internet has changed that and oligarchs don't have monopoly on media anymore. There is also TYT, Kyle Kulinski etc. to tell about things from different perspective. It's just the question of which channels people discover and follow. There's also alt-right channels, people like Alex Jones.

Surely there are aspects to US politics that I don't know well enough, but I don't speak about thing concerning those things. I write about the "no-brainer" things that are easy to understand even for foreigners. The oligarchy in the US has created cruelty that is appalling to many here in the Europe and for example the need to move to a single payer healthcare system is a no-brainer. The US is the richest country in the World, but still half of the people make $30.000 a year or less? People working full time, even multiple jobs can't make the ends meet? Wow. That is pathetic. Clearly the US is doing something very wrong and is far from it's full potential as a society. The US should be the greatest country in the World. Instead Nordic countries kick it's ass in almost every aspect except for obesity, amount of people in prisons and size/power of military. In those things the US truly is number one. Congratulations! Meanwhile even in Slovenia, a country with 40 % of the GDP per capita of the US, people have tuition free education and healthcare. In the US the corporate media keeps asking "how are you going to pay for it?" Easy: Make the rich pay their fair share of taxes and use them on socially beneficial things instead of enriching the military industry. It is a choice. What are your priorities? Do you want to enrich the military industry? Do you want more wars? Do you want to make the middle east even more unstable? Do you want ISIS to regain it's power? If you say 'yes' then someone like Biden is your candidate. If you say 'no' then Bernie is your man. It's that easy. The US politics is so easy because everything is so extreme.

Even by your standards this post was astonishingly rude and astonishingly arrogant.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on January 12, 2020, 12:33:30 PM
Quote from: ritter on January 12, 2020, 06:46:17 AM
Nice memories!  :)

The child is father of the man.  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 01:34:47 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 12, 2020, 12:31:27 PM
Even by your standards this post was astonishingly rude and astonishingly arrogant.

Maybe it looks that way to you, but I consider it honest and truthful.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 01:52:35 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 12, 2020, 12:27:13 PM
How to dump Trump: Rick Wilson on Running Against the Devil
He was a Republican ad man but now he's a bestselling author out to bring down a president. He says Democrats must listen (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/11/donald-trump-rick-wilson-running-against-the-devil)

[...]

"Take Bernie Sanders. Wilson doesn't just say he thinks the democratic socialist from Vermont would be the opponent of Trump's dreams, "the easiest person in the world to turn into the comic opera villain Republicans love to hate, the Castro sympathiser, the socialist, the Marxist, the guy who wants to put the aristos in the tumbril as they cart them off to the guillotine".

He also hits Sanders for echoing Trump in harking back to an America that never was – "only with more unions" – and pillories him for his reaction to defeat in 2016. In Wilson's view, Sanders damaged Clinton at the polls and then, after she "beat him fair and square, he took his ball and went home", failing to support her in November. Wilson contrasts that starkly with Republican support for Trump.

The president has the "awesome" advantage of incumbency and money but also "a completely unified party apparatus. There's no sniping in the background; there's no Bernie out there after the nomination is done, like in the old days with George HW Bush and Pat Buchanan."

It's provocative to compare Sanders the socialist to the paleo-conservative proto-Trump who played spoiler in 92. But there's always the happy distraction of listening to Wilson turn his guns on Trump.

Running Against the Devil is pugnacious and profane. Before a break so Wilson can take a call from a "tech billionaire" he's sadly reluctant to name, he calls the president "a liar and a corrupt asshole and a scumbag". He marvels at Trump's graft, at the way a billionaire who claimed to be un-buyable turned out to be so cheap. He does seem to think Trump is the devil. But then, the devil gets the best lines and "plenty of smart, evil guys" are working on his re-election push.

If Obama campaigns as only he can do in American political life, that would be a meaningful lift for the Democrats
Asked which Democrat is best suited for the fight, Wilson admits to being impressed by Warren's willingness to work hard and how she champions the little guy. But he still goes for Joe Biden.

"I think it will be Biden because name ID is very powerful," he says of the former senator and vice-president. "He is the one candidate who has shown the most ability to contrast with Trump in terms of a broader, bigger picture that isn't just locked into what's the hot flavor of Democratic messaging this year.

"He's talking about that big American sense of unity and reconciliation and saying we've got to work with Republicans too."

It's true you don't get much policy detail at a Biden rally, but you do see plenty of slightly hokey appeals to the better angels of America's nature.

"There's nothing in Joe Biden that scans as evil or dark or weird or out of touch," Wilson says. "He can be a little goofy but that's not bad, not the worst thing in the world right now."

[...]

Rick Wilson is no trying to help regular people here. He is serving the top 1 %. This a common trick in politics. A Republican advicing Dems? That makes him look sincere. He is not. He know Bernie can win and he tries to stop Bernie to serve the top 1 %. Pretty much everything he says is incorrect, corporate mumbo jumbo. I feel bad for you if you don't see that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

CNN really wants you to know there is no clear leader in Iowa, but they forgot to mention Biden is STRONG fourth!  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 12, 2020, 02:49:39 PM
Obama campaign guru: Trump would love to run against Bernie (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/11/bernie-sanders-trump-jim-messina-097578)

"Barack Obama's 2012 campaign manager is warning that Democrats would struggle in a general election against Donald Trump if Bernie Sanders is the nominee.

In an interview with POLITICO, Jim Messina predicted that Trump would exploit Sanders' stamp of socialism in battleground states needed to defeat Trump, keep control of the House and have a shot at winning the Senate.

"If I were a campaign manager for Donald Trump and I look at the field, I would very much want to run against Bernie Sanders," Messina said. "I think the contrast is the best. He can say, 'I'm a business guy, the economy's good and this guy's a socialist.' I think that contrast for Trump is likely one that he'd be excited about in a way that he wouldn't be as excited about Biden or potentially Mayor Pete or some of the more Midwestern moderate candidates."

This is not the first time Messina has questioned Sanders' viability as a general election candidate. His latest remarks come amid Sanders' first-place showing in the marquee Iowa Poll and as the Vermont senator's messaging has increasingly focused on his electability.

Messina said he is not endorsing in the 2020 race. He recently attended a fundraiser for Biden in Irvine, Calif., he said, because his wife is a supporter of the former vice president.

"From a general election perspective, socialism is not going to be what Democrats are going to want to defend," Messina added."If you're the Democratic nominee for the Montana Senate race, you don't want to spend the election talking about socialism."[...]
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 03:27:24 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 12, 2020, 02:49:39 PM
Obama campaign guru: Trump would love to run against Bernie (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/11/bernie-sanders-trump-jim-messina-097578)

"Barack Obama's 2012 campaign manager is warning that Democrats would struggle in a general election against Donald Trump if Bernie Sanders is the nominee.

In an interview with POLITICO, Jim Messina predicted that Trump would exploit Sanders' stamp of socialism in battleground states needed to defeat Trump, keep control of the House and have a shot at winning the Senate.

"If I were a campaign manager for Donald Trump and I look at the field, I would very much want to run against Bernie Sanders," Messina said. "I think the contrast is the best. He can say, 'I'm a business guy, the economy's good and this guy's a socialist.' I think that contrast for Trump is likely one that he'd be excited about in a way that he wouldn't be as excited about Biden or potentially Mayor Pete or some of the more Midwestern moderate candidates."

This is not the first time Messina has questioned Sanders' viability as a general election candidate. His latest remarks come amid Sanders' first-place showing in the marquee Iowa Poll and as the Vermont senator's messaging has increasingly focused on his electability.

Messina said he is not endorsing in the 2020 race. He recently attended a fundraiser for Biden in Irvine, Calif., he said, because his wife is a supporter of the former vice president.

"From a general election perspective, socialism is not going to be what Democrats are going to want to defend," Messina added."If you're the Democratic nominee for the Montana Senate race, you don't want to spend the election talking about socialism."[...]

The elite doesn't want Bernie! That's why they write this nonsense! They try to scare people from supporting Bernie and vote a corporate candidate instead. Bernie is the most electable and this nonsense doesn't change it. Young voters aren't scared of "socialism" and Bernie isn't even one since he is a social democrat who advocates Nordic style well regulated capitalism. Bernie isn't any more socialist as Denmark is! If it takes socialism to have healthcare then socialism it will be say young voters, but it doesn't need to be! This is so insane, so frustrating!!
'
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 12, 2020, 04:03:43 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 04:11:06 AM
Well, $6500 is pretty hard to pay for most people if you ask me (about half of Americans make $30.000 a year of less). I said $500 is doable. That doesn't mean 13 times more is doable. Also, the insurance doesn't always cover everything above. If the bill is $100.000, your insurence provider might arque the care you got is actully only worth $55.000 and refuses to pay more than that. Sometimes you may be able to negotiate with the hospital to reduce the bill (say from $100.000 to "only" $80.000) so $25.000 falls on to you to pay. That's doable only for people doing very well. For most it is the net income of one year. You probably have your insurance from your employer and your healthcare is in good order seen from American perspective. In other countries with universal single payer healthcare this is abyssmal. We don't have shit like this. For example the yearly maximum for drugs in Finland this year is 577.66 euros (about $600) after which you pay 2.50 euros for any drug product. Even this makes some people feel this is too much for poor people (and it is), but far from the horrors people experience in the US.

You seem to have no comprehension of what I wrote in the post you replied to, because what you wrote assumes the exact opposite of what actually happens.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 12, 2020, 04:10:10 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 01:52:35 PM
Rick Wilson is no trying to help regular people here. He is serving the top 1 %. This a common trick in politics. A Republican advicing Dems? That makes him look sincere. He is not. He know Bernie can win and he tries to stop Bernie to serve the top 1 %. Pretty much everything he says is incorrect, corporate mumbo jumbo. I feel bad for you if you don't see that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

CNN really wants you to know there is no clear leader in Iowa, but they forgot to mention Biden is STRONG fourth!  ;D

Margin of error is 3.7%. That means all four are statistically in a dead heat, and the CNN headline is the exact truth. You do know about "margin of error"?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 12, 2020, 04:16:36 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 03:27:24 PM
The elite doesn't want Bernie! That's why they write this nonsense! They try to scare people from supporting Bernie and vote a corporate candidate instead. Bernie is the most electable and this nonsense doesn't change it. Young voters aren't scared of "socialism" and Bernie isn't even one since he is a social democrat who advocates Nordic style well regulated capitalism. Bernie isn't any more socialist as Denmark is! If it takes socialism to have healthcare then socialism it will be say young voters, but it doesn't need to be! This is so insane, so frustrating!!


Progressives want complete government control of health care (MfA), energy and a host of other industries (Green New Deal),  housing and real estate (fair housing plans), etc. Perhaps in Scandinavia that does not qualify as socialism, but here in the US  it does.

Of course, if your concern is about corrupt politicians and their elite cronies, you should be against almost all of these ideas, since they all mean expanding the power and influence of those same politicians you despise.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 04:31:33 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 12, 2020, 04:10:10 PM
Margin of error is 3.7%. That means all four are statistically in a dead heat, and the CNN headline is the exact truth. You do know about "margin of error"?

Yes, but isn't it funny the large yellow bar with large "NO CLEAR LEADER" appears to CNN polls the second Bernie has the highest poll number?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 12, 2020, 04:33:37 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 03:27:24 PM
The elite doesn't want Bernie! That's why they write this nonsense! They try to scare people from supporting Bernie and vote a corporate candidate instead. Bernie is the most electable and this nonsense doesn't change it. Young voters aren't scared of "socialism" and Bernie isn't even one since he is a social democrat who advocates Nordic style well regulated capitalism. Bernie isn't any more socialist as Denmark is! If it takes socialism to have healthcare then socialism it will be say young voters, but it doesn't need to be! This is so insane, so frustrating!!
'

No...the reason they write this is because the Trump election campaign wont be a civilized debate over differing policies, it will be gutter-level scaremongering and swiftboating and smearing. They will have the playbook written out already for each potential candidate, and you're being willfully blind if you cant see that they'll relentlessly spin Sanders as Karl Marx Jr. or something. The electability of a candidate will have much to do with how easy it is to create these fabricated narratives, and how easily a candidate can dismiss them without doubt being sown.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 04:42:19 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 12, 2020, 04:16:36 PM
Progressives want complete government control of health care (MfA), energy and a host of other industries (Green New Deal),  housing and real estate (fair housing plans), etc. Perhaps in Scandinavia that does not qualify as socialism, but here in the US  it does.

In that case the US has socialistic fire department. Maybe you want private fire department? You would have choice what to include to their service: If your kitchen is in fire they come and put it out, but if your garage catches fire let it burn... The healthcare providers can be all private as they are in France or Canada, but the government is the SINGLE PAYER. Why? Because it works better that way! A lot of Americans get that despite of corporate media and THAT'S WHY Bernie is high in the POLLS!!! All that while corporate media HATES him. Doesn't that tell you something? How FUCKING DUMB are you? How fucking well are you brainwashed? JESUS!!!!!!!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 04:44:32 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 12, 2020, 04:03:43 PM
You seem to have no comprehension of what I wrote in the post you replied to, because what you wrote assumes the exact opposite of what actually happens.

Exact opposite in what way?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 12, 2020, 04:47:10 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 12, 2020, 04:33:37 PM
No...the reason they write this is because the Trump election campaign wont be a civilized debate over differing policies, it will be gutter-level scaremongering and swiftboating and smearing. They will have the playbook written out already for each potential candidate, and you're being willfully blind if you cant see that they'll relentlessly spin Sanders as Karl Marx Jr. or something. The electability of a candidate will have much to do with how easy it is to create these fabricated narratives, and how easily a candidate can dismiss them without doubt being sown.

There's one other thing.  Democrats need GOP voters to not vote for Trump. (That's not the same as getting them to vote for the eventual Democratic nominee.) The less progressive a candidate is, the  more GOP voters will feel inclined to sit on their hands and not vote for Trump.

American politics is often based on getting people to vote against the other party's candidate.  The more progressive the candidate, the more likely people will vote against him or her.  Fewer people will vote against Biden than will vote against Bernie.  Therefore Biden is more electable than Bernie.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 04:47:44 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 12, 2020, 04:33:37 PM
No...the reason they write this is because the Trump election campaign wont be a civilized debate over differing policies, it will be gutter-level scaremongering and swiftboating and smearing. They will have the playbook written out already for each potential candidate, and you're being willfully blind if you cant see that they'll relentlessly spin Sanders as Karl Marx Jr. or something. The electability of a candidate will have much to do with how easy it is to create these fabricated narratives, and how easily a candidate can dismiss them without doubt being sown.

Of course they do, but Bernie can deal with that because his progressive ideas resonate with the people. They called Obama a socialist. Didn't stop Obama winning.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 04:51:57 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 12, 2020, 04:47:10 PM
There's one other thing.  Democrats need GOP voters to not vote for Trump. (That's not the same as getting them to vote for the eventual Democratic nominee.) The less progressive a candidate is, the  more GOP voters will feel inclined to sit on their hands and not vote for Trump.

American politics is often based on getting people to vote against the other party's candidate.  The more progressive the candidate, the more likely people will vote against him or her.  Fewer people will vote against Biden than will vote against Bernie.  Therefore Biden is more electable than Bernie.

No! NO NO!! The data (polls) say Bernie and Biden are equally electable, but those polls overestimate Biden's electability. That's because Biden's support is "default" support by (older) people who don't follow politics and think Obama years where cool so why not Biden? Bernie's support is ROCK SOLID! It's a movement! Most individual donations! In the RUST BELT Bernie rules!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 12, 2020, 04:52:49 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 04:42:19 PM
In that case the US has socialistic fire department. Maybe you want private fire department? You would have choice what to include to their service: If your kitchen is in fire they come and put it out, but if your garage catches fire let it burn... The healthcare providers can be all private as they are in France or Canada, but the government is the SINGLE PAYER. Why? Because it works better that way! A lot of Americans get that despite of corporate media and THAT'S WHY Bernie is high in the POLLS!!! All that while corporate media HATES him. Doesn't that tell you something? How FUCKING DUMB are you? How fucking well are you brainwashed? JESUS!!!!!!!

Single payer means the government controls that part of the economy, because only what the government pays for will get done.   He who has the money makes the rules, etc.
In the case of fire departments, that's a good thing. In the case of health care that may not be such a good thing.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 12, 2020, 04:54:20 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 04:47:44 PM
Of course they do, but Bernie can deal with that because his progressive ideas resonate with the people. They called Obama a socialist. Didn't stop Obama winning.

Obama made the charge seem preposterous. And he came across as calm and reasonable.


Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 04:55:07 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 12, 2020, 04:52:49 PM
Single payer means the government controls that part of the economy, because only what the government pays for will get done.   He who has the money makes the rules, etc.
In the case of fire departments, that's a good thing. In the case of health care that may not be such a good thing.

So WHY is single payer BETTER than US system EVERYWHERE???? LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE!! How the fuck are you going to give healthcare to everyone without single payer??
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 04:57:18 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 12, 2020, 04:54:20 PM
Obama made the charge seem preposterous. And he came across as calm and reasonable.

Obama had charisma. So has Bernie. Different kind of charisma, but charisma nevertheless.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 12, 2020, 05:00:21 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 04:47:44 PM
Of course they do, but Bernie can deal with that because his progressive ideas resonate with the people. They called Obama a socialist. Didn't stop Obama winning.

Obama won because of two things

First, he ran as a corporate centrist, not as a progressive.  Remember that he supported the bailout of Wall Street.  In office he was more progressive, but his campaign presented him as a thorough centrist. He didn't offer progressive ideas, so he won no votes that way.

Second, blacks turned out to vote for him in record numbers simply out of pride in the fact that a black man was a major party nominee. And not a few whites voted for him for a similar reason.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 12, 2020, 05:08:46 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 04:55:07 PM
So WHY is single payer BETTER than US system EVERYWHERE???? LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE!! How the fuck are you going to give healthcare to everyone without single payer??

We Americans have evidence.
Medicare for seniors is single payer, a bureaucratic mess that consistently produces mediocre outcomes, limits patient choices, and underpays everyone.
Medicaid (for the poor) is single payer, and  has the same problems as Medicare, and often to a more severe degree.
Veterans Administration (for military veterans) is single provider and is such a mess that it's a wonder anyone uses it unless they have to.

So the evidence the American voter has supports the idea single payer is not better than what they have now, and probably worse.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 05:23:32 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 12, 2020, 05:00:21 PM
Obama won because of two things

First, he ran as a corporate centrist, not as a progressive.  Remember that he supported the bailout of Wall Street.  In office he was more progressive, but his campaign presented him as a thorough centrist. He didn't offer progressive ideas, so he won no votes that way.

Second, blacks turned out to vote for him in record numbers simply out of pride in the fact that a black man was a major party nominee. And not a few whites voted for him for a similar reason.

Obama governed more centrist than he ran and a lot of people were disappointed he wasn't as progressive as he campaigned. Here's Obama and Bernie in 2006

https://www.youtube.com/v/DkYL0qv4RR4

Bernie has strong support among blacks


I need to take a break now from this! I go insane!!!!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 05:28:59 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 12, 2020, 05:08:46 PM
We Americans have evidence.
Medicare for seniors is single payer, a bureaucratic mess that consistently produces mediocre outcomes, limits patient choices, and underpays everyone.
Medicaid (for the poor) is single payer, and  has the same problems as Medicare, and often to a more severe degree.
Veterans Administration (for military veterans) is single provider and is such a mess that it's a wonder anyone uses it unless they have to.

So the evidence the American voter has supports the idea single payer is not better than what they have now, and probably worse.

Maybe the corrupt politicians don't want it succeed? Just like public schools. If you underfund them they fail and you can say private schools are better.

Bernie's medicare for all would have proper funding. It's not medicare. It's better.
Do you really think Bernie who has fought for decades to make the life of Americans better would propose worse healthcare? Why the fuck would he do that? Of course he wants to give Americans as good healthcare as possible and you can believe him because he doesn't take insurance company money.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 12, 2020, 06:57:41 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 12, 2020, 05:28:59 PM
Maybe the corrupt politicians don't want it succeed? Just like public schools. If you underfund them they fail and you can say private schools are better.

Bernie's medicare for all would have proper funding. It's not medicare. It's better.
Do you really think Bernie who has fought for decades to make the life of Americans better would propose worse healthcare? Why the fuck would he do that? Of course he wants to give Americans as good healthcare as possible and you can believe him because he doesn't take insurance company money.

So the politicians who underfund Medicare now will fully fund Berniecare? Do you actually believe that? Your naivete is touching....

Bernie may think MfA is better. But lots of us think he's wrong.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 13, 2020, 02:16:33 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 12, 2020, 06:57:41 PM
So the politicians who underfund Medicare now will fully fund Berniecare? Do you actually believe that? Your naivete is touching....

Bernie may think MfA is better. But lots of us think he's wrong.

Medicare is for old people. Old people are sick and need a lot of healthcare services. Young people need less. Expanding Medicare to all population expands the risk pool and it becomes easier to fund. In the revolution those underfunfing politicians are kicked out. They can't buy elections. That's what they fear. That's why Bernie is hated by the elite. In democracy the people choose the president, not the elite.

The US society will never be better if people think the way you think.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 13, 2020, 07:44:04 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 13, 2020, 02:16:33 AM
Medicare is for old people. Old people are sick and need a lot of healthcare services. Young people need less. Expanding Medicare to all population expands the risk pool and it becomes easier to fund. In the revolution those underfunfing politicians are kicked out. They can't buy elections. That's what they fear. That's why Bernie is hated by the elite. In democracy the people choose the president, not the elite.

The US society will never be better if people think the way you think.

Your understanding of how Medicare is funded is as limited as your understanding of US politics in general.

The underfunding politicians won't be kicked out.   If Mitch McConnell is voted out of his Senate seat by the people of Kentucky (unlikely in anything approaching the near or medium term) he won't be replace by a Bernie supporter.  He'll be replaced by either another Republican or a Democrat who is similar to Joe Manchin, both of whom will vote to underfund Medicare (in whatever form it has after 2020) because, contrary to Drogulus and his theory, money is not infinite, and even if we don't fund more wars, there's other things that need attention.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on January 13, 2020, 09:14:38 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 13, 2020, 07:44:04 AM
Your understanding of how Medicare is funded is as limited as your understanding of US politics in general.

The underfunding politicians won't be kicked out.   If Mitch McConnell is voted out of his Senate seat by the people of Kentucky (unlikely in anything approaching the near or medium term) he won't be replace by a Bernie supporter.  He'll be replaced by either another Republican or a Democrat who is similar to Joe Manchin, both of whom will vote to underfund Medicare (in whatever form it has after 2020) because, contrary to Drogulus and his theory, money is not infinite, and even if we don't fund more wars, there's other things that need attention.

     I don't know what infinite money means. There's no limit on how many are used as long as there are resources that can be deployed by using them. That's where dollars come from, that how we got as many as we have. What theory says some day we won't be able to do that any more because dollars are not infinite? How will we find out we passed the limit, will the dollars not work?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 13, 2020, 09:29:07 AM
BBC:

Cory Booker out of race for Democratic nomination (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51098342)

"The African-American New Jersey senator had failed to qualify for the Democratic debate on Tuesday in Iowa.

The former rising star's message of unity at a time of deeply divided politics failed to win over voters in the crowded 2020 field.

There are now 12 Democrats remaining in the race for the White House.

"Today I'm suspending my campaign for president with the same spirit with which it began," Mr Booker said in a video announcing the end of his campaign.

In an email to supporters he said: "I'm proud of the ideas we brought to this Democratic primary and, more importantly, the values we championed throughout - that the only way we make progress is by bringing people together - even when we were told that our approach couldn't win."[...]


Wonkette:

Marianne Williamson Levitates Out Of Presidential Race (https://www.wonkette.com/marianne-williamson-successfully-phones-home-returns-to-native-planet)

"Marianne Williamson's presidential campaign has ended its presence on our physical plane. This is devastating news for supporters of the "Orb Queen," who thought it was a great idea to replace an incompetent, anti-science president with another incompetent, anti-science president ... but with crystals!

Williamson announced last week that she was firing her campaign staff and would rely on unpaid Oompa Loompas to continue her long-shot bid for the White House. But you can't align the nation's chakras with negative cash flow. So, Williamson finally called it quits Friday."[...]
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 13, 2020, 10:30:15 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 13, 2020, 07:44:04 AM
Your understanding of how Medicare is funded is as limited as your understanding of US politics in general.

I admit I don't know the details of medicare, but I understand the US needs single payer healthcare no matter how medicare is funded. "Medicare for all" is just a term used to sell single payer to the public. Single payer or universal healthcare are alternative names.

Quote from: JBS on January 13, 2020, 07:44:04 AMThe underfunding politicians won't be kicked out.   If Mitch McConnell is voted out of his Senate seat by the people of Kentucky (unlikely in anything approaching the near or medium term) he won't be replace by a Bernie supporter.  He'll be replaced by either another Republican or a Democrat who is similar to Joe Manchin, both of whom will vote to underfund Medicare (in whatever form it has after 2020) because, contrary to Drogulus and his theory, money is not infinite, and even if we don't fund more wars, there's other things that need attention.

Money in politics means the more money you have, the better changes you have in elections. Bernie (and other progressives) want money out of politics and if that happens, the criteria to be elected is something different, such as how well your politicies resonate with the voters.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 13, 2020, 12:49:13 PM
Trump Tries To Attack Bernie Sanders, Bernie EVISCERATES HIM!

https://www.youtube.com/v/9zWipXDoHqM
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 13, 2020, 01:13:27 PM
Eviscerates? He gave a boringly predictable one line reply, in no way a zinger.

The bobble head in that video said "the person with the most likes and retweets is how you know who the winner is". Do you agree? Do you think this is good reporting rather than just some nonce fanboy with a laptop camera?

Pick up a book, already. I'm pretty sure bernieberniebernie even wrote one himself. You could start there.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 13, 2020, 01:57:08 PM
In line with what we've been trying to point out to Poju:

Swing voters on Trump: 'He drives me crazy but he'll get my vote' (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/13/swing-voters-donald-trump-crazy-but-will-get-my-vote-us-election-2020-iowa)


Nominate a "progressive," and they ain't going to swing back.

QuoteTrump knows he can count on his core supporters, the ones frequently seen on television screens in Maga hats during his rallies. They will excuse him of almost anything. But victory in counties like Howard – struggling midwestern farm territory with about 9,000 residents and 98% white – depends on a different set of voters. Among them are women like spa owner Holly Rasmussen, who backed Obama twice and then flipped to Trump because she wanted to "shake things up".

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 13, 2020, 02:19:14 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 13, 2020, 01:13:27 PM
Eviverayes? He gave a predictable one line reply in no way a zinger.

The bobble head in that video said "the person with the most likes and retweets is how you know who the winner is". Do you agree? Do you think this is good reporting rather than just some nonce fanboy with a laptop camera?

Pick up a book, already. I'm pretty sure bernieberniebernie even wrote one himself. You could start there.

Apparently you missed the whole point: Trump has NOTHING concrete against Bernie. All he can do is shout "Crazy Bernie!" and if he does that, Bernie will respond "If giving people healthcare and living wage is crazy then call me crazy!" and that's that.

The "bobble head" in that video has got 100 times better insight into US politics than you. His videos look amateurish as hell and the guy has somewhat funny look face, but what he says is pretty damn smart stuff for a young dude.

I choose myself which book I read and when. I wonder what kind of books you have been reading judging from your posts. Trump's The Art of the Deal?  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 13, 2020, 02:27:23 PM
No, like you the guy in that video has all the certainty that comes from hardly knowing a subject at all. If you knew a little more you'd know how little you know. I've read more than you have so I have, if nothing else, I have a sense of how very very little I know. (I think there's a graph out there somewhere to illustrate that point)

There's a thread for what people are reading, btw:

https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,68.9600.html
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 13, 2020, 02:28:11 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 13, 2020, 01:57:08 PM
In line with what we've been trying to point out to Poju:

Swing voters on Trump: 'He drives me crazy but he'll get my vote' (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/13/swing-voters-donald-trump-crazy-but-will-get-my-vote-us-election-2020-iowa)


Nominate a "progressive," and they ain't going to swing back.

Bernie is not after the votes of the too far gones. They will vote for Trump no matter what. He is after everybody else, 2/3 of the country. The democrats, independents and even some Trump voters who are not so convinced about Trump anymore. The strategy is to inspire young people to vote in masses. Have a high turnout. Hillary Clinton wasn't inspiring. Bernie Sanders is.

Your link looks like a hit piece against Bernie. How you don't see it is beyond my comprehension.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 13, 2020, 02:31:39 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 13, 2020, 02:27:23 PM
No, like you the guy in that video has all the certainty that comes from hardly knowing a subject at all. If you knew a little more you'd know how little you know. I've read more than you have so I have, if nothing else, I have a sense of how very very little I know. (I think there's a graph out there somewhere to illustrate that point)

There's a thread for what people are reading, btw:

https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,68.9600.html

How do you know YOUR certainty doesn't come from hardly knowing the subject at all? You are not even American. He is.

If you have read a book about Bill Clinton's triangulations, you should understand better where the US politics is now.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 13, 2020, 02:32:20 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 13, 2020, 02:28:11 PM

Your link looks like a hit piece against Bernie. How you don't see it is beyond my comprehension.

That's the second time you've called a Guardian article anti-Bernie in as many days. I can only assume you don't actually read them, just assume anything less than cheerleading is a "hit piece".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 13, 2020, 02:33:33 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 13, 2020, 02:31:39 PM
How do you know YOUR certainty doesn't come from hardly knowing the subject at all? You are not even American. He is.

I don't claim certainty.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 13, 2020, 02:36:31 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 13, 2020, 02:33:33 PM
I don't claim certainty.

You seem pretty certain I am wrong.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 13, 2020, 02:37:06 PM
The graph I was thinking of:

(https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/713038159744641134/6CDE07F64DD64CEADF559F41FFC8C5D67CF0E0DC/)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 13, 2020, 02:39:25 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 13, 2020, 02:32:20 PM
That's the second time you've called a Guardian article anti-Bernie in as many days. I can only assume you don't actually read them, just assume anything less than cheerleading is a "hit piece".

It is a positive surprise thing if it's not a hit piece, because about 95 % are, but then again why would Karl use it against my belief in Bernie is it wasn't negative?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 13, 2020, 02:40:38 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 13, 2020, 02:37:06 PM
The graph I was thinking of:

(https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/713038159744641134/6CDE07F64DD64CEADF559F41FFC8C5D67CF0E0DC/)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Yep. That's the one.  ;)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 13, 2020, 02:45:35 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 13, 2020, 02:36:31 PM
You seem pretty certain I am wrong.

We're not arguing about you being right or wrong. I'm trying to impress upon you that your range of input is cripplingly limited, to the point of toxicity even. I don't care if you support Sanders, in fact differing perspectives would be welcome, but you reasons are unpersuasive because they're based exclusively on such shallow material. You should be addressing criticisms as legitimate rather than dismissing them on sight with the same few buzzwords.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 13, 2020, 02:47:17 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 13, 2020, 02:40:38 PM
Yep. That's the one.  ;)

Okay...and where do you see yourself on that graph?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 13, 2020, 03:18:15 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 13, 2020, 02:28:11 PM
Bernie is not after the votes of the too far gones. They will vote for Trump no matter what. He is after everybody else, 2/3 of the country. The democrats, independents and even some Trump voters who are not so convinced about Trump anymore. The strategy is to inspire young people to vote in masses. Have a high turnout. Hillary Clinton wasn't inspiring. Bernie Sanders is.

Your link looks like a hit piece against Bernie. How you don't see it is beyond my comprehension.

You didn't bother reading the article. It's probably beyond your comprehension.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 13, 2020, 04:31:52 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 13, 2020, 03:18:15 PM
You didn't bother reading the article. It's probably beyond your comprehension.

I assumed it is hit piece because you used it against me. I read it fast because I am tired (3.30 am Finland time) not hit piece
does not rule Bernie out
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 13, 2020, 04:34:18 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 13, 2020, 02:47:17 PM
Okay...and where do you see yourself on that graph?
depends on the issue
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 13, 2020, 04:35:00 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 13, 2020, 02:45:35 PM
We're not arguing about you being right or wrong. I'm trying to impress upon you that your range of input is cripplingly limited, to the point of toxicity even. I don't care if you support Sanders, in fact differing perspectives would be welcome, but you reasons are unpersuasive because they're based exclusively on such shallow material. You should be addressing criticisms as legitimate rather than dismissing them on sight with the same few buzzwords.

so it's my attitude?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 13, 2020, 04:46:38 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 13, 2020, 04:35:00 PM
so it's my attitude?

Well, you seem to have two postulates
1) the people who share your political views, and only the people who share them, accurately present the facts.
2) progressive ideas are opposed only by people who are corrupt or deluded.

The combination of the two makes you reflexively reject any contrary information.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 13, 2020, 04:52:43 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 13, 2020, 04:35:00 PM
so it's my attitude?

Its the narrowness of the information that creates your attitude.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on January 14, 2020, 01:09:13 AM
Quote from: schnittkease on January 10, 2020, 07:02:54 AM
Madiel was right to abandon this thread. You are insufferable.

I just clicked on the thread to rapidly remove it from the list of unread things from the past 5-6 days, and I kid you not, this is the one and only post that registered on my retina.

As you were.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 14, 2020, 01:10:36 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 13, 2020, 04:46:38 PM
Well, you seem to have two postulates
1) the people who share your political views, and only the people who share them, accurately present the facts.
2) progressive ideas are opposed only by people who are corrupt or deluded.

The combination of the two makes you reflexively reject any contrary information.

I try to pay attention to these. It's very difficult when you defend your opinions, but I try.

1) Yes, I want to base my political views on facts.
2) In a society like the US progressive ideas benefit overwhelming majority of people. They "unrig" the rigged system. You have a "solid" reason to oppose progressive ideas if you are one benefitting from the rigged system. I'd say if your net worth is $50 million or more I can understand you opposing progressive ideas because wealth taxes etc. will hit you. Corporate media benefits from oligarchy and protect it fiercely.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 14, 2020, 01:38:00 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 13, 2020, 04:52:43 PM
Its the narrowness of the information that creates your attitude.

The information I get is not only left-wing. Kyle Kulinski or Ana Kasparian commenting on right-wing "information" gives me both sides. I know what Meghan McCain or Lou Dobbs say and I know what John Iadarola or David Pakman think about it. Also, nobody needs to know everything about everything to realize Bernie Sanders is a historical opportunity for the US. The man has fought for half a century to make the country better while having been on the right side of history on everything from gay rights to opposing wars. He has earned the presidency. How narrow is your own "book" information you can't see that? I guess none of the books you have read told you about the political momentum Bernie Sanders has: High in the polls, most small individual donations averaging $18, most dedicated supporters. All that despite the corporate media hating him. My information is narrow? Maybe, but at least I know what counts. I see what is happening.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 14, 2020, 04:22:18 AM
It's over. The other candidates can as well drop out. Danny DeVito is endorsing Bernie Sanders.  0:)

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on January 14, 2020, 05:55:30 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 13, 2020, 04:52:43 PM
Its the narrowness of the information that creates your attitude.
I was literally just listening to a discussion on the Rogan podcast about how this guy met a group of self-titled "freethinkers" and that they ended up being the most narrow-minded people in their ideals, to where they couldn't even tolerate each other, and it reminded me of this thread lol.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on January 14, 2020, 06:44:41 AM
Quote from: greg on January 14, 2020, 05:55:30 AM
I was literally just listening to a discussion on the Rogan podcast about how this guy met a group of self-titled "freethinkers" and that they ended up being the most narrow-minded people in their ideals, to where they couldn't even tolerate each other, and it reminded me of this thread lol.

I once read something that stayed in my mind ever since: Thinking freely is great. Thinking correctly is even greater.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 14, 2020, 07:08:10 AM
Quote from: Florestan on January 14, 2020, 06:44:41 AM
I once read something that stayed in my mind ever since: Thinking freely is great. Thinking correctly is even greater.

I get the gist, and it's a good thought, though there is perhaps a better way to put it. The reason I chime in, though, is that (no doubt) Poju is satisfied that he is the only one here who thinks both freely and correctly.


>:D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on January 14, 2020, 07:12:37 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 14, 2020, 07:08:10 AM
I get the gist, and it's a good thought, though there is perhaps a better way to put it.

How would you put it, Karl?I translated it from Romanian so it might not be proper English.

QuoteThe reason I chime in, though, is that (no doubt) Poju is satisfied that he is the only one here who thinks both freely and correctly.


>:D

;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 14, 2020, 07:50:44 AM
Quote from: Florestan on January 14, 2020, 07:12:37 AM
How would you put it, Karl?I translated it from Romanian so it might not be proper English.

;D

Oh, it's good English, the sense is solid, Andrei. There's a subtle shade we want that eludes me at present. I'll let it cook on a back burner a while.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on January 14, 2020, 07:54:46 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 14, 2020, 07:50:44 AM
Oh, it's good English, the sense is solid, Andrei. There's a subtle shade we want that eludes me at present. I'll let it cook on a back burner a while.

Okay, take your time. And thanks.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on January 14, 2020, 08:10:12 AM
Quote from: Florestan on January 14, 2020, 06:44:41 AM
I once read something that stayed in my mind ever since: Thinking freely is great. Thinking correctly is even greater.
Nice.  :)

It's so funny how much Poju is an example of someone who hasn't gone through much of the Jungian individuation process. Every time I think of that particular personality imbalance now, he is the first example to pop up.

For me, a caricature of my natural imbalance would be the character Megumin from the anime Kono Suba. She joins a team of adventurers but ends up being useless because of pursuing only one type of skill because she likes it- which is explosion magic that is only possible to perform once a day.

The solution, I've found, is to give yourself space and time for your own freedom. But you have to be able to do the opposite sometimes. For my weakness it would be being useful, a "team player" which is a term i despise but will do if i have to. His weakness is knowing how to be liked by others. His strength is freethinking. By nature, they are opposites and clash according to Jungian theory (and according to just reading the thread).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on January 14, 2020, 08:38:11 AM
I'll just finish that thought even though no one is interested.

Kono Suba is such a great example of how to be useless. The three teammates of the protagonist are like archetypal aspects of uselessness.

Aqua is just purely incompetent/bad decision maker.

Megumin is following her passion at the expense of her team.

Darkness is waaaay too into her team role (being a masochistic tank) to where she takes on more than she can handle, resulting in uselessness sometimes.

Ok, I'm done. That was 100% off topic.

*bows and leaves*
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 14, 2020, 08:48:56 AM
Quote from: greg on January 14, 2020, 08:10:12 AM
It's so funny how much Poju is an example of someone who hasn't gone through much of the Jungian individuation process. Every time I think of that particular personality imbalance now, he is the first example to pop up.

I have never heard of this process. I Googled it, but I didn't understand much about the explanation (because I have not studied psychology so all the terminology and concepts are unknown to me). Do people go through this process without even knowing it and why haven't I gone through much of it? Are you suggesting I have personality imbalance?  ???
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 14, 2020, 08:58:56 AM
Quote from: greg on January 14, 2020, 08:38:11 AM
I'll just finish that thought even though no one is interested.

Kono Suba is such a great example of how to be useless. The three teammates of the protagonist are like archetypal aspects of uselessness.

Aqua is just purely incompetent/bad decision maker.

Megumin is following her passion at the expense of her team.

Darkness is waaaay too into her team role (being a masochistic tank) to where she takes on more than she can handle, resulting in uselessness sometimes.

Ok, I'm done. That was 100% off topic.

*bows and leaves*

But, of greater interest than many a post on this thread....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on January 14, 2020, 09:34:34 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 14, 2020, 08:58:56 AM
But, of greater interest than many a post on this thread....
Wow, didn't expect that  :. Lol.

I was literally about to say that way #4 to be useless is to just post about anime archetypes on a political discussion thread. 😁




Quote from: 71 dB on January 14, 2020, 08:48:56 AM
I have never heard of this process. I Googled it, but I didn't understand much about the explanation (because I have not studied psychology so all the terminology and concepts are unknown to me). Do people go through this process without even knowing it and why haven't I gone through much of it? Are you suggesting I have personality imbalance?  ???
Look up Ti and Fe. Ti is introverted thinking and Fe is extroverted feeling. You are going pretty extreme in Ti, which by nature will mean neglecting the Fe.

The idea behind Jungian individuation is that usually as people get older they learn to adjust more with their opposite sides. I think he considered the "shadow" as the opposite side? But i might be mistaken about that.

Cognitive function theory is the whole concept. It almost seems like gibberish until you encounter people who embody the extremes that it talks about.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 14, 2020, 10:06:22 AM
Quote from: greg on January 14, 2020, 09:34:34 AM
Look up Ti and Fe. Ti is introverted thinking and Fe is extroverted feeling. You are going pretty extreme in Ti, which by nature will mean neglecting the Fe.

The idea behind Jungian individuation is that usually as people get older they learn to adjust more with their opposite sides. I think he considered the "shadow" as the opposite side? But i might be mistaken about that.

Cognitive function theory is the whole concept. It almost seems like gibberish until you encounter people who embody the extremes that it talks about.

Thanks for this explanation.  ;) I am indeed introvert. Finns are rather introvert and I am introvert even for a Finn.  ;D

For me communication is about changing information, opinions and ideas. About 10 years ago while finding out I seem to have asperger I learned that extrovert people use communication to make other people feel better. Knowing this of course doesn't magically give me the skills to do that, be extrovert. I can perhaps be a fake extrovert if I try, but not a genuine extrovert.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 14, 2020, 10:21:58 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 14, 2020, 01:10:36 AM
I try to pay attention to these. It's very difficult when you defend your opinions, but I try.

1) Yes, I want to base my political views on facts.
2) In a society like the US progressive ideas benefit overwhelming majority of people. They "unrig" the rigged system. You have a "solid" reason to oppose progressive ideas if you are one benefitting from the rigged system. I'd say if your net worth is $50 million or more I can understand you opposing progressive ideas because wealth taxes etc. will hit you. Corporate media benefits from oligarchy and protect it fiercely.

If you actually based your views on facts, you would understand that progressive ideas would not benefit the overwhelming majority of people.  The most salient example being Medicare for All, which would benefit only the 15% of Americans who have no insurance now.  The other 85% would have insurance that is (at best) no better than what they have now, and quite probably worse.    So that's a progressive idea that does the reverse of benefiting the overwhelming majority.   They would also increase the hold that Big Pharma and Big MedTech have on the health care system.  Insurance companies would lose in the short term, but only in the short term, since they will be able to offer insurance packages that make up for the deficiencies of MfA (just as they do now with Medigap plans that supplement Medicare).  So MfA also fails at unrigging the system.

And onward through the progressive agenda.  Always remember that the bigger and larger a government program is, the bigger and more frequent the opportunities for corruption to flourish among bureaucrats and politicians.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 14, 2020, 10:26:20 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 14, 2020, 01:38:00 AM
The information I get is not only left-wing. Kyle Kulinski or Ana Kasparian commenting on right-wing "information" gives me both sides. I know what Meghan McCain or Lou Dobbs say and I know what John Iadarola or David Pakman think about it. Also, nobody needs to know everything about everything to realize Bernie Sanders is a historical opportunity for the US. The man has fought for half a century to make the country better while having been on the right side of history on everything from gay rights to opposing wars. He has earned the presidency. How narrow is your own "book" information you can't see that? I guess none of the books you have read told you about the political momentum Bernie Sanders has: High in the polls, most small individual donations averaging $18, most dedicated supporters. All that despite the corporate media hating him. My information is narrow? Maybe, but at least I know what counts. I see what is happening.

If you filter what information you get through the Young Turks, and don't go directly to the original sources,  you're getting a highly selective and biased account.  It's like getting all your information about Ayn Rand through articles in the Watchtower (Jehovah's Witnesses)...or vice versa.

BTW, Bernie has been on the "wrong side of history" just as often as he's been on the right side.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 15, 2020, 07:38:38 PM
This came across my transom, a superficial guide to which Democratic candidate you agree with more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/quiz-which-candidate-agrees-with-me/
My results, which in several questions came down to deciding "which is the least leftist`.

Bloomberg 15
Biden 13
Klobuchar 11
Yang 10
Steyer 10
Buttigieg 9
Gabbard 6
Sanders 4
Warren 4
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on January 15, 2020, 09:36:49 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 14, 2020, 10:06:22 AM
Thanks for this explanation.  ;) I am indeed introvert. Finns are rather introvert and I am introvert even for a Finn.  ;D

For me communication is about changing information, opinions and ideas. About 10 years ago while finding out I seem to have asperger I learned that extrovert people use communication to make other people feel better. Knowing this of course doesn't magically give me the skills to do that, be extrovert. I can perhaps be a fake extrovert if I try, but not a genuine extrovert.
Yep, learning about that much later than others is definitely what can happen with that particular function (Fe) being very weak.

I would say it's one of my weakest functions as well, though not the weakest. An example might be one time when I was young and didn't even think about offering the babysitter food and water lol. Just stayed in my room. It's more of a conscious effort to think of what others are wanting, though not too hard- certainly not as hard as it may be for you.

Also, the idea of faking being extrovert is something I gave up a long time ago. Just communicating what is necessary and throwing in questions here and there to ask the other person is just a good idea, even if the info doesn't immediately have much value. Small amounts of effort has been the sweet spot. Do it too much and you will wear yourself out.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 16, 2020, 04:24:04 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 14, 2020, 10:21:58 AM
If you actually based your views on facts, you would understand that progressive ideas would not benefit the overwhelming majority of people.

So progress doesn't benefit the majority? Does that mean we'd better return to the stone age?

Quote from: JBS on January 14, 2020, 10:21:58 AMThe most salient example being Medicare for All, which would benefit only the 15% of Americans who have no insurance now.  The other 85% would have insurance that is (at best) no better than what they have now, and quite probably worse.

I am just a stupid Finn living in a country with single payer healthcare so obviuosly I know nothing about it so can you explain WHY 85 % would have at best no better healthcare than now? Does medicare for all cover less? What is it 85 % of people have covered now they wouldn't have under MfA? Bernie Sanders' plan covers primary and preventive care, mental health care, reproductive care, vision, hearing and dental care, and prescription drugs, as well as long-term services for the disabled and elderly. In this list what is missing compared to what 85 % of people have now? Give the facts. What does YOUR insurance cover not in this list? Nosejobs? What? What would you lose? What is it that makes MfA worse for YOU?

Quote from: JBS on January 14, 2020, 10:21:58 AMSo that's a progressive idea that does the reverse of benefiting the overwhelming majority.

According to the Aetna? Big Pharma? Facts?

Quote from: JBS on January 14, 2020, 10:21:58 AMThey would also increase the hold that Big Pharma and Big MedTech have on the health care system.  Insurance companies would lose in the short term, but only in the short term, since they will be able to offer insurance packages that make up for the deficiencies of MfA (just as they do now with Medigap plans that supplement Medicare).  So MfA also fails at unrigging the system.

Private insurance companies have a role only in electable supplemental care in Bernie's Plan. They wouldn't be allowed to offer overlapping insurance. That is the reason why they oppose Medicare for all so fiercely and use millions on tv adds smearing MfA.

Quote from: JBS on January 14, 2020, 10:21:58 AMAnd onward through the progressive agenda.  Always remember that the bigger and larger a government program is, the bigger and more frequent the opportunities for corruption to flourish among bureaucrats and politicians.

Yes, but private bisnesses are no better. Aetna doesn't care if you live or die. They want your money. There is no moral. Empirical data shows healthcare needs to be funded by the government as single payer system. If you fund it privately, the costs are double, some people are not covered, people die because they don't have access and medical bankruptcies distroy whole families.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 16, 2020, 07:15:55 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 14, 2020, 10:26:20 AM
If you filter what information you get through the Young Turks, and don't go directly to the original sources,  you're getting a highly selective and biased account.  It's like getting all your information about Ayn Rand through articles in the Watchtower (Jehovah's Witnesses)...or vice versa.

I do also do directly. Before I discovered the likes ot TYT corporate media was I saw.

Quote from: JBS on January 14, 2020, 10:26:20 AMBTW, Bernie has been on the "wrong side of history" just as often as he's been on the right side.

Mention just one example.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 16, 2020, 07:37:17 AM
Quote from: greg on January 15, 2020, 09:36:49 PM
Yep, learning about that much later than others is definitely what can happen with that particular function (Fe) being very weak.

I would say it's one of my weakest functions as well, though not the weakest. An example might be one time when I was young and didn't even think about offering the babysitter food and water lol. Just stayed in my room. It's more of a conscious effort to think of what others are wanting, though not too hard- certainly not as hard as it may be for you.

Also, the idea of faking being extrovert is something I gave up a long time ago. Just communicating what is necessary and throwing in questions here and there to ask the other person is just a good idea, even if the info doesn't immediately have much value. Small amounts of effort has been the sweet spot. Do it too much and you will wear yourself out.

I don't have difficulties with knowing other people just like I myself have needs. Lack of empathy isn't an issue. That's why I speak here for single payer healthcare because I feel it's wrong when the richest country in the world can't provide proper healthcare to all of it's citizens. What I didn't realize for long is that communication can be used primarily to make other people feel better. Understanding that made me instantly understand why extrovert people communicate the way they do. It doesn't mean I can just like that communicate in an extrovert style, but at least I understand what it is about.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 16, 2020, 08:14:16 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 15, 2020, 07:38:38 PM
This came across my transom, a superficial guide to which Democratic candidate you agree with more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/quiz-which-candidate-agrees-with-me/
My results, which in several questions came down to deciding "which is the least leftist`.

Bloomberg 15
Biden 13
Klobuchar 11
Yang 10
Steyer 10
Buttigieg 9
Gabbard 6
Sanders 4
Warren 4

Interesting . . . this mostly repeats myself, but . . . I don't suppose Pete B. has much chance of pulling up ahead; I still think B'berg will wind up a non-event (If you kvetch at this point about the process for being on the debate stage, what does that say about the condition of your preparedness/expectations when you set out?) For all his flaws, Biden may likely be best.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 16, 2020, 08:35:52 AM
I believe Bloomberg has used $200 million on tv adds by now and is ready to spend a billion. The question is how high would he poll if he only had used as much money on tv adds then say Klobuchar?

Can someone tell me what Bloomberg brings on the table? He has been for raising minimum wage now that he is running for president, but then again he did block minimum wage increase as New York governor so how much can we trust him on this? Has he genuinely changed his mind or do he just be the president?

If it takes hundreds of millions of dollars to become a president it excludes almost all people from the possibility to be the president no matter how good policy ideas you have or how talented you are. I see a problem here, but I know most people are fine with all of this.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 16, 2020, 08:51:54 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 16, 2020, 08:14:16 AM
For all his flaws, Biden may likely be best.

It is a sad thing if Biden wins the nomination. Not only will it be a nail-biter whether he can beat Trump, but also his "nothing will change" presidency would open the door for the "next" Trump (crazy right wing fake populist) to win in 2024. Biden has even talked about the possibility to have a Republican VP! WTF ???

Trump is a fine status quo president. As an simpleton he is easy to manipulate by the top 1 %. All you need is to buy access to his Golf courses! If enriching the top 1 % on the expense of the rest 99 % is all Americans want then why not re-elect Trump? The top 1 % don't care if the US is the laughing stock all over the World. They are happy with the tax cuts shopping new yachts. Biden might not be as good for the top 1 % as Trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 16, 2020, 10:36:01 AM
CNN Democratic Debate Was A Dumpster Fire Of Terribleness

https://www.youtube.com/v/XabvO6mjVGY
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 16, 2020, 03:06:10 PM
groan...

All posting Kyle videos does is demonstrate yet again how bad Kyle is.

"The only reason Warren would have to attack Bernie is to help Biden. So what was it Biden offered her? Was it the VP slot?"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on January 16, 2020, 03:57:42 PM

     When Iran Took Americans Hostage, Bernie Backed Iran's Defenders (https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-iran-took-americans-hostage-bernie-backed-irans-defenders?ref=scroll)

Sanders would like the public to believe, as an AP story put it, that "democratic socialism [is] the economic philosophy that has guided his political career." But that has not always been the case. In 1977, he left the tiny left-wing Liberty Union Party of Vermont that he'd co-founded, and in 1980 instead aligned himself with the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), the self-proclaimed Trotskyist revolutionary party, became its presidential elector in Vermont, and campaigned for its candidates and platform that defended the Iranian hostage seizure. 

The preeminent democratic socialist of the time, Michael Harrington, wrote that the hostage taking was "terribly wrong," and that "the original evil was compounded by the psychological and physical brutalization to which at least some of the hostages were subjected. The moral stance of those who denounce such acts is clear and compelling."

Far from denouncing the acts, Sanders stood with those who applauded the hostage taking.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 16, 2020, 06:19:44 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 16, 2020, 08:35:52 AM
I believe Bloomberg has used $200 million on tv adds by now and is ready to spend a billion. The question is how high would he poll if he only had used as much money on tv adds then say Klobuchar?

Can someone tell me what Bloomberg brings on the table? He has been for raising minimum wage now that he is running for president, but then again he did block minimum wage increase as New York governor so how much can we trust him on this? Has he genuinely changed his mind or do he just be the president?

If it takes hundreds of millions of dollars to become a president it excludes almost all people from the possibility to be the president no matter how good policy ideas you have or how talented you are. I see a problem here, but I know most people are fine with all of this.

Minor correction
Bloomberg was mayor of New York City, not governor.

Bloomberg's progressive credentials rest on one thing that make him anathema to the GOP: his vigorous advocacy of gun control.



Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 16, 2020, 06:40:24 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 16, 2020, 07:15:55 AM
I do also do directly. Before I discovered the likes ot TYT corporate media was I saw.

Mention just one example.

Having your honeymoon in Moscow at that time is something no average American would do.

There is one factor working against Sanders that probably hasn't been thought of by the Young Turks. They may not even be aware of it. (It also applies to Bloomberg, btw.) Sanders is completely non observant, but he is Jewish.  There is a considerable reservoir of  anti-Semitism among American blacks.  It's low level, and usually stays below the surface. But it's there, as evidenced by the two most recent incidents of homicidal anti-Semitism in Jersey City and Monsey (and by a steady flow of antiSemitic violence on individual Jews by individual POC , particularly in the New York City area that tends to fly under the national media's radar).  It's therefore reasonable to think that many blacks won't feel motivated to vote for "the Jewish guy" as much as they would for a similar individual who was not Jewish.  Which means Bernie will get less votes among blacks than the Young Turks think he will. (They won't vote for Trump. They simply won't bother to vote.)

The overt white anti Semites are already in Trump's camp, of course.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 17, 2020, 02:18:30 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 16, 2020, 06:40:24 PM
Having your honeymoon in Moscow at that time is something no average American would do.

Bernie Sanders isn't your average American. He is an exraordinary man. Anyway, to give context to the "Honeymoon in Moscow":

The trip took place while Sanders was mayor of Burlington, Vt., from 1981 to 1989. Toward the end of his mayoral tenure, the small city on Lake Champlain launched a sister-city program with Yaroslavl, located 160 miles northeast of Moscow. Bernie Sanders and his wife did travel to Yaroslavl, a city in the Soviet Union, after their wedding in 1988. In the sense that the trip came after the couple were married*, the trip was a honeymoon. The two have also referred to the trip that way, albeit sarcastically at times. The trip's primary purpose was diplomacy, not leisure, and included about 10 extra guests.

* Their wedding date was set to coincide with that trip because they didn't want to take more time off."

Quote from: JBS on January 16, 2020, 06:40:24 PMThere is one factor working against Sanders that probably hasn't been thought of by the Young Turks. They may not even be aware of it. (It also applies to Bloomberg, btw.) Sanders is completely non observant, but he is Jewish.  There is a considerable reservoir of  anti-Semitism among American blacks.  It's low level, and usually stays below the surface. But it's there, as evidenced by the two most recent incidents of homicidal anti-Semitism in Jersey City and Monsey (and by a steady flow of antiSemitic violence on individual Jews by individual POC , particularly in the New York City area that tends to fly under the national media's radar).  It's therefore reasonable to think that many blacks won't feel motivated to vote for "the Jewish guy" as much as they would for a similar individual who was not Jewish.  Which means Bernie will get less votes among blacks than the Young Turks think he will. (They won't vote for Trump. They simply won't bother to vote.)

The overt white anti Semites are already in Trump's camp, of course.

That doesn't work as an example of Bernie having been on the wrong side of history, but it works as an example that you are willing to play identity politics. Yes, Bernie Sanders will never have 100 % of the votes, not even 75 %, but he doesn't need to. He needs to win the electorate. Bernie Sanders is overhelmingly popular among young voters under 40 while Biden's support is among older voters and that's true also among black voters.

Fully 56% of African-Americans said they'd "consider voting for" Sanders in 2020 — a statistical tie with the 54% who said the same about former Vice President Joe Biden and significantly higher than any other candidate.

Only 23% of African-Americans said they wouldn't consider voting for Sanders, about the same number as the 24% who said they wouldn't consider voting for Biden.

VICE News-Ipsos poll (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/z3bnvw/exclusive-poll-just-as-many-african-americans-say-theyd-consider-voting-for-bernie-sanders-as-joe-biden)

So, Biden is not better off when it comes to black voters. Maybe Biden would get less votes than you think?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 17, 2020, 04:01:55 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 17, 2020, 02:18:30 AM
Bernie Sanders isn't your average American. He is an exraordinary man. Anyway, to give context to the "Honeymoon in Moscow":

The trip took place while Sanders was mayor of Burlington, Vt., from 1981 to 1989. Toward the end of his mayoral tenure, the small city on Lake Champlain launched a sister-city program with Yaroslavl, located 160 miles northeast of Moscow. Bernie Sanders and his wife did travel to Yaroslavl, a city in the Soviet Union, after their wedding in 1988. In the sense that the trip came after the couple were married*, the trip was a honeymoon. The two have also referred to the trip that way, albeit sarcastically at times. The trip's primary purpose was diplomacy, not leisure, and included about 10 extra guests.

* Their wedding date was set to coincide with that trip because they didn't want to take more time off."

That doesn't work as an example of Bernie having been on the wrong side of history, but it works as an example that you are willing to play identity politics. Yes, Bernie Sanders will never have 100 % of the votes, not even 75 %, but he doesn't need to. He needs to win the electorate. Bernie Sanders is overhelmingly popular among young voters under 40 while Biden's support is among older voters and that's true also among black voters.

Fully 56% of African-Americans said they'd "consider voting for" Sanders in 2020 — a statistical tie with the 54% who said the same about former Vice President Joe Biden and significantly higher than any other candidate.

Only 23% of African-Americans said they wouldn't consider voting for Sanders, about the same number as the 24% who said they wouldn't consider voting for Biden.

VICE News-Ipsos poll (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/z3bnvw/exclusive-poll-just-as-many-african-americans-say-theyd-consider-voting-for-bernie-sanders-as-joe-biden)

So, Biden is not better off when it comes to black voters. Maybe Biden would get less votes than you think?

First, that's an online poll, so it's of dubious value.
Second, 89% of the black vote in 2016 went to Hillary, while 59% of blacks voted that year. Which means, if thar poll is valid, neither Biden nor Sanders are doing any better, possibly worse, than Hillary among blacks. Meaning Trump gets re-elected.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 17, 2020, 04:50:00 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 17, 2020, 04:01:55 AM
First, that's an online poll, so it's of dubious value.

You mean to you the numbers look too good for Bernard Sanders? If the poll is dubious, in which direction? Do you only believe polls that are bad for progressives?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on January 17, 2020, 08:14:05 AM

The black vote is that of a very different constituency. What Jeffrey says about it also applies to Buttigieg, who is not a progressive...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 17, 2020, 09:25:20 AM
Quote from: André on January 17, 2020, 08:14:05 AM
The black vote is that of a very different constituency. What Jeffrey says about it also applies to Buttigieg, who is not a progressive...

As far as I know Buttigieg does very poorly among the blacks. Since Iowa is one of the whitest of all states this won't hurt Buttigieg much in Iowa and I expect him to do well over there.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 17, 2020, 09:48:59 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 17, 2020, 04:01:55 AM
Second, 89% of the black vote in 2016 went to Hillary, while 59% of blacks voted that year. Which means, if thar poll is valid, neither Biden nor Sanders are doing any better, possibly worse, than Hillary among blacks. Meaning Trump gets re-elected.

A lot of people don't vote for anyone. Of the 23 % who say they wouldn't consider voting for Sanders many probably wouldn't vote for Trump either and simply don't vote at all. I don't believe Hillary was better among blacks than Sanders or Biden.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464680-poll-overwhelming-majority-of-black-voters-choose-any-given-2020-democrat-over (https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464680-poll-overwhelming-majority-of-black-voters-choose-any-given-2020-democrat-over)

Poll: Overwhelming majority (85 %) of black voters back any 2020 Democrat over Trump.



Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 17, 2020, 10:18:57 AM
Fresh New Hamphire poll (7 News/Emerson College) +/- 3.8 %, Jan. 13-16.

Bernie Sanders 23 %
Pete Buttigieg 18 %
Joe Biden 14 %
Elizabeth Warren 14 %
Amy Klobucher 10 %
Andrew Yang 6 %
Tulsi Gabbard 5 %
Tom Steyer 4 %

Can't wait to see corporate media report this: "No clear leader in N. H., but Klobuchar is STRONG fifth!"  ;D

Fresh national poll (Reuters/Ipsos), post debate:

Bernie Sanders 20 %
Joe Biden 19 %
Elizabeth Warren 12 %
Michael Bloomberg 9 %
Pete Buttigieg 6 %
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 17, 2020, 11:07:51 AM
here's one for you and Kyle:

Trump accuses Dems of using impeachment trial to hurt Sanders campaign (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/17/trump-impeachment-trial-sanders-campaign-100457)

"President Donald Trump on Friday accused Democrats of trying to sabotage Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential bid, echoing allegations from Sanders supporters during the 2016 primary.

"They are rigging the election again against Bernie Sanders, just like last time, only even more obviously," Trump said in a pair of tweets, claiming that Democrats were using his impeachment trial beginning next week to keep Sanders off the campaign trail in the critical final weeks before the Iowa caucuses.

"They are bringing him out of so important Iowa in order that, as a Senator, he sit through the Impeachment Hoax Trial," he continued, using derisive nicknames to accuse House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — without evidence — of orchestrating the timing of the trial to give former Vice President Joe Biden a boost. "Crazy Nancy thereby gives the strong edge to Sleepy Joe Biden, and Bernie is shut out again. Very unfair, but that's the way the Democrats play the game. Anyway, it's a lot of fun to watch!"[...]
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on January 17, 2020, 11:20:42 AM
O ciel, che noia!   >:(  :o ??? ::) :D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 17, 2020, 11:52:20 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 17, 2020, 09:48:59 AM
A lot of people don't vote for anyone. Of the 23 % who say they wouldn't consider voting for Sanders many probably wouldn't vote for Trump either and simply don't vote at all. I don't believe Hillary was better among blacks than Sanders or Biden.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464680-poll-overwhelming-majority-of-black-voters-choose-any-given-2020-democrat-over (https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464680-poll-overwhelming-majority-of-black-voters-choose-any-given-2020-democrat-over)

Poll: Overwhelming majority (85 %) of black voters back any 2020 Democrat over Trump.


That's the point.  To beat Trump, Democrats need to get more votes among blacks than Hillary did, and going by these figures they aren't. Hillary got 89% of the black vote in 2016, so 85% means the Democrats are actually getting less.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 17, 2020, 12:26:00 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 17, 2020, 11:07:51 AM
here's one for you and Kyle:

Trump accuses Dems of using impeachment trial to hurt Sanders campaign (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/17/trump-impeachment-trial-sanders-campaign-100457)

"President Donald Trump on Friday accused Democrats of trying to sabotage Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential bid, echoing allegations from Sanders supporters during the 2016 primary.

"They are rigging the election again against Bernie Sanders, just like last time, only even more obviously," Trump said in a pair of tweets, claiming that Democrats were using his impeachment trial beginning next week to keep Sanders off the campaign trail in the critical final weeks before the Iowa caucuses.

"They are bringing him out of so important Iowa in order that, as a Senator, he sit through the Impeachment Hoax Trial," he continued, using derisive nicknames to accuse House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — without evidence — of orchestrating the timing of the trial to give former Vice President Joe Biden a boost. "Crazy Nancy thereby gives the strong edge to Sleepy Joe Biden, and Bernie is shut out again. Very unfair, but that's the way the Democrats play the game. Anyway, it's a lot of fun to watch!"[...]

Thanks, but what exactly am I and Kyle supposed to learn from this?  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 17, 2020, 12:38:34 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 17, 2020, 11:52:20 AM

That's the point.  To beat Trump, Democrats need to get more votes among blacks than Hillary did, and going by these figures they aren't. Hillary got 89% of the black vote in 2016, so 85% means the Democrats are actually getting less.

59.6 % of blacks voted in 2016. In 2012 the turnout among blacks was record high 66.6 % (Obama-effect). We don't know yet how high percentage of blacks who actually vote will cast their vote on the Democratic candidate. I guess it varies a lot among candidates so that for example Buttigieg would mean lower black turnout than Sanders.

Democrats need black, latinos, muslims, independents,... ...Hillary didn't have too few votes (she won the popular vote by 3 million votes). She got the votes in wrong places. A little more votes in the Rust Belt would have given Hillary the victory. The Dems need a candidate who is strong in the Rust Belt. That's Bernand Sanders.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 17, 2020, 12:42:49 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 17, 2020, 12:38:34 PM
59.6 % of blacks voted in 2016. In 2012 the turnout among blacks was record high 66.6 % (Obama-effect). We don't know yet how high percentage of blacks who actually vote will cast their vote on the Democratic candidate. I guess it varies a lot among candidates so that for example Buttigieg would mean lower black turnout than Sanders.

Democrats need black, latinos, muslims, independents,... ...Hillary didn't have too few votes (she won the popular vote by 3 million votes). She got the votes in wrong places. A little more votes in the Rust Belt would have given Hillary the victory. The Dems need a candidate who is strong in the Rust Belt. That's Bernand Sanders.

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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 17, 2020, 12:49:24 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 17, 2020, 12:42:49 PM
Sanders is not that strong.

Not that strong? At the moment he has been surging on the top of early state polls and even on national level. It seems the nomination will be a fight between Biden and Bernie (old vs young voters), but saying Bernie is not that strong given the information we have is denying the reality.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 17, 2020, 03:20:17 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 17, 2020, 12:49:24 PM
Not that strong? At the moment he has been surging on the top of early state polls and even on national level. It seems the nomination will be a fight between Biden and Bernie (old vs young voters), but saying Bernie is not that strong given the information we have is denying the reality.

Your confusing being strong among Democrats with being strong among the general populace. The polls you refer to relate to Democrats deciding the Democratic candidate. Among the electorate at large, Bernie is not as strong as you think he is.

And you are overlooking the most important thing. If the election in November is between Trump and Biden or another moderate, some conservatives who dislike Trump will decide Biden is moderate enough that they won't vote. If the election is between Trump and Sanders or another progressive, those people will be motivated to vote for Trump because of their hostility  to the progressive agenda.

The more moderate the Democratic candidate is, the fewer votes for Trump. The more progressive the Democratic candidate is, the more votes for Trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 17, 2020, 03:38:31 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 17, 2020, 03:20:17 PM
Your confusing being strong among Democrats with being strong among the general populace. The polls you refer to relate to Democrats deciding the Democratic candidate. Among the electorate at large, Bernie is not as strong as you think he is.

And you are overlooking the most important thing. If the election in November is between Trump and Biden or another moderate, some conservatives who dislike Trump will decide Biden is moderate enough that they won't vote. If the election is between Trump and Sanders or another progressive, those people will be motivated to vote for Trump because of their hostility  to the progressive agenda.

The more moderate the Democratic candidate is, the fewer votes for Trump. The more progressive the Democratic candidate is, the more votes for Trump.

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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 17, 2020, 03:46:01 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 17, 2020, 03:38:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 17, 2020, 05:41:53 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 17, 2020, 12:42:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 17, 2020, 06:18:51 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 17, 2020, 05:41:53 PM

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

Sorry, my head is not soft enough for the corporate smears.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on January 17, 2020, 07:41:04 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 17, 2020, 05:41:53 PM

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

I think it is concrete on all sides...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 17, 2020, 07:44:53 PM
Quote from: Ratliff on January 17, 2020, 07:41:04 PM
I think it is concrete on all sides...

And what are your malleable ideas?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 18, 2020, 04:12:34 AM
Quote from: Ratliff on January 17, 2020, 07:41:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 18, 2020, 05:45:24 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2020, 04:12:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 18, 2020, 07:51:29 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 18, 2020, 05:45:24 AM
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.  ;D 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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on January 18, 2020, 08:56:00 AM
O ciel, che noia!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on January 18, 2020, 09:03:02 AM
Quote from: ritter on January 18, 2020, 08:56:00 AM
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  :D )
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 18, 2020, 09:10:06 AM
Dear Joe Biden's Older Supporters, He Wants to Cut YOUR Social Security!

https://www.youtube.com/v/PziXdkl3n-o
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on January 18, 2020, 09:10:31 AM
Quote from: Florestan on January 18, 2020, 09:03:02 AM
Gioia e pace per mill'anni! (if Trump out and Bernie in, that's what you'll certainly get, thinks Poju  :D )
Basta, basta, basta, per pietà!   ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 18, 2020, 12:14:17 PM
Only Bernie can save us!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 18, 2020, 12:18:19 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2020, 07:51:29 AM

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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 18, 2020, 01:48:27 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 18, 2020, 12:18:19 PM
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...  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 18, 2020, 01:56:13 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 18, 2020, 12:14:17 PM
Only Bernie can save us!

That's pretty much the case.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 18, 2020, 02:12:51 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2020, 01:48:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 18, 2020, 04:11:09 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 18, 2020, 02:12:51 PM
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? 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 18, 2020, 06:51:29 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2020, 07:51:29 AM
1) Where have you got this crazy idea? As if living wage, healthcare and free education alone made you a member of elite.  ;D 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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 18, 2020, 06:55:00 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 18, 2020, 04:11:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 18, 2020, 07:20:31 PM
I too was thinking of Howard Zinn as a recommendation for 71db if he could sustain book-length information, and for the very reason you state.

But then I figured he'd just watch some YT bobblehead's bowdlerized version.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 18, 2020, 08:08:40 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 18, 2020, 07:20:31 PM
I too was thinking of Howard Zinn as a recommendation for 71db if he could sustain book-length information, and for the very reason you state.

But then I figured he'd just watch some YT bobblehead's bowdlerized version.

The main problem with Zinn is that his magnum opus was published in 1980, so of course it misses out on all the research and developments of the last 40 years. I haven't read Jill LaPore, but what I've seen regarding het suggests she's a worthy successor to Zinn.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 19, 2020, 03:35:25 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 18, 2020, 06:51:29 PM
The elites get to boss people around.

In oligarchy they do. In democracy not so much.

Quote from: JBS on January 18, 2020, 06:51:29 PMThe Young Turks want to replace the current elites with themselves and their allies, and get to boss people around.

No, they don't. You'll see it yourself if Cenk Uygur gets elected to Congress. Instead of bossing people around he will fight for (regular) people.

Quote from: JBS on January 18, 2020, 06:51:29 PMI don't want to be bossed around by anyone.

Of course you don't! That's why you should support progressives who try hard to make American a (real) democracy.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 19, 2020, 03:40:15 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 18, 2020, 07:20:31 PM
I too was thinking of Howard Zinn as a recommendation for 71db if he could sustain book-length information, and for the very reason you state.

But then I figured he'd just watch some YT bobblehead's bowdlerized version.

Thanks for the book recommendation!

I don't think Kyle Kulinski is an expert of New Deal. I watch him for the US politics of today rather than the past.

We don't have the knowledge of how the US would have done without the New Deal so in the end it's speculation.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 19, 2020, 08:26:09 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 19, 2020, 03:40:15 AM
Thanks for the book recommendation!

I don't think Kyle Kulinski is an expert of New Deal. I watch him for the US politics of today rather than the past.

We don't have the knowledge of how the US would have done without the New Deal so in the end it's speculation.

But we do know what happened during the New Deal, and it's less impressive than popular myth makes it be, and much less successful than Kulinski thinks it was.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/US_Unemployment_from_1910-1960.svg)

At the start of the Great Depression, unemployment was below 5%.  At its height, unemployment was, according to some sources, almost 25%.  By 1939, the New Deal had brought the rate down to about 15%.  Which means it was still at that point three times as high as it was preDepression.

The name of the book by Jill LaPore I referenced, btw, is These Truths.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 19, 2020, 08:31:02 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 19, 2020, 03:35:25 AM
In oligarchy they do. In democracy not so much.

No, they don't. You'll see it yourself if Cenk Uygur gets elected to Congress. Instead of bossing people around he will fight for (regular) people.

Of course you don't! That's why you should support progressives who try hard to make American a (real) democracy.

Because I don't share your biases in favor of leftism, I remain skeptical that Mr. Uygur's ideas will actually help regular people, I remain skeptical that Mr. Uygur want to do anything more profound than make himself and people like him a new segment of the elite, and I seriously doubt they will make America a "real" democracy.  Besides, the US system is not meant to be a democracy.  It's a system designed to make every group have a veto on government action, to force compromise and deal making, and to force people to persuade each other, not force their ideas on each other.   
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on January 19, 2020, 09:06:03 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 17, 2020, 07:44:53 PM
And what are your malleable ideas?

My malleable idea is that no on knows who can or cannot beat Trump. People with huge databases of demographic data, voting records, social media scrapings, cannot predict who can or cannot beat Trump. It is impossible to have an informed opinion on that question. A person could conceivably have an informed opinion on which policies would benefit them, and the country as a whole.

I support Klobuchar, because Corey Booker has already dropped out.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 19, 2020, 10:09:49 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 19, 2020, 08:26:09 AM
But we do know what happened during the New Deal, and it's less impressive than popular myth makes it be, and much less successful than Kulinski thinks it was.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/US_Unemployment_from_1910-1960.svg)

At the start of the Great Depression, unemployment was below 5%.  At its height, unemployment was, according to some sources, almost 25%.  By 1939, the New Deal had brought the rate down to about 15%.  Which means it was still at that point three times as high as it was preDepression.

The name of the book by Jill LaPore I referenced, btw, is These Truths.

Unemployment was about 20 % when FDR took office and started New Deal in 1933. By 1935 unemployment had reached the highest point (things don't happen instantly in macroeconomy). When New Deal ended in 1939, unemployment was lower than when New Deal started and the good trend continued so that unemployment dropped under 5 % under FDR's presidency. Unemployment is not the only thing to look when evaluating the success of New Deal. It was also about improving the infrastructure in the country.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 19, 2020, 12:15:57 PM
Quote from: Ratliff on January 19, 2020, 09:06:03 AM
My malleable idea is that no on knows who can or cannot beat Trump.

Fully agreed.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 19, 2020, 03:25:10 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 19, 2020, 10:09:49 AM
Unemployment was about 20 % when FDR took office and started New Deal in 1933. By 1935 unemployment had reached the highest point (things don't happen instantly in macroeconomy). When New Deal ended in 1939, unemployment was lower than when New Deal started and the good trend continued so that unemployment dropped under 5 % under FDR's presidency. Unemployment is not the only thing to look when evaluating the success of New Deal. It was also about improving the infrastructure in the country.

I know you Finns were focused on the time on fighting the Soviet Union, but that 5% was a direct result of so many men being drafted into the military to fight WWII, and most of the rest  (and a whole bunch of women) working in the factories that armed those men. Without WWII unemployment would have been a lot higher.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 21, 2020, 12:02:48 PM
Conservative Host Endorses Bernie Sanders?

https://www.youtube.com/v/6LrYCcdmeVw
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 21, 2020, 12:04:18 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 19, 2020, 03:25:10 PM
I know you Finns were focused on the time on fighting the Soviet Union, but that 5% was a direct result of so many men being drafted into the military to fight WWII, and most of the rest  (and a whole bunch of women) working in the factories that armed those men. Without WWII unemployment would have been a lot higher.

Hopefully you don't suggest WWII was a good thing?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 21, 2020, 12:08:30 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 21, 2020, 12:02:48 PM
Conservative Host Endorses Bernie Sanders?

https://www.youtube.com/v/6LrYCcdmeVw

I heard the full interview on Meet the Press. He said Bernie was the only "authentic Socialist". Did Kyle include more of the interview, the answers that demonstrated he's a full throated conservative hack who is hsppy to support Trump?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 21, 2020, 12:10:49 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 21, 2020, 12:04:18 PM
Hopefully you don't suggest WWII was a good thing?

Of course not.
I'm only saying that without its economic impacts, the recovery from the Great Depression would have stretched into the 1940s.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 21, 2020, 12:34:10 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 21, 2020, 12:08:30 PM
I heard the full interview on Meet the Press. He said Bernie was the only "authentic Socialist". Did Kyle include more of the interview, the answers that demonstrated he's a full throated conservative hack who is hsppy to support Trump?

All is explained in the video, but apparently you are not interested to hear what Kyle has to say. Yes, a full throated conservative hack who is happy to support Trump. That's the whole point!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 21, 2020, 01:11:21 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 21, 2020, 12:34:10 PM
All is explained in the video, but apparently you are not interested to hear what Kyle has to say. Yes, a full throated conservative hack who is happy to support Trump. That's the whole point!

Why should I need Kyle to tell me what Hewitt said? As I said, I heard the full thing when it aired on MTP.  Saying he's an authentic Socialist merely is a jibe at the rest of the Democrats for being inauthentic Socialists.

If a Trump supporter thinks Bernie is the best Democratic choice, that just means he thinks Trump will do better against Bernie than he will against another candidate.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 22, 2020, 12:55:57 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 21, 2020, 01:11:21 PM
Why should I need Kyle to tell me what Hewitt said? As I said, I heard the full thing when it aired on MTP.  Saying he's an authentic Socialist merely is a jibe at the rest of the Democrats for being inauthentic Socialists.

If a Trump supporter thinks Bernie is the best Democratic choice, that just means he thinks Trump will do better against Bernie than he will against another candidate.

You don't need to watch Kyle. Your choice. Please allow me to watch him. He has got 780.000 subscribers and is one of the most respected political commentators on the left.

People who think Trump will do better against Bernie than he will against another candidate are simply wrong (look at the damn POLLS! where only Biden has done as well as Bernie against Trump, but if you listen to Kyle you know Biden is more vulnerable against Trump because he is mentally declining, can't respond to Trump's fake populism and of course there's Ukraine.)

People know Bernie is strong against Trump, who is affraid of Bernie for a good reason, because "crazy Bernie" doesn't work against Bernie. People WANT a "crazy" President who is crazy enough to bring the US up to the rest of the World and finally give people healthcare. Trump's victory in 2016 showed people are willing to vote for a pussy grapper if it means populist policy. Bernie can (and WILL) attack Trump for being a fake populist, a fraud. He can do it with ease, because he is the REAL populist and that's why he will win!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 22, 2020, 06:06:56 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 22, 2020, 12:55:57 AM
You don't need to watch Kyle. Your choice. Please allow me to watch him. He has got 780.000 subscribers and is one of the most respected political commentators on the left.

People who think Trump will do better against Bernie than he will against another candidate are simply wrong (look at the damn POLLS! where only Biden has done as well as Bernie against Trump, but if you listen to Kyle you know Biden is more vulnerable against Trump because he is mentally declining, can't respond to Trump's fake populism and of course there's Ukraine.)

People know Bernie is strong against Trump, who is affraid of Bernie for a good reason, because "crazy Bernie" doesn't work against Bernie. People WANT a "crazy" President who is crazy enough to bring the US up to the rest of the World and finally give people healthcare. Trump's victory in 2016 showed people are willing to vote for a pussy grapper if it means populist policy. Bernie can (and WILL) attack Trump for being a fake populist, a fraud. He can do it with ease, because he is the REAL populist and that's why he will win!

You keep missing the most important dynamic.
In American politics, the decisive factor is not who or what people vote for. The decisive factor is who or what people vote against.

Trump did not win because people voted for him. Trump won because people voted against Hillary. Either they pulled the lever for Trump or stayed home and did not vote for anyone, in preference to voting for Hillary.  And they voted against Hillary not because of her policies but because of herself: her corruption and arrogance.

A lot more people will vote against Bernie the Socialist than will vote against Biden the corporatist. This time it will because of the policies.  But the effect will be the same. Nominate any progressive, and more people will vote against the Democrats.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 22, 2020, 06:23:29 AM
780.000 subscribers can't be wrong, can they?  :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 22, 2020, 06:31:45 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 22, 2020, 06:06:56 AM
You keep missing the most important dynamic.
In American politics, the decisive factor is not who or what people vote for. The decisive factor is who or what people vote against.
Having exciting candidates makes people vote for those candidates.

Quote from: JBS on January 22, 2020, 06:06:56 AMTrump did not win because people voted for him. Trump won because people voted against Hillary. Either they pulled the lever for Trump or stayed home and did not vote for anyone, in preference to voting for Hillary.  And they voted against Hillary not because of her policies but because of herself: her corruption and arrogance.

Hillary Clinton surely is corrupt and arrogant, but the problem for people is these AFFECT her poliicies. She used to be for medicare for all. That's before insurance companies and Big Pharma bought her. In fact that's the reason why I thought she was a great candidate in 2016, because I had seen her older opinions (form 90's and early 00's) which sounded good without knowing she has changed her positions since and is corporate af nowadays. That's among the first things I learned from Kyle Kulinski. Hillary was really weak in the Rust Belt. Some Obama voters turned to Trump, because his fake populist words resonated to them more than Hillary's corporate centrism while Democratic turnout was low because Hillary didn't excite voters enough. Just 70.000 more votes on the Rust Belt would have won Hillary the election!

Quote from: JBS on January 22, 2020, 06:06:56 AMA lot more people will vote against Bernie the Socialist than will vote against Biden the corporatist. This time it will because of the policies.  But the effect will be the same. Nominate any progressive, and more people will vote against the Democrats.

You base this claim on what? Corporate media certainly keeps up this narrative (althou lately they are panicing over Bernie), but does that make it a fact? Should we look at some polls? Opinions OUTSIDE corporate media? A lot of Trump voters would have voted for Bernie in the Rust Belt. Bernie would be in the white house if it wasn't for the DNC robbing the nomiation from him.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 22, 2020, 06:33:50 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 22, 2020, 06:23:29 AM
780.000 subscribers can't be wrong, can they?  :P

Of course they can, but Kyle Kulinski happens to be highly respected on the left. Apparently a centrist like you can't understand that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 22, 2020, 11:40:26 AM
CNN / SSRS: National Democratic Primary Preference Jan. 16-19, 2020 +/- 3.4 % pts

Bernie Sanders --- 27 %
Joe Biden --- 24 %
Elizabeth Warren --- 14 %
Pete Buttigieg --- 11 %
Michael Bloomberg --- 5 %
Amy Klobuchar --- 4 %
Andrew Yang --- 4 %
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 22, 2020, 06:57:10 PM
 
Quote from: 71 dB on January 22, 2020, 06:31:45 AM
Having exciting candidates makes people vote for those candidates.
Bernie will get a bunch of people excited enough to vote for Trump because he's an "authentic Socialist". He will a bunch of turned off from voting Democratic as well.  Which is why Trump gains.
Quote
Hillary Clinton surely is corrupt and arrogant, but the problem for people is these AFFECT her poliicies. She used to be for medicare for all. That's before insurance companies and Big Pharma bought her. In fact that's the reason why I thought she was a great candidate in 2016, because I had seen her older opinions (form 90's and early 00's) which sounded good without knowing she has changed her positions since and is corporate af nowadays. That's among the first things I learned from Kyle Kulinski. Hillary was really weak in the Rust Belt. Some Obama voters turned to Trump, because his fake populist words resonated to them more than Hillary's corporate centrism while Democratic turnout was low because Hillary didn't excite voters enough. Just 70.000 more votes on the Rust Belt would have won Hillary the election!
Hillary acted as if the American people were duty bound to elect her as The First Female President. The arrogance of that, the arrogance she showed in acting as if she was above the law in the email server case, and the corruption and influence peddling exemplified in the Clinton Foundation were why people didn't vote for her. Her defects of character far outweighed any policy defects.
Quote
You base this claim on what? Corporate media certainly keeps up this narrative (althou lately they are panicing over Bernie), but does that make it a fact? Should we look at some polls? Opinions OUTSIDE corporate media? A lot of Trump voters would have voted for Bernie in the Rust Belt. Bernie would be in the white house if it wasn't for the DNC robbing the nomiation from him.

Leftist policies are not popular here, especially when people discover the details. People of course like free health care, but don't like it once they realize it comes with higher taxes and serious limitations on coverage. 

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 23, 2020, 12:56:24 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 22, 2020, 06:57:10 PM
Bernie will get a bunch of people excited enough to vote for Trump because he's an "authentic Socialist". He will a bunch of turned off from voting Democratic as well.  Which is why Trump gains.
Hillary acted as if the American people were duty bound to elect her as The First Female President. The arrogance of that, the arrogance she showed in acting as if she was above the law in the email server case, and the corruption and influence peddling exemplified in the Clinton Foundation were why people didn't vote for her. Her defects of character far outweighed any policy defects.
Leftist policies are not popular here, especially when people discover the details. People of course like free health care, but don't like it once they realize it comes with higher taxes and serious limitations on coverage.

Looks like there aren't many of those who will vote for Trump because Bernie's an "authentic Socialist" since pretty much all polls show Bernie beating Trump with a clear margin. You can have feelings of people voting against a "socialist", but facts don't care about our feelings. My feelings say hardly anybody should be so dumb as to vote for Trump at this point, but facts don't care about my feelings and the Dems need a really strong candidate against Trump and that seems to be Bernie according to the polls. So Bernie is the best candidate because he is the strongest against Trump and also because he is the best of the bunch to make the systemic changes the US so badly needs. He is a no-brainer candidate, but people like you can't see it, because of the influence corporate media has had on you.

Bernie Sanders is the most liked Senator in the country. He gets most small dollar donations from regular people. He is one of the top candidates in the race according to the polls and his policies poll very well among the Americans. You (and corporate media) say leftist policies are not popular over there. What's wrong with this picture? This may come to a shock to you, but leftist policies are VERY popular in the US. Those policies are just crushed by the top 1 % thanks the oligarchy. The system has been rigged.

Free healthcare doesn't exist, but healthcare can be free at the point of service. Medicare for all would mean most Americans significant drops in healthcare costs (the increase in taxes is smaller than the savings of not having to pay premiums etc "private taxes"). The richest people (maybe 15 % of the population) would see an increase in their healthcare cost. Also your claims of limited coverage is corporate bs to protect the financial interests of insurance companies and Big Pharma. M4A increases coverage and choice as you can go to any doctor instead of a doctor in your network. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 23, 2020, 07:19:17 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 22, 2020, 06:57:10 PM
Bernie will get a bunch of people excited enough to vote for Trump because he's an "authentic Socialist". He will a bunch of turned off from voting Democratic as well.  Which is why Trump gains.
Hillary acted as if the American people were duty bound to elect her as The First Female President. The arrogance of that, the arrogance she showed in acting as if she was above the law in the email server case, and the corruption and influence peddling exemplified in the Clinton Foundation were why people didn't vote for her. Her defects of character far outweighed any policy defects.
Leftist policies are not popular here, especially when people discover the details. People of course like free health care, but don't like it once they realize it comes with higher taxes and serious limitations on coverage. 



Exactly, you love free anything, unless A) It's shoddy and B) It ain't really free.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 23, 2020, 12:06:41 PM
National @SurveyUSA General Election poll:

Bernie Sanders 52 % (+9)
Donald Trump 43 %

Joe Biden 50 % (+7)
Donald Trump 43 %

Michael Bloomberg 49 % (+7)
Donald Trump 42 %

Pete Buttigieg 47 % (+3)
Donald Trump 44 %

Elizabeth Warren 48 % (+3)
Donald Trump 45 %

Andrew Yang 46 % (+2)
Donald Trump 44 %

Tom Steyer 44 %
Donald Trump 44 %

Donald Trump 45 % (+2)
Amy Klobucher 43 %

Donald Trump 44 % (+5)
Tulsi Gabbard 39 %
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 23, 2020, 12:14:07 PM
Morning Consult early-State tracking:

Joe Biden 26 %
Bernie Sanders 23 %
Tom Steyer 15 %
Elizabeth Warren 12 %
Pete Buttigieg 11 %
Andrew Yang 4 %
Michael Bloomberg 3 %
Tulsi Gabbard 3 %
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 23, 2020, 01:06:37 PM
WBUR New Hampshire Democratic Primary poll:

Bernie Sanders 29 %   :o  8)
Pete Buttigieg 17 %
Joe Biden 14 %
Elizabeth Warren 13 %
Amy Klobuchar 6 %
Andrew Yang 5 %
Tulsi Gabbard 5 %
Tom Steyer 2 %

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 23, 2020, 01:17:58 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 23, 2020, 07:19:17 AM
Exactly, you love free anything, unless A) It's shoddy and B) It ain't really free.

A) For profit healthcare is shoddy: High costs, mediocre outcomes and poor coverage. Care is secondary to profit.
B) Nothing is free. There's only various ways to pay for things. Good way (single payer) and bad way (private insurers).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on January 23, 2020, 01:32:41 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 23, 2020, 01:17:58 PM
A) For profit healthcare is shoddy: High costs, mediocre outcomes and poor coverage. Care is secondary to profit.
B) Nothing is free. There's only various ways to pay for things. Good way (single payer) and bad way (private insurers).

Karl Henning is a US citizen who suffered a stroke, so that he's in the unfortunate position to know a thing or two about the US healthcare system. He's also far from belonging to the "1% richest Americans" you are so fond of lambasting. Yet he's also far from sharing your enthusiasm for Bernie's MfA scheme. Why is that, I wonder? And no, I won't take "brainwashed by the corporate media" for an answer.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 23, 2020, 06:33:33 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 23, 2020, 01:17:58 PM
A) For profit healthcare is shoddy: High costs, mediocre outcomes and poor coverage. Care is secondary to profit.
B) Nothing is free. There's only various ways to pay for things. Good way (single payer) and bad way (private insurers).

Your point A is wrong. Here in the US people with private insurance generally get better care than people with government supplied insurance.  Public-paid health care has worse outcomes, worse coverage,  and higher per patient costs. For profit healthcare may be bad, but single payer is worse. Which is why your point B is also wrong.

Don't start lecturing about corporate bs. I know the corporate media lies and manipulates, just as you know it does.  I know the right wing media lies and manipulates, just as you know it does. I know the left wing media lies and manipulates. Unfortunately you can't accept that, so it renders your perceptions of US politics and problems garbage.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 23, 2020, 06:37:45 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 23, 2020, 12:06:41 PM
National @SurveyUSA General Election poll:

Bernie Sanders 52 % (+9)
Donald Trump 43 %

Joe Biden 50 % (+7)
Donald Trump 43 %

Michael Bloomberg 49 % (+7)
Donald Trump 42 %

Pete Buttigieg 47 % (+3)
Donald Trump 44 %

Elizabeth Warren 48 % (+3)
Donald Trump 45 %

Andrew Yang 46 % (+2)
Donald Trump 44 %

Tom Steyer 44 %
Donald Trump 44 %

Donald Trump 45 % (+2)
Amy Klobucher 43 %

Donald Trump 44 % (+5)
Tulsi Gabbard 39 %

Once you account for the margin of error, Bernie, Biden, and Bloomberg are statistically equal.    So Bernie is not the strongest candidate, despite anything Kyle might tell you.

You are also forgetting the Bradley effect, as we call it here.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 23, 2020, 07:14:46 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

Huh. Hadn't heard of that before.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 24, 2020, 01:49:26 AM
Quote from: Florestan on January 23, 2020, 01:32:41 PM
Karl Henning is a US citizen who suffered a stroke, so that he's in the unfortunate position to know a thing or two about the US healthcare system. He's also far from belonging to the "1% richest Americans" you are so fond of lambasting. Yet he's also far from sharing your enthusiasm for Bernie's MfA scheme. Why is that, I wonder? And no, I won't take "brainwashed by the corporate media" for an answer.

That's unfortunate to hear. I am baffled as to why he doesn't support Bernie and his policies, because as you say he is not part of the top 1 %.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 24, 2020, 02:17:31 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 23, 2020, 06:33:33 PM
Your point A is wrong. Here in the US people with private insurance generally get better care than people with government supplied insurance.  Public-paid health care has worse outcomes, worse coverage,  and higher per patient costs. For profit healthcare may be bad, but single payer is worse. Which is why your point B is also wrong.

Don't start lecturing about corporate bs. I know the corporate media lies and manipulates, just as you know it does.  I know the right wing media lies and manipulates, just as you know it does. I know the left wing media lies and manipulates. Unfortunately you can't accept that, so it renders your perceptions of US politics and problems garbage.

No, you are wrong. The US has mediocre healthcare outcomes. It's not better than elsewhere. You have been lied to. Sure, for the megarich US healthcare is brilliant, since with money you can get excellent care, but for regular people that's not the case. For most Americans the US healthcare system is the worst among developped countries.

If the US healthcare system was so much better instead of talking about "Bernie's bill" I would spend my time on Finnish forums demanding US model to Finland, but the evidence speaks for the contrary. You have never explained what is this coverage YOU have thanks to private insurance single payer healthcare wouldn't give you. If there is anything it's things like nosejobs, things that people don't need to stay alive and healthy. Bernie's Bill allows private insurance for nosejobs and other vanity things not covered publicly so don't be afraid.

I suggest you start thinking why some people lie or say the things they say. What is their motive? Why am I supporting Medicare for all? It's because the overwhelming evidence shows for profit healthcare to be a disaster. It's totally insane millions of people don't have access to basic healthcare in the richest country in the World. It's insane thousands of families are driven to bankruptcies because a family member got cancer. These problems can be fixed and it saves money. You say you know corporate media lies, but why do you believe their narrative and smears? You clearly don't believe left-wing media and I don't know how to make you trust them more, but maybe you should believe nobody? Do your own research.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 24, 2020, 02:36:09 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 23, 2020, 06:37:45 PM
Once you account for the margin of error, Bernie, Biden, and Bloomberg are statistically equal.    So Bernie is not the strongest candidate, despite anything Kyle might tell you.

You are also forgetting the Bradley effect, as we call it here.

Of course you have excuses when Bernie does well in the polls. Margin of error? Does this error always work for Bernie? Never against him? Yes, especially Bernie and Biden are statistically equal, but doesn't it also mean we can't say Biden is the leader of this race? I just give the numbers here. I haven't said Bernie's lead is safe. Not at all! I have said it all the time that it will be hard work for Bernie to get the nomination, but it's totally possible.

However, Bernie is the strongest candidate against Trump. Beating Trump will be "easy" for Bernie.

Bradley effect? Bernie is non-white now? Who does Bradley effect favor in this election and why?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 24, 2020, 06:16:29 AM
No one (I don't believe, contests that it is possible that Bernie may be the nominee.

Of course, you're assertion that Bernie is the best nominee to beat Trump, remains only an assertion.

No, no, please don't bother to post a YouTube vid.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on January 24, 2020, 07:48:08 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 24, 2020, 06:16:29 AM
No one (I don't believe, contests that it is possible that Bernie may be the nominee.

Of course, you're assertion that Bernie is the best nominee to beat Trump, remains only an assertion.

No, no, please don't bother to post a YouTube vid.
This seems to be what I'm seeing also.

Bernie could possibly be the nominee. But I've seen that Trump has 34% of the black support now? If it turned out to be the case then there's no stopping him.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 24, 2020, 10:00:32 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 24, 2020, 06:16:29 AM
No one (I don't believe, contests that it is possible that Bernie may be the nominee.

Of course, you're assertion that Bernie is the best nominee to beat Trump, remains only an assertion.

No, no, please don't bother to post a YouTube vid.

For long the corporate media did not believe in Bernie's chances (read: They acted like Bernie doesn't have a chance to make people think Bernie is done), but lately they have been forced to acknowledge the fact that Bernie is one of the strongest candidates in the race. The problem corporate media has is the more they attack Bernie the more people support him (the same happened with Trump). The corporate media has tried to "ignore" Bernie, but it's difficult to ignore a candidate who is number 1 in many polls, raises the most money and so on... ...so now they are attacking Bernie with all kind of things they can find such as taking Bernie's words from 1976 about wage slavery out of context etc. but these things don't seem to hurt Bernie so what can they do? It is an interesting year for sure!

The claim that Bernie is the strongest against Trump can be argued for and I have tried to do so here:

1) The general election polls where Biden and Bernie have consistently been the strongest against Trump
2) Biden's mental decline and Ukraine make him more vulnerable against Trump than people think
3) Rust Belt is important against Trump - Bernie is very strong in the Rust Belt.
4) Fake populist (Trump) is weak against real populist (Bernie)
5) Fake populist (Trump) is strong against a corporate (Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bloomberg, ...)

It's important to understand the US has entered the era of political populism. It's not 1992 anymore when centrism and triangulation worked. Yes, Hillary Clinton lost because she was so hated, but WHY is she hated? That's because what she represents. She would have been more liked in 2016 had she been more left-wing, but she didn't even try! She was entitled and thought her centrism easily defeats Trump's fake populism. Well, it's not 1992 anymore and that's why the tangerine nightmare is in the White House...

It's another story how things actually unfold, but all the evidence suggests Bernie is definitely one of strongest against Trump if not the strongest. The corporate narrative that Bernie has poor electability is total bs. Bernie supporters want Trump out and would never support him if there was a doubt about his chances to beat Trump. The evidence suggests there is no doubt. Bernie is the best bet to get Trump out.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 24, 2020, 10:08:19 AM
Quote from: greg on January 24, 2020, 07:48:08 AM
This seems to be what I'm seeing also.

Bernie could possibly be the nominee. But I've seen that Trump has 34% of the black support now? If it turned out to be the case then there's no stopping him.

Some polls show Trump's job approval rating among blacks to be as high as 34 %, but that doesn't mean 34 % of blacks will vote for Trump. I have seen articles saying 85 % of the blacks support ANY democrat nominee against Trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on January 24, 2020, 10:51:46 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 24, 2020, 10:08:19 AM
Some polls show Trump's job approval rating among blacks to be as high as 34 %, but that doesn't mean 34 % of blacks will vote for Trump. I have seen articles saying 85 % of the blacks support ANY democrat nominee against Trump.
I think the solution then is for Trump to run as a democrat so he can get 119% of the black vote.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 24, 2020, 10:52:57 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 24, 2020, 10:00:32 AM
For long the corporate media did not believe in Bernie's chances (read: They acted like Bernie doesn't have a chance to make people think Bernie is done), but lately they have been forced to acknowledge the fact that Bernie is one of the strongest candidates in the race.


Your brush is too broad, no doubt out of habit; a lot of people, in the general electorate as well as journalists, are doubtful of Bernie's chances in a general election; your assertion that this sentriment is spoonfed to a sheeple populace by "corporate media" is tissue-thin.

Everyone from the outset (yes, everyone, including journalists, acknowledged Bernie as a strong candidate simply by virtue of his strong 2016 campaign.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 24, 2020, 10:54:03 AM
Quote from: greg on January 24, 2020, 10:51:46 AM
I think the solution then is for Trump to run as a democrat so he can get 119% of the black vote.

Do you suppose there's a chance he'll try?  8)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 24, 2020, 11:00:19 AM
Quote from: greg on January 24, 2020, 10:51:46 AM
I think the solution then is for Trump to run as a democrat so he can get 119% of the black vote.

Hahah, I think 119 % of Dems are needed in the Senate to impeach Trump...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 24, 2020, 04:09:27 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 24, 2020, 02:17:31 AM
No, you are wrong. The US has mediocre healthcare outcomes. It's not better than elsewhere. You have been lied to. Sure, for the megarich US healthcare is brilliant, since with money you can get excellent care, but for regular people that's not the case. For most Americans the US healthcare system is the worst among developped countries.

If the US healthcare system was so much better instead of talking about "Bernie's bill" I would spend my time on Finnish forums demanding US model to Finland, but the evidence speaks for the contrary. You have never explained what is this coverage YOU have thanks to private insurance single payer healthcare wouldn't give you. If there is anything it's things like nosejobs, things that people don't need to stay alive and healthy. Bernie's Bill allows private insurance for nosejobs and other vanity things not covered publicly so don't be afraid.

I suggest you start thinking why some people lie or say the things they say. What is their motive? Why am I supporting Medicare for all? It's because the overwhelming evidence shows for profit healthcare to be a disaster. It's totally insane millions of people don't have access to basic healthcare in the richest country in the World. It's insane thousands of families are driven to bankruptcies because a family member got cancer. These problems can be fixed and it saves money. You say you know corporate media lies, but why do you believe their narrative and smears? You clearly don't believe left-wing media and I don't know how to make you trust them more, but maybe you should believe nobody? Do your own research.

You seem not to have actually understood  what I wrote. Among other things, I said I think all segments of the media distort and manipulate. I don't believe anyone in the media.

Nor did I say that the current system is good. I said most people with private insurance have relatively good healthcare. The people with problems are the  ones with no insurance, and those already in public plans (Medicaid and Medicare). Single payer would force everyone down to the level of those on public plans. In other words, 100 million people or so would get worse health care in the name of providing less than adequate care to the 30 million who don't have it now. My coverage now is not fantastic (an Obamacare plan) but it gives me what I need, and Medicare for All would provide me nothing better.  So why should I support it?
A Biden type plan would via the public option get those 30 million people  coverage without degrading the quality of care of others.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 24, 2020, 04:28:18 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 24, 2020, 02:36:09 AM


Bradley effect? Bernie is non-white now? Who does Bradley effect favor in this election and why?

Right wing Americans distrust the media. Some will lie to pollsters for the sake of misleading the media. Others just don't want to admit that they are conservatives to strangers because they don't want to be called racists, bigots, and ignoramuses. Or they may want strangers to think they are "woke" even when they are not.  The net effect is that poll results might be slightly distorted against Trump.  By its nature, the phenomenon is not  amenable to measurement.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 25, 2020, 02:02:51 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 24, 2020, 04:09:27 PM
You seem not to have actually understood  what I wrote. Among other things, I said I think all segments of the media distort and manipulate. I don't believe anyone in the media.

I don't think that's a good place to be. Good people exists. It is about knowing who they are. I'm amazed how poor media literacy many people have.

Quote from: JBS on January 24, 2020, 04:09:27 PMNor did I say that the current system is good. I said most people with private insurance have relatively good healthcare.

Relatively good compared to what? Yeah, at least most people in the US have healthcare, but things could be better. As far as I know the care itself is on the same level as it is in other developped countries unless you are megarich in which case you can buy top quality care. That's not the problem. The problem is how the healthcare system is financed. Single payer healthcare addresses this problematic aspect of the US system.

Quote from: JBS on January 24, 2020, 04:09:27 PMThe people with problems are the  ones with no insurance,.

Those people would be covered by now if free market for profit healthcare system really worked, but it just doesn't work! Use the capitalistic free market model where it work (smartphones, cars, clothes, furnitures, restaurants etc.) and more socialistic models where they work better (education, healthcare, fire department, libraries...). Even public option healthcare would leave a few million people without healthcare. Single payer is the way to get everyone covered cost-effectively.

Quote from: JBS on January 24, 2020, 04:09:27 PMand those already in public plans (Medicaid and Medicare) Single payer would force everyone down to the level of those on public plans.

Those public plans are underfunded because there is not political will to fund them properly. Trump has cut those programs to give tax cuts to the top 1 %. Also, Medicaid and Medicare are much better than the alternative, no healthcare because you can't afford it. The US system is so fuck'ed up even the public programs seems to suck compared to other countries. Same with the education. In Finland public education system rank one of the best in the World while in the US greedy idiots like Betsy de Vos destroy public education to enrich the top 1 % including herself even more. Yeah, if you take the money away, eventually any system will fail. That's why big change is needed = Bernie Sanders. The US needs to learn that some things are just better done publicly and it pays off to fund them properly (meaning the rich need to pay more taxes).

Quote from: JBS on January 24, 2020, 04:09:27 PMIn other words, 100 million people or so would get worse health care in the name of providing less than adequate care to the 30 million who don't have it now. My coverage now is not fantastic (an Obamacare plan) but it gives me what I need, and Medicare for All would provide me nothing better.  So why should I support it?
A Biden type plan would via the public option get those 30 million people  coverage without degrading the quality of care of others.

That's not Bernie's plan. Bernie is not degrading anyones care. Changing the way things are financed doesn't change doctors. They are as good as before. In fact those doctors have more time with the patients because the byrocracy with insurance companies stops. So, the care is likely to be even better. Bernie's plan covers primary and preventive care, mental health care, reproductive care, vision, hearing and dental care, and prescription drugs, as well as long-term services for the disabled and elderly. Does your "not fantastic" plan cover all of this? Does it cover something not listed here? Even if Bernie's plan would not provide anything better, it would most probably be much cheaper for you. That's a good reason to support it. Also, as a human being you should be for everyone being covered. That's just common decency. Bernie's plan makes that possible. Everyone covered, you save money, you can see any doctor (more choice) and the price to pay is Aetna CEOs can't buy so many yacths! Isn't that a great deal?

Biden's plan would not really lower what you pay and some people would still be without coverage, althou much less than now. Biden's public option is certainly an improvement to the current system, but Bernie's plan is much bigger improvement. Biden's plan protects insurance companies and Big Pharma (that's the point) and therefor keeps costs up. It also leads to cherry-picking where insurance companies serve the healthy people making tons of profit while sending sick people to the public sector causing insane costs so the system is in danger of collapse. In single payer system everyone is in the same risk pool. The costs of sick people are balanced out by the healthy people.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 25, 2020, 02:54:32 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 24, 2020, 04:28:18 PM
Right wing Americans distrust the media. Some will lie to pollsters for the sake of misleading the media. Others just don't want to admit that they are conservatives to strangers because they don't want to be called racists, bigots, and ignoramuses. Or they may want strangers to think they are "woke" even when they are not.  The net effect is that poll results might be slightly distorted against Trump.  By its nature, the phenomenon is not  amenable to measurement.

If the poll results might be slightly distorted against Trump, it means any Democratic candidate is in a worse place against Trump. Say this distortion is 5 % pts. You want candidates who are AT LEAST 5 % pts ahead of Trump in the polls. Bernie is one of those candidates having a solid lead of about 8 % pts in the polls. Only Biden has had similar lead in the polls, but I think people overestimate Biden because in the past he has been a strong debater and some people count on that, but Biden is clearly deteriorating mentally and his ability to debate is not what it used to be. He is not coherent anymore. I fear he is actually vulnerable against Trump. Biden's high position in the polls has been due to two factors:

1) Default support - Especially older somewhat politically ignorant people remember the "good" Obama years and think Biden as Obama's VP is the ticket back to that, days of civility when the biggest scandal was the president wearing a tan jacket.
2) Myth of electability - The corporate media has created this myth so that people would support Biden because he is the best chance to beat Trump, but this is just a corporate lie! It is not based on facts. Biden is not more electable than Bernie, on the contrary probably less electable for the reasons I mentioned above. If/when people realize this the support for Biden will drop dramatically.

Biden's support is weak support and is based on these two things, ignorance combined with nostalgy and name recognition and the corporate myth of electability. Bernie's support is much stronger support. It is based on the policies and the fact that you can trust Bernie who has been saying the same things for half a century now. Bernie's electability is underestimated in the corporate media. Bernie's populism resonates with the two time Obama voters who voted for Trump. Bernie can get those people back. Bernie is especially strong in the Rust Belt which is exactly the place to be strong to beat Trump. Bernie can excite people to vote. He can get the votes of independents. He is simply the best pet to get rid of Trump no matter how much the corporate media tries to fight against it. The top 1 % rather have 4 more years of Trump giving them tax cuts than a "socialist" raising their taxes. This is class war. The top 1 % against the 99 %. Bernie is on the side of the 99 % and that's why he can win.

Many Americans are socially conservative (e.g. against gay marriage), but economically progressive (e.g. raising minimum wage) while not knowing labels well. They don't realize their positions on econimic issues are actually quite left-leaning. They say they are right-leaning, but if you ask them if they support raising minimum wage they are for it and that's NOT a right-wing position! In some polls over 50 % of Republican voters have been for medicare for all. Again, not a right-wing position at all. This is because Republican voters also suffer from the sick healthcare system. However, since Republican voters follow more right wing media  they are exposed to more fearmongering of Medicare for all and that's why the support is significantly lower than among Democratic voters (in some polls 85 %). If the corporate media didn't fearmonger and lie about medicare for all and instead gave precise information about it, the support for mediacare for all among Americans would be in the range of 90-100 %. 95 % perhaps?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 25, 2020, 06:19:19 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 25, 2020, 02:02:51 AM
I don't think that's a good place to be. Good people exists. It is about knowing who they are. I'm amazed how poor media literacy many people have.

Relatively good compared to what? Yeah, at least most people in the US have healthcare, but things could be better. As far as I know the care itself is on the same level as it is in other developped countries unless you are megarich in which case you can buy top quality care. That's not the problem. The problem is how the healthcare system is financed. Single payer healthcare addresses this problematic aspect of the US system.

Those people would be covered by now if free market for profit healthcare system really worked, but it just doesn't work! Use the capitalistic free market model where it work (smartphones, cars, clothes, furnitures, restaurants etc.) and more socialistic models where they work better (education, healthcare, fire department, libraries...). Even public option healthcare would leave a few million people without healthcare. Single payer is the way to get everyone covered cost-effectively.

Those public plans are underfunded because there is not political will to fund them properly. Trump has cut those programs to give tax cuts to the top 1 %. Also, Medicaid and Medicare are much better than the alternative, no healthcare because you can't afford it. The US system is so fuck'ed up even the public programs seems to suck compared to other countries. Same with the education. In Finland public education system rank one of the best in the World while in the US greedy idiots like Betsy de Vos destroy public education to enrich the top 1 % including herself even more. Yeah, if you take the money away, eventually any system will fail. That's why big change is needed = Bernie Sanders. The US needs to learn that some things are just better done publicly and it pays off to fund them properly (meaning the rich need to pay more taxes).

That's not Bernie's plan. Bernie is not degrading anyones care. Changing the way things are financed doesn't change doctors. They are as good as before. In fact those doctors have more time with the patients because the byrocracy with insurance companies stops. So, the care is likely to be even better. Bernie's plan covers primary and preventive care, mental health care, reproductive care, vision, hearing and dental care, and prescription drugs, as well as long-term services for the disabled and elderly. Does your "not fantastic" plan cover all of this? Does it cover something not listed here? Even if Bernie's plan would not provide anything better, it would most probably be much cheaper for you. That's a good reason to support it. Also, as a human being you should be for everyone being covered. That's just common decency. Bernie's plan makes that possible. Everyone covered, you save money, you can see any doctor (more choice) and the price to pay is Aetna CEOs can't buy so many yacths! Isn't that a great deal?

Biden's plan would not really lower what you pay and some people would still be without coverage, althou much less than now. Biden's public option is certainly an improvement to the current system, but Bernie's plan is much bigger improvement. Biden's plan protects insurance companies and Big Pharma (that's the point) and therefor keeps costs up. It also leads to cherry-picking where insurance companies serve the healthy people making tons of profit while sending sick people to the public sector causing insane costs so the system is in danger of collapse. In single payer system everyone is in the same risk pool. The costs of sick people are balanced out by the healthy people.

If MfA ever gets to be law, it will be something that Congress makes law, not Bernie. Which means the reality will have nothing to do with Bernie's plan.  The reality will simply be an expansion of the Medicare system we have now, with all its bureaucracy, corruption, and bad health outcomes. Doctors will spend less time with patients because they'll need to make up for lower fees per patient. The reality will also be that everyone's taxes will go up, not just the rich.

That is not something I got from the corporate media. That's something I learn from being a patient in the US health care.

Biden's plan has the merit of not forcing people into a substandard system if they have other options.

And of course,
QuoteThose public plans are underfunded because there is not political will to fund them properly
Will be even more true of Medicare for All.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 25, 2020, 06:25:04 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 25, 2020, 02:54:32 AM
If the poll results might be slightly distorted against Trump, it means any Democratic candidate is in a worse place against Trump. Say this distortion is 5 % pts. You want candidates who are AT LEAST 5 % pts ahead of Trump in the polls. Bernie is one of those candidates having a solid lead of about 8 % pts in the polls. Only Biden has had similar lead in the polls, but I think people overestimate Biden because in the past he has been a strong debater and some people count on that, but Biden is clearly deteriorating mentally and his ability to debate is not what it used to be. He is not coherent anymore. I fear he is actually vulnerable against Trump. Biden's high position in the polls has been due to two factors:

1) Default support - Especially older somewhat politically ignorant people remember the "good" Obama years and think Biden as Obama's VP is the ticket back to that, days of civility when the biggest scandal was the president wearing a tan jacket.
2) Myth of electability - The corporate media has created this myth so that people would support Biden because he is the best chance to beat Trump, but this is just a corporate lie! It is not based on facts. Biden is not more electable than Bernie, on the contrary probably less electable for the reasons I mentioned above. If/when people realize this the support for Biden will drop dramatically.

Biden's support is weak support and is based on these two things, ignorance combined with nostalgy and name recognition and the corporate myth of electability. Bernie's support is much stronger support. It is based on the policies and the fact that you can trust Bernie who has been saying the same things for half a century now. Bernie's electability is underestimated in the corporate media. Bernie's populism resonates with the two time Obama voters who voted for Trump. Bernie can get those people back. Bernie is especially strong in the Rust Belt which is exactly the place to be strong to beat Trump. Bernie can excite people to vote. He can get the votes of independents. He is simply the best pet to get rid of Trump no matter how much the corporate media tries to fight against it. The top 1 % rather have 4 more years of Trump giving them tax cuts than a "socialist" raising their taxes. This is class war. The top 1 % against the 99 %. Bernie is on the side of the 99 % and that's why he can win.

Many Americans are socially conservative (e.g. against gay marriage), but economically progressive (e.g. raising minimum wage) while not knowing labels well. They don't realize their positions on econimic issues are actually quite left-leaning. They say they are right-leaning, but if you ask them if they support raising minimum wage they are for it and that's NOT a right-wing position! In some polls over 50 % of Republican voters have been for medicare for all. Again, not a right-wing position at all. This is because Republican voters also suffer from the sick healthcare system. However, since Republican voters follow more right wing media  they are exposed to more fearmongering of Medicare for all and that's why the support is significantly lower than among Democratic voters (in some polls 85 %). If the corporate media didn't fearmonger and lie about medicare for all and instead gave precise information about it, the support for mediacare for all among Americans would be in the range of 90-100 %. 95 % perhaps?

Bernie's electability and Biden's mental deterioration are myths propagated by leftist media. The Biden myth is supported by right wing media for its own reasons.

Corporate media actually leans left compared to the American mainstream, btw.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 25, 2020, 06:41:23 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 25, 2020, 06:25:04 AM
Bernie's electability and Biden's mental deterioration are myths propagated by leftist media. The Biden myth is supported by right wing media for its own reasons.

Have you watched Biden's campaigning at all? His mental deterioration is quite clear and not a leftist myth.

Quote from: JBS on January 25, 2020, 06:25:04 AMCorporate media actually leans left compared to the American mainstream, btw.

I believe that the day Bernie drops behind Yang and Gabbard in the polls. Perhaps your social circles are right wing and you are clueless about the masses?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 25, 2020, 06:53:13 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 25, 2020, 06:41:23 AM
Have you watched Biden's campaigning at all? His mental deterioration is quite clear and not a leftist myth.


I have. Biden 2020's mental acuity is about the same as Biden 2010, Biden 2000, etc. [I suspect you think his abilities as a debater and campaigner were better than what they actually were.]
Quote
I believe that the day Bernie drops behing Yang and Gabbard in the polls. Perhaps your social circles are right wing and you are clueless about the masses?
The polls right now are the state of the Democratic race, so they don't reflect Independent and disaffected voters. Bernie being popular among Democrats does not mean he is popular among everyone else. And his popularity comes from being the guy who ran against Hillary in the primaries. Name recognition.
My social circles, so called, are my coworkers, who favor Biden because they think he's the best one to beat Trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 25, 2020, 09:07:34 AM
Poju, do you have even the least sense of how narcissistically arrogant "perhaps you're clueless" is?

Do you even listen to your sorry self?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 25, 2020, 11:36:53 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 25, 2020, 06:53:13 AM
I have. Biden 2020's mental acuity is about the same as Biden 2010, Biden 2000, etc. [I suspect you think his abilities as a debater and campaigner were better than what they actually were.]The polls right now are the state of the Democratic race, so they don't reflect Independent and disaffected voters. Bernie being popular among Democrats does not mean he is popular among everyone else. And his popularity comes from being the guy who ran against Hillary in the primaries. Name recognition.
My social circles, so called, are my coworkers, who favor Biden because they think he's the best one to beat Trump.

So, Biden has always been like this? You want THAT man against Trump? Oh boy!  ???

https://www.youtube.com/v/mvCxJGOkfKo

Yes, Bernie has good name recognition now, much stronger than in 2016. That's why he is even stronger now.

Your coworkers believe the corporate media myth and they should read articles like this:

https://www.pressenza.com/2020/01/cnn-sanders-is-the-most-electable/ (https://www.pressenza.com/2020/01/cnn-sanders-is-the-most-electable/)

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 25, 2020, 11:43:49 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 25, 2020, 09:07:34 AM
Poju, do you have even the least sense of how narcissistically arrogant "perhaps you're clueless" is?

Do you even listen to your sorry self?

I know, this is the downside of being supereducated by Kyle Kulinski. This level of frustration caused by the ignorance of other people is likely to make anyone arrogant.  :P

Kyle Kulinski has this talent of explaining these things patiently and respectfully over and over to other people, but I am not Kyle Kulinski. I am just a dude from Finland interested of US politics...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 25, 2020, 12:14:24 PM
The 159,000-member American College of Physicians, second largest physicians group in US Has new prescription: It's Medicare for All

"Major changes are needed to a system that costs too much, leaves too many behind, and delivers too little."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/20/historic-shift-second-largest-physicians-group-us-has-new-prescription-its-medicare
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 25, 2020, 06:28:35 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 25, 2020, 12:14:24 PM
The 159,000-member American College of Physicians, second largest physicians group in US Has new prescription: It's Medicare for All

"Major changes are needed to a system that costs too much, leaves too many behind, and delivers too little."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/20/historic-shift-second-largest-physicians-group-us-has-new-prescription-its-medicare

Of course they might want MfA. MfA will benefit them, it will benefit Big Pharma, it will benefit the big hospital corporations, etc. It will also benefit the 1% by increasing their hold on government. It won't benefit most individual Americans.

You seem not to understand the central flaw of all ideas that call for increased governmental action or bigger government programs. 

Anything that makes more government involvement makes more corruption inevitable because the financial stakes involved in government decisions are greater.  The connections among corporations and politicians and regulators grow because the corporations have more reason to influence government.  If you want less corruption, you have to make government decisions less important, not more.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 25, 2020, 06:34:32 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 25, 2020, 11:36:53 AM
So, Biden has always been like this? You want THAT man against Trump? Oh boy!  ???

https://www.youtube.com/v/mvCxJGOkfKo

Yes, Bernie has good name recognition now, much stronger than in 2016. That's why he is even stronger now.

Your coworkers believe the corporate media myth and they should read articles like this:

https://www.pressenza.com/2020/01/cnn-sanders-is-the-most-electable/ (https://www.pressenza.com/2020/01/cnn-sanders-is-the-most-electable/)

You link to an article that openly shills for Bernie, and yet can't help reporting the fact that Bernie is less electable.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on January 25, 2020, 07:25:26 PM
Bernie Sanders couldn't get elected dog catcher, why would his ego allow him to believe otherwise? The reality is the Democratic Party's problem is they've made their entire platform since Trump took office to oust him from said office. What have they offered the American people during Trump's term other than complaining that Trump's the president? Free healthcare is a nice idea until you start looking at how it will actually affect the United States' current medical system. Also the idea of having to pay higher taxes then we already pay will certainly be a difficult pill to swallow for middle class America.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 25, 2020, 07:51:41 PM
Some very recent polling.

Saturday, January 25
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort)   Poll   Results   Spread
Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus   NY Times/Siena   Biden 17, Sanders 25, Buttigieg 18, Warren 15, Klobuchar 8, Yang 3, Booker, Steyer 3, Gabbard 1, Bloomberg 1   Sanders +7

Missouri Democratic Primary   Missouri Scout   Biden 39, Bloomberg 14, Warren 9, Klobuchar 8, Sanders 7, Buttigieg 6, Yang 2, Steyer 1   Biden +25

Iowa: Trump vs. Biden   NY Times/Siena   Trump 46, Biden 44   Trump +2
Iowa: Trump vs. Sanders   NY Times/Siena   Trump 48, Sanders 42   Trump +6
Iowa: Trump vs. Warren   NY Times/Siena   Trump 47, Warren 42   Trump +5
Iowa: Trump vs. Buttigieg   NY Times/Siena   Trump 45, Buttigieg 44   Trump +1
Iowa: Trump vs. Bloomberg   NY Times/Siena   Trump 47, Bloomberg 39   Trump +8

Iowa is the sort of state Democrats need to win.  Yet Trump leads them...but the gap is narrowest against the moderates.
And poor Missouri: Bernie can't even get out of single digits there.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 03:24:47 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 25, 2020, 07:51:41 PM
Some very recent polling.

Saturday, January 25
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort)   Poll   Results   Spread
Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus   NY Times/Siena   Biden 17, Sanders 25, Buttigieg 18, Warren 15, Klobuchar 8, Yang 3, Booker, Steyer 3, Gabbard 1, Bloomberg 1   Sanders +7

Missouri Democratic Primary   Missouri Scout   Biden 39, Bloomberg 14, Warren 9, Klobuchar 8, Sanders 7, Buttigieg 6, Yang 2, Steyer 1   Biden +25

Iowa: Trump vs. Biden   NY Times/Siena   Trump 46, Biden 44   Trump +2
Iowa: Trump vs. Sanders   NY Times/Siena   Trump 48, Sanders 42   Trump +6
Iowa: Trump vs. Warren   NY Times/Siena   Trump 47, Warren 42   Trump +5
Iowa: Trump vs. Buttigieg   NY Times/Siena   Trump 45, Buttigieg 44   Trump +1
Iowa: Trump vs. Bloomberg   NY Times/Siena   Trump 47, Bloomberg 39   Trump +8

Iowa is the sort of state Democrats need to win.  Yet Trump leads them...but the gap is narrowest against the moderates.
And poor Missouri: Bernie can't even get out of single digits there.

Why did you put Biden first in the Iowa list when he is third in the poll? Or it that the way your source tries to hide the fact Bernie is the first in that poll? The Missouri numbers are miserable for Bernie, he is far from the 15 % threshold, but as I have said a million times, winning the Democratic nomination will be hard for Bernie. I have never said it's easy. Beating Trump in the general election is easy for Bernie. Totally different thing. In Iowa the gap is narrowest against the moderates, but in the Rust Belt it is narrowest against Bernie. You can't win everywhere, but you can win in the right places...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 07:51:51 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 25, 2020, 06:28:35 PM
Of course they might want MfA. MfA will benefit them, it will benefit Big Pharma, it will benefit the big hospital corporations, etc. It will also benefit the 1% by increasing their hold on government. It won't benefit most individual Americans.

They want MfA, because they see/know the current system doesn't work as it should. They know the problems and how to fix them. MfA will not benefit Big Pharma. If it did, Big Pharma would lobby for it. That would mean Nancy Pelosi would be advocating MfA like crazy. Is she? I didn't think so. Instead Big Pharma bribes politicians to be against MfA. If MfA benefitted the top 1% you'd see people like Ben Shapiro advocate for it, but you don't see it, do you? Instead you see Ben Shapiro say MfA would make his wife a slave. That's because the top 1 % won't benefit from MfA. They pay Ben Shapiro big money to fearmonger it. So, think about if what you say makes any sense at all.

MfA would definitely benefit most Americans. No premiums, co-pays, deductible etc. No employer-tied isurance to reduce your choices in life and compromises your negotiation power against your employer. No networks to limit the choice of Doctors. No fear of care denied because of pre-existing conditions or other silly reasons. No fear of medical bankruptcy. No need for go fund me. Better coverage than your bronze/silver plan. No need to renew your insurance every year. Everyone is covered. The price: Your taxes go up a little bit, but less than what you save otherwise. In fact few changes can benefit most people as much as going from for profit healthcare to single payer healthcare.


Quote from: JBS on January 25, 2020, 06:28:35 PMYou seem not to understand the central flaw of all ideas that call for increased governmental action or bigger government programs.

Government can be corrupt meaning government programs work badly, but private sector is driven by greed which also can lead to poor results when incentives are wrong. Some things work better when done by private sector, other things work better when done by public sector. That's why 100 % capitalism or 100 % socialism are not the best models. The best model is to have an optimally mixed economy. Bernie Sanders isn't talking about making all coffee shops public services run by the goverment because thay wouldn't make any sense. We know empirically that capitalism works well when it's about coffee shops. We also know healthcare based on private insurer doesn't work well and there is a much better option, single payer goverment run healtcare insurance model which does give better results. That's why Bernie Sanders advocates Medicare for All.

Quote from: JBS on January 25, 2020, 06:28:35 PMAnything that makes more government involvement makes more corruption inevitable because the financial stakes involved in government decisions are greater.  The connections among corporations and politicians and regulators grow because the corporations have more reason to influence government.  If you want less corruption, you have to make government decisions less important, not more.

You change corporate greed to governmental corruption. When it's healthcare this change means improvements for most people because the incentives of for profit healthcare are pretty insane (letting people die = more profit). When it's coffee shops, the incentives of private business owners are reasonable (serve good coffee and your customers come back).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 07:55:27 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 25, 2020, 06:34:32 PM
You link to an article that openly shills for Bernie, and yet can't help reporting the fact that Bernie is less electable.

To my eyes the message of that article is Bernie is more electable, but whatever. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall...  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 08:12:16 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 25, 2020, 07:25:26 PM
Free healthcare is a nice idea until you start looking at how it will actually affect the United States' current medical system. Also the idea of having to pay higher taxes then we already pay will certainly be a difficult pill to swallow for middle class America.

Free healthcare doesn't exist. Only different ways to pay for it. The current US system is paid for in a very ineffective way because of insane incentives resulting costs that are double the rates in other developped countries despite of mediocre outcomes and still millions of Americans have no insurance or are underinsured. In comparison in other countries everyone is insured. In US thousands of families are driven to bankruptcy because of medical bills, something that simply doesn't happen in other countries and Americans pay by far the highest prices for drugs, for example 10 times more than Canadians for insulin and Canada has the second most expensive drug prises in the World. If the US healthcare system isn't a completely failure I don't know what is.

Private healthcare insurance is a private tax. Medicare for All removes it, lowering people's taxes A LOT. Public taxes will raise, but for most not even close as much as getting rid of premiums, co-pays and deductibles will save. The richest people will pay more under Medicare for All. Most people will pay less. The only reason why this is difficult pill to swallow for middle class America is corporate fearmongering in the media defending the system rigged for the top 1 %.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 26, 2020, 09:22:04 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 25, 2020, 07:25:26 PM
Bernie Sanders couldn't get elected dog catcher, why would his ego allow him to believe otherwise?

To a degree, I think he's intoxicated with celebrity, at this point. There are many stateside who, like Poju, laud him as a kind of messiah. As with Trump, that's got to mess up a chap's mind.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 26, 2020, 09:23:30 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 25, 2020, 07:51:41 PM
Some very recent polling.

Saturday, January 25
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort)   Poll   Results   Spread
Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus   NY Times/Siena   Biden 17, Sanders 25, Buttigieg 18, Warren 15, Klobuchar 8, Yang 3, Booker, Steyer 3, Gabbard 1, Bloomberg 1   Sanders +7

Missouri Democratic Primary   Missouri Scout   Biden 39, Bloomberg 14, Warren 9, Klobuchar 8, Sanders 7, Buttigieg 6, Yang 2, Steyer 1   Biden +25

Iowa: Trump vs. Biden   NY Times/Siena   Trump 46, Biden 44   Trump +2
Iowa: Trump vs. Sanders   NY Times/Siena   Trump 48, Sanders 42   Trump +6
Iowa: Trump vs. Warren   NY Times/Siena   Trump 47, Warren 42   Trump +5
Iowa: Trump vs. Buttigieg   NY Times/Siena   Trump 45, Buttigieg 44   Trump +1
Iowa: Trump vs. Bloomberg   NY Times/Siena   Trump 47, Bloomberg 39   Trump +8

Iowa is the sort of state Democrats need to win.  Yet Trump leads them...but the gap is narrowest against the moderates.
And poor Missouri: Bernie can't even get out of single digits there.

I guess it's still the Show-Me State.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 10:05:55 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 26, 2020, 09:22:04 AM
There are many stateside who, like Poju, laud him as a kind of messiah.

Calling Bernie a kind of messiah is silly. He is one of the few politicians not corrupt and therefor free to advocate policies that benefit regular people instead of the top 1 %.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 26, 2020, 12:04:49 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 10:05:55 AM
Calling Bernie a kind of messiah is silly. He is one of the few politicians not corrupt and therefor free to advocate policies that benefit regular people instead of the top 1 %.



You mistake. I'm not calling him any messiah, I'm indicating the degree of worship his fervent admirers accord him.

You yourself ascribe to him miraculous abilities to right all the wrongs of U.S. Healthcare.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 01:19:29 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 26, 2020, 12:04:49 PM
You mistake. I'm not calling him any messiah, I'm indicating the degree of worship his fervent admirers accord him.

You yourself ascribe to him miraculous abilities to right all the wrongs of U.S. Healthcare.

Well he is in his own class in this race so yeah, his supporters do admire him a lot.

I don't know if he can "right all the wrongs of U.S. Healthcare", but at least he wants to do that. I believe as the president he could change the course of the country in a positive way. In a direction where there is less corruption/oligarchy, more social democratic ideas, less unnecessory wars etc.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 26, 2020, 02:03:57 PM
...by saying "make it so".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 26, 2020, 04:36:57 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 08:12:16 AM
Free healthcare doesn't exist. Only different ways to pay for it. The current US system is paid for in a very ineffective way because of insane incentives resulting costs that are double the rates in other developped countries despite of mediocre outcomes and still millions of Americans have no insurance or are underinsured. In comparison in other countries everyone is insured. In US thousands of families are driven to bankruptcy because of medical bills, something that simply doesn't happen in other countries and Americans pay by far the highest prices for drugs, for example 10 times more than Canadians for insulin and Canada has the second most expensive drug prises in the World. If the US healthcare system isn't a completely failure I don't know what is.

Private healthcare insurance is a private tax. Medicare for All removes it, lowering people's taxes A LOT. Public taxes will raise, but for most not even close as much as getting rid of premiums, co-pays and deductibles will save. The richest people will pay more under Medicare for All. Most people will pay less. The only reason why this is difficult pill to swallow for middle class America is corporate fearmongering in the media defending the system rigged for the top 1 %.

Your understanding of US health care is as distorted as your understanding of US politics.  Until you get it into your head that the Young Turks are just as unreliable and just as prone to play loose with the facts as Breitbart, and their depiction of problems here is driven by the desire to impose their agenda on everyone else, you'll never understand our problems.

The bad outcomes and high costs in US health care are mostly linked to publicly funded health care. Medicare for All therefore means making those problems worse. Taxing only the rich won't raise enough money to pay for MfA, so it will be necessary to tax everyone, and to limit coverage as much as possible. If MfA will ever become reality, it won't be anything like Bernie's plan. If Obama, with a good deal more political goodwill on his side than Bernie can ever hope for, could barely get a much less ambitious plan through, what chance would Bernie have.  The reality will simply be pushing everyone into an underfunded, bureaucratized system rife with opportunities for fraud and corruption, that doesn't get good results even now.
MfA would, in short, make our health care problems worse.  If Bernie and Kyle really wanted to fix health care,  they would not be touting MfA.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 04:53:30 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 26, 2020, 04:36:57 PM
Your understanding of US health care is as distorted as your understanding of US politics.  Until you get it into your head that the Young Turks are just as unreliable and just as prone to play loose with the facts as Breitbart, and their depiction of problems here is driven by the desire to impose their agenda on everyone else, you'll never understand our problems.

The bad outcomes and high costs in US health care are mostly linked to publicly funded health care. Medicare for All therefore means making those problems worse. Taxing only the rich won't raise enough money to pay for MfA, so it will be necessary to tax everyone, and to limit coverage as much as possible. If MfA will ever become reality, it won't be anything like Bernie's plan. If Obama, with a good deal more political goodwill on his side than Bernie can ever hope for, could barely get a much less ambitious plan through, what chance would Bernie have.  The reality will simply be pushing everyone into an underfunded, bureaucratized system rife with opportunities for fraud and corruption, that doesn't get good results even now.
MfA would, in short, make our health care problems worse.  If Bernie and Kyle really wanted to fix health care,  they would not be touting MfA.

So WHY are Bernie and Kyle (and MILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE) touting MfA? Why Why Why?????

Your CLAIMS don't make sense!!! Don't you see it???

all other countries have managed to implement single payer healthcare. The US has gone to the Moon and can't provide healthcare to all it's citizens!!!! Crazy!! Corporate candidates keep saying "US is the greatest country and we can do anything" Except if it helps regulat people!! No can do. Medicare for all? Impossible! Tuition free education? Impossible!! (Slovenia has tuition free edication!)

Open your eyes man and stop saying I don't understand US society!!! You are the one completely out ot touch!! Completely brainwashed!!!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 26, 2020, 04:57:54 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 04:53:30 PM
So WHY are Bernie and Kyle (and MILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE) touting MfA? Why Why Why? ??? ?

Why does an evangelist tout his "gospel"?


The idea that just because millions tout an idea, it cannot be wrong, is rubbish.


Why can't you see it? Why Why Why?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 05:00:52 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 26, 2020, 04:57:54 PM
Why does an evangelist tout his "gospel"?


The idea that just because millions tout an idea, it cannot be wrong, is rubbish.


Why can't you see it? Why Why Why?

What if the gospel works in all other countries? Maybe you should listen in that case??
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 26, 2020, 05:02:29 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 05:00:52 PM
What if the gospel works in all other countries? Maybe you should listen in that case??

Maybe you should listen to why the solution is not so easy in the case of the U.S?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 05:06:21 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 26, 2020, 05:02:29 PM
Maybe you should listen to why the solution is not so easy in the case of the U.S?

The reason why it's not easy in the US is corruption, oligarchy. That's why you need systemic change. Money out of politics and so on.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 26, 2020, 05:16:01 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 04:53:30 PM

all other countries have managed to implement single payer healthcare.

You wouldn't have the first part of the first inkling of how healthcare varies from country to country around the world.

Please stop claiming knowledge you don't have in even the smallest amount.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 05:28:20 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 26, 2020, 05:16:01 PM
You wouldn't have the first part of the first inkling of how healthcare varies from country to country around the world.

Please stop claiming knowledge you don't have in even the smallest amount.

Who does know? You?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 26, 2020, 05:30:14 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 05:06:21 PM
The reason why it's not easy in the US is corruption, oligarchy. That's why you need systemic change. Money out of politics and so on.

Progressive programs increase oligarchy and corruption. The more government interfaces with any activity, the more opportunity for corruption, and the greater the motivation for corruption.  They attract money into politics.

That ought to be obvious enough that I shouldn't need to explain it to you.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 26, 2020, 05:33:49 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 05:28:20 PM
Who does know? You?

Simon at least knows about New Zealand's system,  which is not completely funded by the government
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_New_Zealand
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 26, 2020, 05:39:12 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 04:53:30 PM
So WHY are Bernie and Kyle (and MILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE) touting MfA? Why Why Why?????


They tout it out of ignorance and ideological blinders. In some cases, like Bernie and Kyle, it's a convenient route to political power. But your notion that simply having the government pay for everything is a solution is silly. The problems with our system would be made worse by Medicare for All.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 05:46:04 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 26, 2020, 05:30:14 PM
Progressive programs increase oligarchy and corruption. The more government interfaces with any activity, the more opportunity for corruption, and the greater the motivation for corruption.  They attract money into politics.

That ought to be obvious enough that I shouldn't need to explain it to you.

Would you say oligarchy and corruption in Russia is due to progressive programs?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 05:49:19 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 26, 2020, 05:33:49 PM
Simon at least knows about New Zealand's system,  which is not completely funded by the government
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_New_Zealand

I at least know Finnish system. I believe everyone is covered in New Zealand as is in Finland.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 05:56:23 PM
Quote from: JBS on January 26, 2020, 05:39:12 PM
They tout it out of ignorance and ideological blinders. In some cases, like Bernie and Kyle, it's a convenient route to political power. But your notion that simply having the government pay for everything is a solution is silly. The problems with our system would be made worse by Medicare for All.

Bernie would gain much more political power by going the corporate route and become male Nancy Pelosi. Instead he wants to help regular people. He is the amendment king and I'm sure many of his amendments have benefitted also you. Do you think Bernie coud have greated a detailed healthcare bill if he was ignorant? Kyle does read a lot of stuff to be able to make his commentary videos, so calling him ignorant is really silly. Are the physicians who support medicare for all also ignorant?

All people no matter what position, education or experience who disagree with you are simply ignorant? You are never ignorant yourself?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 06:04:55 PM
Karl, how much were the medical bills caused by your stroke?
How much of it did your insurance pay of it and how much you paid out of pocket yourself?
Now you can educate me, make me less ignorant...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 26, 2020, 06:24:50 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 05:56:23 PM
Bernie would gain much more political power by going the corporate route and become male Nancy Pelosi. Instead he wants to help regular people. He is the amendment king and I'm sure many of his amendments have benefitted also you. Do you think Bernie coud have greated a detailed healthcare bill if he was ignorant? Kyle does read a lot of stuff to be able to make his commentary videos, so calling him ignorant is really silly. Are the physicians who support medicare for all also ignorant?

All people no matter what position, education or experience who disagree with you are simply ignorant? You are never ignorant yourself?

Ideological blinders, pujo, ideological blinders. And populism has always been a good route to power.
Kyle is a propagandist aiming for political power. Your own ideological blinders make you unable to see this.
The membership of the College of Physicians are GPs and Internists. They are the medical speciality that would be most benefited financially by MfA.

I repeat the essential point: single payer would make the problems we have with health care worse, mainly by degrading the quality of care.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 26, 2020, 06:27:36 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 05:46:04 PM
Would you say oligarchy and corruption in Russia is due to progressive programs?

Wherever there is government interaction with economic activity, there is the opportunity for corruption.  There's a lot of both in Russia. There's also some in Finland.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 26, 2020, 06:56:15 PM
So if Bernie becomes President, all the corruption goes away with a wave of his magic wand?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on January 27, 2020, 12:57:50 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 05:56:23 PM
All people no matter what position, education or experience who disagree with you are simply ignorant? You are never ignorant yourself?

This from the guy who incessantly claims all people no matter what position, education or experience who disagree with him are simply brainwashed.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 27, 2020, 02:05:37 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 26, 2020, 06:56:15 PM
So if Bernie becomes President, all the corruption goes away with a wave of his magic wand?

Of course not, but hopefully things start moving to the right direction.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 27, 2020, 02:13:13 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 26, 2020, 06:27:36 PM
There's also some [corruption] in Finland.

Yes. Finland is among the least corrupt countries in the World, but has definitely some corruption and even over here corruption has to be fought against.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 27, 2020, 02:16:37 AM
Quote from: Florestan on January 27, 2020, 12:57:50 AM
This from the guy who incessantly claims all people no matter what position, education or experience who disagree with him are simply brainwashed.

On this issue - healthcare in the US - that is the truth.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on January 27, 2020, 02:18:28 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 27, 2020, 02:16:37 AM
On this issue - healthcare in the US - that is the truth.

No, it's not.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 27, 2020, 02:32:37 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 26, 2020, 06:24:50 PM
Ideological blinders, pujo, ideological blinders. And populism has always been a good route to power.
Kyle is a propagandist aiming for political power. Your own ideological blinders make you unable to see this.
The membership of the College of Physicians are GPs and Internists. They are the medical speciality that would be most benefited financially by MfA.

I repeat the essential point: single payer would make the problems we have with health care worse, mainly by degrading the quality of care.

Populism indeed is a route to power and most of the time populism is a negative thing in politics. For example in Finland a populist party True Finns has gotten very popular being populous (being against immigrants etc. like the Reps in the US) and it is a very negative thing for Finnish politics making it less intellectual. Fortunately they are in opposition now, but after the next elections...   ???

However, in the US because of utter corruption and oligarchy left-wing populism is not only a good thing but much needed. Kyle is 31 now and has said he'd win the presidential election in the future when old enough to run, but doesn't want to be the president. He wants to be a political commentator.

Single payer is about how the care is financed. It is not about how it is executed. The US can have private healthcare providers (as France and Canada have).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 27, 2020, 02:35:08 AM
Quote from: Florestan on January 27, 2020, 02:18:28 AM
No, it's not.

Are you saying the current system is the best the US can ever have? 50 million Americans just have to accept being without healthcare or underinsured?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on January 27, 2020, 02:40:50 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 27, 2020, 02:35:08 AM
Are you saying the current system is the best the US can ever have? 50 million Americans just have to accept being without healthcare or underinsured?

I'm saying it's not true that JBS and Karl Henning are brainwashed.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 27, 2020, 03:05:08 AM
Quote from: Florestan on January 27, 2020, 02:40:50 AM
I'm saying it's not true that JBS and Karl Henning are brainwashed.

Their opinions are quite similar to the message of corporate media which wants to protect the rigged system benefitting insurance companies and Big Pharma who pay big money for adds. Corporate media doesn't want to lose that add money, do they? What other reason JBS and Karl Henning would have to agree with corporate media than having swallowed the anti-MfA propaganda for decades? They are not benefactors of the current system, are they? They are not Big Pharma / Insurance Company CEO's or stock holders are they? They are not megarich are they? They have swallowed the pill and can't admit it to themselves or others so they keep repeating made up reasons to their opinions such "MfA would mean lower quality of care" (based on what evidence?). I haven't been very friendly in my words. I am frustrated and fed up being called ignorant after all the time I have spent on educating myself about these things.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 27, 2020, 03:33:03 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 26, 2020, 05:56:23 PM
All people no matter what position, education or experience who disagree with you are simply ignorant? You are never ignorant yourself?

Tell us all about your experience with U.S. health care
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 27, 2020, 05:34:50 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 27, 2020, 08:27:42 AM
I asked you about your experiences, but you are unwilling to share. Instead you ask a Finn to tell about experiences with U.S. health care.

The point is that we live with the system. We know through our own experience, and that if our families, neighbors, friends, co-workers, etc, what the problems are. We need neither CNN nor the Young Turks to tell us what the problems are, and we can judge for ourselves how much anyone in the media lies and distorts.  We are also able to judge for ourselves what would actually emerge from Congress if Bernie's bill were put through the legislative process.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 28, 2020, 01:02:22 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 27, 2020, 05:34:50 PM
The point is that we live with the system. We know through our own experience, and that if our families, neighbors, friends, co-workers, etc, what the problems are.

In other words you have gotten used to the system you have and are scared of change.

Quote from: JBS on January 27, 2020, 05:34:50 PMWe need neither CNN nor the Young Turks to tell us what the problems are, and we can judge for ourselves how much anyone in the media lies and distorts.

How would you make both CNN and the Young Turks stop talking about the issue? It's a hot potato. Millions of people demand single payer healthcare while the insurance companies and Big Pharma try to uphold the rigged system that benefits them.

Quote from: JBS on January 27, 2020, 05:34:50 PMWe are also able to judge for ourselves what would actually emerge from Congress if Bernie's bill were put through the legislative process.

I don't know what would "emerge". However, I am confident it would be a clear improvent to the current system. As Kyle Kulinski says, even if Bernie gets only 20 % of his stuff implemented it would mean significant improvements to the country.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 28, 2020, 06:15:42 AM
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), who has been running away from reporters and voters who dare ask whether she objects to using U.S. aid to extort a foreign government to interfere in our election, let the cat out of the bag. During a brief media availability on Monday, she rightly declared that the Iowa caucuses are set for next Monday. She then stepped into the political quicksand, confessing that she was "really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters, those Democratic caucus goers. Will they be supporting VP Biden at this point?" Oops.

She is not supposed to be cheering in public for Biden's demise as a result of already debunked conspiracy theories. Her confession however, like then-House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) letting on that the Benghazi hearings would bring down Hillary Clinton's favorability numbers, reminds this that the Trump extortion plan and the defense his legal team is conducting are very much — make that entirely — about undermining a rival who he became convinced would be his most dangerous opponent.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 28, 2020, 06:18:10 AM
Oh, don't read that Poju, we all know that Trump is much more afraid of running against someone he can tar as a Socialist.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 28, 2020, 06:59:04 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 28, 2020, 06:18:10 AM
Oh, don't read that Poju, we all know that Trump is much more afraid of running against someone he can tar as a Socialist.

Leaked Audio Confirms Trump is Scared of Bernie

https://www.youtube.com/v/QtaqT7OJ0gw

If Trump tries to tar Bernie as a socialist, Bernie will ask back if people prefer democratic socialism (social democracy actually, but Bernie uses a bit wrong termilogy here so it is what it is), or corporate socialism favored by corporate Dems and Reps. More tax cuts for the rich or healthcare for you? Good luck to Trump to win that issue.  ;D For once he is smart for being scared of Bernie.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on January 28, 2020, 07:36:38 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 28, 2020, 06:59:04 AM
Leaked Audio Confirms Trump is Scared of Bernie

https://www.youtube.com/v/QtaqT7OJ0gw

If Trump tries to tar Bernie as a socialist, Bernie will ask back if people prefer democratic socialism (social democracy actually, but Bernie uses a bit wrong terminology here so it is what it is), or corporate socialism favored by corporate Dems and Reps. More tax cuts for the rich or healthcare for you? Good luck to Trump to win that issue.  ;D For once he is smart for being scared of Bernie.
The way you put it, 71db, Mr. Trump needs no luck in winning that issue (and this is an avowed social democrat talking). The very notion that such terminology can have any persuasive effects on American voters simply reflects an absolute ignorance of the "American way".

And, with all due respect and sympathy, your futile attempts to shove your personal political agenda (some of which I--partly--may share, but is argued in such an uniformed and dogmatic way that it becomes ridiculous) down the throats of our fellow GMGers across the Atlantic, as if you, by some miraculous power, knew what is good for them better than they themselves, were perhaps quaint at the start, then mildly amusing, and now completely insufferable (not to mention insulting, not only to Americans).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 28, 2020, 07:46:12 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 28, 2020, 01:02:22 AM
In other words you have gotten used to the system you have and are scared of change.
What I meant is, that I know how private insurance works here and how public insurance works here.  I see how the low level of care that people on Medicare and Medicaid get.  It's factory medicine, and no better than what I have now.
Quote
How would you make both CNN and the Young Turks stop talking about the issue? It's a hot potato. Millions of people demand single payer healthcare while the insurance companies and Big Pharma try to uphold the rigged system that benefits them.
I wouldn't stop them talking.  But I know they are inaccurate and unreliable, so I know not to believe everything they say. 
Quote
I don't know what would "emerge". However, I am confident it would be a clear improvent to the current system. As Kyle Kulinski says, even if Bernie gets only 20 % of his stuff implemented it would mean significant improvements to the country.

About half the GOP senators running for re-election this year are from states that are safely Republican.  Which means that the GOP will be able to filibuster and block any Democratic plan.  The best you can hope for is an expansion of Medicare as it is now, with all its many problems.

And implementing anything of Bernie's plan will not improve anything.  I've already explained to you why it won't bring down drug prices and won't really keep people from going bankrupt.  But you prefer to believe Kulinski even when I show you that's he's not a reliable source.  The obvious reason is that you subscribe to the same ideology he does.  To those of us who don't, he's just another leftist propaganda outlet.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 28, 2020, 08:09:25 AM
Quote from: Florestan on January 28, 2020, 08:05:05 AM


(See, there's one essential way in which US healthcare is way better than Finland --- getting laid is much easier in the former than in the latter) --- my apologies toJBS, it's not that I couldn't resist, it's that there is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I will remain skeptical of that until we find someone with appropriate experience of both American and Finnish ladies.  I certainly don't have experience of the latter.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 28, 2020, 08:21:50 AM
Quote from: Florestan on January 28, 2020, 08:20:18 AM
The last thing Poju need is a lady, be her American or Finnish. He needs an experienced whore, no matter what nationality, to give him a good fuck, period. I know you would disagree with me but I stand by it.

Being a lady and being a harlot are not mutually exclusive things.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 28, 2020, 08:49:19 AM
Quote from: ritter on January 28, 2020, 07:36:38 AM
The way you put it, 71db, Mr. Trump needs no luck in winning that issue (and this is an avowed social democrat talking). The very notion that such terminology can have any persuasive effects on American voters simply reflects an absolute ignorance of the "American way".

Well is Bernie doing badly or well in the race? According to your "American way" he should have near zero support, am I wrong? Left-wing ideas have a long history in the US (FDR, MLK, JFK...), but of course the corporate media tries to render a completely different narrative.

Quote from: ritter on January 28, 2020, 07:36:38 AMAnd, with all due respect and sympathy, your futile attempts to shove your personal political agenda (some of which I--partly--may share, but is argued in such an uniformed and dogmatic way that it becomes ridiculous) down the throats of our fellow GMGers across the Atlantic, as if you, by some miraculous power, knew what is good for them better than they themselves, were perhaps quaint at the start, then mildly amusing, and now completely insufferable (not to mention insulting, not only to Americans).

Considering who is the current president of the US, one might argue Americans could benefit from the insight of people on the other side of the Atlantic ocean...  ...Trump is the symptom of four decades of oligarchy. Removing Trump is not enough, you need to remove oligarcy too. That's when people don't vote for reality tv baffoons out of desperation.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on January 28, 2020, 09:09:31 AM
https://www.youtube.com/v/rCxgDhMudFY
From 1'08" to 1'55", but the whole thing is wonderful (artificial as it is--IIRC, Sinatra and Frankiln never met to record this, as can be deducted from the video)... ;)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on January 29, 2020, 01:14:28 AM
If anyone wants to hear some analysis of various policy proposals instead of merely slagging each other off constantly about whether or not things can possibly work in the USA how they work anywhere else, I suggest trying the latest season of the podcast The Impact.

You won't even go metric. You'd have your own laws of physics if possible...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 29, 2020, 03:30:31 AM
Quote from: Madiel on January 29, 2020, 01:14:28 AM
You won't even go metric. You'd have your own laws of physics if possible...

Pardon my ignorznce, but is that "slagging"?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 29, 2020, 03:38:50 AM
Quote from: Madiel on January 29, 2020, 01:14:28 AM
You'd have your own laws of physics if possible...

I believe some flat-Earthers say gravity* doesn't exist... ...it's all buoyancy!  ;D

(buoyancy is caused by gravity and density difference)

* Yeah yeah I know, it's curvature of spacetime**, but we experience it as the force of gravity because we don't experience spacetime as it is, but totally separate space and time instead.

** As a matter of fact, spacetime is probably just an emergent property of the underlying reality just like gravity is an emergent property of curvature of spacetime, but that's stuff only the smartest minds in the field of physics are debating about. Space and time (separated or together) may end up being concepts science needs to throw away to advance. Concepts that served science well for some 400 years, but need to give place for something deeper.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 29, 2020, 03:51:56 AM
Quote from: Madiel on January 29, 2020, 01:14:28 AM
You won't even go metric.

The US is more metric than people think.

https://www.youtube.com/v/MJd0aBQuTYQ
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on January 29, 2020, 04:27:44 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 29, 2020, 03:30:31 AM
Pardon my ignorznce, but is that "slagging"?

Near enough.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on January 29, 2020, 07:25:02 AM
Quote from: Madiel on January 29, 2020, 01:14:28 AM
You won't even go metric. You'd have your own laws of physics if possible...
I think most people probably want to? But it's not something that can easily change.

And of course, the sciences are a different story.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 29, 2020, 08:07:53 AM
Quote from: greg on January 29, 2020, 07:25:02 AM
But it's not something that can easily change.

In 2002 Finland started using euros instead of Finnish mark (mk). One Euro was just under 6 mk, so multiplying the euro prices by 6 gave the price in Finnish marks. So, CDs that used to cost ~120 mk were ~20 euros and so on... ...for about two years some people said they keep converting prices to Finnish marks in their head to have an idea of how expensive things are, but after that everyone just used euros: ~20 euros was the normal price for CDs, 10 euros was a cheap CD and 5 euros bargain bin price... ...then came LED lightning and multiplying by 6 was a thing again: 10 W LED equals 60 W incandescent lamp.  ;D

...people learn to use other "units" if they just start doing so.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 29, 2020, 09:05:29 AM
QuoteThe numbers that stand out concern Sanders. Sanders's favorability hit 70 percent in early January but has now dropped to 61 percent, while his unfavorable number has gone from 22 percent to 32 percent. This coincides with a flurry of negative stories about Sanders: his overly aggressive Bernie Bros, the revelation that he reportedly told Warren that a woman was not electable (which Sanders denied), his false attacks on Biden on Social Security, his refusal to say how much his extravagant plans cost, his apology for spreading a Trump-like attack that Biden is "corrupt" and rising concern among Democrats that he might be the least electable of the top contenders. Others have raised the point that he has never been thoroughly vetted.

Perhaps for the first time in his political career, he is getting thoroughly blasted by fellow Democrats, and he has not been able to do much about it. For one thing, he has been tied up in the impeachment trial. (The Biden camp fully appreciates the irony.) More than that, he seems at a loss to respond to real scrutiny, not an encouraging sign for a party about to go up against President Trump. This is a case in which the candidates and his followers know how to dish it out but not how to take it.

To a much greater degree, the glass-jaw phenomenon afflicted Warren when her Medicare-for-all scheme went under the microscope. (First she refused to say how much it would cost, then she put out a controversial and eye-popping funding scheme and eventually backed away from the whole thing.) She has yet to recover fully.

Biden's campaign is happy to point out that Biden has been bashed for a year (and targeted by Trump in his Ukraine scheme) but is still standing. Resilience might be the most under-appreciated quality in a presidential candidate.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 29, 2020, 09:44:35 AM
Be it noted that Florida's primary is March 17. The most recent polls show Biden in the 35-40% range, Bernie in the 12-15% range, and Bloomberg at 12%, with everyone else below 10%.

One recent poll shows Bloomberg at 17% and Bernie at 9%. 
Florida being what it is, we have plenty of experience with health care and all its problems. If the Young Turks were right, we ought to be lining up enthusiastically for Bernie. But somehow  we aren't.  Maybe because the corporate "brainwashing" against Medicare for All has a solid basis in reality, after all.

Table of polls here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Florida_Democratic_primary
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on January 29, 2020, 10:27:47 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 29, 2020, 08:07:53 AM
In 2002 Finland started using euros instead of Finnish mark (mk). One Euro was just under 6 mk, so multiplying the euro prices by 6 gave the price in Finnish marks. So, CDs that used to cost ~120 mk were ~20 euros and so on... ...for about two years some people said they keep converting prices to Finnish marks in their head to have an idea of how expensive things are, but after that everyone just used euros: ~20 euros was the normal price for CDs, 10 euros was a cheap CD and 5 euros bargain bin price... ...then came LED lightning and multiplying by 6 was a thing again: 10 W LED equals 60 W incandescent lamp.  ;D

...people learn to use other "units" if they just start doing so.
Well, that's great. But honestly I think that's totally incomparable with the US adopting metric.

300 million more people and things that provide American measurement won't just go away. For example, a lot of people will have cars for 10, 20 years or longer that show speed as mph. All of the signs are still in mph. So the average person has no incentive to learn kph.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 29, 2020, 10:37:59 AM
Quote from: greg on January 29, 2020, 10:27:47 AM
Well, that's great. But honestly I think that's totally incomparable with the US adopting metric.

300 million more people and things that provide American measurement won't just go away. For example, a lot of people will have cars for 10, 20 years or longer that show speed as mph. All of the signs are still in mph. So the average person has no incentive to learn kph.

A lot of speedometers have kph already. Most rules show both metric and American, and so on. But plenty of things presume the standard America measurements.  It will take the building trades a long time to get used to using 5 by 10s instead of 2 by 4s.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on January 29, 2020, 11:03:44 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 29, 2020, 10:37:59 AM
A lot of speedometers have kph already. Most rules show both metric and American, and so on. But plenty of things presume the standard America measurements.  It will take the building trades a long time to get used to using 5 by 10s instead of 2 by 4s.
They do but mph are usually written with bigger numbers, usually, i think... The bigger issue is to change like a million signs and hope people don't start crashing lol. 😛
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 29, 2020, 11:34:52 AM
Quote from: Madiel on January 29, 2020, 01:14:28 AM
If anyone wants to hear some analysis of various policy proposals instead of merely slagging each other off constantly about whether or not things can possibly work in the USA how they work anywhere else, I suggest trying the latest season of the podcast The Impact.


Hadn't heard of that. Thanks for the heads up.

Their latest episode is called "How Taiwan Got Medicare For All", in case that subject is of interest to anyone here.

I pricked up my ears at an ad they had for another podcast: Jon Favreau (formerly Obama's speechwriter) hosting "The Wilderness", going around Trump America and battleground states talking to voters about what it would take for the Democrats to defeat Trump.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on January 29, 2020, 12:42:57 PM
As predicted, all I had to was mention metric to generate all the "here's why we can't measure the way the rest of the world does" arguments that don't look all that different to "here's why we can't do health care the way the rest of the world does" arguments.

You can, if you actually want to. You probably won't, but you can.

Now, back to my original suggestion: latest season of the podcast The Impact. All about looking at Democratic candidates policy proposals and the implications.

Bye again.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on January 29, 2020, 01:20:07 PM
The US military uses "clicks" for kilometers, doesn't it?

Anyway, being from a more rational country I'm off to play some of my 30.48 cm records...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 29, 2020, 02:52:47 PM
Quote from: greg on January 29, 2020, 10:27:47 AM
Well, that's great. But honestly I think that's totally incomparable with the US adopting metric.

300 million more people and things that provide American measurement won't just go away. For example, a lot of people will have cars for 10, 20 years or longer that show speed as mph. All of the signs are still in mph. So the average person has no incentive to learn kph.

It just occurred to me that there's some things nobody uses metric system: TV sizes are in inches everywhere. I have a 32 inch TV. Nobody says 80 cm or 0.8 m TV.  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on January 29, 2020, 02:53:06 PM
Sometimes size isn't important.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 29, 2020, 02:56:07 PM
Quote from: Madiel on January 29, 2020, 02:53:06 PM
Sometimes size isn't important.

You mean when women aren't asked?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on January 29, 2020, 02:57:34 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 29, 2020, 02:56:07 PM
You mean when women aren't asked?

I don't have those kinds of interactions with women anyway.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Sergeant Rock on January 29, 2020, 03:12:18 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 29, 2020, 01:20:07 PM
The US military uses "clicks" for kilometers, doesn't it?

And it also uses metric when describing weapons. For example, the M-16 is called Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm and the M-1 Abrams is armed with a 120mm gun.

Sarge
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on January 29, 2020, 04:31:55 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on January 29, 2020, 02:56:07 PM
You mean when women aren't asked?
-American guy meets European lady
-European lady: "So how big is it?"
-American guy whips out...


calculator to convert from inches to centimeters.  :o
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Wendell_E on January 30, 2020, 03:21:37 AM
Quote from: greg on January 29, 2020, 11:03:44 AM
They do but mph are usually written with bigger numbers, usually, i think... The bigger issue is to change like a million signs and hope people don't start crashing lol. 😛

For years, there were speed limit signs in the U.S. with both MPH and km/h. In 2009, it was actually made illegal to install new signs with the metric speed limit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States#Metric_speed_limits
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 30, 2020, 10:54:10 AM
QuoteThe Pew Research Center finds that nationally 26 percent of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters favor former vice president Joe Biden, 21 percent go with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), 16 percent with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), 7 percent with former South Bend, Ind. mayor Pete Buttigieg and 5 percent with former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg. As we have seen in other polling, "Biden leads among black Democrats, while white Democrats are closely divided. Sanders draws broad support among young Democrats, as he did four years ago, while Biden leads among older Democrats."

And, what does not break to Bernie's advantage, either:

QuoteSurprisingly, given the amount of media play devoted to the left, a large percentage of voters still want Democrats to cooperate with Republicans: "63% of Democratic voters — including substantial shares of those who support Buttigieg (82%), Bloomberg (79%) and Biden (72%) for the nomination — say it is more important for a Democratic candidate to seek common ground with Republicans, even if it means giving up some things Democrats want."

Full piece here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/30/what-are-democratic-primary-voters-thinking/)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on January 30, 2020, 10:59:09 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 30, 2020, 10:54:10 AM
And, what does not break to Bernie's advantage, either:

Full piece here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/30/what-are-democratic-primary-voters-thinking/)

Given the pronounced trend among Republicans to refuse to even try to find common ground with Democrats, I'm not sure that break disadvantages Bernie as much as it may seem.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on January 30, 2020, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: JBS on January 30, 2020, 10:59:09 AM
Given the pronounced trend among Republicans to refuse to even try to find common ground with Democrats, I'm not sure that break disadvantages Bernie as much as it may seem.

There's that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on January 31, 2020, 02:35:43 AM
Am I on an AIPAC forum?

Some 5 weeks and super-Tuesday is done. Then we are much wiser about how this race is unfolding.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 01, 2020, 08:18:24 PM
Sanders Beats Trump, Even When Called A 'Socialist'

https://www.youtube.com/v/NL1cf6RNX3o
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 04, 2020, 06:49:00 AM
Iowa Results Coming Soon... ...so from now on IRCS means something trivial that is seriously delayed because of incompetence?

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on February 04, 2020, 10:56:29 AM
Iowa caucuses are straight out of the jurassic era. Focusing on how rural white voters accounting for less than 1% of the population are voting is hardly an indication of a healthy democracy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 04, 2020, 11:51:00 AM
On the Bernie campaign plane heading to New Hamphire were given these initial results based on 60 % of districts counted:

Bernie Sanders: 29.40 %
Pete Buttigieg: 24.87 %
Elizabeth Warren: 20.65 %
Joe Biden: 12.92 %
Amy Klobuchar: 11.18 %

These numbers are close to the number after just 15 % of districts counted and Bernie's campaign folks believe the final results are close to these numbers. Hopefully soon we will know.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 04, 2020, 01:25:20 PM
Oh shit!  :o This doesn't look good for Bernie:

Pete Buttigieg: 26.9 %
Bernie Sanders: 25.1 %
Elizabeth Warren: 18.3 %
Joe Biden: 15.6 %
Amy Klobuchar: 12.6 %

62 % reporting...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on February 04, 2020, 01:27:24 PM
Calm down, it's only the Iowa caucuses... ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 04, 2020, 02:43:58 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 04, 2020, 01:25:20 PM
Oh shit!  :o This doesn't look good for Bernie:

Pete Buttigieg: 26.9 %
Bernie Sanders: 25.1 %
Elizabeth Warren: 18.3 %
Joe Biden: 15.6 %
Amy Klobuchar: 12.6 %

62 % reporting...

The best scenario for Bernie would be a victory in Iowa, and then in New Hampshire; it's going to be interesting to see how Sanders & Warren square off in the Granite State.

If the numbers hold, it's both a real triumph for "Mayor Pete," and an argument for moderation.

Possibly not an absolute disaster for Biden, but bad news, all the same . . . may give his donors pause.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 05, 2020, 01:06:57 AM
I think it's safe to say that Iowa has become a disaster for the Democrats in general. What a mess.

As one comment observed, this was supposed to be the moment when Americans celebrated their electoral system post-2016 Russian taint. Instead what they got was hung up phone calls live on television.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 05, 2020, 01:08:10 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 04, 2020, 01:25:20 PM
Oh shit!  :o This doesn't look good for Bernie:

Pete Buttigieg: 26.9 %
Bernie Sanders: 25.1 %
Elizabeth Warren: 18.3 %
Joe Biden: 15.6 %
Amy Klobuchar: 12.6 %

62 % reporting...

How is second place worthy of an "oh shit" reaction?

Only if you've been living in a fantasy bubble of commentary of how wonderfully Bernie is doing and how it's all the fault of mainstream media that they don't portray him as the runaway success...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 05, 2020, 01:30:47 AM
Quote from: Madiel on February 05, 2020, 01:08:10 AM
How is second place worthy of an "oh shit" reaction?

Only if you've been living in a fantasy bubble of commentary of how wonderfully Bernie is doing and how it's all the fault of mainstream media that they don't portray him as the runaway success...

The delegates don't matter in Iowa, but Bernie could have eroded the myth that he is not electable. Now thanks to the result reporting disaster and  the fact that Buttigieg is the one claiming victory people don't get that message. I fear people didn't even realize Bernie seems to have won the popular vote. So, Bernie didn't get much from Iowa. He could have skipped it like Bloomberg. Time and money "wasted."

Now 71 % of the results available. The numbers are almost the same.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 05, 2020, 01:36:15 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 05, 2020, 01:30:47 AM
The delegates don't matter in Iowa, but Bernie could have eroded the myth that he is not electable. Now thanks to the result reporting disaster and  the fact that Buttigieg is the one claiming victory people don't get that message. I fear people didn't even realize Bernie seems to have won the popular vote. So, Bernie didn't get much from Iowa. He could have skipped it like Bloomberg. Time and money "wasted."

Now 71 % of the results available. The numbers are almost the same.

Again, I fail to see how coming 2nd, well ahead of Biden, fails to dispel the notion that Bernie is not electable.

For one thing, it's 2nd. For another, the argument about Sanders is usually about his general popularity rather than his popularity in a Democratic primary.

And Bloomberg did not "skip" Iowa. Bloomberg was not eligible for Iowa. I wouldn't have expected you of all people to give Bloomberg credit for a strategic move when what actually happened was basically being too late to do the paperwork.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 05, 2020, 02:28:24 AM
Quote from: Madiel on February 05, 2020, 01:36:15 AM
Again, I fail to see how coming 2nd, well ahead of Biden, fails to dispel the notion that Bernie is not electable.

Because the press is all that matters here. Have you seen the media writing "Bernie victorious in Iowa"? Facts are facts. The facts say Bernie was successful in Iowa, but HOW it is reported matters to how people think about Bernie's chances in this race and against Trump. Bernie needs a clear message of electability in the first four states to make people realize the myth of Bernie less electable than Biden is just a corporate myth based on zero facts. Come the super Tuesday people should know that Bernie can beat Trump badly and in in fact even the strongest against Trump so that people don't vote for corporate candidates just because corporate media told them "socialists" can't win. In New Hampshire Bernie should win with ease since the polls say he has got a massive lead there, but not all states are good for Bernie. In many states he really struggles compared to Biden. Hopefully the not so great numbers for Biden in Iowa make some people think if he really is as electable as the corporate media claims he is.

Quote from: Madiel on February 05, 2020, 01:36:15 AMFor one thing, it's 2nd. For another, the argument about Sanders is usually about his general popularity rather than his popularity in a Democratic primary.

Gold medals are won. Silver medals are lost. It's all about winners. It's psychology. Bernie seems to have won the popular vote in Iowa, but does the corporate media bring it up or do they try to hide it?

Quote from: Madiel on February 05, 2020, 01:36:15 AMAnd Bloomberg did not "skip" Iowa. Bloomberg was not eligible for Iowa. I wouldn't have expected you of all people to give Bloomberg credit for a strategic move when what actually happened was basically being too late to do the paperwork.

He chose to enter the race last. It's his strategy, to carpet bomb the airwaves with adds to buy the elections in an oligarchic fashion.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 05, 2020, 02:40:59 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 05, 2020, 02:28:24 AM
Have you seen the media writing "Bernie victorious in Iowa"?

Why would they? He came second.

QuoteFacts are facts.

Indeed. You don't seem very good at grappling with the one that you yourself posted, not least because nearly everything you're saying is geared towards a 2-person contest.

Including the ludicrous bit about gold medals being won and silver medals being lost. That explains a hell of a lot of what is going on in your head.

This is the first round of a very long contest. It's as if you're writing off a champion team in a European football league when they only get a draw on the opening weekend, or even got a 1-0 win while some rival scored a big win, and saying "well there goes our chances at the title this year".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 05, 2020, 03:12:11 AM
Quote from: Madiel on February 05, 2020, 02:40:59 AM
Why would they? He came second.

Exactly! That's why I wish he had come first!

Quote from: Madiel on February 05, 2020, 02:40:59 AMIndeed. You don't seem very good at grappling with the one that you yourself posted, not least because nearly everything you're saying is geared towards a 2-person contest.

Buttigieg may find it more difficult to win in states with more black population.

Quote from: Madiel on February 05, 2020, 02:40:59 AMIncluding the ludicrous bit about gold medals being won and silver medals being lost. That explains a hell of a lot of what is going on in your head.

Not in "my" head by in people's heads. In Finland the media is writing Buttigieg is now the leader of the race (what idiots!! Iowa is practically a white state so a person who didn't do anything to racism in South Bend police can win there).

Quote from: Madiel on February 05, 2020, 02:40:59 AMThis is the first round of a very long contest. It's as if you're writing off a champion team in a European football league when they only get a draw on the opening weekend, or even got a 1-0 win while some rival scored a big win, and saying "well there goes our chances at the title this year".

Yes, but the media writes "Buttigieg victorious in Iowa". How does that help Bernie? This sets the tone. Some people might think Bernie is a looser since he did not win in Iowa. Yeah, people are that stupid. One Buttigieg voter found out just after voting for Buttigieg that he is a gay and wanted her vote back. Apparently some people don't spent 10 seconds to learn about the candidates they are supporting. It all about feeling. Buttigieg feels good until you hear he is a gay. That is so stupid I have no words. When do people think about the POLICIES of the candidates, the things that actually MATTER?? Being gay or straight doesn't matter!! Being for or against medicare for all matters. People die or live because of opinion like that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 05, 2020, 04:18:05 AM
Sigh.

Wake me in June.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 05, 2020, 04:30:25 AM
Quote from: Madiel on February 05, 2020, 04:18:05 AM
Sigh.

Wake me in June.

What do you expect me to do? I am a Bernie supporter and everyone here knows it. Of course I am disappointed of the situation where Bernie didn't get as much momentum as theoretically possible. Bernie needs of overwin to win because the system is rigged against him. Now he didn't even win. He was second. That is if the order doesn't change when the 100 % result is given.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 05, 2020, 06:15:08 AM
Conspiracy theories are out:
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 05, 2020, 06:54:53 AM
The latest New Hampshire poll (Emerson 2/1 to 2/3):

Bernie 32 % (+3)
Biden 13 % (-1)
Warren 13 % (+1)
Klobuchar 12 % (+4)
Buttigieg 12 % (-1)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 05, 2020, 07:45:24 AM
Quote from: Madiel on February 05, 2020, 02:40:59 AM
Why would they? He came second.

Indeed. You don't seem very good at grappling with the one that you yourself posted, not least because nearly everything you're saying is geared towards a 2-person contest.

Including the ludicrous bit about gold medals being won and silver medals being lost. That explains a hell of a lot of what is going on in your head.

This is the first round of a very long contest. It's as if you're writing off a champion team in a European football league when they only get a draw on the opening weekend, or even got a 1-0 win while some rival scored a big win, and saying "well there goes our chances at the title this year".

Some people won't take reasonable success as a result . . . .
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 05, 2020, 07:47:58 AM
QuoteWe may not have complete results in Iowa before the New Hampshire primary. Think about that for a moment, and you can appreciate the utter waste of time and money that candidates have expended. One result of the Iowa debacle is perhaps some added importance for the New Hampshire contest for three of the Democratic contenders.

However prematurely and unfairly, the media likely will raise the stakes for both Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and former vice president Joe Biden. While Biden seems to have had the poorer outing in Iowa, he still has Nevada and South Carolina to fall back on where increased voter diversity should work in his favor. The situation is more dire for Warren, who is not favored to win either Nevada or South Carolina. If she cannot win in her own backyard, the pundits will question, where is she going to win?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 05, 2020, 07:52:07 AM
Admittedly, a hostile view:

If you liked the Iowa Caucuses, You'll Love Medicare-For-All (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/04/if-you-liked-iowa-caucuses-youll-love-medicare-for-all/)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 05, 2020, 10:30:33 AM
Now 75 % of the votes in. No change in the numbers. Are the rest 25 % of votes from districts strong for Bernie and this way DNC upholds the narrative of Buttigieg leading? The left is REALLY pissed off about how this went. Come on USA! They have cleaner elections in Africa!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 05, 2020, 01:44:28 PM
86 % reporting:

Buttigieg 26.7 %
Sanders 25.4 %
Warren 18.3 %
Biden 15.9 %
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 05, 2020, 03:29:24 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 05, 2020, 10:30:33 AM
Now 75 % of the votes in. No change in the numbers. Are the rest 25 % of votes from districts strong for Bernie and this way DNC upholds the narrative of Buttigieg leading? The left is REALLY pissed off about how this went. Come on USA! They have cleaner elections in Africa!

I haven't seen any suggestions the Iowa process wasn't clean. It was just incompetent. There's a difference.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 05, 2020, 03:58:07 PM
Quote from: Madiel on February 05, 2020, 03:29:24 PM
I haven't seen any suggestions the Iowa process wasn't clean. It was just incompetent. There's a difference.

So there is nothing shady about Buttigieg donating $42k to the company developping the app they used? Why did he donate that money?
Why is there a significant difference between the Bernie campaign numbers and these released numbers? Why is Bernie 2nd dispate having most popular votes? A lot of weird things + we know Bernie is hated by the establishment and they REALLY want to stop Bernie.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 05, 2020, 04:46:53 PM
#BREAKING: Iowa Dems PULL #IowaCaucus Results After Giving BERNIE SANDERS Votes to Steyer & Patrick

https://www.youtube.com/v/GKbjWQcLVCQ

What a $HITHOLE OLIGARCHY COUNTRY !!!

Even Team Biden Questions the results. This was RIGGED for Buttigieg and it says a lot about what kind of person Buttigieg is!
Buttigieg wanted the last polls in Iowa not released. BERNIE was leading in that poll! BUTTIGIEG rigged this so that he walked out as the winner when Bernie was AT LEAST popular vote winner! Sickening!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 05, 2020, 05:05:40 PM
92 % reporting:

Buttigieg 26.5 %
Sanders 25.6 %
Warren 18.3 %
Biden 15.9 %
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 05, 2020, 05:27:55 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 05, 2020, 03:58:07 PM
So there is nothing shady about Buttigieg donating $42k to the company developping the app they used? Why did he donate that money?
Why is there a significant difference between the Bernie campaign numbers and these released numbers? Why is Bernie 2nd dispate having most popular votes? A lot of weird things + we know Bernie is hated by the establishment and they REALLY want to stop Bernie.

Oh you're full in the Conspiracy Theory tank, aren't you?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 05, 2020, 05:30:09 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 05, 2020, 05:27:55 PM
Oh you're full in the Conspiracy Theory tank, aren't you?

You are all ignorant morons who don't know what real democracy is living in your oligarchy! Open your eyes already!

Is it just coinsidence every fuck up and mistake benefits Buttigieg and harms Bernie?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 05, 2020, 05:33:54 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 05, 2020, 03:58:07 PM
So there is nothing shady about Buttigieg donating $42k to the company developping the app they used? Why did he donate that money?
Why is there a significant difference between the Bernie campaign numbers and these released numbers? Why is Bernie 2nd dispate having most popular votes? A lot of weird things + we know Bernie is hated by the establishment and they REALLY want to stop Bernie.

If you don't understand why the popular vote is irrelevant (as it is in many of the world's electoral systems), I don't have the patience to explain it to you.

The popular vote is a statistic rolled out by people who lost to explain that they would have won a different contest with different rules.

Hillary Clinton won the national popular vote. While I'm sad she lost the election, I'm heartily sick of left leaning friends who keep rolling out this fact as if it means something. It doesn't. The only elections where the overall popular vote matters are ones where you have no subdivisions of the votes into districts or electorates. But in most elections you DO have subdivisions and each subdivision is in effect a separate contest.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 05, 2020, 06:02:11 PM
Quote from: Madiel on February 05, 2020, 05:33:54 PM
If you don't understand why the popular vote is irrelevant (as it is in many of the world's electoral systems), I don't have the patience to explain it to you.

The popular vote is a statistic rolled out by people who lost to explain that they would have won a different contest with different rules.

Hillary Clinton won the national popular vote. While I'm sad she lost the election, I'm heartily sick of left leaning friends who keep rolling out this fact as if it means something. It doesn't. The only elections where the overall popular vote matters are ones where you have no subdivisions of the votes into districts or electorates. But in most elections you DO have subdivisions and each subdivision is in effect a separate contest.

So what IS relevant? Popular vote is the thing that shows how much support candidates really have. As of now Buttigieg is leading in the number of state delegate equivalents (532) versus Bernie (513), but both are getting 11 delegates.

Buttigieg DID NOT win popular vote. Bernie did.
Buttigieg DID NOT win delegates. It's a draw with Bernie.
Buttigieg DID win state delegate equivalents. Somehow that's relevant (in beating Trump?) and he celebrates the victory in Iowa.

If the result is rigged for Buttigieg, it's possible Buttigieg didn't win even state delegate equivalents.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on February 05, 2020, 06:04:55 PM
I wonder how you'll survive 2020... ???
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 05, 2020, 06:11:31 PM
Quote from: André on February 05, 2020, 06:04:55 PM
I wonder how you'll survive 2020... ???

In the Kulinski bunker.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 05, 2020, 06:12:32 PM
Quote from: André on February 05, 2020, 06:04:55 PM
I wonder how you'll survive 2020... ???

I am very worried myself too, but the US political system is an epic lusterfuck and the future of this planet depends on it.  ???  ???  ???
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 05, 2020, 06:50:49 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 05, 2020, 06:02:11 PM
So what IS relevant? Popular vote is the thing that shows how much support candidates really have. As of now Buttigieg is leading in the number of state delegate equivalents (532) versus Bernie (513), but both are getting 11 delegates.

Buttigieg DID NOT win popular vote. Bernie did.
Buttigieg DID NOT win delegates. It's a draw with Bernie.
Buttigieg DID win state delegate equivalents. Somehow that's relevant (in beating Trump?) and he celebrates the victory in Iowa.

If the result is rigged for Buttigieg, it's possible Buttigieg didn't win even state delegate equivalents.

No one "won" the popular vote count or the delegate count, since no one came close to the 50% mark. Bernie at best has a very slim lead for a plurality.

And if you haven't noticed, no matter what figures you use,  at least 7 out of 10 people at those caucuses voted for someone who was not Bernie.  Add his votes to Warren, and you still find over half of them voted for a moderate, and not an avowed leftist.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 05, 2020, 08:43:42 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 05, 2020, 06:02:11 PM
So what IS relevant? Popular vote is the thing that shows how much support candidates really have. As of now Buttigieg is leading in the number of state delegate equivalents (532) versus Bernie (513), but both are getting 11 delegates.

Buttigieg DID NOT win popular vote. Bernie did.
Buttigieg DID NOT win delegates. It's a draw with Bernie.
Buttigieg DID win state delegate equivalents. Somehow that's relevant (in beating Trump?) and he celebrates the victory in Iowa.

If the result is rigged for Buttigieg, it's possible Buttigieg didn't win even state delegate equivalents.

See? You think how much support candidates "really have" is important. Right after I told you Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.

How many supporters is not the only factor. Who they are and where they are matter a lot too.

It's not a contest about raw numbers, any more than a tennis match is won by winning the higher number of points.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 06, 2020, 01:04:35 AM
Quote from: Madiel on February 05, 2020, 08:43:42 PM
See? You think how much support candidates "really have" is important. Right after I told you Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.

How many supporters is not the only factor. Who they are and where they are matter a lot too.

It's not a contest about raw numbers, any more than a tennis match is won by winning the higher number of points.

The election was OVER in Clinton's case. Here the primaries just started, Buttigieg is not yet the nominee is he? Bernie support is re-used in general against Trump. It's questionable if Buttigieg even won according to the latest numbers 97 % reporting:
(Total S.D.E.s)

Pete Buttigieg   26.2 %   (550)   
Bernie Sanders   26.1 %   (547)    
Elizabeth Warren   18.2 %   (381)   
Joseph R. Biden Jr.   15.8 %   (331)    
Amy Klobuchar   12.2 %   (255)    
Andrew Yang   1.0 %   (22)    
Tom Steyer   0.3 %   (7)    

Furthermore, The New York Times gives now 54 % chance for Bernie winning Iowa! So, it looks the results have been given cherry-picked and slowly on purpose to make Buttigieg number one and have his victory dance in the media for days! That's what you get paying $42k. In Finland this would be scandal of the decade. In the US it's Tuesday, apparently...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 06, 2020, 03:09:29 AM
Looks like Andrew Yang got robbed too. Yang gang believe Yang did much better than 1 %.

Progressives demand Tom Perez to resign. You are not supposed to RIG the elections to ANYONE, but let the people decide!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 06, 2020, 10:34:25 AM
Bernie Sanders claims victory in Iowa based on winning the popular vote. He says S.D.E.s are irrelevant on national level as they only determine how the Democratic party operates in Iowa. The remaining votes are from areas strong to Bernie (such as satellites) and it's possible Bernie wins even S.D.E.s in the end (Tom Perez has ordered a recount).

https://www.youtube.com/v/m63KAjt4UHo
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on February 06, 2020, 10:48:53 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 06, 2020, 01:04:35 AM
...So, it looks the results have been given cherry-picked and slowly on purpose to make Buttigieg number one and have his victory dance in the media for days!...

That is nonsense. It nearly always happens that the reporting of votes is faster in some districts than others for practical reasons, rural vs urban, eastern vs western, other random factors, etc, and there is some drift in the contest as the tabulation progresses. You have to ask yourself about the motivation of the supposed conspirators.

"Let's make Iowa the laughing-stock of the country and completely discredit the Iowa caucus system so that we can show a small lead for Buttigieg that evaporates after a day or so when they finally finish the tabulation! Hooray!"

Can even you believe that?

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 06, 2020, 10:59:57 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 06, 2020, 10:34:25 AM
Bernie Sanders claims victory in Iowa based on winning the popular vote. He says S.D.E.s are irrelevant on national level as they only determine how the Democratic party operates in Iowa. The remaining votes are from areas strong to Bernie (such as satellites) and it's possible Bernie wins even S.D.E.s in the end (Tom Perez has ordered a recount).

https://www.youtube.com/v/m63KAjt4UHo

The real point you are apparently missing

Over 70% of those who voted, voted for someone who not was Bernie.
Over half of those who voted, voted for  a moderate. 
Only Democrats voted in that election.    IOW, the people you like represent less than half of the Democratic party, much less the entire country.

And I know you focus on health care, but Bernie has plans that actually worse than Medicare for All.    Here is his Housing plan.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/housing-all/

Which (to point out the things that might not be immediately obvious to someone who is not from the States) involves the Federal government forcibly imposing itself into local zoning and housing, rent control and evictions, matters that are now under state and local control.  He wants to expand Section 8 housing programs.  Section 8 might be better called the "Slumlord's Subsidy Program".  His talk about sustainability in housing and supporting new home buyers sound nice, until you realize that all they really do is implement under  a new name most of the stuff that led to the Real Estate Bubble and its subsequent crash.  About the only thing in that plan that isn't objectionable are his plans to expand public housing for the homeless.  Even his plans to end predatory lending aren't worth anything.  (There are more than enough laws on the books to deal with the problem.  They just aren't enforced.  This is the fault of all sectors in the political spectrum.)

All Trump has to do is to run an ad that tells voters Sanders wants to decide how much they can sell or rent their house to, and to whom they can sell it to....and it would be true to the facts....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 06, 2020, 11:01:55 AM
This, for your information, is the headquarters of the Iowa Democratic Party

(https://cdn.ricochet.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/iowa_DNC_HQ-600x405.jpg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 06, 2020, 11:05:06 AM
I don't waste my time with you JBS anymore. Write whatever you like, I don't care.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 06, 2020, 12:08:13 PM
Kyle Kulinski: Bernie is now MASSIVE Favorite to be democratic nominee.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 06, 2020, 12:09:23 PM
Well it's in red and bold, so the other 49 states can just save us all that voting business.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on February 06, 2020, 12:49:44 PM
Quote from: Madiel on February 06, 2020, 12:09:23 PM
Well it's in red and bold, so the other 49 states can just save us all that voting business.

And MASSIVE. Don't forget MASSIVE...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on February 06, 2020, 04:52:34 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 06, 2020, 11:01:55 AM
This, for your information, is the headquarters of the Iowa Democratic Party

(https://cdn.ricochet.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/iowa_DNC_HQ-600x405.jpg)

Looks about right. Wait, is that an old lady getting mugged around the corner. Nah, it was just Elizabeth Warren. We can turn the other cheek since nobody really cares anyway. :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on February 06, 2020, 05:13:00 PM
The republicans worked with Cambridge Analytica to create a Facebook game that compiled massive amounts of demographic/political data on unwitting Facebook users. The democrats created an app to tabulate Iowa Caucus results which was apparently incapable of counting votes. Who do you think will win next year?  :'(
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 07, 2020, 11:53:36 AM
QuotePerhaps it was the contrast in tone, temperament and intellectual wattage between Trump and Buttigieg or the blatantly ridiculous and insincere arguments advanced by Senate Republicans in defense of an abjectly unfit president. Whatever the reason, it did feel like a breath of fresh air (or "turning the channel," as Buttigieg likes to say) to listen to an intellectually rigorous and decent politician. Buttigieg gets snarky criticism from those who think he is too programmed, too cerebral. Frankly, we could do a lot worse at this point than a prepared and intellectually sophisticated president.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 07, 2020, 11:59:52 AM
Pete Buttigieg is interested of being the president, his political career. He is not interested of changing anything. He would be like Trump, a status quo president serving the top 1 % who donates him tons of money money, just intelligent and without mean Tweets. The problem. The lack of change gave us Trump. So, if president Buttigieg doesn't change anything, after him we get Trump 2 (Ivanka?). You don't want that, right.

Buttigieg is a conman. Smart and dangerous. You don't see this?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 07, 2020, 12:20:45 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 07, 2020, 11:59:52 AM
Pete Buttigieg is interested of being the president, his political career. He is not interested of changing anything. He would be like Trump, a status quo president serving the top 1 % who donates him tons of money money, just intelligent and without mean Tweets. The problem. The lack of change gave us Trump. So, if president Buttigieg doesn't change anything, after him we get Trump 2 (Ivanka?). You don't want that, right.

Buttigieg is a conman. Smart and dangerous. You don't see this?

Actually he's the mayor of South Bend.
Your idea that anyone who doesn't agree with Bernie's policies is a "con man" and is beholden to "the 1% "simply  demonstrates you know a lot less about US politics than you think you do.  You can't get yourself to admit that Bernie's plans not the only possible solutions to our problems.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 07, 2020, 12:43:53 PM
QuoteThe Iowa caucuses have given us confused, uncertain and incomplete results. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) claims more raw votes; former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg claims a narrow lead in state delegate equivalents. The Democratic National Committee says Iowa needs to recanvass. On top of that, both campaigns think there are inaccuracies, and there is a dispute on how satellite caucuses should be counted. Frankly, one might argue the bollixed caucus should simply void Iowa's 41 delegates.

In any event, one would think that the Iowa results — to the extent we know what they are — should have no effect on New Hampshire voters or the rest of the race. If Iowa is a wash, everyone starts again, this time in the Granite State, right? Somewhat surprisingly, however, there has been considerable movement in the New Hampshire polls since Iowa.

The WBZ-Suffolk University-Boston Globe tracking poll reported Thursday that Buttigieg has surged to 23 percent, only a point behind Sanders. On Feb. 3, Buttigieg was at 11 percent, while Sanders stood at 24 percent.

[...]

What does all this mean? Regardless of whether we know the precise outcome in Iowa, the general perception that Sanders and Buttigieg did well while Warren and Biden did not has taken hold. Part of the shift in poll numbers is attributable to the bandwagon effect that draws voters to the "winner," but it might also reflect the media coverage prompted by the Iowa caucus results, however inexact. Moreover, Buttigieg might now be seen as the viable, non-Sanders choice, supplanting Biden. If so, he will continue to rise as Biden and others deflate.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 07, 2020, 12:45:33 PM
The Errors

Des Moines Precinct 80 has already received heavy attention, centering on this tweet and video from that day:

Des Moines Precinct 80:

Bernie's group had 101 people
Pete's group had 66 people

Bernie & Pete end up tied at 4 delegates following a coin toss.

    This is democracy??? #IACaucus pic.twitter.com/g9q1k67Vpn
    — Jaylen (@jaylencavil) February 4, 2020

Before precinct data was published, the tweet might've been explained by some sort of miscommunication. Now that data is officially out, it confirms the numbers in the tweet: Sanders had 101 voters and Buttigieg had 66 on final alignment, but both received 4 delegates.

The full picture painted by the data is 101 votes for Sanders, 66 for Buttigieg, and 48 for Biden, plus 25 uncommitted voters, for a total of 240. Delegates were officially distributed 4-4-2 for Sanders-Buttigieg-Biden. But that should have been 5-3-2.

Why? Because after the first calculation step, Sanders had 4.21, Buttigieg had 2.75, and Biden had 2.0. These round to 4, 3, and 2, respectively, which add up to 9. The precinct had 10 delegates to give out, so it needed to give the final delegate to the candidate closest to their next delegate.

At 0.79 away from his fifth delegate, Sanders was closer than Biden, who was 1.0 away from his third delegate, and Buttigieg, who was 1.25 away from his next fourth delegate. The tenth delegate unequivocally should have gone to Sanders.

Another apparent math error is in Dubuque Precinct 36. Its published numbers show final vote counts of 46 for Buttigieg, 45 for Sanders, 30 for Biden, and 23 for Amy Klobuchar, plus 1 voter who left or remained uncommitted.

Initial calculations yield the numbers 2.22 for Buttigieg, 2.17 for Sanders, 1.45 for Biden, and 1.11 for Klobuchar. After rounding, that's 2, 2, 1, and 1, which add up to 6. The precinct had 7 delegates to give, so it had to give its last delegate to the candidate who got rounded down the farthest: Biden.

But the official report for Dubuque 36 shows it gave 3 delegates to Buttigieg and 1 to Biden. That was a mistake.

Next, let's look at Muscatine Precinct 02. We have a nice firsthand glimpse into this precinct thanks to its caucus math sheet posted online by a journalist:

From the picture, you can see the step 1 calculations yielded 3.44 for Buttigieg, 1.76 for Sanders, 1.36 for Biden, and 1.36 for Warren. These round to 3, 2, 1, and 1, which add to 7, which is 1 less than the 8 delegates the precinct had at stake.

The correct adjustment would have been to Buttigieg, since he was closest to his next delegate. But, perhaps excited at the rare prospect of a coin flip, the precinct captains that night apparently thought they needed to flip a coin between Biden and Warren, which landed in favor of Biden.

Perhaps under normal circumstances this error would have been detected and fixed. Instead, it's the end of the week, and Muscatine 02 still officially shows 3 for Buttigieg and 2 for Biden, where it should be Buttigieg with 4 and Biden with 1.

Finally, check out Guthrie Gold precinct.

This precinct had 14 delegates at stake, and its reported final votes were 13 for Biden, 13 for Buttigieg, 13 for Klobuchar, 11 for Sanders, and 10 for Warren. Those calculate to 2.94, 2.94, 2.94, 2.48, and 2.26, respectively, and round to 3, 3, 3, 2, and 2, which add up to 13. That's short of 14, so an extra delegate must be dished out.

If you're getting used to this, you can probably spot that the last delegate belonged to Sanders, who, at 2.48, had been rounded down the farthest. Apparently that was overlooked at the time, and a coin was flipped between the three candidates who had already been rounded up, ending in favor of Buttigieg.

The official results for Guthrie Gold, as of this piece's publication time, still show 4 delegates for Buttigieg and 2 for Sanders, whereas both should have 3.

How Does This Add Up?

The four mistakes we've just highlighted have helped and hurt a mix of candidates. Three of them helped Buttigieg, while one hurt him. Biden broke even with one positive and one negative, and Sanders was hurt twice.

Fixing these errors alone will thus have a net impact of raising Sanders's SDE total while lowering Buttigieg's. It will be a fraction of a delegate, but at the current margin of SDEs between them, that will be substantial.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a30810883/iowa-caucuses-math-errors/
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 07, 2020, 12:49:07 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 07, 2020, 12:20:45 PM
Actually he's the mayor of South Bend.


How liked is Buttigieg among blacks in South Bend?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 07, 2020, 12:49:33 PM
In 1964, an optimistic theory was slain, as such theories often are, by reality. Bernie Sanders's supporters should take note. So should all who are interested in rethinking how the parties choose presidential nominees.
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-need-a-nomination-process-that-leads-to-plausible-presidents/2020/02/06/8e9c0286-4917-11ea-9164-d3154ad8a5cd_story.html)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 07, 2020, 12:53:09 PM
Oh, mercy!

QuoteFour days before Iowa Democrats stumbled into futility, Bernie Sanders revealed to the New York Times the genesis of his socialism. Never mind the gulags, famines, Venezuelas and other wreckages, socialism is justified because the Dodgers decamped from Brooklyn to Los Angeles after the 1957 season when Sanders was 16. The Times says "perhaps no single event has proved more enduring in Mr. Sanders's consciousness — more viscerally felt in his signature fury toward the one percent." Well.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 07, 2020, 03:34:51 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 07, 2020, 12:49:07 PM
How liked is Buttigieg among blacks in South Bend?

In November, blacks will vote Buttigieg if he is the nominee, and GOP leaning people who are not dyed in the wool rightwingers will either vote for Buttigieg or stay home and not vote for Trump.

In November blacks will vote for Sanders if he is the nominee, and GOP leaning people who are not dyed in the wool rightwingers will vote for Trump.

Which is why Buttigieg has a better chance of beating Trump than Sanders has. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on February 07, 2020, 03:48:48 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 07, 2020, 03:34:51 PM
In November, blacks will vote Buttigieg if he is the nominee, and GOP leaning people who are not dyed in the wool rightwingers will either vote for Buttigieg or stay home and not vote for Trump.

In November blacks will vote for Sanders if he is the nominee, and GOP leaning people who are not dyed in the wool rightwingers will vote for Trump.

Which is why Buttigieg has a better chance of beating Trump than Sanders has.

It is amazing to me that you say things like this as though you know what you are talking about.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 07, 2020, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Ratliff on February 07, 2020, 03:48:48 PM
It is amazing to me that you say things like this as though you know what you are talking about.

What do you think is wrong with what I said?

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 07, 2020, 04:05:13 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 07, 2020, 03:58:18 PM
What do you think is wrong with what I said?

It's based on the corporate myth of lefty policies being unpopular.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on February 07, 2020, 04:15:00 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 07, 2020, 03:58:18 PM
What do you think is wrong with what I said?

That you, or anyone for that matter, knows who black people or "not dyed in the wool right-wingers" will vote or will not vote for in the general election, especially when turnout rather than preference may be the decisive factor.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 07, 2020, 04:16:54 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 07, 2020, 04:05:13 PM
It's based on the corporate myth of lefty policies being unpopular.

It's not a myth. More precisely,  people may like the idea of Medicare for All, but not the higher taxes and government bureaucracy that accompanies it.

But you seem to miss the point of my remark, so let me rephrase it

The Democrats need a candidate who won't motivate centrists and moderate rightwingers to vote for Trump because they think  the candidate's policies are so bad that they need to affirmatively vote for Trump even though they dislike him.  They need a candidate whom right-leaning voters won't be frightened to have in the White House.  Buttigieg is such a candidate.  Bernie is the epitome of a candidate who will motivate them to vote for Trump instead of staying home.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on February 07, 2020, 04:17:18 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 07, 2020, 04:05:13 PM
It's based on the corporate myth of lefty policies being unpopular.

It is equally amazing to me that you say things like this as though you know what you are talking about.

Maybe both give it a rest. :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 07, 2020, 04:20:54 PM
Quote from: Ratliff on February 07, 2020, 04:15:00 PM
That you, or anyone for that matter, knows who black people or "not dyed in the wool right-wingers" will vote or will not vote for in the general election, especially when turnout rather than preference may be the decisive factor.

A fair criticism, but may I point out that I myself am a "not dyed in the wool right winger" and know a fair number of the same.  And every black person I know intends to vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter who that person will be.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 07, 2020, 05:00:10 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 07, 2020, 04:16:54 PM
It's not a myth. More precisely,  people may like the idea of Medicare for All, but not the higher taxes and government bureaucracy that accompanies it.


If you save money not paying premiums etc. many realize higher taxes is a good deal for them.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 07, 2020, 05:23:01 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 07, 2020, 05:00:10 PM
If you save money not paying premiums etc. many realize higher taxes is a good deal for them.

You are forgetting that Bernie's plan is a campaign document that will have little to do with whatever would emerge from Congress. There might not be premiums (btw, seniors pay a premium to be on Medicare, though for most it's deducted from their Social Security payment and therefore invisible) but there will be deductibles, co-payments, exclusions from coverage, and bureaucrats deciding which procedures and drugs will and will not be paid for.

Above all, there's the simple fact that for most people Medicare for All will not improve their health care, and probably degrade it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 07, 2020, 05:48:00 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 07, 2020, 05:23:01 PM
You are forgetting that Bernie's plan is a campaign document that will have little to do with whatever would emerge from Congress. There might not be premiums (btw, seniors pay a premium to be on Medicare, though for most it's deducted from their Social Security payment and therefore invisible) but there will be deductibles, co-payments, exclusions from coverage, and bureaucrats deciding which procedures and drugs will and will not be paid for.

Above all, there's the simple fact that for most people Medicare for All will not improve their health care, and probably degrade it.

You are forgetting US needs to join other countries and get all people covered.
Your claims of degraging care are WITHOUT ANY FACTS/PROOF!!

WHY THE FUCK DO I KEEP ANSWERING YOU? I SHOULD BE IGNORING YOU!  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 07, 2020, 05:50:47 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 07, 2020, 05:48:00 PM
You are forgetting US needs to join other countries and get all people covered.

You are forgetting that single-payer is not the only way to that.  A public option plan would do it, without degrading the health care of those people who already have it.

Quote from: 71 dB on February 07, 2020, 05:48:00 PM
Your claims of degraging care are WITHOUT ANY FACTS/PROOF!!

WHY THE FACT DO I KEEP ANSWERING YOU? I SHOULD BE IGNORING YOU!

Proof is that people here who rely on government funded health care get perceptibly worse care than those on private plans.

To put it more concretely, the level of Finnish health care is, as best I can tell from reading about it, comparable to American private care here, and the same or better (usually the latter) than publicly funded health care here (meaning Medicare and Medicaid).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 08, 2020, 08:05:58 AM
Quote from: JBS on February 07, 2020, 05:50:47 PM
You are forgetting that single-payer is not the only way to that.  A public option plan would do it, without degrading the health care of those people who already have it.

Single payer is a proven system to cover everyone. Public option leads to cherry-picking and is likely to collapse due to that and the system goes back to private insurance system and corporates get to say "We told you, public sector doesn't work". Well, it works when the private sector doesn't compromise it. Single payer doesn't degrading the health care for anyone. It's likely to improve it if anything.

Quote from: JBS on February 07, 2020, 05:50:47 PMProof is that people here who rely on government funded health care get perceptibly worse care than those on private plans.

I don't know about that. but sounds like medicare as it is is underfunded. Medicare for all raises taxes as you know. That's why it will be properly funded. Those same doctors/nurses/hospitals who provide care for people privately insured now will be providing the care within medicare for all system. It's not like they suddenly become worse doctors/nurses just because the money comes from the government instead of insurance companies. On the contrary, the paperwork becomes much simpler and doctors have more time doing what they are supposed to do.

Quote from: JBS on February 07, 2020, 05:50:47 PMTo put it more concretely, the level of Finnish health care is, as best I can tell from reading about it, comparable to American private care here, and the same or better (usually the latter) than publicly funded health care here (meaning Medicare and Medicaid).

Yet Finns pay half of what Americans pay for that healthcare and everyone is covered. Do you really think the US can't do the same Finland does? You have plenty of countries for a well-functioning healthcare model. Pick one. France? UK? Finland? Canada? Germany? Norway?

The quality of care is not he problem. The US has average quality of care as far as I know. That's ok. Could be better, could be worse. The problem is the insane incentives created by the private insurance system, Big Pharma and corruption making it so that millions of Americans don't have access to basic healthcare, avoid going to doctor fearing something is found they can't afford, double the cost of healthcare compared to other nations and so on. I have wrote about these issues here a million times.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 08, 2020, 08:18:58 AM
Quote from: Todd on February 08, 2020, 05:38:54 AM
Dems were able to double up on providing comic relief this week.  I mean, who knew the Iowa caucuses were coming and who had time to test new-fangled voting technology?

I know, the Russians hacked the Dem voting system.

It was intentional "incompetence" to give Pete Buttigieg a week of unearned victory laps in the media prior to New Hamphire and to sabotage Bernie Sanders' campaign.

Bernie Sanders won the popular vote with a clear margin (even the 2nd round voting by about 2600 votes) and once all the mistakes are corrected, should have won most S.D.E.s and it seems Both Buttigieg and Sanders will get 13 pledged delecates, but it will take some time, because the establishment want Buttigieg to benefit from the victory narrative.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on February 08, 2020, 08:35:30 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 08, 2020, 08:18:58 AMIt was intentional "incompetence" to give Pete Buttigieg a week of unearned victory laps in the media prior to New Hamphire and to sabotage Bernie Sanders' campaign.

Bernie Sanders won the popular vote with a clear margin (even the 2nd round voting by about 2600 votes) and once all the mistakes are corrected, should have won most S.D.E.s and it seems Both Buttigieg and Sanders will get 13 pledged delecates, but it will take some time, because the establishment want Buttigieg to benefit from the victory narrative.


You are insane. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 08, 2020, 09:41:00 AM
Quote from: Todd on February 08, 2020, 08:35:30 AM

You are insane.

Call me insane, but that's how it is. You know DNC doesn't want Bernie to become the nominee. They rather let Trump win than allow Bernie to become the president. Buttigieg donated $42k to the firm that developped the app. Also, Buttigieg demanded the last poll before Iowa caucus to not be released.  You are yourself a simpleton if you don't see how this was orchestrated for Buttigieg and against Bernie.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 08, 2020, 10:20:36 AM
Quote from: Todd on February 08, 2020, 10:14:56 AM
Why am I off your ignore list?

You are not off my ignore list and you have reminded my fast you you are in the list.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 08, 2020, 12:49:56 PM
Kavanaugh Is On The Supreme Court Because Of Michael Bloomberg

https://www.youtube.com/v/tHICKk8VDTM

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 08, 2020, 02:11:19 PM
Jimmy Dore Calls Out Trump/Pelosi On Tucker Carlson

https://www.youtube.com/v/gyub6M8Qfqs
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 08, 2020, 03:31:20 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 08, 2020, 12:49:56 PM
Kavanaugh Is On The Supreme Court Because Of Michael Bloomberg

https://www.youtube.com/v/tHICKk8VDTM

No, Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court because of the Federalist Society and Mitch McConnell
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 08, 2020, 03:34:14 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 08, 2020, 03:31:20 PM
No, Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court because of the Federalist Society and Mitch McConnell

I guess Bernie's afraid of Bloomberg.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 08, 2020, 03:45:29 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 08, 2020, 08:05:58 AM
Single payer is a proven system to cover everyone. Public option leads to cherry-picking and is likely to collapse due to that and the system goes back to private insurance system and corporates get to say "We told you, public sector doesn't work". Well, it works when the private sector doesn't compromise it. Single payer doesn't degrading the health care for anyone. It's likely to improve it if anything.

I don't know about that. but sounds like medicare as it is is underfunded. Medicare for all raises taxes as you know. That's why it will be properly funded. Those same doctors/nurses/hospitals who provide care for people privately insured now will be providing the care within medicare for all system. It's not like they suddenly become worse doctors/nurses just because the money comes from the government instead of insurance companies. On the contrary, the paperwork becomes much simpler and doctors have more time doing what they are supposed to do.

Yet Finns pay half of what Americans pay for that healthcare and everyone is covered. Do you really think the US can't do the same Finland does? You have plenty of countries for a well-functioning healthcare model. Pick one. France? UK? Finland? Canada? Germany? Norway?

The quality of care is not he problem. The US has average quality of care as far as I know. That's ok. Could be better, could be worse. The problem is the insane incentives created by the private insurance system, Big Pharma and corruption making it so that millions of Americans don't have access to basic healthcare, avoid going to doctor fearing something is found they can't afford, double the cost of healthcare compared to other nations and so on. I have wrote about these issues here a million times.

First, public option will probably lead via cherry picking to single payer as employers unload health care from benefits with the excuse that  employees can use the public option. Drogulus made that point several months ago, and I think he's right to think so.

Second, anyone says the American political system will fully fund MfA is either lying or delusional.  Ain't going to happen. Period.

Third, because of the government regulation and funding involved in single payer, care will be  rationed in one way or another. It's only a matter of how severely it will be rationed. Procedures will be disallowed, drugs not approved for payment, hospital stays limited, and all the other rigamarole, just like now with private insurance, or worse than now, just like Medicare and Medicaid.

Fourth, quality of care is the fundamental problem: single payer will make it worse.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 08, 2020, 04:43:16 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 08, 2020, 03:45:29 PMsingle payer will make it worse.

Even if it made it worse, at least everyone would be covered. That's something, isn't it? Or are you an asshole who is fine with denying care for millions just to keep quality care for youself? What are your values man?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 08, 2020, 04:46:48 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 08, 2020, 03:34:14 PM
I guess Bernie's afraid of Bloomberg.

What are the policies of Bloomberg you especially like Karl? Soda ban perhaps? The only good thing about Bloomberg becoming the president would be at least Trump didn't get his 2nd term, but do you really think Bloomberg could beat Trump?  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 08, 2020, 04:56:21 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 08, 2020, 03:45:29 PM
First, public option will probably lead via cherry picking to single payer as employers unload health care from benefits with the excuse that  employees can use the public option. Drogulus made that point several months ago, and I think he's right to think so.

This argument is against your own claims. If public option led to single payer then why not make it single payer in the first place?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 08, 2020, 05:08:03 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 08, 2020, 04:43:16 PM
Even if it made it worse, at least everyone would be covered. That's something, isn't it? Or are you an asshole who is fine with denying care for millions just to keep quality care for youself? What are your values man?

The point is that single-payer is merely one way of getting everyone covered. There are a number of countries which manage that without resorting to single payer.

Quote from: 71 dB on February 08, 2020, 04:56:21 PM
This argument is against your own claims. If public option led to single payer then why not make it single payer in the first place?

The first obvious reason is a gradual process will mean the inevitable problems of single payer can be addressed and solved rationally, which a sudden forcible implementation will not allow.

The second obvious reason is that for the 30 million who actually can't get private insurance, some sort of government  insurance, provided directly or indirectly,  is the only real solution.

What it boils down to is this
Single payer means everyone is covered , but the quality of health care goes down for almost everyone.
Public option means everyone is covered, but there's no impact on the quality of health care.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on February 08, 2020, 11:37:22 PM
Am I the only one who finds it a little silly that the most partisan mass-poster on these US politics topics has probably never even been in the US as a tourist, let alone a citizen?

As a EU denizen (who has lived in the US long time ago) I am fully aware that if Trump or any other US prez decides to blow up the planet the rest of the world will feel some itch, too.

However, the US elections are a matter of US voters and there is plenty going on in various other parts of the world to het exercized about, it's just (giggle alert coming!) that the corporate media don't spend as much time on the political problems in Ukraine (only in sofar US pols are involved), Hungary, Britain, France, Spain, the entire world is engulfed in shit, but people are only watching the friggin' US.

It's rather weird, too, that our correspondent from Finland told us some months ago that he should not get involved in topics about US politics because it upset him too much and here we are....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 09, 2020, 02:25:07 AM
Nina Turner Blasts DNC Over "Intentional" #IowaCaucus Sabotage

https://www.youtube.com/v/7ewJJXbhC7o
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 09, 2020, 02:46:11 AM
Very silly, indeed, Herman.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 09, 2020, 02:56:38 AM
Quote from: Herman on February 08, 2020, 11:37:22 PM
Am I the only one who finds it a little silly that the most partisan mass-poster on these US politics topics has probably never even been in the US as a tourist, let alone a citizen?

As a EU denizen (who has lived in the US long time ago) I am fully aware that if Trump or any other US prez decides to blow up the planet the rest of the world will feel some itch, too.

However, the US elections are a matter of US voters and there is plenty going on in various other parts of the world to het exercized about, it's just (giggle alert coming!) that the corporate media don't spend as much time on the political problems in Ukraine (only in sofar US pols are involved), Hungary, Britain, France, Spain, the entire world is engulfed in shit, but people are only watching the friggin' US.

It's rather weird, too, that our correspondent from Finland told us some months ago that he should not get involved in topics about US politics because it upset him too much and here we are....

I have been to Florida back when I was 11. I don't see why I should be living in the US, when I have this thing called the internet bringing practically any information to me. I can hear and see what Americans say, what problems they have and so on. As I have said a million times, my advantage of being an outsider is the way I can see through the lies/smears/bias of corporate media. A lot of americans apparently can't and I am baffled about how brainwashed many on this board are regurgitating corporate talking points like they were news anchors of CNN.

For me following US politics is easy, because I understand English. Following the politics of say France would be a lot more difficult. Also, the politics of the US is endlessly fashionating. I got hooked because of Trump's victory in 2016. So much so, that I don't follow anymore even Finnish politics nearly as much as US politics. I have the right to follow the politics of whatever country I want. I enjoy following American politics for all of it's overblown crazyness, but witnessing the corporate mindset people here have and how little they think about my understanding makes me angry.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 09, 2020, 03:21:56 AM
Quote from: JBS on February 08, 2020, 05:08:03 PM
The point is that single-payer is merely one way of getting everyone covered. There are a number of countries which manage that without resorting to single payer.

What countries and systems are you talking about?

Quote from: JBS on February 08, 2020, 05:08:03 PMWhat it boils down to is this
Single payer means everyone is covered , but the quality of health care goes down for almost everyone.
Public option means everyone is covered, but there's no impact on the quality of health care.

I am yet to understand why single payer means lower quality of care. If that was the case then in other countries with single payer healthcare the quality of care would be lower than it is in the US, but we have already agreed this in not the case. I have pointed out that the doctors do not become worse doctors in a single payer system, so WHAT causes this drop in quality exactly? Do you have substance to your claims or are you just parroting corporate talking points? You seem to refer to some problem in medicare program, but surely you understand someone like Bernie Sanders isn't suggesting a system where the problems (underfunding) of medicare are copied to the medicare for all system? Medicare for all would be properly funded (taxes rise!!!) and hence would be free of the underfunding problems of Medicare. Even with these problems Medicare is very popular program among Americans. Just imagine how popular Medicare for all would be! That's the reason why the insurance companies and Big Pharma are so scared and spend millions on anti-medicare for all adds on TV.

Medicare for all doesn't change providers of care (who are responsible of the quality). It changes how the care is funded, from where does the money come from. That matters a lot, because private insurers being the ones funding healthcare creates insane incentives.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on February 09, 2020, 05:58:12 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 09, 2020, 02:56:38 AM
I have been to Florida back when I was 11. I don't see why I should be living in the US, when I have this thing called the internet bringing practically any information to me.

I was trying to suggest that spending that much time is not very useful as you'll never get a chance to vote, which is what politix is about.

Quote from: 71 dB on February 09, 2020, 02:56:38 AMFor me following US politics is easy, because I understand English. Following the politics of say France would be a lot more difficult. Also, the politics of the US is endlessly fashionating.

Making a joke about 'fashionating' would be too easy, so I won't.
However, in case you really meant 'fascinating', I have to disagree.
American politics are just plain awful and dispiriting.
The biggest news is about who netted the most donations per month, so they can buy time for stupid tv ads, etc.
It's not about ideas; it's about people writing checks. Sorry, make that checks being written.
The media turn it into a stupid horse race.

Last night I seriously heard / saw people debating about which candidate would tackle Trump best in a debate as a sort of gladiator sport.
It was never mentioned (these were professional pundits) that Trump is going to forego debates. Why on earth would he do a debate? He's the incumbent. He'll sooner release his tax returns than go and debate.
The mix of uppers and downers he'd need for that performance would be just too complicated, medically.
Just ask Todd. Does he need a debate or two, or will he just look at his bank statements before pulling the lever?
These pundits know this, obviously, but they are just filling tv time.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 09, 2020, 08:02:52 AM
Quote from: Herman on February 09, 2020, 05:58:12 AM
I was trying to suggest that spending that much time is not very useful as you'll never get a chance to vote, which is what politix is about.

Well, listening to music isn't very "useful" either, but I enjoy doing to just as I enjoy following and commenting US politics.

Quote from: Herman on February 09, 2020, 05:58:12 AMMaking a joke about 'fashionating' would be too easy, so I won't.
However, in case you really meant 'fascinating', I have to disagree.
American politics are just plain awful and dispiriting.
The biggest news is about who netted the most donations per month, so they can buy time for stupid tv ads, etc.
It's not about ideas; it's about people writing checks. Sorry, make that checks being written.
The media turn it into a stupid horse race.

Last night I seriously heard / saw people debating about which candidate would tackle Trump best in a debate as a sort of gladiator sport.
It was never mentioned (these were professional pundits) that Trump is going to forego debates. Why on earth would he do a debate? He's the incumbent. He'll sooner release his tax returns than go and debate.
The mix of uppers and downers he'd need for that performance would be just too complicated, medically.
Just ask Todd. Does he need a debate or two, or will he just look at his bank statements before pulling the lever?
These pundits know this, obviously, but they are just filling tv time.

Fascinating! Thanks! I knew something was wrong with fashionating.  ;D  American politics might be awful and dispiriting to YOU, but that's part of the appeal to me.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 09, 2020, 10:06:52 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 09, 2020, 03:21:56 AM
What countries and systems are you talking about?


You can do your own research.  Perhaps along the way you will learn some of the things the Young Turks don't tell you.

Quote

I am yet to understand why single payer means lower quality of care. If that was the case then in other countries with single payer healthcare the quality of care would be lower than it is in the US, but we have already agreed this in not the case. I have pointed out that the doctors do not become worse doctors in a single payer system, so WHAT causes this drop in quality exactly? Do you have substance to your claims or are you just parroting corporate talking points? You seem to refer to some problem in medicare program, but surely you understand someone like Bernie Sanders isn't suggesting a system where the problems (underfunding) of medicare are copied to the medicare for all system? Medicare for all would be properly funded (taxes rise!!!) and hence would be free of the underfunding problems of Medicare. Even with these problems Medicare is very popular program among Americans. Just imagine how popular Medicare for all would be! That's the reason why the insurance companies and Big Pharma are so scared and spend millions on anti-medicare for all adds on TV.

Medicare for all doesn't change providers of care (who are responsible of the quality). It changes how the care is funded, from where does the money come from. That matters a lot, because private insurers being the ones funding healthcare creates insane incentives.

The sentence I bolded describes something that is so improbable that it can be classified as fantasy.  Bernie proposes, but Congress disposes. And since Medicare for All will be chronically underfunded,  all the current problems with Medicare  will remain.   And because of that, people will find that they can't visit the doctor as often as they want, or see the specialist they are told to go, or get the procedure or prescription they need.   And because doctors will be paid less, they will have see more patients and therefore spend less time per patient.  [FYI,  paperwork will not decrease.  It will just change the forms and the address they are mailed/emailed to.]  Some doctors will decide it's not worth it and retire.   Bureaucrats will have just as much incentive to limit spending as the private insurers do now.

Basically, I see no reason to think the problems with Medicare now will not be emulated in Medicare for All. 

BTW, when you said
Quotebut we have already agreed this in not the case

that was incorrect.  I have not agreed to that.  I mentioned Finland, but you're assuming Finland is typical of all single payer countries.  I'm not.   

And comparing health care quality in the US to other countries is not apples to oranges.  We have three parallel systems
--private insurance
--Medicare for those 65 and over
--Medicaid (and related programs) for those who qualify because of low income and meager assets

You can think of the people who don't have insurance as a fourth category.

A true comparison would break down the differences among them.  I've gone looking for statistics, and not found very much.  What I have found is fairly incidental.  For instance, one study found that those on public insurance have better access to get heart conditions diagnosed, but those on private insurance are more likely to get the procedures necessary to resolve their heart problem.  Which sounds like a result more favorable to private insurance but not it's a clearcut  advantage.  Most discussion lumps them all in a mix, which distorts the results.   But general experience has shown me that those on public plans get worse care.

Also, while I've seen plenty of punditry and expertry writing against Medicare for All, I've seen absolutely no commercials by anyone on the issue.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 09, 2020, 12:13:26 PM
I think I am done with your MfA smears JDS. You bend backwards to defend the corporate anti-MfA propaganda. Aetna should hire you!  0:)

As I have told you, your opinion is dangerous, because people millions of people NEED medicare for all.

I am done. DONE!!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 09, 2020, 12:16:18 PM
Please let that be true.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 09, 2020, 12:32:43 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 09, 2020, 12:13:26 PM
I think I am done with your MfA smears JDS. You bend backwards to defend the corporate anti-MfA propaganda. Aetna should hire you!  0:)

As I have told you, your opinion is dangerous, because people millions of people NEED medicare for all.

I am done. DONE!!

Millions of people need health insurance here.  That you think the only possible solution is MfA, and that the arguments against it are corporate propaganda,  simply demonstrates the blinders your political biases have imposed on you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 09, 2020, 01:26:40 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 09, 2020, 12:16:18 PM
Please let that be true.

I'm done with JBS's MfA smears. Otherwise I'm not going anywhere.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 09, 2020, 01:35:37 PM
They're not "smears" - you should really stop misusing that word.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 09, 2020, 05:43:33 PM
MSNBC Host CUT OFF LIVE For PRAISING Bernie Sanders! (MUST WATCH)

https://www.youtube.com/v/L1Jki_zdSi8
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 09, 2020, 06:11:15 PM
I don't think your idea of MUST WATCH matches mine.

You're the only one here who gives the shade of a damn about MSNBC, and you only mention it when you're flogginging your tired yada yada....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 09, 2020, 06:58:26 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 09, 2020, 05:43:33 PM
MSNBC Host CUT OFF LIVE For PRAISING Bernie Sanders! (MUST WATCH)


I just did a Youtube search for "MSNBC Bernie Sanders" and it all looks pretty supportive to me. It seems clear that Morning Joe in particular likes him. Sorry if that doesn't fit with your conspiracy theory.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=msnbc+bernie+sanders

Also:MSNBC would have some very talented technicians and talented editors and producers. If they really wanted to be anti-Sanders it wouldn't come in the form of a mic malfunction. That game would be played at a much higher level.

That guy made Kyle Kulinsky look professional by comparison.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 10, 2020, 02:09:05 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 09, 2020, 06:11:15 PM
I don't think your idea of MUST WATCH matches mine.

You're the only one here who gives the shade of a damn about MSNBC, and you only mention it when you're flogginging your tired yada yada....

The MUST WATCH was in the original title of the video. I copy-pasted the title faithfully. You are entitled to disagree with the title. MSNBC has some viewership (half of that of the Fox News I believe) so it matters what they do and even if it didn't, this demonstrates their ridiculous bias against senator Bernard Sanders. You are more interested of what I do on this board than in what shape he corporate media in your country is. It baffles me. People here are not the kind of intellectuals I expected people on a classical music forum to be. Frankly 15-25 year old millenials hanging on pop music forums have better grasp of things. They get their information from the internet instead of the corporate media. That's why Bernie is overhelmingly popular among young people while older people think it's 1992. Well, in 1992 even Hillary Clinton was for medicare for all. Not so much in 2016 when she ran for president. Insurance companies and Big Pharma bought her and she became the hated corrupt politician she is. The Dems have been moving right and struggling to keep their base, because their policies don't help regular people much. Now the Dems are as right as the Reps used to be a few decades ago. Regular people don't have a party to represent them anymore. Both parties, the Reps and the Dems serve the top 1 %. The only difference is you can choose from socially conservative and liberal options. Third parties exists, but the system is totally rigged against them. I'm just telling how it is. I didn't brainwash you. Please don't blame me for your cognitive dissonance.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 10, 2020, 02:17:31 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 09, 2020, 06:58:26 PM
I just did a Youtube search for "MSNBC Bernie Sanders" and it all looks pretty supportive to me. It seems clear that Morning Joe in particular likes him. Sorry if that doesn't fit with your conspiracy theory.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=msnbc+bernie+sanders

Also:MSNBC would have some very talented technicians and talented editors and producers. If they really wanted to be anti-Sanders it wouldn't come in the form of a mic malfunction. That game would be played at a much higher level.


Yes, even the corporate media has positive coverage of Bernie, but the overall policy is to be against leftists. Only occationally you have lefties in the panels and so on. Do you really believe a mic has a malfunction exactly on the second the person is about to say something positive about Bernie? That's some serious odds if you ask me!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 10, 2020, 02:19:39 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 10, 2020, 02:09:05 AM
People here are not the kind of intellectuals I expected people on a classical music forum to be.

You know, there are lots of things so stupid that only an intellectual would believe.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on February 10, 2020, 06:56:42 AM
Quote from: JBS on February 09, 2020, 12:32:43 PM
Millions of people need health insurance here.  That you think the only possible solution is MfA, and that the arguments against it are corporate propaganda,  simply demonstrates the blinders your political biases have imposed on you.

     The problem of universal health care is one of ends, not means, and this is true of all forms of economic improvement. The "howyougonna" discussions are diversions from the underlying reality that what we can do is limited by the availability of resources, not the means to deploy them. There is no reason to run out of dollars in advance of running out of resources for dollars to put to work.

     The point, the whole point of "howyoiugonna-payforit" is not to figure out how the pay for should work. It's to prevent the end by fantasizing about the impossibility of the means. This gambit shouldn't work, since the advanced countries demonstrate that a variety of means can work for the same end.

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 10, 2020, 07:59:12 AM
Quote from: drogulus on February 10, 2020, 06:56:42 AM
     The problem of universal health care is one of ends, not means, and this is true of all forms of economic improvement. The "howyougonna" discussions are diversions from the underlying reality that what we can do is limited by the availability of resources, not the means to deploy them. There is no reason to run out of dollars in advance of running out of resources for dollars to put to work.

     The point, the whole point of "howyoiugonna-payforit" is not to figure out how the pay for should work. It's to prevent the end by fantasizing about the impossibility of the means. This gambit shouldn't work, since the advanced countries demonstrate that a variety of means can work for the same end.

     

I don't see the U.S. Electorate going in for the "It'll get paid for, somehow, Trust-Me play."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 10, 2020, 08:01:03 AM
For one recent thing, that appears not to have happened with the ACA.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on February 10, 2020, 08:29:54 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 10, 2020, 07:59:12 AM
I don't see the U.S. Electorate going in for the "It'll get paid for, somehow, Trust-Me play."

     That's a different thing. I'm discussing the use of "howyougonna" as a blocking tactic. When someone who isn't me asks how are you going to pay for a program, they are not really expecting an answer, they are registering their opposition to the goal itself. Now if I ask how, I violate regular order by treating the question literally as a request for information about a particular means to an end. I treat the end as so obviously desirable that a blizzard of howyougonnas is needed to keep it from enactment. Otherwise it would be necessary to come up with argument that it's in the public interest to inflict deprivation of the unworthy. That's hard work, and I'm too lazy to even try.

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 10, 2020, 08:42:20 AM
They never ask "how are we gonna pay for it" when it's about Wall Street bailouts, tax cuts for the rich and military budget increases. There is always money for those things, but the second it's about improving the lives of regular people, there is no money at all. Funny how that works. As if the system was utterly corrupt, wouldn't you say?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 10, 2020, 08:53:24 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 10, 2020, 07:59:12 AM
I don't see the U.S. Electorate going in for the "It'll get paid for, somehow, Trust-Me play."

Somehow? Bernie wrote himself the "damn bill" so that these things are explained. We KNOW how medicare for all would be paid for: Tax increase. For regular people the savings of not having to pay premiums etc. costs outweight the tax increase. For the richest people tax increase outweights the savings. That's what Bernie means by "the rich will pay their fair share."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 10, 2020, 08:57:43 AM
"Somehow, Bernie will get the bill through! He's a miracle!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on February 10, 2020, 09:28:32 AM
https://www.youtube.com/v/z_xU6hkdgAw
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 10, 2020, 10:06:53 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 10, 2020, 08:57:43 AM
"Somehow, Bernie will get the bill through! He's a miracle!

Okay, for the sake of argument let's assume Bernie gets elected the president and he fails to get medicare for all bill through. What do you lose in that situation compared to a corporate president who doesn't even want to do medicare for all? Nothing. You have only something to win with Bernie.

As Kyle Kulinski says, even if Bernie only gets 20 % of his agenda implemented, it will help regular people a lot. Fighting for medicare for all may only give you public option as a compromise, but even that is an improvement compared to ObamaCare. If you start the fight from public option, how much improvement can you get? 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 10, 2020, 11:22:37 AM
DNC & Iowa Dem Party Not Even Hiding Their Contempt For Democracy

https://www.youtube.com/v/-sn2-P2aUbs
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on February 10, 2020, 12:11:41 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 10, 2020, 08:42:20 AM
They never ask "how are we gonna pay for it" when it's about Wall Street bailouts, tax cuts for the rich and military budget increases.

     You don't have to ask. The whole point of the howyougonna is not paying for things, not about how. It's new or expanded social programs that you don't pay for, not high earner tax cuts or military budgets.

    I'm probably alone here in that I don't want to reduce spending for bombs in order to feed the poor or starve people to build bombs. It's unnecessary. We can create dollars for both. The dollars won't run out. The resources could if we were short of them, but we almost always underdeploy the resources we have by running out of dollars in advance of any shortfalls. It's dumb to use dollar shortages as substitutes for nonexistent resource shortages. It's inefficient to run an economy that way. I'm offended by the very idea of it. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on February 10, 2020, 12:44:29 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 10, 2020, 10:06:53 AM
Okay, for the sake of argument let's assume Bernie gets elected the president and he fails to get medicare for all bill through.

Surely you have heard that Bill Clinton, back in the day, tried to change the health care system. Didn't happen.
Obama wanted to redesign the system and ultimately copied Romney's Massachusetts' proposal (if I remember correctly) and even that was a massive battle.
And you think Sanders is going to pull it off, even though he's got none of the negotation skills Clinton and Obama had? And I mean Zero?
Reality is just going to change?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 10, 2020, 01:43:17 PM
Quote from: Herman on February 10, 2020, 12:44:29 PM
Surely you have heard that Bill Clinton, back in the day, tried to change the health care system. Didn't happen.
Obama wanted to redesign the system and ultimately copied Romney's Massachusetts' proposal (if I remember correctly) and even that was a massive battle.
And you think Sanders is going to pull it off, even though he's got none of the negotation skills Clinton and Obama had? And I mean Zero?
Reality is just going to change?

That's because corporate Dems SUCK!! Bernie is not like that. Unlike Clinton and Obama, he doesn't take corporate money. Bernie has zero negotation skills? How then is he the "amendment King"?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 10, 2020, 03:52:01 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 10, 2020, 08:53:24 AM
Somehow? Bernie wrote himself the "damn bill" so that these things are explained. We KNOW how medicare for all would be paid for: Tax increase. For regular people the savings of not having to pay premiums etc. costs outweight the tax increase. For the richest people tax increase outweights the savings. That's what Bernie means by "the rich will pay their fair share."

Bernie's taxes won't pay for Bernie's plan.  Wealth taxes violate a specific clause of the Constitution, and even if the Supreme Court rules otherwise, it will take a few years of litigation to decide the matter. During which the rich will make sure they invest their money outside the US and otherwise render it immune from US taxes. The art of tax avoidance has a long history in the U.S.  So thinking the rich will pay their fair share (whatever that would be in practice) is yet another delusion you have imbibed from the Young Turks.

The other component of his plan is a federal sales tax that will require an entire new bureaucracy to implement, and which will hit hardest the "regular people" you claim you want to help. All sales tax do that: they are regressive. 

And of course once the plan gets through Congress it will require premiums, deductibles, and co-pays. No plan without them will get through Congress.

There will be a tax increase, and it won't be paid for by the 1% no matter how hard Bernie huffs and puffs.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 10, 2020, 04:01:49 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 10, 2020, 10:06:53 AM
Okay, for the sake of argument let's assume Bernie gets elected the president and he fails to get medicare for all bill through. What do you lose in that situation compared to a corporate president who doesn't even want to do medicare for all? Nothing. You have only something to win with Bernie.

As Kyle Kulinski says, even if Bernie only gets 20 % of his agenda implemented, it will help regular people a lot. Fighting for medicare for all may only give you public option as a compromise, but even that is an improvement compared to ObamaCare. If you start the fight from public option, how much improvement can you get?

Given all the bad ideas in Bernie's agenda, such as complete takeover of the housing market by the Federal government, the government taking on all student debt as its own (the Constitution won't allow any other way of cancelling student debt), etc,  even 20% would cause serious problems.

And if Bernie couldn't get MfA passed, nothing would get passed. Public option is not a compromise position.  But you start off calling for public option, you are much more likely to get public option.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 10, 2020, 04:57:43 PM
This just crossed my transom
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/02/10/bernie-sanders-radical-past-donald-trump-attack-fodder-column/4706779002/
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 10, 2020, 06:22:11 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 10, 2020, 04:57:43 PM
This just crossed my transom
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/02/10/bernie-sanders-radical-past-donald-trump-attack-fodder-column/4706779002/

Yep. Bernie would be easy meat.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 10, 2020, 06:23:42 PM
QuoteIn October, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), at 78 the oldest Democrat in the field, had a heart attack. He promised to release his full medical records before primary voting started. Now, on the eve of the second presidential nominating contest, Sanders still has not released his full medical records. He insists he is "in good health." He told NBC's Chuck Todd he has released as much medical information as other candidates, which ignores an important point: There is no other 78-year-old who had a heart attack just months ago in the field. He says if he released his records, there will be no end to it. He says his doctor told him to walk and sleep more. (Good thing he is not running for a job where sleep may be disturbed constantly due to national crises or jet-lagged travel.)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 11, 2020, 04:37:17 AM
Biden's support held up admirably for a year, but now that people are actually voting the weakness of Biden's support is being revealed. It's "default" support. As Biden is losing support Michael "carpet bombing the airwaves" Bloomberg is surging strongly. Since Buttigieg is likely to struggle after these early states, it looks like it's Bernie vs Bloomberg. The people vs the money.

There is this recording of Bloomberg, but people who support him just because they see his adds 20 times a day may not care...  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on February 11, 2020, 09:29:20 AM
The point drogulus is making is valid, although he likes to obfuscate by MMT terminology. What makes a country wealthy is all of the people working all the time at something they are good at. (Hours worked times productivity.) The role of money and markets is to give people the incentive to work on things which are the most valuable. We have a country where a larger and larger fraction of money is being put at the disposal of a few super rich individuals. As a result, the construction industry is building ever larger mansions in which no one lives, and not modest homes where our burgeoning homeless could find shelter.

I think the reason so many thing "medicare for all" or some form of universal, single-payer health coverage is not feasible is because they are not aware of what is being paid now. Health insurance for a typical family (two parents plus a child or two) costs at least $20,000 per year. People don't see it. It is paid as a overhead by their employer and they only see their own contribution on their pay stub, which typically amounts to about $6,000k.

If we had universal health care, yes we'd need big additional tax. But in Canada health care spending is only half what it is in the U.S., per capita. If we could implement a similar system here we would need $10,000 per family additional tax, but the $20,000 per year health insurance premium would disappear. If that money your employer pays for your health insurance premium ended up in your paycheck instead you'd be way ahead, even with the additional taxes. And people on the whole would get better care.

It would be disruptive, the entire health insurance industry would vanish. But that's good. They are just economic vampires, after all.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 11, 2020, 09:38:13 AM
Quote from: Ratliff on February 11, 2020, 09:29:20 AM

It would be disruptive, the entire health insurance industry would vanish. But that's good. They are just economic vampires, after all.

I like the theory. Can we rely on the government to serve as a competent replacement?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 11, 2020, 10:44:38 AM
1 % reporting in New Hampshire:

Klobuchar 29,6 %
Sanders 14,8 %
Warren 14,8 %
Yang 11,1 %
Biden 7,4 %
Buttigieg 7,4 %
Steyer 3,7 %
Gabbard 3,7 %

Time for Klobuchar to declare victory.  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on February 11, 2020, 11:21:31 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 11, 2020, 09:38:13 AM
I like the theory. Can we rely on the government to serve as a competent replacement?

My Mom is on medicare and she has no complaints with it. Canada has such a system which provides high quality care at lower cost than the U.S. Your argument is that the U.S. is incapable of doing what Canada and most developed countries have done?

My work colleague was at the hospital because his wife was having routine surgery. He was there a long time and got dehydrated and exhausted, and fainted. (He has a history of fainting spells.) He was taken to the E.R., a nurse claimed she saw some brief irregularity on his heart monitor, and they left him in a room on a heart monitor for something like 12 hours. They seemed to have forgotten about him. Finally a doctor came in, said "you're fine, you can go now." He was billed close to $25k, the insurance said the treatment was unjustified and covered $5k. He was left to pay a bill of close to $20k. That is your definition of "competence" that medicare for all has to compete with?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 11, 2020, 11:33:03 AM
Quote from: Ratliff on February 11, 2020, 11:21:31 AM
My Mom is on medicare and she has no complaints with it. Canada has such a system which provides high quality care at lower cost than the U.S. Your argument is that the U.S. is incapable of doing what Canada and most developed countries have done?

My work colleague was at the hospital because his wife was having routine surgery. He was there a long time and got dehydrated and exhausted, and fainted. (He has a history of fainting spells.) He was taken to the E.R., a nurse claimed she saw some brief irregularity on his heart monitor, and they left him in a room on a heart monitor for something like 12 hours. They seemed to have forgotten about him. Finally a doctor came in, said "you're fine, you can go now." He was billed close to $25k, the insurance said the treatment was unjustified and covered $5k. He was left to pay a bill of close to $20k. That is your definition of "competence" that medicare for all has to compete with?

I had to deal with Medicare a lot while taking care of my mother. The care she got was more on the level  your colleague recieved, not your mother. Except for paying the 20, 000 dollars. (And every insurance plan I have ever dealt with wpuld have made the hospital write off anything over that $5000.)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 11, 2020, 11:54:32 AM
Quote from: JBS on February 10, 2020, 04:57:43 PM
This just crossed my transom
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/02/10/bernie-sanders-radical-past-donald-trump-attack-fodder-column/4706779002/

Bernie Schools Simpleton Chuck Todd: "I Do Not Like Military Coups"

https://www.youtube.com/v/5dHxWJF1MOU
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 11, 2020, 12:04:49 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 11, 2020, 11:54:32 AM
Bernie Schools Simpleton Chuck Todd: "I Do Not Like Military Coups"

https://www.youtube.com/v/5dHxWJF1MOU

Morales was a Chavez wannabe in a country that is much poorer than Venezuela who was attempting to hold on to power via openly corrupt methods. Bernie could not bring himself to acknowledge that because he seems to like leftist authoritarianism even now.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 11, 2020, 12:22:34 PM
Quote from: Ratliff on February 11, 2020, 11:21:31 AM
My Mom is on medicare and she has no complaints with it. Canada has such a system which provides high quality care at lower cost than the U.S. Your argument is that the U.S. is incapable of doing what Canada and most developed countries have done?

I don't believe the US to be incapable, strictly speaking. But I am doubtful that there are enough harmonious adults in the room capable of designing an efficient system and putting it into effect. I certainly do not have the faith that "Bernie has GOT this."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 11, 2020, 12:24:29 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 11, 2020, 11:54:32 AM
Bernie Schools Simpleton Chuck Todd: "I Do Not Like Military Coups"

You fail to realize that this whole "schooling" twaddle is one of Sanders' liabilities.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 11, 2020, 01:06:10 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 11, 2020, 12:24:29 PM
You fail to realize that this whole "schooling" twaddle is one of Sanders' liabilities.

In fairness to Bernie, the claim that he was schooling anyone is, like the idea Chuck Todd is a simpleton, more a product of the Youtuber's imagination than anything else.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 11, 2020, 02:12:17 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 11, 2020, 01:06:10 PM
In fairness to Bernie, the claim that he was schooling anyone is, like the idea Chuck Todd is a simpleton, more a product of the Youtuber's imagination than anything else.

Good, though I doubt that Poju distinguishes between his favored YouBoob and reality...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 11, 2020, 03:46:34 PM
3 % reporting in New Hampshire:

Sanders 32.4 %
Buttigieg 20.4 %
Klobuchar 17.7 %
Warren 11.1 %
Biden 7.8 %
Steyer 3.6 %
Yang 2.8 %
Gabbard 2.7 %


Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 11, 2020, 04:13:22 PM
Andrew Yang dropping out!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 11, 2020, 04:17:07 PM
25 % reporting in New Hampshire:

Sanders 28.19 %
Buttigieg 22.43 %
Klobuchar 19.20 %
Warren 10.49 %
Biden 8.30 %
Steyer 3.33 %
Gabbard 3.02 %
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 11, 2020, 04:26:13 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 11, 2020, 04:17:07 PM
25 % reporting in New Hampshire:

Sanders 28.19 %
Buttigieg 22.43 %
Klobuchar 19.20 %
Warren 10.49 %
Biden 8.30 %
Steyer 3.33 %
Gabbard 3.02 %

The Iowa pattern is holding
--7 out of 10 voters voted for someone who is not Bernie
-- all the progressive candidates combined (Sanders, Warren, Steyer, and Gabbard) are getting less than half the votes.

Perhaps the Iowa thing was not so rigged as some think.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on February 11, 2020, 04:27:19 PM
What time is it in Finland? 3 am ?   ???
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 11, 2020, 05:08:17 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 11, 2020, 04:13:22 PM
Andrew Yang dropping out!
I wonder what happened here. I thought before he was gaining momentum.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 11, 2020, 08:18:53 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 11, 2020, 04:26:13 PM
The Iowa pattern is holding
--7 out of 10 voters voted for someone who is not Bernie
-- all the progressive candidates combined (Sanders, Warren, Steyer, and Gabbard) are getting less than half the votes.

Perhaps the Iowa thing was not so rigged as some think.

On one level the whole progressive vs not thing within the Democrats does my head in, but it does sometimes feel as if there are 2 separate races going on. First we have to figure out who the progressive Democrat candidate is (leaning Bernie) and who the more centrist Democrat candidate is (a bit less clear now), and then those 2 can face off to decide who challenges Trump.

It's all very Sibelius. Different tempi for different parts of the orchestra...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on February 11, 2020, 08:54:11 PM
Quote from: André on February 11, 2020, 04:27:19 PM
What time is it in Finland? 3 am ?   ???

Well, when you're a Bernie supporter, there isn't such thing as bedtime. It's Bernie time, all the time! ::)   :-\
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 12, 2020, 03:37:00 AM
Quote from: JBS on February 11, 2020, 04:26:13 PM
The Iowa pattern is holding
--7 out of 10 voters voted for someone who is not Bernie
-- all the progressive candidates combined (Sanders, Warren, Steyer, and Gabbard) are getting less than half the votes.

Perhaps the Iowa thing was not so rigged as some think.

Yeah and even less voted for someone else since Bernie won. You think all those won didn't vote for Bernie will vote for Trump if it's Trump vs Bernie? Polls indicate otherwise. Also, if you voted for say Warren it doesn't mean you hate Bernie. It means you preferred Warren. Bernie is the second or third choice for many. The reason why "progressive candidates" got less than half of votes is imo because of the way corporate media treads them.

Rigged or not, Iowa results contain tons of errors, most of them (somehow) benefitting Buttigieg on the expense of Bernie and Klobuchar got robbed the most getting only one pledged delegate. I don't like her, but I am not a hack so I bring it up she got robbed in Iowa while Buttigieg and Bernie got too many delegates (both should have got 11). The fact that Buttigieg got one more than Bernie despite of Bernie winning both first and second round popular vote and getting only 2 S.D.E.s less is plain ridiculous.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 12, 2020, 05:27:43 AM
Bernie Sanders Won the New Hampshire Primary; Ignore the Mainstream Media Spin

https://www.youtube.com/v/vDbbuGIy1yg
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 12, 2020, 05:38:36 AM
For the first time in this race Bernie has taken the lead in the average of national polls!

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 12, 2020, 06:21:11 AM
Quote from: Madiel on February 11, 2020, 08:18:53 PM
On one level the whole progressive vs not thing within the Democrats does my head in, but it does sometimes feel as if there are 2 separate races going on. First we have to figure out who the progressive Democrat candidate is (leaning Bernie) and who the more centrist Democrat candidate is (a bit less clear now), and then those 2 can face off to decide who challenges Trump.

It's all very Sibelius. Different tempi for different parts of the orchestra...

Indeed.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 12, 2020, 06:24:46 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 12, 2020, 05:27:43 AM
Bernie Sanders Won the New Hampshire Primary; Ignore the Mainstream Media Spin

https://www.youtube.com/v/vDbbuGIy1yg

Is JBS's point "media spin"?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 12, 2020, 06:29:54 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 12, 2020, 03:37:00 AM
Yeah and even less voted for someone else since Bernie won. You think all those won didn't vote for Bernie will vote for Trump if it's Trump vs Bernie? Polls indicate otherwise. Also, if you voted for say Warren it doesn't mean you hate Bernie. It means you preferred Warren. Bernie is the second or third choice for many. The reason why "progressive candidates" got less than half of votes is imo because of the way corporate media [treats] them.

This is no rebuttal, but the knee-jerk dismissal of any analysis that doesn't tell you what you want to hear.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on February 12, 2020, 06:31:52 AM
If Bernie is elected by the Democrats, they might as well kiss that election goodbye. My problem with the Democrats is their platform for the past 2-3 years has been to nail Trump on something illegal and get him out of office and, while I'm not going to question the fact that I do believe Trump is guilty of many things (which I won't launch into), I think this sends a negative signal to voters. It tells me they're more interested in someone they hate (and can't deal with on any kind of level) and not focused on what issues Americans are facing at the present time. One thing I used to like about the Democrats was their party came across as being down-to-earth and, more importantly, it was about people. Whatever is happening in their party right now doesn't strike this particular citizen as nothing but adolescent, schoolyard behavior. They need to get their act together and focus on something other than 'getting Trump', because, as it stands right now, he's not going anywhere.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 12, 2020, 06:36:14 AM
We expected Bernie to do well in New Hampshire, after all, he did beat Hillary four years ago.

If one observes that the Islanders didn't play a particularly good game, even if they won, it isn't "spin."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 12, 2020, 06:41:57 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 12, 2020, 06:31:52 AM
If Bernie is elected by the Democrats, they might as well kiss that election goodbye. My problem with the Democrats is their platform for the past 2-3 years has been to nail Trump on something illegal and get him out of office and, while I'm not going to question the fact that I do believe Trump is guilty of many things (which I won't launch into), I think this sends a negative signal to voters. It tells me they're more interested in someone they hate (and can't deal with on any kind of level) and not focused on what issues Americans are facing at the present time. One thing I used to like about the Democrats was their party came across as being down-to-earth and, more importantly, it was about people. Whatever is happening in their party right now doesn't strike this particular citizen as nothing but adolescent, schoolyard behavior. They need to get their act together and focus on something other than 'getting Trump', because, as it stands right now, he's not going anywhere.
100%
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 12, 2020, 06:48:12 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 12, 2020, 05:27:43 AM
Bernie Sanders Won the New Hampshire Primary; Ignore the Mainstream Media Spin

https://www.youtube.com/v/vDbbuGIy1yg

Perspective:

Bernie's margin of "victory" was less than 4,000 votes. About the same as Hillary's margin of victory in New Hampshire over Trump in 2016. You'll notice she's not running for re-election this year.  In 2016, in the NH primary, Bernie beat Hillary by 22 percent, with 152,193 votes.  Which means 120,000+ people who voted for Bernie in 2016 did not vote for him in 2020. That's roughly 4 out of 5.

IOW, Bernie eked out a first place finish in a state where he scored an overwhelming victory four years before.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 12, 2020, 06:49:58 AM
Quote from: Madiel on February 11, 2020, 08:18:53 PM
On one level the whole progressive vs not thing within the Democrats does my head in, but it does sometimes feel as if there are 2 separate races going on. First we have to figure out who the progressive Democrat candidate is (leaning Bernie) and who the more centrist Democrat candidate is (a bit less clear now), and then those 2 can face off to decide who challenges Trump.

It's all very Sibelius. Different tempi for different parts of the orchestra...

Nice metaphor.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 12, 2020, 06:51:37 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 12, 2020, 06:31:52 AM
If Bernie is elected by the Democrats, they might as well kiss that election goodbye. My problem with the Democrats is their platform for the past 2-3 years has been to nail Trump on something illegal and get him out of office and, while I'm not going to question the fact that I do believe Trump is guilty of many things (which I won't launch into), I think this sends a negative signal to voters. It tells me they're more interested in someone they hate (and can't deal with on any kind of level) and not focused on what issues Americans are facing at the present time. One thing I used to like about the Democrats was their party came across as being down-to-earth and, more importantly, it was about people. Whatever is happening in their party right now doesn't strike this particular citizen as nothing but adolescent, schoolyard behavior. They need to get their act together and focus on something other than 'getting Trump', because, as it stands right now, he's not going anywhere.

I don't believe there is anything one can say which would prompt Poju even to consider the possibility that Bernie could lose to Trump. He's swirling in the spin of his bubble. His mind's made up: don't confuse him with the facts!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on February 12, 2020, 07:01:24 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 12, 2020, 06:51:37 AM
I don't believe there is anything one can say which would prompt Poju even to consider the possibility that Bernie could lose to Trump. He's swirling in the spin of his bubble. His mind's made up: don't confuse him with the facts!

Yeah, that's true --- I mustn't shed any light on the subject. :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 12, 2020, 07:04:48 AM
Buttigieg Staffers Are Harrasing Progressive Journalists Vilifying Dissent

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 12, 2020, 06:24:46 AM
Is JBS's point "media spin"?

It shares some points:

Quote from: JBS on February 12, 2020, 06:48:12 AM
Perspective:

Bernie's margin of "victory" was less than 4,000 votes. About the same as Hillary's margin of victory in New Hampshire over Trump in 2016. You'll notice she's not running for re-election this year.  In 2016, in the NH primary, Bernie beat Hillary by 22 percent, with 152,193 votes.  Which means 120,000+ people who voted for Bernie in 2016 did not vote for him in 2020. That's roughly 4 out of 5.

IOW, Bernie eked out a first place finish in a state where he scored an overwhelming victory four years before.

In 2016 people had two choices: Hillary and Bernie. Now they had a dozen of choices.

A lot of this primary result is explained by Buttigieg and Klobuchar doing very well thanks to New Hampshire being very white as these candidates have not polled well among blacks, latinos and other minorities.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Jo498 on February 12, 2020, 07:06:58 AM
I think the problems are mainly two: The democrats are internally divided and this is exacerbated by the fact that they know they are likely to lose (again) against a person they take for an orange buffoon (which is not entirely wrong but this proves how weak you are if you cannot even beat that incoherently rambling clown). I am pretty confident that Trump will be re-elected and if the US democrats are able to learn they should then do what they neglected in the last 4 years, i.e. use the time to unite and re-group to have a better chance in 2024.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 12, 2020, 07:23:36 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 12, 2020, 07:04:48 AM
Buttigieg Staffers Are Harrasing Progressive Journalists Vilifying Dissent

It shares some points:

In 2016 people had two choices: Hillary and Bernie. Now they had a dozen of choices.

A lot of this primary result is explained by Buttigieg and Klobuchar doing very well thanks to New Hampshire being very white as these candidates have not polled well among blacks, latinos and other minorities.

That's the point. Now that they have other options voters are choosing someone who is not Bernie.

Your last paragraph contradicts one of your talking points. You say Bernie can appeal to disaffected white voters, but now you are saying Pete and Amy have more appeal to disaffected white voters.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 12, 2020, 07:24:16 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on February 12, 2020, 07:06:58 AM
I think the problems are mainly two: The democrats are internally divided and this is exacerbated by the fact that they know they are likely to lose (again) against a person they take for an orange buffoon (which is not entirely wrong but this proves how weak you are if you cannot even beat that incoherently rambling clown). I am pretty confident that Trump will be re-elected and if the US democrats are able to learn they should then do what they neglected in the last 4 years, i.e. use the time to unite and re-group to have a better chance in 2024.

Quite true.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 12, 2020, 07:31:32 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on February 12, 2020, 07:06:58 AM
I think the problems are mainly two: The democrats are internally divided and this is exacerbated by the fact that they know they are likely to lose (again) against a person they take for an orange buffoon (which is not entirely wrong but this proves how weak you are if you cannot even beat that incoherently rambling clown).

We know from 2016 that "I'm not the toxic jerk" ain't enough.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 12, 2020, 07:35:31 AM
Quote from: JBS on February 12, 2020, 07:23:36 AM


That's the point. Now that they have other options voters are choosing someone who is not Bernie.

Your last paragraph contradicts one of your talking points. You say Bernie can appeal to disaffected white voters, but now you are saying Pete and Amy have more appeal to disaffected white voters.

Yes and corporate media has done so much to smear Bernie, but despite of that Bernie is the second and third choice for many.

I did not say more appeal among whites. I said less appeal among minorities. That will hurt Buttigieg and Klobuchar in less white states.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 12, 2020, 11:30:37 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 12, 2020, 06:31:52 AM
If Bernie is elected by the Democrats, they might as well kiss that election goodbye. My problem with the Democrats is their platform for the past 2-3 years has been to nail Trump on something illegal and get him out of office and, while I'm not going to question the fact that I do believe Trump is guilty of many things (which I won't launch into), I think this sends a negative signal to voters. It tells me they're more interested in someone they hate (and can't deal with on any kind of level) and not focused on what issues Americans are facing at the present time. One thing I used to like about the Democrats was their party came across as being down-to-earth and, more importantly, it was about people. Whatever is happening in their party right now doesn't strike this particular citizen as nothing but adolescent, schoolyard behavior. They need to get their act together and focus on something other than 'getting Trump', because, as it stands right now, he's not going anywhere.

How should they react to his abuses of power? By ignoring them and not pushing back at all for fear of looking "negative"?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 12, 2020, 12:28:46 PM
At some point before November someone needs to revisit Trump's 2016 right out loud statement that he wouldn't accept the result of the election if he lost.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 12, 2020, 12:43:53 PM
OMG, this is FUN!  ;D   ;D   ;D

Excellent stand-up recap of the Iowa Circus fiasco.

The Jimmy Dore Show: Media Caught Repeatedly Lying To Boost Buttigieg

https://www.youtube.com/v/QHl9SdbOThE
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 12, 2020, 12:55:22 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 12, 2020, 06:31:52 AM
If Bernie is elected by the Democrats, they might as well kiss that election goodbye. My problem with the Democrats is their platform for the past 2-3 years has been to nail Trump on something illegal and get him out of office and, while I'm not going to question the fact that I do believe Trump is guilty of many things (which I won't launch into), I think this sends a negative signal to voters. It tells me they're more interested in someone they hate (and can't deal with on any kind of level) and not focused on what issues Americans are facing at the present time. One thing I used to like about the Democrats was their party came across as being down-to-earth and, more importantly, it was about people. Whatever is happening in their party right now doesn't strike this particular citizen as nothing but adolescent, schoolyard behavior. They need to get their act together and focus on something other than 'getting Trump', because, as it stands right now, he's not going anywhere.

While I completely understand this, it's also worth bearing in mind that there's good historical evidence that the great majority of presidential elections are treated by the voters as referendums on the incumbent. Even when the individual incumbent can't stand again after a 2nd term, it's a referendum on their administration.

I forget exactly where I heard about this but it was probably one of the podcasts I listen to. I think it was one of the people who predicted Trump's victory and had a very strong track record over the years.

I'm not sure that's any better for the Democrats, because I'm not sure that Trump's awful personal character is what voters will focus on in judging his administration. If things like economic indicators are in his favour, many voters will shrug at the accompanying circus and focus on how their own lives have been going.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on February 12, 2020, 01:11:33 PM
I suspect if the nominees come down to Bernie vs. Trump the results will end up not particularly different from if the candidates were "Generic Democrat" and "Generic Republican".

That said I am definitely surprised by how well Mayor Pete has been doing. I'd fully expected Kamala Harris or Klobuchar to be the one dominating his lane but I guess in the modern Democratic party troops beat cops.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 12, 2020, 01:16:28 PM
Mayor Pete's surge is indeed a surprise. And Amy Klobuchar's performance in the Granite State is the big news.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 12, 2020, 01:18:28 PM
Quote from: Madiel on February 12, 2020, 12:55:22 PM
I'm not sure that Trump's awful personal character is what voters will focus on in judging his administration. If things like economic indicators are in his favour, many voters will shrug at the accompanying circus and focus on how their own lives have been going.

Show me one single country in the world where people vote principles and ideas as opposed to how their own lives have been going.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 12, 2020, 01:21:09 PM
Quote from: Florestan on February 12, 2020, 01:18:28 PM
Show me one single country in the world where people vote principles and ideas as opposed to how their own lives have been going.
Imagine: "hey, I lost my job and my house due to bad policies brought forth by the president, but at least he's a pretty rad dude!"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 12, 2020, 01:27:03 PM
Quote from: Florestan on February 12, 2020, 01:18:28 PM
Show me one single country in the world where people vote principles and ideas as opposed to how their own lives have been going.


In every country there would be a wide range of motivations.

Furthermore the cheapening or destruction of institutions will ultimately affect "how their lives are going"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 12, 2020, 02:02:25 PM
Quote from: Florestan on February 12, 2020, 01:18:28 PM
Show me one single country in the world where people vote principles and ideas as opposed to how their own lives have been going.

I can't. And that's frankly depressing. Because believing that the core function of the leader of the country is to determine your individual welfare is really kind of illogical and self-centred. But most people are actually really bad at distinguishing systemic issues from individual-case issues.

It's also depressing that, for many people, that question about the state of their own lives seems to be determined by finances, and not anything else. Which feeds into the continuing myth that governments actually have that much control over the state of the economy in this day and age. The levers that any one government has to influence a multinational financial system aren't that significant.

Unless perhaps you're the government of China. In which case, interest in election voting patterns is minimal.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on February 12, 2020, 02:07:23 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 12, 2020, 11:30:37 AM
How should they react to his abuses of power? By ignoring them and not pushing back at all for fear of looking "negative"?

What they need to do is focus on issues that are affecting the lives of American people. That's what they should be doing, but they're not hence why there's not a Democratic president in office right now. People are concerned about the economy and the general welfare of the American people should be of upmost concern for them. The reality is they've ignored this and it'll cost them another election.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 12, 2020, 02:33:15 PM
You didn't answer my question.

And it'll "cost them another election" if there's election interference, and its allowed to go unchecked.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 12, 2020, 04:20:53 PM
The left has concerns over the Nevada Caucus and that it may not be fair. They aren't using the Shadow Inc. app, but they will use iPads. Nevada Dems hired Buttigieg organizer as voter protection director.

https://www.youtube.com/v/CJFXSSYOwsA
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on February 13, 2020, 02:51:23 AM
Quote from: amw on February 12, 2020, 01:11:33 PM
I suspect if the nominees come down to Bernie vs. Trump the results will end up not particularly different from if the candidates were "Generic Democrat" and "Generic Republican".


With the "Generic Republican" claiming a great economy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 13, 2020, 06:59:46 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 12, 2020, 02:33:15 PM
You didn't answer my question.

And it'll "cost them another election" if there's election interference, and its allowed to go unchecked.
Because most people, including many Democrats, don't have a stronger grudge against him vs. hearing about issues that will benefit their own lives. If all they have to offer is not being that person, how are they demonstrating they will be better than that person?

Bernie said that making going after Trump top priority would be a losing game, and look where he is now.

It's going to be funny if it's both guys against the media this time. It's like watching a snake trying to escape from a trapped sroom full of poison.  :D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 13, 2020, 08:53:48 AM
And you dodged the question as well.

Do you really think the best response to his criminality is to ignore it?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 13, 2020, 09:40:28 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 13, 2020, 08:53:48 AM
And you dodged the question as well.

Do you really think the best response to his criminality is to ignore it?
You are throwing the assertion that he is committing crimes is a given so the question is unanswerable.
They already finished the trial for all of that stuff.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 13, 2020, 09:55:30 AM
Again: that's what I thought you were going to say, though in this instance I was hoping you'd try a little harder.

If you honestly can't see the criminality and honestly think that was a thorough trial then there's not much point in us continuing this discussion.

Though I guess it brings us back to the discussion of how you get your news.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 13, 2020, 10:06:26 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 13, 2020, 09:55:30 AM
Again: that's what I thought you were going to say, though in this instance I was hoping you'd try a little harder.

If you honestly can't see the criminality and honestly think that was a thorough trial then there's not much point in us continuing this discussion.

Though I guess it brings us back to the discussion of how you get your news.
Your question was asking if they should ignore him. And they didn't.

I didn't follow the trial much- not that interested. Whether it was fair or whatever is open to debate, separately.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 13, 2020, 10:27:35 AM
Also one thing that bugs me a little about that is what it leads to... a non-American thinking they know better than what Americans on what they should be focused on.

Bernie and Trump being the top two right now points to the people not wanting the mission of punishing Trump to be top priority (double check me on this conclusion, of course).

So the democrats need to be focused on what the people care about instead. Doing otherwise would be a very authoritarian mindset.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 13, 2020, 10:32:35 AM
According to Democratic primary voters Joe Biden is not the most electable candidate anymore.
Post New Hampshire Bernie Sanders and Michael Bloomberg are.
The new national poll number post N.H. by Morning Consult are:

Sanders 29 % +4
Biden 19 % -3
Bloomberg 18 % +1
Buttigieg 11 % 0
Warren 10 % -1
Klobuchar 5 % +2
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 13, 2020, 11:07:28 AM
Quote from: greg on February 13, 2020, 10:27:35 AM
Also one thing that bugs me a little about that is what it leads to... a non-American thinking they know better than what Americans on what they should be focused on.

Bernie and Trump being the top two right now points to the people not wanting the mission of punishing Trump to be top priority (double check me on this conclusion, of course).

So the democrats need to be focused on what the people care about instead. Doing otherwise would be a very authoritarian mindset.

They can do two things at the same time. Campaigning on how they're going to address the voters concerns as well as trying to halt Trump's Putinesque impulses.

I don't necessarily think I "know better", but I'm certain you should be more concerned than you are.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 13, 2020, 11:34:51 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 13, 2020, 11:07:28 AM
They can do two things at the same time. Campaigning on how they're going to address the voters concerns as well as trying to halt Trump's Putinesque impulses.
Certainly is possible. But definitely going to be difficult to manage both at the same time.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 13, 2020, 11:42:58 AM
I would expect any serious candidate for President to be someone who can deal with multiple concerns and crises simultaneously. It's what the job requires.

And as I've opined before ignoring attempts at election interference isn't optional if you're heading into an election.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 13, 2020, 12:35:19 PM
Quote from: greg on February 13, 2020, 10:06:26 AM
Your question was asking if they should ignore him. And they didn't.

I didn't follow the trial much- not that interested. Whether it was fair or whatever is open to debate, separately.

Not that interested in the trial (which was only going to have one outcome) is very different to whether or not you're interested in whether the leader of your country engaged in illegal behaviour.

I don't just mean you individually, I mean generally. To the extent that voters aren't interested in whether the man in power has any sense of how public power differs from being the CEO of his own personal company kingdom, in a country that tells itself it was founded to escape personal tyranny, that's downright scary.

Time and again Trump shows he doesn't actually understand what being President MEANS in a system with separation of powers and rule of law. And the biggest problem is millions of Americans don't understand either.

You have a narcissistic would-be king who becomes enraged the moment anyone crosses him. Be more worried.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 13, 2020, 01:38:35 PM
Quote from: Madiel on February 13, 2020, 12:35:19 PM
Not that interested in the trial (which was only going to have one outcome) is very different to whether or not you're interested in whether the leader of your country engaged in illegal behaviour.

I don't just mean you individually, I mean generally. To the extent that voters aren't interested in whether the man in power has any sense of how public power differs from being the CEO of his own personal company kingdom, in a country that tells itself it was founded to escape personal tyranny, that's downright scary.

Time and again Trump shows he doesn't actually understand what being President MEANS in a system with separation of powers and rule of law. And the biggest problem is millions of Americans don't understand either.

You have a narcissistic would-be king who becomes enraged the moment anyone crosses him. Be more worried.
Of course it's a problem if an illegal activity took place. But we don't know for sure, which was the purpose of the trial.

His attitude is problematic of course. But there is an order of concerns and that is secondary to other issues like people feeling like they are economically secure.

Even if he is doing something illegal and gets away with it, he is out in four years. Is there any effect where future presidents can get away with the same thing?

If he wanted to extend term limits... then that would be more of a concern than anything. But that's not gonna happen.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 13, 2020, 02:42:17 PM
Read Mitt Romney. The evidence that Trump was placing conditions on funding for Ukraine that Congress had approved (so it's not even his money to control), and that those conditions were focused on getting something on Biden, is overwhelming.

Much of the evidence was provided directly by the Trump administration BECAUSE he doesn't understand that he's not the CEO and that the money didn't belong to him. He didn't think he'd done anything wrong because he thought that as the man in charge he could do anything.

And that's my point. Him trying to break the law would in some way be less scary than him not understanding that what he was doing was wrong.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 13, 2020, 02:55:25 PM
I gather that at least some other Republicans agreed but baulked at removal from office as the punishment. It's unfortunate that your system doesn't provide a range of options, but then I'm not sure what other practically effective options there are.

Except for the next election. Which is why the sheer disinterest of many Americans is such an issue. But they don't have much interest in the system in general, and happily elected someone from outside the system who kind of promised to wreck it for them.

To the extent that he's drained the swamp I'd argue it's only to replace it with something worse.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 13, 2020, 02:58:42 PM
"Drained the swamp into his cabinet", as Samantha Bee put it.

Your post also reminded me of this classic:

(https://www.swiss-miss.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/15875772_1397390033606985_7215192002378334208_n-480x480.jpg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 13, 2020, 05:48:28 PM
Quote from: greg on February 13, 2020, 01:38:35 PM
Of course it's a problem if an illegal activity took place. But we don't know for sure, which was the purpose of the trial.

We know, for sure; the GOP Senate was predetermined not to consider the evidence; that does not mean there was no evidence.  To the extent to which the Senate were goig tuo acquit the President no matter what, the trial was a mockery, a wing of the stinking cover-up.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on February 13, 2020, 11:49:13 PM
Yeah, it's funny that in some cases people from Down Under seem to be more interested and better informed about US politics than some people in the US.

There is a justification. If Trump decides he's had enough and blows up the planet (just to see if the red button really works) people in New Zealand and Finland will notice, too.

More realistically, four more years of Trump will have disastrous effects on the environment globally. There is no dispute about that, unless you've got your head in the sand, which a lot of Trump voters do.

Greg if what is called a low-info voter (if he votes at all). Not being sure Trump committed counter-constitutional acts means you just haven't paid attention. The reason Trump wasn't convicted / removed from office is the majority in the Senate is beholden to Trump for reelection, not because of doubts about the facts, see Karl above.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 14, 2020, 02:02:24 AM
Breaking: Bernie Has Taken the Lead in Texas!

https://www.youtube.com/v/4mjj-QuX7NI
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 14, 2020, 10:09:39 AM
Quote from: Herman on February 13, 2020, 11:49:13 PM
Yeah, it's funny that in some cases people from Down Under seem to be more interested and better informed about US politics than some people in the US.

There is a justification. If Trump decides he's had enough and blows up the planet (just to see if the red button really works) people in New Zealand and Finland will notice, too.

More realistically, four more years of Trump will have disastrous effects on the environment globally. There is no dispute about that, unless you've got your head in the sand, which a lot of Trump voters do.

Greg if what is called a low-info voter (if he votes at all). Not being sure Trump committed counter-constitutional acts means you just haven't paid attention. The reason Trump wasn't convicted / removed from office is the majority in the Senate is beholden to Trump for reelection, not because of doubts about the facts, see Karl above.
I don't vote and I hate politics. I have more important things to work on so I don't go out of my way to pay attention to it.

You know there are other people out there who would disagree with whether Trump is guilty. Also I have an instinctual bullshit detector for people who are overly confident about stuff like this so if I did want to form an opinion about this I wouldn't listen to you or other people on here.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 14, 2020, 10:43:35 AM
Nevada poll (finally):

Bernie Sanders 25 %
Joe Biden 18 %
Elizabeth Warren 13 %
Tom Steyer 11 %
Peter Buttigieg 10 %
Amy Klobuchar 10 %
Other/undecided 13 %

WPA Intelligence, moe 4.8 % pts
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 14, 2020, 10:55:24 AM
Quote from: greg on February 14, 2020, 10:09:39 AM
I don't vote and I hate politics. I have more important things to work on so I don't go out of my way to pay attention to it.

You know there are other people out there who would disagree with whether Trump is guilty. Also I have an instinctual bullshit detector for people who are overly confident about stuff like this so if I did want to form an opinion about this I wouldn't listen to you or other people on here.

Given the leeway you lavish upon Trump, your "instinctual bullshit detector" ain't much.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: bhodges on February 14, 2020, 11:15:30 AM
Quote from: greg on February 14, 2020, 10:09:39 AM
I don't vote

Reading this makes me really sad.

--Bruce
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 14, 2020, 11:52:23 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 14, 2020, 10:55:24 AM
Given the leeway you lavish upon Trump, your "instinctual bullshit detector" ain't much.
I see going hardcore anti-Trump is actually the middle road, huh?  :D


Quote from: Brewski on February 14, 2020, 11:15:30 AM
Reading this makes me really sad.

--Bruce
I suspect not as much if otherwise I would have voted who the guy who isn't your guy.
(no idea who that is, just saying lol)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 14, 2020, 12:01:50 PM
Oh btw there's this channel I wanted to share with some other people that's just a hilarious parody channel of various political ideologies.

Not sure if this is a good place to share but whatever. It's only fun comedy stuff- not for education. This guy is really funny.

He has a video series of the four corners of the political compass (extremists) coming together to fight the evil Centrists.

https://www.youtube.com/user/flavacrava
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 14, 2020, 03:14:23 PM
Quote from: Brewski on February 14, 2020, 11:15:30 AM
Reading this makes me really sad.

--Bruce

OTOH, given how he "pays attention" ....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 14, 2020, 04:29:06 PM
Quote from: greg on February 14, 2020, 10:09:39 AM
I don't vote and I hate politics. I have more important things to work on so I don't go out of my way to pay attention to it.

You know there are other people out there who would disagree with whether Trump is guilty. Also I have an instinctual bullshit detector for people who are overly confident about stuff like this so if I did want to form an opinion about this I wouldn't listen to you or other people on here.

So, basically... you know nothing and don't want to, and then think that anyone who actually pays attention and tries to find out things is "overly confident".

Your celebration of ignorance is not impressive.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 14, 2020, 05:10:09 PM
Quote from: Madiel on February 14, 2020, 04:29:06 PM
So, basically... you know nothing and don't want to, and then think that anyone who actually pays attention and tries to find out things is "overly confident".

Your celebration of ignorance is not impressive.

Know-nothingism is a big plus for Trumpkins.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 14, 2020, 07:43:14 PM
Bill de Blasio to endorse Bernie Sanders.  0:)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 15, 2020, 12:50:38 PM
Quote from: Madiel on February 14, 2020, 04:29:06 PM
So, basically... you know nothing and don't want to, and then think that anyone who actually pays attention and tries to find out things is "overly confident".

Your celebration of ignorance is not impressive.
Yeah, nice way of phrasing it to try to put me down.

Politics is not my area of focus. I don't have the time to spend on it.

A lot of people here I don't see actively trying to "find out things" but rather just spewing their perceptions whenever they get the chance. I believe a few pages back I was asking some questions. But then people quickly try to sell me on their opinions.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 15, 2020, 02:54:06 PM
I don't care that politics is not your area of focus. I care about your response to those for whom it IS an area of focus. Your objection to anyone actually having an opinion is frankly nonsense. What, we're all supposed to be vaguely non-committal for the sake of 'balance'?

You can argue why an opinion is wrong, but your supposed bullshit detector directed at ANYONE who reaches a firm conclusion is... well it's bullshit.

I work in the public service and live in the national capital, so what is going on in the political world is important. I don't go out of my way to specifically follow American politics, but we are one of your closest allies and what goes on over there is therefore widely reported in this country.

I don't reach a conclusion on everything, but as I've already said, the evidence that Trump put pressure on Ukraine is ample, not least because people Trump and Giuliani provided quite a bit of it. The evidence that Trump believes he is the CEO of America Inc. comes entirely from his own mouth and his own tweets. I don't have to engage in convoluted ideas or in any kind of partisan bias to talk about these things, I just have to pay attention.

And it's frankly ridiculous of you to believe that the only way to do things is to keep SUCH an open mind that everything falls out of it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 15, 2020, 03:01:42 PM
And even if someone wanted to argue this or that about the Ukraine business the obstruction of justice charge is (or ought to have been) undeniable.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 15, 2020, 03:27:17 PM
Quote from: Madiel on February 15, 2020, 02:54:06 PM
You can argue why an opinion is wrong, but your supposed bullshit detector directed at ANYONE who reaches a firm conclusion is... well it's bullshit.
It's the tribalistic thinking that I'm talking about (groupthink), which leads to much over-confidence.

People will ignore the downsides about what they assert about their conclusions, or the implications of their ideas in action. I see the contradictory nature of this in even very popular political issues.

And also the pressure to fit into a box, which I get the sense of very much from this thread (ex. the assumption that I "must be a Trump supporter" even though I don't vote). It even happened back in the Obama days when I would tell people (mostly IRL discussions) that the accusations against him are silly.

The fact that I wish to detach from all the tribes will ultimately mean everyone will hate me, which is fine, I guess. I only like to look at things as objectively as possible. If I don't know enough about something, I won't have an opinion.

Which is also consistent about my idea of people should only be allowed to vote after a political knowledge test and an IQ test (since IQ is pattern-related, it can help in understanding effects of actions/what patterns can result after a choice). But that's another topic entirely, just an idea I've had.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 15, 2020, 07:09:23 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 14, 2020, 07:43:14 PM
Bill de Blasio to endorse Bernie Sanders.  0:)

Meh.  De Blasio is a progressive, so of course he'll endorse the leading progressive candidate. There's also the fact that the current mayor of NYC is not friends with the former mayor of NYC.

If someone from the Clinton/Biden wing of the party endorsed Sanders, that would be noteworthy. This isn't.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 15, 2020, 07:57:28 PM
Quote from: greg on February 15, 2020, 03:27:17 PM
It's the tribalistic thinking that I'm talking about (groupthink), which leads to much over-confidence.

People will ignore the downsides about what they assert about their conclusions, or the implications of their ideas in action. I see the contradictory nature of this in even very popular political issues.

And also the pressure to fit into a box, which I get the sense of very much from this thread (ex. the assumption that I "must be a Trump supporter" even though I don't vote). It even happened back in the Obama days when I would tell people (mostly IRL discussions) that the accusations against him are silly.

The fact that I wish to detach from all the tribes will ultimately mean everyone will hate me, which is fine, I guess. I only like to look at things as objectively as possible. If I don't know enough about something, I won't have an opinion.

Which is also consistent about my idea of people should only be allowed to vote after a political knowledge test and an IQ test (since IQ is pattern-related, it can help in understanding effects of actions/what patterns can result after a choice). But that's another topic entirely, just an idea I've had.

Again just like 71db: "my views are an objective assessment of the facts - your views are mere groupthink"

Again I think its explained by how you get your "news".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 16, 2020, 12:25:06 AM
Quote from: greg on February 15, 2020, 03:27:17 PM
It's the tribalistic thinking that I'm talking about (groupthink), which leads to much over-confidence.

And exactly what has that got to do with me and what I was saying, when you brought up this overconfidence thing?

Various other things you're talking about also have nothing to do with me or what I've personally said. I recognise them as being related to what others have said in this thread, but it was me you were replying to when you decided to talk about having a problem with people having opinions.

Do you actually know who my preferred Democratic candidate is, given the topic of this thread? If you do, then please tell me because I sure don't know yet.

I'm not tribal. I'm not anti-Republican. I have an extremely low view of Trump, specifically, because of how he's actually behaved. The Republicans had candidates in 2016 that they could have picked and we simply wouldn't be having this conversation. Because those candidates were somewhere within the bounds of sanity and competency. But no. The reality TV star won. The businessman who only 'succeeds' by constantly threatening lawsuits and by using his inherited funds when others successfully sue him, that's the guy who won.

Again, you seem to believe that "balance" requires never reaching any kind of conclusion about anyone or anything. When lots and lots of people reach the same conclusion that in and of itself is not evidence of groupthink, or tribalism. It can actually be because they all obtained evidence.

Trump has been President for 3 years and tweets out evidence about the kind of person he is at an astonishing rate. Whatever you think of him, he's provided more directly personal material to form a judgement on than just about any other political figure. I don't think what I think about Trump because of 'groupthink' or someone else telling me what to think. I think it because for 3-4 years the man has been constantly in the public eye, on a near daily basis. He's been in the public eye in some form for DECADES. But hey, let's not be too hasty to form a judgement about him, that might look like 'groupthink' if too many of us simultaneously look at him and think WTF.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 16, 2020, 06:31:13 AM
Quote from: Madiel on February 16, 2020, 12:25:06 AMI'm not tribal. I'm not anti-Republican. I have an extremely low view of Trump, specifically, because of how he's actually behaved. The Republicans had candidates in 2016 that they could have picked and we simply wouldn't be having this conversation. Because those candidates were somewhere within the bounds of sanity and competency. But no. The reality TV star won. The businessman who only 'succeeds' by constantly threatening lawsuits and by using his inherited funds when others successfully sue him, that's the guy who won.

The US has entered the era on political populism meaning populists do best in elections everything else being equal. The Republicans didn't have real populist candidates, but they had one fake populist and that fake populist is curretly in the White House.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 17, 2020, 11:03:16 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 15, 2020, 07:57:28 PM
Again just like 71db: "my views are an objective assessment of the facts - your views are mere groupthink"

Again I think its explained by how you get your "news".
I don't know why you are so concerned about how I get my news. And not sure why that would be a just me problem when news media generally isn't very good or unbiased.

His opinions are probably a bit more authentic than most people's, though at the same time I don't think he's acknowledging the downsides... which is why I don't understand fanaticism of any politicians.


Also... As far as voting goes i would rather vote against rather than for... If that were the system i would probably vote.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 17, 2020, 11:57:33 AM
Bernie's GOT to win! Why don't you see it?!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on February 18, 2020, 06:01:29 AM
Biden: no way please for this guy who's been in politics way too long and is tied to too many policies, votes, gaffes, etc.
Buttigieg: honestly, I still haven't focused on him. But, on paper, he seems like a real lightweight. Plus, what's the movement he leads? Is he even electable in his own state? Maybe he's smart. Anything else?
Warren: I actually find her likable and a very good politician in the sense of projecting good intentions and spirit. She's just made really big blunders here and there. It makes me wonder. And was tying herself to Medicare-for-all a big mistake? Being bashed so much makes her seem weak but I still find her the most likable. Again, she's messed up a lot too, sadly.
Klobuchar: I find her to be unlikable and somewhat disingenuous. Her attempts at humor are painful. Prosecutors seem to be the most blatant professional liars. What does she stand for? I don't even care much. I just don't like her.
Sanders: single payer, free education, tax the rich. I like it. Why can't America be a little more like Germany or Finland? America/the world is out of hand with 4 or 5 rich guys owning half the wealth on planet earth and paying little in tax. Can he win? He makes me nervous. He's old too. Like, very old. Who'd be his running mate? Gabbard? I'm not freak'n voting for Tulsey Gabbard. Anyway, Sanders is one of the most honest politicians in politics but still, can he win? I'd like to think so but lots of the media will say no.
Bloomberg? PPleaze!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on February 18, 2020, 06:41:54 AM
Sanders' choice of running mate will be of major importance. Given his advanced age and health record, his veep would have good chances of ending up prez in a Sanders first term. And of course you can forget about a second term.

All the focus is on the candidate, not his running mate. That's a ticket for big time uncertainty. Just for that reason my brother and his wife won't be voting for him in the NC primaries.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 18, 2020, 07:22:12 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 17, 2020, 11:57:33 AM
Bernie's GOT to win! Why don't you see it?!
He can't win against a single college girl protester so not sure he can win against his rivals.

;D :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 18, 2020, 07:44:37 AM
Quote from: milk on February 18, 2020, 06:01:29 AM
Biden: no way please for this guy who's been in politics way too long and is tied to too many policies, votes, gaffes, etc.
Buttigieg: honestly, I still haven't focused on him. But, on paper, he seems like a real lightweight. Plus, what's the movement he leads? Is he even electable in his own state? Maybe he's smart. Anything else?
Warren: I actually find her likable and a very good politician in the sense of projecting good intentions and spirit. She's just made really big blunders here and there. It makes me wonder. And was tying herself to Medicare-for-all a big mistake? Being bashed so much makes her seem weak but I still find her the most likable. Again, she's messed up a lot too, sadly.
Klobuchar: I find her to be unlikable and somewhat disingenuous. Her attempts at humor are painful. Prosecutors seem to be the most blatant professional liars. What does she stand for? I don't even care much. I just don't like her.
Sanders: single payer, free education, tax the rich. I like it. Why can't America be a little more like Germany or Finland? America/the world is out of hand with 4 or 5 rich guys owning half the wealth on planet earth and paying little in tax. Can he win? He makes me nervous. He's old too. Like, very old. Who'd be his running mate? Gabbard? I'm not freak'n voting for Tulsey Gabbard. Anyway, Sanders is one of the most honest politicians in politics but still, can he win? I'd like to think so but lots of the media will say no.
Bloomberg? PPleaze!


I feel ya.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 18, 2020, 12:32:54 PM
Bloomberg Is Now Buying Off State Democratic Parties

https://www.youtube.com/v/BJm-0f031qA
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 19, 2020, 05:20:29 AM
This will cheer Poju, anyway:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-surges-into-national-lead-in-new-post-abc-poll/2020/02/19/868266a4-5280-11ea-929a-64efa7482a77_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-surges-into-national-lead-in-new-post-abc-poll/2020/02/19/868266a4-5280-11ea-929a-64efa7482a77_story.html)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 19, 2020, 06:22:24 AM
Iowa recanvassing results at the moment:

Pete Buttigieg - 563.207 S.D.E.s => 14 pledged delegates
Bernie Sanders - 563.127 S.D.E.s => 12 pledged delegates

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 19, 2020, 05:20:29 AM
This will cheer Poju, anyway:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-surges-into-national-lead-in-new-post-abc-poll/2020/02/19/868266a4-5280-11ea-929a-64efa7482a77_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-surges-into-national-lead-in-new-post-abc-poll/2020/02/19/868266a4-5280-11ea-929a-64efa7482a77_story.html)

No use to give me these paywall links, because I am not accepting their "free" entry bs. Bernie has led the national poll for some time now. Apparently even corporate media has to admit it by now as Bloomberg seems their only hope (let's see how badly Bloomberg tanks after his first debate where he can't control the narrative 100 % with his millions).

If you think they wrote something substantive you can always quote it here, thanks!


Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 19, 2020, 08:28:29 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 19, 2020, 06:22:24 AM
Iowa recanvassing results at the moment:

Pete Buttigieg - 563.207 S.D.E.s => 14 pledged delegates
Bernie Sanders - 563.127 S.D.E.s => 12 pledged delegates

No use to give me these paywall links, because I am not accepting their "free" entry bs. Bernie has led the national poll for some time now. Apparently even corporate media has to admit it by now as Bloomberg seems their only hope (let's see how badly Bloomberg tanks after his first debate where he can't control the narrative 100 % with his millions).

If you think they wrote something substantive you can always quote it here, thanks!




That's your trip, you know I ain't wet-nursing you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 19, 2020, 09:32:40 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 19, 2020, 08:28:29 AM
That's your trip, you know I ain't wet-nursing you.

You are the one who tried to cheer me with your link..  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 19, 2020, 09:48:18 AM
The incognito tab on your browser is your friend....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 19, 2020, 10:14:31 AM
Quote from: JBS on February 19, 2020, 09:48:18 AM
The incognito tab on your browser is your friend....

Thanks for the hint, but when I tried that, I got this message:

We noticed you're browsing in private mode.
Private browsing is permitted exclusively for our subscribers. Turn off private browsing to keep reading this story, or subscribe to use this feature, plus get unlimited digital access.


:P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 19, 2020, 10:22:10 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 19, 2020, 10:14:31 AM
Thanks for the hint, but when I tried that, I got this message:

We noticed you're browsing in private mode.
Private browsing is permitted exclusively for our subscribers. Turn off private browsing to keep reading this story, or subscribe to use this feature, plus get unlimited digital access.


:P

Try a different browser. I get the link, not that message, with Google Chrome.
Come to think of it, check to make sure your browser is updated. The Post, NY Times, and others, implemented a thing to stop private/incognito browsing a few months ago. After a couple of weeks, Google updated Chrome to neutralize that effort.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 19, 2020, 10:29:43 AM
"Mister Transparency" exit stage left

"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at the CNN town hall Tuesday night confirmed what he told MSNBC's Chuck Todd recently: He will not, on second thought, release his full medical records as he promised after the 78-year-old had a heart attack last fall. Social media erupted with objections, with many journalists pointing out that it was hardly unreasonable to demand that he fulfill his promise.

On CNN Wednesday morning, the Sanders campaign unleashed its press secretary, Briahna Joy Gray, to launch attacks on journalists and make unsupportable claims about other candidates. Gray declared the effort to hold Sanders to his promise to be a "smear" akin to birtherism ("And what you're seeing right now is really reminiscent of some of the kind of smear, kind of skepticism campaigns that have been run against a lot of different candidates in the past. Questioning where they're from, aspects of their lineage, etc.").

If Bernie devolves into an equal-but-opposite Trump, that ain't going to create "former Trump" voters, either,
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 19, 2020, 10:31:02 AM
Quote from: JBS on February 19, 2020, 10:22:10 AM
Try a different browser. I get the link, not that message, with Google Chrome.
Come to think of it, check to make sure your browser is updated. The Post, NY Times, and others, implemented a thing to stop private/incognito browsing a few months ago. After a couple of weeks, Google updated Chrome to neutralize that effort.

Thanks but no thanks. Can't be that important!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on February 19, 2020, 11:42:07 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 19, 2020, 10:29:43 AM
"Mister Transparency" exit stage left

"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at the CNN town hall Tuesday night confirmed what he told MSNBC's Chuck Todd recently: He will not, on second thought, release his full medical records as he promised after the 78-year-old had a heart attack last fall. Social media erupted with objections, with many journalists pointing out that it was hardly unreasonable to demand that he fulfill his promise.

On CNN Wednesday morning, the Sanders campaign unleashed its press secretary, Briahna Joy Gray, to launch attacks on journalists and make unsupportable claims about other candidates. Gray declared the effort to hold Sanders to his promise to be a "smear" akin to birtherism ("And what you're seeing right now is really reminiscent of some of the kind of smear, kind of skepticism campaigns that have been run against a lot of different candidates in the past. Questioning where they're from, aspects of their lineage, etc.").

If Bernie devolves into an equal-but-opposite Trump, that ain't going to create "former Trump" voters, either,


Pollster to Sanders: « your numbers look great ! »
Doctor to Sanders: «  your numbers look poor ! »

Sanders should consult the WH doctor for his bill of health. It'd come out clean as a whistle.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 19, 2020, 06:08:36 PM
Bernie DUNKS ON Media's Concern Trolling

https://www.youtube.com/v/F7L57mquDOo
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 19, 2020, 07:47:23 PM
Who do you think is watching this shit?

Who do you think might be persuaded by this shot?

Has even one person here said anything positive about these?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on February 19, 2020, 11:40:04 PM
So the Young Turks has turned into Bernie's Fox as it were?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on February 20, 2020, 12:25:28 AM
After last night's debate I think the best thing to do for the Democratic party is to forget about it, cede the election to DJT and go and reorganise their shit so as to produce two or three viable candidates for 2024 (if the world still exists by then, including electoral politics in the USA).

Alternatively they can nominate Bernie, which amounts to the same thing.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on February 20, 2020, 12:32:29 AM
Quote from: Herman on February 20, 2020, 12:25:28 AM
After last night's debate I think the best thing to do for the Democratic party is to forget about it, cede the election to DJT and go and reorganise their shit so as to produce two or three viable candidates for 2024 (if the world still exists by then, including electoral politics in the USA).

Alternatively they can nominate Bernie, which amounts to the same thing.

The fun thing with them Dems is that Bloomberg is now given the same treatment as Trump received back in 2015/2016 by his GOP rivals. That worked out just fine. NOT.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 12:52:03 AM
Hah, Bloomberg got DESTROYED in the Nevada debate! Bernie did well, but Elizabeth Warren was on fire attacking this entitled oligarch.  >:D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 01:10:59 AM
Quote from: Marc on February 20, 2020, 12:32:29 AM
The fun thing with them Dems is that Bloomberg is now given the same treatment as Trump received back in 2015/2016 by his GOP rivals. That worked out just fine. NOT.

Trump has charisma and knows what people want to hear. Bloomberg doesn't and money can't buy charisma...  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on February 20, 2020, 02:53:50 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 01:10:59 AM
Trump has charisma and knows what people want to hear. Bloomberg doesn't and money can't buy charisma...  ::)

Eh, money = charisma...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 03:09:12 AM
Quote from: Herman on February 20, 2020, 02:53:50 AM
Eh, money = charisma...

I guess Jeff Bezos is the most charismatic of them all...  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on February 20, 2020, 03:50:09 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 01:10:59 AM
Trump has charisma and knows what people want to hear. [...]

Did you think this about Trump already in 2015/2016?

Because only a few morons seriously gave him a chance to become POTUS when he announced his candidacy.
(I have to admit that I was such a moron and was verbally punished severely by quite some friends and colleagues "You, Marc, are completely biased against Americans. But you don't need to fear: only a few rich kids and a handful of rednecks are gonna vote for this idiot.")

Quote from: 71 dB
[...] Bloomberg doesn't and money can't buy charisma...  ::)

That sounds logical. But money can buy you a(n awful) lot.
Besides that: considering what's going on in the US of A (among other countries) right now, I would not always put my cash on logic.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 08:09:00 AM
Quote from: Marc on February 20, 2020, 03:50:09 AM
Did you think this about Trump already in 2015/2016?

I was clueless of US politics before Trump won. I never believed Trump could win. I thought Hillary Clinton will win for sure. Trump's victory was a total surprise for me and I wanted to understand how he won and I started to follow US politics. I discovered the lefties like Kyle Kulinski who explaned to me what had happened and how US politics is. I knew Trump has some charisma and appeal as a TV celebrity, but I was so naive and clueless just 3.5 years ago.  ;D

Quote from: Marc on February 20, 2020, 03:50:09 AMBecause only a few morons seriously gave him a chance to become POTUS when he announced his candidacy.
(I have to admit that I was such a moron and was verbally punished severely by quite some friends and colleagues "You, Marc, are completely biased against Americans. But you don't need to fear: only a few rich kids and a handful of rednecks are gonna vote for this idiot.")

Well, I was one of the morons who thought Hillary Clinton would beat Trump. I even wrote on this forum  Hillary Clinton will become a good president! I was so totally clueless, totally unaware of how bad candidate Hillary Clinton was while knowing nothing about Bernie Sanders! I never followed the primaries in 2016, hardly even the general election. I remember how Katy Perry campaigned a lot for Hillary, but that's it.  ;D
Trump's victory was a huge shock for me, but thanks to Trump I started to follow American politics and now I feell I know things even better than most Americans on these forums (who look shockingly clueless to me especially when it comes to trusting corporate media compared to independent lefties and how popular left wing policies are in the US).  :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 20, 2020, 11:45:00 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 08:09:00 AM
I was clueless of US politics before Trump won. I never believed Trump could win. I thought Hillary Clinton will win for sure.

In  2016 I was torn between Hillary's going business as usual about NATO (which, as a Romanian, is my first and foremost concern about US foreign policy) and my absolute dislike and rejection of her social liberalism and progressivism. I'm glad that, eventually, NATO is more or less the same and Hillary's social leftism did not prevail.

For 2020 I am not torn at all. I believe Trump (whom I moderately dislike) will win a second term. I also believe the sky is not gonna fall, the world is not gonna come to an end and GMG is not gonna run much slower than usual because of that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 20, 2020, 11:58:22 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 08:09:00 AM
and now I feell I know things even better than most Americans on these forums

You don't. And you make yourself a laughing stock every time you say this. Do you want to be laughed at?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 20, 2020, 12:03:02 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 08:09:00 AM
I was clueless of US politics before Trump won. I never believed Trump could win. I thought Hillary Clinton will win for sure. Trump's victory was a total surprise for me and I wanted to understand how he won and I started to follow US politics. I discovered the lefties like Kyle Kulinski who explaned to me what had happened and how US politics is. I knew Trump has some charisma and appeal as a TV celebrity, but I was so naive and clueless just 3.5 years ago.  ;D

Well, I was one of the morons who thought Hillary Clinton would beat Trump. I even wrote on this forum  Hillary Clinton will become a good president! I was so totally clueless, totally unaware of how bad candidate Hillary Clinton was while knowing nothing about Bernie Sanders! I never followed the primaries in 2016, hardly even the general election. I remember how Katy Perry campaigned a lot for Hillary, but that's it.  ;D
Trump's victory was a huge shock for me, but thanks to Trump I started to follow American politics and now I feell I know things even better than most Americans on these forums (who look shockingly clueless to me especially when it comes to trusting corporate media compared to independent lefties and how popular left wing policies are in the US).  :P

You actually know less now than you did before you began trying to learn about our politics.

Bernie's policy proposals are based on enormous amounts of government intrusion into areas of the economy, including areas that have up to now been mostly left to the local and state governments.  Bernie wants the federal government to force itself into a supervisory role in areas which until now it no role or only a limited role to play.   His housing program represents a major amount of expansion of the federal government's powers in housing, for example.  The Green New Deal could in theory put the entire US economy under the thumb of federal bureaucrats.  And the taxes he would need to pay for all his programs would hit everyone who is not in the lowest income brackets.  If you actuallly knew as much as you think you know about American politics, you would understand why such an agenda is a losing proposition.

Leftist policies are always popular,  until people are asked about the government interference and high taxes that implementing them would require.  Then they are not so popular, for some strange reason.

Which means that if Bernie does win the Democratic nomination, Trump will win.  And the Democrats will have only themselves to blame for allow the progressive wing to dominate the political discussion.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 01:58:12 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 20, 2020, 11:58:22 AM
You don't. And you make yourself a laughing stock every time you say this. Do you want to be laughed at?

Someone will always laugh at me online no matter what I said. I don't mind clueless people laughing at me. I know I am better than them. You need to earn my respect for me to take you seriously. You write a lot of good stuff when it's about Trump, but you are quite clueless about some other stuff. I can understand some of your ignorance since you are not an American, but the way you think you know better than I is something I find funny. You seem pretty blind to the lies of corporate media which makes me wonder if the media in your own country is also corporate. I don't follow New Zealand politics and I'm sure you don't follow Finnish politics. That's fine. This is about American politics and I have been following it quite intensively the last 3 years.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 02:00:31 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 20, 2020, 12:03:02 PMWhich means that if Bernie does win the Democratic nomination, Trump will win.  And the Democrats will have only themselves to blame for allow the progressive wing to dominate the political discussion.

How do you explain all the polls where Bernie beats Trump? A corporate candidate lost to Trump. That much we do know.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 20, 2020, 02:14:56 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 01:58:12 PM
Someone will always laugh at me online no matter what I said. I don't mind clueless people laughing at me. I know I am better than them. You need to earn my respect for me to take you seriously. You write a lot of good stuff when it's about Trump, but you are quite clueless about some other stuff. I can understand some of your ignorance since you are not an American, but the way you think you know better than I is something I find funny. You seem pretty blind to the lies of corporate media which makes me wonder if the media in your own country is also corporate. I don't follow New Zealand politics and I'm sure you don't follow Finnish politics. That's fine. This is about American politics and I have been following it quite intensively the last 3 years.

No. You've been watching one YT chanel for three years. You'd have no idea what other media are doing or how "corporate" (whatever you take that catch-all term to mean) their various reporting is, beyond what that one source tells you. Nor have you considered that its in their cynical interest to dissuade you from looking elsewhere.

Its as laughable as me saying I know nothing about this until three years ago I met a guy at the bar and every night since then he's ranted at me for an hour and now I have expert knowledge.

Read just one serious book on American history and politics and you'll realize just how very little you really know. Either that or just continue to look ridiculous.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 02:25:46 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 20, 2020, 02:14:56 PM
No. You've been watching one YT chanel for three years. You'd have no idea what other media are doing or how "corporate" (whatever you take that catch-all term to mean) their various reporting is, beyond what that one source tells you. Nor have you considered that its in their cynical interest to dissuade you from looking elsewhere.

Its as laughable as me saying I know nothing about this until three years ago I met a guy at the bar and every night since then he's ranted at me for an hour and now I have expert knowledge.

Read just one serious book on American history and politics and you'll realize just how very little you really know. Either that or just continue to look ridiculous.

One YT channel?? Are you kidding me? I have been watching countless of YTchannels, many of them commenting on other channels. You also assume I am some sort of low education, low IQ moron who can't use his own head. Do you think I take as a given EVERYTHING? No, I use my own head. It doesn't take many braincells for a person not brainwashed to see what the corporate media in the US is doing.

Since you like reading books, here is one recommendation for you: Krystal Ball, Saagar Enjeti - "The Populist's Guide to 2020: A New Right and New Left are Rising"

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Populists-Guide-2020-Right-Rising/dp/1947492454/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=populist+guide&qid=1582241293&s=music&sr=8-1
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 20, 2020, 02:36:44 PM
Ah...but are you recommending me a book you've read or a book a YT oracle has told you to recommend...hmm?



"I have been watching countless of YTchannels, many of them commenting on other channels."

my very first thought: "We play both kinds: Country and Western"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 20, 2020, 03:42:04 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 02:00:31 PM
How do you explain all the polls where Bernie beats Trump? A corporate candidate lost to Trump. That much we do know.

A corrupt arrogant woman lost. You are working under the delusion Hillary's policies were rejected by the voters. They were not. Hillary the person was rejected.

The polls don't reflect two important things: first,  the number of people who will vote for Trump because Sanders is the Democratic nominee.  Second, the number of people who will turn away from Sanders once they realize how much of his agenda is devoted to imposing big government control over parts of their lives that up until now have either not been regulated or left to states and local governments. Medicare for All is the least objectionable thing on Bernie's agenda.  My only objection to it is that it wouldn't work the way Bernie and the Young Turks claim it would. His other programs make him verge on Communism, so reliant are they on the central government controlling everything.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 20, 2020, 03:48:31 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 20, 2020, 02:36:44 PM
Ah...but are you recommending me a book you've read or a book a YT oracle has told you to recommend...hmm?



"I have been watching countless of YTchannels, many of them commenting on other channels."

my very first thought: "We play both kinds: Country and Western"

The Amazon page shows Kulinski recommends it. But so do Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, Tucker Carlson, and a national co-chair for Bernie. Yang at least struck me as a sensible person.

But I refuse to take anyone seriously who allows herself to be known as Krystall Ball.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 04:18:03 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 20, 2020, 03:42:04 PM
A corrupt arrogant woman lost. You are working under the delusion Hillary's policies were rejected by the voters. They were not. Hillary the person was rejected.

Corporate Dems tend to be corrupt (they take corporate money) and arrogant (they think they know better than the peasants).

Quote from: JBS on February 20, 2020, 03:42:04 PMThe polls don't reflect two important things: first,  the number of people who will vote for Trump because Sanders is the Democratic nominee.  Second, the number of people who will turn away from Sanders once they realize how much of his agenda is devoted to imposing big government control over parts of their lives that up until now have either not been regulated or left to states and local governments. Medicare for All is the least objectionable thing on Bernie's agenda.  My only objection to it is that it wouldn't work the way Bernie and the Young Turks claim it would. His other programs make him verge on Communism, so reliant are they on the central government controlling everything.

Bernie has been attacked by now for YEARS! How is that working? Is he polling 1 % behind Gabbard? No, he is LEADING!!! WINNING!!. Corporates have NOTHING against him. Your "big government control" mumbo jumbo is laughable. As if cotporate control is any better! In some sense Bernie is small government guy, for example when it comes to abortion. Only idiots don't know the difference between communism and social democracy so as long and you call him a communist I call you an idiot.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 04:33:43 PM
Apparently Americans here are confortable and can afford (for profit) healthcare, have paid their student loans off and don't struggle. Maybe the system is working for YOU. Great. You can affort a corporate president. However, A LOT OF americans CAN*T!!! They are screwed by the SYSTEM!!! Thet DIE!!! THEY Struggle!! That's why they SUPPORT Bernie!! They NEED him!! You need to accept this! Democracy! Deal with it!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 20, 2020, 04:44:40 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 04:18:03 PM
Corporate Dems tend to be corrupt (they take corporate money) and arrogant (they think they know better than the peasants).

Bernie has been attacked by now for YEARS! How is that working? Is he polling 1 % behind Gabbard? No, he is LEADING!!! WINNING!!. Corporates have NOTHING against him. Your "big government control" mumbo jumbo is laughable. As if cotporate control is any better! In some sense Bernie is small government guy, for example when it comes to abortion. Only idiots don't know the difference between communism and social democracy so as long and you call him a communist I call you an idiot.

Kyle and the Young Turks think they know better than the rest of us. That's why they want to hand over control of everything to the government.  They are elitists: they want a centralized group of technocrats and bureaucrats making rules for everyone. If I want to get rid an elite, I don't want them.

Bernie would let everyone keep their property, so he's not an outright Communist. But his agenda is focused on government telling everyone what they can and can not do with their property.  Under Bernie government would not own the means of production, but it would have near total control, via the Green New Deal and other programs, over the means of production.

People aren't familiar with most of his ideas beyond health care. But they involve a vast expansion of control by the federal government over area that it does not control now. Bernie's housing program, for instance, would regulate the socio-ethnic makeup of neighborhoods, the number of people who live there, the price at which homes are bought and sold or rented for.  (Does the Finnish national government regulate housing in Finland to that degree?)Local governments do that now. Unlike Bernie appointed regulators, they have regular meetings at which the people directly impacted by their decisions can object, negotiate,  propose...and ultimately vote them out of office.  And corruption is endemic in real estate because of this, btw. It will just scale up if Bernie's idea is made law.

All the GOP has to do is point out repeatedly what Bernie's ideas involve. They won't need to fabricate anything, They will just need to cut and paste from his website. He won't be anywhere near as popular in November as you think he will be.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 20, 2020, 04:49:28 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 04:33:43 PM
Apparently Americans here are confortable and can afford (for profit) healthcare, have paid their student loans off and don't struggle. Maybe the system is working for YOU. Great. You can affort a corporate president. However, A LOT OF americans CAN*T!!! They are screwed by the SYSTEM!!! Thet DIE!!! THEY Struggle!! That's why they SUPPORT Bernie!! They NEED him!! You need to accept this! Democracy! Deal with it!

Do you think your 500th identical post on this issue is likely to be more persuasive than the 499th?

Maybe try a different tactic. Start by assuming people aren't all brainwashed idiots and go outside your YT bubble to find out why they like the candidates they do. Make an honest effort
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 20, 2020, 04:58:46 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 20, 2020, 04:49:28 PM
Do you think your 500th identical post on this issue is likely to be more persuasive than the 499th?

Maybe try a different tactic. Start by assuming people aren't all brainwashed idiots and go outside your YT bubble to find out why they like the candidates they do. Make an honest effort

Or at least educate yourself on why many of those problems were, if not directly caused, greatly magnified by government programs whose aim was supposed to be to help regular folks.  The student loan program and resulting debt problem  is an excellent example of this.

Then you will understand why people might be skeptical of someone claiming the answer to the problem is an even bigger government program.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 05:23:39 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 20, 2020, 04:49:28 PM
Do you think your 500th identical post on this issue is likely to be more persuasive than the 499th?

Maybe try a different tactic. Start by assuming people aren't all brainwashed idiots and go outside your YT bubble to find out why they like the candidates they do. Make an honest effort

There is no YT bubble, because YT has everything from left to right, corporate to independent. Corporate media is a bubble. I do understand why people support who they support. Do you? Do you understand why Bernie has MASSIVE support? People are sick and tired of living in an oligarchic shithole where they don't even have healthcare! That's why. They want better lives, something like what people have in places like Denmark.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 20, 2020, 05:30:26 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 05:23:39 PM
There is no YT bubble, because YT has everything from left to right, corporate to independent. Corporate media is a bubble. I do understand why people support who they support. Do you? Do you understand why Bernie has MASSIVE support? People are sick and tired of living in an oligarchic shithole where they don't even have healthcare! That's why. They want better lives, something like what people have in places like Denmark.

Perhaps you didn't notice but 85 percent of us do have health care...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 05:34:43 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 20, 2020, 05:30:26 PM
Perhaps you didn't notice but 85 percent of us do have health care...

In theory yes. How do you use your healthcare if your deductible is $6000 and you don't have such money because you live paycheck to paycheck as a lot of Americans do?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 20, 2020, 05:36:05 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 05:23:39 PM
There is no YT bubble, because YT has everything from left to right, corporate to independent. Corporate media is a bubble. I do understand why people support who they support. Do you? Do you understand why Bernie has MASSIVE support? People are sick and tired of living in an oligarchic shithole where they don't even have healthcare! That's why. They want better lives, something like what people have in places like Denmark.

Its clear that you don't. The YT bobbleheads offer everything from leftwing shallowness to rightwing shallowness. You need to dig deeper.

And even though I'm not American I'm insulted by your ignorant description of "shithole".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 20, 2020, 05:42:25 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 20, 2020, 02:36:44 PM
Ah...but are you recommending me a book you've read or a book a YT oracle has told you to recommend...hmm?



"I have been watching countless of YTchannels, many of them commenting on other channels."

my very first thought: "We play both kinds: Country and Western"

He likes his feedback loop safe!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 20, 2020, 05:47:10 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 05:34:43 PM
In theory yes. How do you use your healthcare if your deductible is $6000 and you don't have such money because you live paycheck to paycheck as a lot of Americans do?

Because if you are in normal health you go to the doctor for an annual physical, and if you think you are getting the flu. Also, for most Americans the $6000 deductible is not relevant because of employer provided health care.

You need to accept the fact that the Young Turks are presenting a distorted presentation of the facts aimed at persuading people they have the real solutions.  The Young Turks lie and distort just as much as anyone else in the media.  Meaning most of what you think you know is merely junk.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 20, 2020, 05:48:34 PM
There you have it, gentlemen: "There is no YT bubble" ....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 05:52:49 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 20, 2020, 05:47:10 PM
Because if you are in normal health you go to the doctor for an annual physical, and if you think you are getting the flu. Also, for most Americans the $6000 deductible is not relevant because of employer provided health care.

You need to accept the fact that the Young Turks are presenting a distorted presentation of the facts aimed at persuading people they have the real solutions.  The Young Turks lie and distort just as much as anyone else in the media.  Meaning most of what you think you know is merely junk.

Healthcare tied to employer means you are tied to your job and your employer has leverage over you.

Young Turks, Young Turks.... ...don't you understand it's a MOVEMENT with tons of people!

85 % of people having healthcare SUCKS!!!! It's PATHETIC!! especially for the richest country in the World it's ridiculous. 100 % is the correct number and other countries have that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 05:58:14 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 20, 2020, 05:48:34 PM
There you have it, gentlemen: "There is no YT bubble" ....

So you think you are bubble-free? How?

You must admit Youtube is a cornucopia of opinions... ...I have seen..
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 20, 2020, 05:59:31 PM
I've watched a bunch of YT vids and now I'm a world authority on Finnish politics. Not only do I understand it better than 71db, but better than any other Finn who may chance along. You're a senior lecturer at the University of Helsinki? Brainwashed corporatist!

Its perfectly obvious to me that the next Prime Minister of Finland should be Tom Of Finland and my next one thousand post will be praising his glorious name.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 20, 2020, 06:02:39 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 05:52:49 PM
Healthcare tied to employer means you are tied to your job and your employer has leverage over you.

Young Turks, Young Turks.... ...don't you understand it's a MOVEMENT with tons of people!

85 % of people having healthcare SUCKS!!!! It's PATHETIC!! especially for the richest country in the World it's ridiculous. 100 % is the correct number and other countries have that.


Trump has an even bigger movement, you know.
As I said several times, Berniecare involves degrading the health care of the 85% who have it now.  That's not an acceptable trade off. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 20, 2020, 06:03:34 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 20, 2020, 05:59:31 PM
I've watched a bunch of YT vids and now I'm a world authority on Finnish politics. Not only do I understand it better than 71db, but better than any other Finn who may chance along. You're a senior lecturer at the University of Helsinki? Brainwashed corporatist!

Its perfectly obvious to me that the next Prime Minister of Finland should be Tom Of Finland and my next one thousand post will be praising his glorious name.

Does he know who Tom of Finland was?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 20, 2020, 06:03:54 PM
QuoteMany commentators have argued that the big winner in Wednesday's poisonous Democratic Party debate was President Trump. But as the world assesses the United States in this 2020 election season, the long-term political beneficiaries may be foreign rivals such as China's President Xi Jinping.

The circular firing squad in Las Vegas probably raised expectations abroad that the Democrats won't unite behind a candidate with wide popular appeal who can beat Trump. People throughout Eastern Europe and Asia who have struggled to escape from socialism must find Sen. Bernie Sanders's enthusiasm for it — and the fact that the Vermont independent is leading the field — especially bizarre.

The Democrats' lack of interest in the world will also be noted. Foreign policy was barely mentioned in Las Vegas. As the candidates shouted at each other, they seemed unaware that voters would be judging them in part on their fitness to be commander in chief. Rather than discuss rational global climate policies, such as a carbon tax, they talked about putting U.S. energy executives in jail.

But the world moves on. If a sensible, moderate Democrat seems unlikely to emerge from the scrum, then U.S. allies and adversaries will prepare for the likelihood of four more years of the erratic, bullying, "America First" incumbent. Countries will hedge their bets, knowing that Trump's promises are unreliable. Even for the closest U.S. allies, friendship is not a suicide pact. They will adjust, accommodate and distance.


Don't they understand that BERNIE MUST WIN??!!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 06:06:35 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 20, 2020, 06:02:39 PM

Trump has an even bigger movement, you know.
As I said several times, Berniecare involves degrading the health care of the 85% who have it now.  That's not an acceptable trade off.

Well then Trump WINS!! We will see what happens. Time will tell! As of now polls tell Bernie has best changes against Trump.
You may not accept Bernie, but you don't select the president alone. Other people have their say. A lot of people want Bernie and he seems to win the nomination unless DNC robs the nomination from him like they did in 2016.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 20, 2020, 06:08:03 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 06:01:37 PM
So you watched videos in Finnish language? I can follow American politics IN ENGLISH.

Speaking of  the Prime Minister of Finland, do you think she is hot?

Joke, honey. You may want to Google Images search Tom Of Finland. He's a national treasure.

Do I think your PM is hot? Remind me how "progressive" you think you are again...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 20, 2020, 06:17:37 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 06:12:27 PM
I may want to Google? All Finns know Tom Of Finland!
What does  my progressiveness have to do with the hotness of prime ministers?

You are sexually harrassing her with your comments
.#minämyös
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 20, 2020, 06:19:18 PM
New National poll (ABC/Washington Post):

Sanders 32 %
Biden 16 %
Bloomberg 14 %
Warren 12 %
Buttigieg 8 %
Klobuchar 7 %
Steyer 2 %
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 21, 2020, 06:41:04 AM
The Daily Beast: Bloomberg spent hundreds of millions of dollars to get his a** kicked.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 21, 2020, 07:43:21 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 20, 2020, 06:08:03 PM
Do I think your PM is hot? Remind me how "progressive" you think you are again...
Best looking leader of a country by far.

If this is progressive gatekeeping no wonder so many people are turned off by it. Or maybe this comment is ironic, idk.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 21, 2020, 07:57:31 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 21, 2020, 06:41:04 AM
The Daily Beast: Bloomberg spent hundreds of millions of dollars to get his a** kicked.

Just imagine if he had spent those millions on fixing homelessness...  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 21, 2020, 08:08:36 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 20, 2020, 02:36:44 PM
Ah...but are you recommending me a book you've read or a book a YT oracle has told you to recommend...hmm?



"I have been watching countless of YTchannels, many of them commenting on other channels."

my very first thought: "We play both kinds: Country and Western"
But does the channels that Poju watches comment on articles by the opposing side, and then offer arguments against them?

Because that is a very good practice. If they are opposing then your analogy doesn't hold up.



Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 21, 2020, 06:41:04 AM
The Daily Beast: Bloomberg spent hundreds of millions of dollars to get his a** kicked.
LOL.
This is why I hate politicians.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 21, 2020, 09:56:49 AM
Quote from: greg on February 21, 2020, 08:08:36 AM
But does the channels that Poju watches comment on articles by the opposing side, and then offer arguments against them?

Because that is a very good practice. If they are opposing then your analogy doesn't hold up.

What do you think the left wing channels are doing? Their existence is a reaction to the one-sided mantras of corporate media. They comment on the claims and narratives of corporate media. When MSNBC says Bernie is not electable, Kyle Kulinski comments on this claim saying it's corporate bs and shows the polls where Bernie is one of the most electable if not the most electable explaining why Bernie is so strong against Trump: He is a true populist while Trump is only a fake populist. When CNN smears medicare for all saying it will cost over 30 trillion dollars in the 10 years, TYT can correct the smear saying that saves money because current system costs even more. When Fox News fearmongers people to accept more wars, lefties can expose these lies as an attempt to increase the profits of military industry complex. That's what they are doing.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 21, 2020, 10:10:11 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 21, 2020, 09:56:49 AM
What do you think the left wing channels are doing? Their existence is a reaction to the one-sided mantras of corporate media. They comment on the claims and narratives of corporate media. When MSNBC says Bernie is not electable, Kyle Kulinski comments on this claim saying it's corporate bs and shows the polls where Bernie is one of the most electable if not the most electable explaining why Bernie is so strong against Trump: He is a true populist while Trump is only a fake populist. When CNN smears medicare for all saying it will cost over 30 trillion dollars in the 10 years, TYT can correct the smear saying that saves money because current system costs even more. When Fox News fearmongers people to accept more wars, lefties can expose these lies as an attempt to increase the profits of military industry complex. That's what they are doing.
That's a pretty good practice then.

The worst thing people can do is watch their strongly biased TV news that only ever offers one opinion, and then blindly believing it with no counterargument considered. Which is what most people do.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 21, 2020, 11:09:33 AM
Quote from: greg on February 21, 2020, 10:10:11 AM

The worst thing people can do is watch their strongly biased TV news that only ever offers one opinion, and then blindly believing it with no counterargument considered. Which is what most people do.

Poju isn't "most people." You are in error.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 21, 2020, 11:13:55 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 21, 2020, 11:09:33 AM
Poju isn't "most people." You are in error.
Not sure what you mean? That's already what I was implying.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 21, 2020, 11:19:57 AM
Quote from: greg on February 21, 2020, 11:13:55 AM
Not sure what you mean? That's already what I was implying.

I mean, that that is exactly what Poju does. He wouldn't even know there are counterarguments, if his precious Kyle didn't tell him that he can safely disregard them. There's nothing in his post which indicates that he goes anywhere other than Kyle's YT channel. The bubble which he emptily asserts does not exist.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 21, 2020, 11:29:07 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 21, 2020, 11:09:33 AM
Poju isn't "most people."

Truly he's in a league of his own.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 21, 2020, 11:39:34 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 21, 2020, 11:29:07 AM
Truly he's in a league of his own.

Deo gratias!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on February 21, 2020, 01:44:06 PM
Quote from: greg on February 21, 2020, 10:10:11 AM


The worst thing people can do is watch their strongly biased TV news that only ever offers one opinion, and then blindly believing it with no counterargument considered. Which is what most people do.

     I hold it an important skill to extract the most information from a source and take or leave the bias. The left handles information better (journalism is a value in its own right for informavores).

     Conservatives are very beliefy and would rather not take the chance on a news outlet that's too facty. Fox hides as much news as it broadcasts.

     If you're low information the chance is great that you're a conservative. You are predisposed to be vulnerable to bias in what you watch or read. It's like a rule. Note though that if an elite news outlet reports something you believe is (horrors!) actually true you are unlikely to call it "fake news", are you? Instead you'll say "See, I was right, it was even in the NY Times!".

     Too much is made of bias and too little of the information density in various media, and the skill you need to extract it no matter what the bias of the source is.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 21, 2020, 02:27:06 PM
If someone wants an alternate analysis of the news to what's on the various TV then I'd recommend podcasts.

I've also often wondered why the average podcast is so very much better than the YT channels I've seen linked to and watched, given they have roughly the same level of Independence and run for roughly the same amount of time. My conclusion is that there's a type of person who wants to be in front of the camera and seen to be seen and a type of person who doesn't and this distinction and priority drives both content and presentation..
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 21, 2020, 03:17:22 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 21, 2020, 02:27:06 PM
If someone wants an alternate analysis of the news to what's on the various TV then I'd recommend podcasts.
They really can be great.
I've listened to so many Joe Rogan podcasts lately... out of the political ones, I've seen the Andrew Yang one... yet to see the Bernie one...

but the reason why they are good is that the presidential candidate is allowed to talk freely and clarify their reasons/beliefs in detail. You can't get much of that in short interviews/debates.

And interesting that that podcast has gotten so big that people are thinking it can influence the outcome of elections.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 21, 2020, 03:23:27 PM
sigh...that actually wasn't the kind of podcast I was talking about. Thats just a standard tv or radio talk show coming via a different delivery, and like those YT things the personalities are the story.

Forget it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 21, 2020, 04:37:25 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 21, 2020, 02:27:06 PM
If someone wants an alternate analysis of the news to what's on the various TV then I'd recommend podcasts.

I've also often wondered why the average podcast is so very much better than the YT channels I've seen linked to and watched, given they have roughly the same level of Independence and run for roughly the same amount of time. My conclusion is that there's a type of person who wants to be in front of the camera and seen to be seen and a type of person who doesn't and this distinction and priority drives both content and presentation..

I think it's more fundamental than that.  Podcasters seem usually to limit themselves to a topic about which they have some indepth knowledge. YouTubers seem to be just a person ready to rant on any subject that is topical.  Also podcasts are often distributed through a subscription service that presumably tries to ensure its offerings are something worth hearing.  Whereas YouTubers just need to know how to upload a video to YouTube.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 21, 2020, 05:37:03 PM
RantTube
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on February 22, 2020, 12:21:31 AM
I have a crazy idea. Why not read a couple of newspapers online, as a source of info?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 22, 2020, 12:35:19 AM
Quote from: Herman on February 22, 2020, 12:21:31 AM
I have a crazy idea. Why not read a couple of newspapers online, as a source of info?

*gasp!* corporate brainwashing!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on February 22, 2020, 01:55:15 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 22, 2020, 12:35:19 AM
*gasp!* corporate brainwashing!

yeah, totally
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 22, 2020, 02:19:45 AM
Quote from: Herman on February 22, 2020, 12:21:31 AM
I have a crazy idea. Why not read a couple of newspapers online, as a source of info?

Newspapers are often behind paywall because that's their profit model, but The YT channels I watch do comment on newspaper articles. The problems is not people not knowing corporate media opinions. The problem is people not knowing lefty opinions. Corporate media tries to hide the troublesome past of candidates like Bloomberg and Buttigieg while writing hit pieces against Bernie. Lefty Youtubers tell about the Bloomberg and Buttigieg things the corporate media is not willing to write about. Bloomberg owns the damn media!! Wake up americans!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 22, 2020, 04:29:15 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 22, 2020, 12:35:19 AM
*gasp!* corporate brainwashing!

You know, that's just what Kyle said!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 22, 2020, 04:37:31 AM
Bernie Sanders briefed by U.S. officials that Russia is trying to help his presidential campaign

Since what the Russians want is more President Trump, they must figure, too, that Bernie is their preferred opponent.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 22, 2020, 05:02:42 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 22, 2020, 04:37:31 AM
Bernie Sanders briefed by U.S. officials that Russia is trying to help his presidential campaign

Since what the Russians want is more President Trump, they must figure, too, that Bernie is their preferred opponent.

If that's the case then the Russians haven't seen Bernie vs Trump polls.  :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 22, 2020, 05:28:58 AM
Nevada caucus volunteers asked to sign NDAs. Expect fuckery to harm Bernie. The US is such a Banana Republic!  :-\
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on February 22, 2020, 05:51:46 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 22, 2020, 02:19:45 AM
Corporate media tries to hide the troublesome past of candidates like Bloomberg and Buttigieg while writing hit pieces against Bernie. Lefty Youtubers tell about the Bloomberg and Buttigieg things the corporate media is not willing to write about. Bloomberg owns the damn media!! Wake up americans!

     Where do you think the lefty YTers get their info about the troublesome past of these candidates? The same place I do.

     You are not as expert on what the major news sources write about as you think.

     The point is that if you are going on a fact hunt to supply your YT rantathon you go to sources that dispense facts. If you have to wade through noxious opinion/analysis, decide if the news quality and quantity is enough to make it worth the effort. The much hated mainstream media obviously is, since the entire downstream media depends on it, if not always for origination then for verification. Not everyone is aware of this in their ideas, but they are in their behavior, thus "It's even in the NY Times!".

     

     

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on February 22, 2020, 06:21:21 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 22, 2020, 05:28:58 AM
Nevada caucus volunteers asked to sign NDAs. Expect fuckery to harm Bernie. The US is such a Banana Republic! :-\

Yes it is. And there's a lot of monkeys eating off the banana farm. I'm quite sure you have a banana or two from time to time, Poju.  0:)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on February 22, 2020, 08:48:14 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 22, 2020, 02:19:45 AM
Newspapers are often behind paywall because that's their profit model, but The YT channels I watch do comment on newspaper articles. The problems is not people not knowing corporate media opinions. The problem is people not knowing lefty opinions. Corporate media tries to hide the troublesome past of candidates like Bloomberg and Buttigieg while writing hit pieces against Bernie. Lefty Youtubers tell about the Bloomberg and Buttigieg things the corporate media is not willing to write about. Bloomberg owns the damn media!! Wake up americans!

So, reading the NY Times, WaPo and the Guardian (and a Dutch daily or two) I can't recall having seen "hit pieces" against Mr. Bernie.

One does notice, first, the assumption Biden is going to drift to the top; there is the horse race thing with "Wow look at that Klobuchar!" Next week "Wow Warren!" But no hit pieces.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 22, 2020, 09:57:46 AM
Quote from: Herman on February 22, 2020, 08:48:14 AM
So, reading the NY Times, WaPo and the Guardian (and a Dutch daily or two) I can't recall having seen "hit pieces" against Mr. Bernie.

One does notice, first, the assumption Biden is going to drift to the top; there is the horse race thing with "Wow look at that Klobuchar!" Next week "Wow Warren!" But no hit pieces.

Recently corporate media has been talking about "mean" Bernie Bros as a desperate attempt to stop Bernie's momentum. Another corporate talking point is that Bernie has a ceiling. They talk about how the other candidates together have got more votes than Bernie alone as if elections worked that way. They don't talk about how the second or third choice of many supporters of other candidates is Bernie: If Biden dropped out, a lot of his support would go to Bernie. That sounds strange as Biden and Bernie are ideologically far apart, but people are like that, other things than ideology matter, things such as name recognition. A lot of people have supported Biden because of the myth of his electability, but now that myth is breaking apart and Biden is struggling. Bernie might have a ceiling, but so have others and Bernie's ceiling is probably higher than the ceiling of other candidates. Trump has a ceiling too! Half of the country wouldn't vote for him. That's why talking about Bernie's ceiling is ridiculous.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 22, 2020, 02:15:51 PM
3 percent of Nevada precincts reporting:

Sanders 54.6%
Biden 17.8 %
Warren 9.6 %
Buttigieg 8.9 %
Steyer 7.6 %
Klobuchar 1.6 %

The final results are hardly that great for Bernie, but a strong start nevertheless!  8)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Roy Bland on February 22, 2020, 02:37:29 PM
Caucus
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Ilja_Jefimowitsch_Repin_-_Reply_of_the_Zaporozhian_Cossacks_-_Yorck.jpg/1920px-Ilja_Jefimowitsch_Repin_-_Reply_of_the_Zaporozhian_Cossacks_-_Yorck.jpg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on February 22, 2020, 02:42:27 PM
 
     Less than 10%

     Sanders   6,048   29.3   %   
     Warren   1,575       18.7      
     Biden           2,707   17.3      
     Buttigieg   2,449   17.3      
     Klobuchar   1,068     9.3      
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 22, 2020, 04:05:44 PM
Does this make you think of a certsin someone?:


Quote from: Frank Bruni
I blame the internet, because I like to and because it's true. I mean that I blame the way it encourages people to choose their own information and curate their own reality, so that no official pronouncement competes with a pet theory. I blame a national epidemic of selfishness, too. It seems to me that fewer and fewer people are easily moved off their particular worries, their special wants. Any outcome that displeases them is ipso facto a bastardized one.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 22, 2020, 04:14:03 PM
Well, let Bernie enjoy the glory while he can:

Quote from: Bill PalmerIt's not just that Bernie Sanders is a bumbling candidate full of laughable false promises who would spend four years ineptly getting nothing done while making nonstop excuses for his failures. It's not even that Bernie Sanders has spent the past month accepting ongoing help from the Kremlin by refusing to let the public know it was going on. It's that Bernie Sanders would lose to Donald Trump – and it wouldn't even be close.

Because Bernie Sanders has never faced any real competition or scrutiny in his Vermont races, and because the media gave Bernie a free pass in 2016 while playing him up as a feel-good story, he's never been properly vetted. If Bernie were the nominee, Trump and the GOP would immediately bust out every ugly detail from his thirty years of embarrassing political and personal history. They wouldn't even have to dig. The dirt on Bernie is all publicly documented and most of it is not in dispute. It's just that the media has never bothered to run with it. But once Trump starts talking about that dirt, the media will indeed run with it – and Bernie will be finished a week after he gets the nomination.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 22, 2020, 04:37:43 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 22, 2020, 04:05:44 PM
Does this make you think of a certain someone?:



^I went looking for that on the strength of the quote, and the whole piece is well written:

Why Democrats Are Bound for Disaster (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/opinion/sunday/brokered-convention-democrats-2020.html)

I don't know Frank Bruni, but I see he's written a book on George W.:

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51OsRoKMrLL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 22, 2020, 04:39:40 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 22, 2020, 04:37:43 PM
^I went looking for that on the strength of the quote, and the whole piece is well written:

Why Democrats Are Bound for Disaster (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/opinion/sunday/brokered-convention-democrats-2020.html)

I don't know Frank Bruni, but I see he's written a book on George W.:

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51OsRoKMrLL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)

Aye, a good piece.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on February 22, 2020, 04:44:15 PM
     Sanders is the best bumbling candidate I've ever seen. He nearly knocked off Ms. Inevitable in 2016. He's killing it in the caucuses and the only primary we've had so far. He's picking up minority support which was supposed to be his weakness. He beat back a credible progressive challenger and no moderate is close to him after tonight. How exactly is this bumbling? It it because everyone else is worse? How is bumbling measured?

     Trump will throw the same stuff against him I threw at him in an earlier post, that not only is he an archeo-socialist but from a more radical splinter group. Maybe exposing Sanders will have the same effect as exposing Trump. Maybe when people realize Sanders is serious about being a revolutionary people will recoil in horror. Or maybe in the Trump era that looks better than what we have.

     I have a plan. I will no longer underestimate Sanders. From now on handsome is as handsome does. Bumbling is what the other ones are doing, not the guy mopping the floor with them.

     Sanders will get done pretty much what the next Dem President will get done, a little more or a little less.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 22, 2020, 04:45:29 PM
not that I care what Cenk thinks, but...

Young Turks founder: Warren 'clearly won the debate' (https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/484065-the-young-turks-cenk-uygur-warren-clearly-won-the-debate)

"The Young Turks founder Cenk Uygur said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) "clearly won" Wednesday night's Democratic debate after she made pointed attacks at former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who was making his debut in a Democratic primary debate.

"Elizabeth Warren came with a two-by-four — she crushed, clearly won the debate," Uygur said on Hill.TV's Rising Thursday. "[...]
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 22, 2020, 05:43:50 PM
Bernie Sanders is the FIRST presidential candidate to win the popular vote in all first three states. Kyle Kulinski says the race is over. Bernie Sanders will win the plurality of delegates. The question is will he win also the majority of delegates? If not, the Dems will do everything to rob him the nomination and a million progressives have to go to Milwaukee with pitchforks. It can turn bloody!  ???

Quote from: SimonNZ on February 22, 2020, 04:45:29 PM
not that I care what Cenk thinks, but...

Young Turks founder: Warren 'clearly won the debate' (https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/484065-the-young-turks-cenk-uygur-warren-clearly-won-the-debate)

"The Young Turks founder Cenk Uygur said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) "clearly won" Wednesday night's Democratic debate after she made pointed attacks at former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who was making his debut in a Democratic primary debate.

"Elizabeth Warren came with a two-by-four — she crushed, clearly won the debate," Uygur said on Hill.TV's Rising Thursday. "[...]

Pretty much everyone on the left (yes, including Kyle Kulinski) thought Elizabeth Warren had the strongest debate performance. She NEEDED a very strong debate, because her campaign is struggling badly. She ruined it herself taking advices from corporates and attacking Bernie.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on February 22, 2020, 08:18:52 PM
If Sanders is elected, the Democratic Party that I knew and once admired will cease to exist. That's all there is to it. He's an extremist who claims equality for all people but is nothing more than a hypocrite as he's worth over a couple of million. But remember that it's okay for him to have more than you do.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on February 22, 2020, 08:20:03 PM
Maybe it might be a good idea for 71 dB to stick to Finnish politics since he doesn't have the first clue about what actually happens in the US.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on February 22, 2020, 08:47:41 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 22, 2020, 08:18:52 PM
If Sanders is elected, the Democratic Party that I knew and once admired will cease to exist. That's all there is to it. He's an extremist who claims equality for all people but is nothing more than a hypocrite as he's worth over a couple of million. But remember that it's okay for him to have more than you do.

     It's certainly OK for him to have more than I do. He wrote a book, I didn't.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on February 22, 2020, 08:51:12 PM
Quote from: drogulus on February 22, 2020, 08:47:41 PM
     It's certainly OK for him to have more than I do. He wrote a book, I didn't.

It's good for you think that, because he agrees that he should have a lot more than you do in more ways than one, which he does and always will, especially if he's elected el presidente.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on February 22, 2020, 11:41:04 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 22, 2020, 08:18:52 PM
If Sanders is elected, the Democratic Party that I knew and once admired will cease to exist.

He's most likely not going to win the General Election, partly because Putin prefers Trump, partly because Bernie won't get out the maximum vote (like yours). If he loses it's bye bye Bernie, he can sit and stew in Vermont.

If he wins he's obviously going to be a one termer. He's old and he's one-tone. Chances of him getting much done aren't huge either. After that it's bye bye Bernie.

The D Party should use the next three years to think real hard about what they're doing that's keeping them from success, in spite of the demographic majority they have (expressed in popular vote victories turned into electoral losses). It's amazing that there are dozens of guys ready to run for president, and f*cking none of them thinks it's worth their while to take back the Senate (which would have been the way to impeach and remove Trump.)

I'm not saying these candidates are stupid, but these debates with what? ten candidates shouting at each other are self-defeating. However the obverse, those candidates who assume they have earned the candidature (HRC, Biden) are equally disastrous.

The DNC needs to get its shit together.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on February 23, 2020, 12:06:31 AM
I obviously have a very low opinion of the Democratic Party but my initial impression that none of the candidates are remotely savvy even as politicians seems to have also been the opinion of the voters so far.

Sanders can probably beat Trump but Trump is sufficiently unpopular that anyone with a positive favourability rating could beat him (which already excludes HRC, Bloomberg and Gabbard). But Sanders is not a good politician—he doesn't use media to his best advantage, he struggles to shape narratives or stay on message, he's basically a crotchety old man kept alive by his popular policy proposals (expanding Medicare to cover everyone, free college, Green New Deal—whatever that means) and a fatally divided opposition.

The only politician I know of at the moment who displays the kind of slickness and media savvy I associate with an Obama, (Bill) Clinton or Reagan is Alexandria Ocasio Cortez of my home city, and she's a) in no position to run for president until 2028 and b) I wouldn't vote for her if she did.

I consider myself a socialist (although not a democratic one) but the entire Sanders & Ocasio platform is essentially european style social democracy à la the UK Labour Party and I'm not sure that stands up well when voters have a choice between it and mass deportations of foreigners/revolutionary violence against the oppressed. Not that I think a more centrist politician would be any more successful, though. Trump is a fluke who shouldn't have made it in, since he's terrible at actually using his power; but in 8 years or so the Republicans will run someone like Tucker Carlson or Rush Limbaugh and win 47 states. For now, though, we can at least enjoy the spectacle.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 23, 2020, 12:16:23 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 22, 2020, 08:18:52 PM
If Sanders is elected, the Democratic Party that I knew and once admired will cease to exist. That's all there is to it. He's an extremist who claims equality for all people but is nothing more than a hypocrite as he's worth over a couple of million. But remember that it's okay for him to have more than you do.

Bernie is the kind of social democrat for working people the Dems should be. There is already a party for the 1 %, the Reps. It doesn't make sense both parties serve the 1% while 99 % gets screwed. Bernie is not an extremist. His policies is commonsense normal stuff in other countries. He has NEVER said people can't own differently. He is not for equal outcome. He is for equal opportunity. Totally different. 
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 22, 2020, 08:20:03 PM

Maybe it might be a good idea for 71 dB to stick to Finnish politics since he doesn't have the first clue about what actually happens in the US.

In what way have I demonstrated not having a clue? What actually happens in the US? The people are sick and tired of oligarchy and that's why Bernie wins. You on the other hand show complete ignorance of US politics with you stupid opinions about Bernie.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 23, 2020, 12:22:08 AM
Quote from: drogulus on February 22, 2020, 08:47:41 PM
     It's certainly OK for him to have more than I do. He wrote a book, I didn't.

A book that sold well. Also, as an old person he has cumulated wealth. He is one of the least wealthy Senators. Mirror Image has fallen completely to the smears of corporate media. I can't believe how idiotic people here are. How can you appreciate classical music for being sucn a simpleton? Maybe people here just don't follow politics at all and instead listen to classical music all the time?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on February 23, 2020, 03:42:14 AM
Bloomberg's "What do I miss here? A socialist with three homes?" comment in the debate was deeply disingenuous even by debate standards, coming from somebody sits on 60 billion, or whatever it is.

There is no contradiction between having some form of affluence and wanting to change the world for better, plus Bernie's wealth pretty much amounts to a very good retirement fund, rather than that he's got so much cash (like Bloomberg) that he can trow millions away in stupid ads.

It mostly demonstrates that indeed one of the easiest ways to make some money is go and be a presidential candidate and have someone write your autobio.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on February 23, 2020, 05:29:25 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 22, 2020, 08:18:52 PM
If Sanders is elected, the Democratic Party that I knew and once admired will cease to exist. That's all there is to it. He's an extremist who claims equality for all people but is nothing more than a hypocrite as he's worth over a couple of million. But remember that it's okay for him to have more than you do.
I don't buy that Sanders can be branded as a hypocrite. I don't believe that his weak point is that he secretly or surreptitiously feels that no one should be rich except him, that he doesn't believe what he says or that he really lives contrary to his beliefs. I've read this before, especially on the right, that the fact that Sanders has a summer house means that he's living contrary to some supposed ideal according to which everyone will be totally equal and capitalism will disappear.
I do think he CAN be painted as an honest extremist. Or at least someone that's too extreme. I fear that's the way he could lose. I think Sanders' plus point is his genuine honesty and integrity. I doubt Sanders has changed very much in the last 30 years. This may not make him the strongest candidate; he may turn out to be a Goldwater or a McGovern.
What I really think is silly is the idea that he's really a greedy guy. I just don't think that's going to sell.
I don't know if his ideas are workable or reasonable. Some kind of healthcare system that covers everybody is completely rational and mainstream in the world. The lack of it shows what a dumb country the U.S. is. Education in America is ridiculously expensive. On the other hand, I bet you can find a lot of old positions of Sanders that will come off as kooky now. Plus, I can't say I trust where the left of the left is coming from these days.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 23, 2020, 07:59:18 AM
37 % of Bernie's supporters in Nevada were first-time caucus-goers. A good sign for the possibility of expanding the electorate and generating high turnout in a general election.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on February 23, 2020, 09:16:52 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 22, 2020, 08:18:52 PM
If Sanders is elected, the Democratic Party that I knew and once admired will cease to exist. That's all there is to it. He's an extremist who claims equality for all people but is nothing more than a hypocrite as he's worth over a couple of million. But remember that it's okay for him to have more than you do.

Maybe he's an extremest (if you consider emulating Norway as extremism) but I don't see that he is a hypocrite. He doesn't say everyone should have the same wealth. He says that the government should do more to give everyone the same opportunity to accumulate wealth, by better access to education, health care, various kinds of social support. The fact that he advocates a tax policy in which he would personally have to pay more tax is not hypocrisy. That is called being selfless. That used to be considered a good thing.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on February 23, 2020, 09:21:23 AM
I'm not thrilled with the prospect of Sanders being the nominee. What he advocates won't get enacted, and he may be too far from center to be elected. The last thing we need is a reprise of the McGovern candidacy. On the other hand, Biden should give up. Mainly he sells himself as the electable guy, and if that were true he should, maybe, win some elections.

My dream tickets would be Booker/Klobuchar, or maybe Klobuchar/Booker,  or maybe Warren/Booker, or maybe Booker/Warren. Dreams often don't come true.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 23, 2020, 10:28:16 AM
Quote from: Baron Scapia on February 23, 2020, 09:21:23 AM
I'm not thrilled with the prospect of Sanders being the nominee. What he advocates won't get enacted, and he may be too far from center to be elected. The last thing we need is a reprise of the McGovern candidacy. On the other hand, Biden should give up. Mainly he sells himself as the electable guy, and if that were true he should, maybe, win some elections.

Bernie's presidency would be an inside/outside thing. Bernie in the White House, the people on the streets demanding change. It's a complete change of political culture and even if he only gets 20 % of his agenda that alone would mean substancial improvements for regular people.

Quote from: Baron Scapia on February 23, 2020, 09:21:23 AMMy dream tickets would be Booker/Klobuchar, or maybe Klobuchar/Booker,  or maybe Warren/Booker, or maybe Booker/Warren. Dreams often don't come true.

So basically you dream about maintaining the status quo that gave us Trump? Why?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on February 23, 2020, 10:38:46 AM
     My dreams don't make sense enough to form a ticket.
Quote from: Baron Scapia on February 23, 2020, 09:21:23 AM
I'm not thrilled with the prospect of Sanders being the nominee. What he advocates won't get enacted, and he may be too far from center to be elected.

    He'll sign what lands on his desk whether it's BernieCare-for-All or something more moderate as viewed by the ideology police who say nothing can happen until it does. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 23, 2020, 10:42:32 AM
Quote from: Baron Scapia on February 23, 2020, 09:21:23 AM
I'm not thrilled with the prospect of Sanders being the nominee. What he advocates won't get enacted, and he may be too far from center to be elected. The last thing we need is a reprise of the McGovern candidacy. On the other hand, Biden should give up. Mainly he sells himself as the electable guy, and if that were true he should, maybe, win some elections.

My dream tickets would be Booker/Klobuchar, or maybe Klobuchar/Booker,  or maybe Warren/Booker, or maybe Booker/Warren. Dreams often don't come true.

Agreed that at this point, Biden should go away, but he's determined to try to succeed in the South Carolina primary. If Bernie edges him there, perhaps even he may see the light.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on February 23, 2020, 10:47:53 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 22, 2020, 08:51:12 PM
It's good for you think that, because he agrees that he should have a lot more than you do in more ways than one, which he does and always will, especially if he's elected el presidente.

     I didn't know he felt that way. Now I hate him. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 23, 2020, 03:53:19 PM
It's a slow process: 72 percent of Nevada precincts reporting:

Sanders 47.5 %
Biden 20.8 %
Buttigieg 13.7 %
Warren 9.4 %
Steyer 4.5 %
Klobucher 4.0 %

Klobuchar losing to Steyer. That's embarrassing  ;D

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 23, 2020, 04:36:08 PM
Quote from: Baron Scapia on February 23, 2020, 09:16:52 AM
Maybe he's an extremest (if you consider emulating Norway as extremism) but I don't see that he is a hypocrite. He doesn't say everyone should have the same wealth. He says that the government should do more to give everyone the same opportunity to accumulate wealth, by better access to education, health care, various kinds of social support. The fact that he advocates a tax policy in which he would personally have to pay more tax is not hypocrisy. That is called being selfless. That used to be considered a good thing.

I don't think it's fair to either Norway or Sanders to say his agenda is emulating Norway.  His actual policy proposals involve making the federal government a micromanager over the much of the economy.
He wants the federal government to supervise local zoning decisions as part of his Fair Housing proposal, for instance.  He doesn't merely want to give everyone equal opportunites. His programs would result in the government deciding what opportunities are available in the first place.

His tax policy btw is probably fantasy. The wealth tax he and Warren propose is specifically forbidden by the Constitution, and would survive a challenge only if the Supreme Court agrees with some very creative lawyering.  His sales tax would require yet another level of bureaucracy and hit the middle class hardest.

A Trumpian nickname for him would be Bad Ideas Bernie. At the very least his agenda involves an expansion of government regulation and intrusion into the economy that we haven't seen in the US since FDR's New Deal.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Christabel on February 23, 2020, 05:05:35 PM
The best observation I heard today:

Socialism:  you vote them in and then shoot your way out.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on February 23, 2020, 06:35:42 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 23, 2020, 04:36:08 PMAt the very least his agenda involves an expansion of government regulation and intrusion into the economy that we haven't seen in the US since FDR's New Deal.
Which is certainly the comparison he hopes to evoke. (FDR certainly did win elections, at least.)

I note that the opinion of most Marxist historians is largely in agreement that the purpose of the New Deal was to forestall rather than promote socialism, by enacting sufficient regulations and changes to the capitalist system to allow it to survive its greatest threat (economic depression). Similarly there have been analyses of Sanders's proposed Green New Deal as being essentially a way to allow our current resource extractive economy to survive in the face of climate change and environmental degradation. I haven't fact-checked them because I didn't actually realise the Green New Deal was an actual plan rather than just a campaign soundbite.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on February 23, 2020, 06:54:50 PM
Quote from: Baron Scapia on February 23, 2020, 09:16:52 AM
Maybe he's an extremest (if you consider emulating Norway as extremism) but I don't see that he is a hypocrite. He doesn't say everyone should have the same wealth. He says that the government should do more to give everyone the same opportunity to accumulate wealth, by better access to education, health care, various kinds of social support. The fact that he advocates a tax policy in which he would personally have to pay more tax is not hypocrisy. That is called being selfless. That used to be considered a good thing.

I think he simply is advocating a form of socialism, which, as we all know, doesn't work, because as Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." I really like this quote and it pretty much sums up this lunatic's agenda. What Bernie wants is for all of us to be subservient to the government while they, the politicians, continue to line their pockets with the tax payer's money. But I know you live in California and that might as well be considered it's own country within the US, so I'm sure you'll battle back with some over-the-top, snowflake rebuttal.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on February 23, 2020, 07:08:22 PM
     The Thatcher quote is odd, though typical. "Other people" get money from government, and that's any kind of government, not socialist more than others. You don't pay taxes on dollars that never got spent into existence first. The tax on uncreated dollars is zero, even under socialism. Me, I'm happy to send tax back, even happier that more tax goes back on more income I don't exactly earn.

     And yes, we're all "other people. And no, governments don't run out of dollars except as policy. There's no such thing as dollars just running out on their own. Run out from where, the money tree?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on February 23, 2020, 07:20:23 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 23, 2020, 06:54:50 PM
I think he simply is advocating a form of socialism, which, as we all know, doesn't work, because as Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." I really like this quote and it pretty much sums up this lunatic's agenda. What Bernie wants is for all of us to be subservient to the government while they, the politicians, continue to line their pockets with the tax payer's money. But I know you live in California and that might as well be considered it's own country within the US, so I'm sure you'll battle back with some over-the-top, snowflake rebuttal.

I respectfully gave my point of view, you reply with a "snowflake" ad hominem attack. I'm through with you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 23, 2020, 07:24:52 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 23, 2020, 06:54:50 PM
I think he simply is advocating a form of socialism, which, as we all know, doesn't work, because as Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." I really like this quote and it pretty much sums up this lunatic's agenda. What Bernie wants is for all of us to be subservient to the government while they, the politicians, continue to line their pockets with the tax payer's money. But I know you live in California and that might as well be considered it's own country within the US, so I'm sure you'll battle back with some over-the-top, snowflake rebuttal.

Third time in as many days I've thought you were describing the Trumpist Republicans.

The other two were when you spoke of the party that you once knew and admired ceasing to exist, and when you spoke of the people who react and argue from emotion.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 23, 2020, 07:30:44 PM
Quote from: amw on February 23, 2020, 06:35:42 PM
Which is certainly the comparison he hopes to evoke. (FDR certainly did win elections, at least.)

I note that the opinion of most Marxist historians is largely in agreement that the purpose of the New Deal was to forestall rather than promote socialism, by enacting sufficient regulations and changes to the capitalist system to allow it to survive its greatest threat (economic depression). Similarly there have been analyses of Sanders's proposed Green New Deal as being essentially a way to allow our current resource extractive economy to survive in the face of climate change and environmental degradation. I haven't fact-checked them because I didn't actually realise the Green New Deal was an actual plan rather than just a campaign soundbite.

Actually, the common wisdom I imbibed as a kid from both official education and unofficial (ie, my parents and others who were children or even adults during the 1930s) was  exactly what the Marxist historians say, without the Marxist terminology: he did it to undercut the appeal of Communism.

As for the GND,  here's Bernie's version, from his website..it's basically a long list of policy proposals, not all of them very detailed.
https://berniesanders.com/en/issues/green-new-deal/
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 23, 2020, 07:31:45 PM
Quote from: Christabel on February 23, 2020, 05:05:35 PM
The best observation I heard today:

Socialism:  you vote them in and then shoot your way out.

Yeah, its a slippery slope from subsidized healthcare to the gulags.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on February 23, 2020, 07:34:13 PM
Quote from: Baron Scapia on February 23, 2020, 07:20:23 PM
I respectfully gave my point of view, you reply with a "snowflake" ad hominem attack. I'm through with you.

People call each other names on these political threads all the time. I was just trying to fit in. :D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on February 23, 2020, 07:35:33 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 23, 2020, 07:24:52 PM
Third time in as many days I've thought you were describing the Trumpist Republicans.

The other two were when you spoke of the party that you once knew and admired ceasing to exist, and when you spoke of the people who react and argue from emotion.

Well, let me know when the Democrats develop a platform other than 'get Trump' and then I'll take your pro-liberal stances more seriously.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 23, 2020, 07:42:52 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 23, 2020, 07:35:33 PM
Well, let me know when the Democrats develop a platform other than 'get Trump' and then I'll take your pro-liberal stances more seriously.

Okay...that was a non-sequitur.

And the leading Democratic candidates all have put forward a range of platforms. Do you really need a kiwi to point that obvious fact out to you? They're also tying themselves in knots trying *not* to make it all about Trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on February 23, 2020, 08:18:46 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 23, 2020, 07:42:52 PM
Okay...that was a non-sequitur.

And the leading Democratic candidates all have put forward a range of platforms. Do you really need a kiwi to point that obvious fact out to you? They're also tying themselves in knots trying *not* to make it all about Trump.

No, I don't think you understood what I meant. My point was the Democrats have booed, cried, and carried on since Trump's first day in office. They're still doing it and it looks like they will continue to do it whenever Trump goes in for another term. One thing that really irritated me about the Democrats and their supporters is how far they've carried their dislike for him over into saying unpatriotic things like they hope he fails in office and wish him nothing but the worse possible scenarios. I'm sorry, but if he fails, we fail. It's as simple as that. I've read several of the liberal lunatics' platforms and enjoyed the laugh, but thanks for telling me about them. ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on February 23, 2020, 08:46:19 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 23, 2020, 06:54:50 PM
I think he simply is advocating a form of socialism, which, as we all know, doesn't work, because as Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." I really like this quote and it pretty much sums up this lunatic's agenda. What Bernie wants is for all of us to be subservient to the government while they, the politicians, continue to line their pockets with the tax payer's money. But I know you live in California and that might as well be considered it's own country within the US, so I'm sure you'll battle back with some over-the-top, snowflake rebuttal.
how is what he proposes different from what they have in many European countries? What are the main differences that you see?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on February 23, 2020, 08:48:48 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 23, 2020, 08:18:46 PM
No, I don't think you understood what I meant. My point was the Democrats have booed, cried, and carried on since Trump's first day in office. They're still doing it and it looks like they will continue to do it whenever Trump goes in for another term. One thing that really irritated me about the Democrats and their supporters is how far they've carried their dislike for him over into saying unpatriotic things like they hope he fails in office and wish him nothing but the worse possible scenarios. I'm sorry, but if he fails, we fail. It's as simple as that. I've read several of the liberal lunatics' platforms and enjoyed the laugh, but thanks for telling me about them. ::)
there's always someone you can point to on either side with this sentiment, isn't there? There certainly was under Obama. It might be bad depending on how far it goes.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 23, 2020, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 23, 2020, 08:18:46 PM
No, I don't think you understood what I meant. My point was the Democrats have booed, cried, and carried on since Trump's first day in office. They're still doing it and it looks like they will continue to do it whenever Trump goes in for another term. One thing that really irritated me about the Democrats and their supporters is how far they've carried their dislike for him over into saying unpatriotic things like they hope he fails in office and wish him nothing but the worse possible scenarios. I'm sorry, but if he fails, we fail. It's as simple as that. I've read several of the liberal lunatics' platforms and enjoyed the laugh, but thanks for telling me about them. ::)

We've already been over the "since his first day" stuff. Someone needs to push back against his criminality and abuse of the office and his own party don't have the spine for it.

In addition to the other day one examples that was the day he said he wasn't going to fulfill his ca.paign promise of releasing his tax returns.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on February 23, 2020, 08:49:45 PM
Quote from: Christabel on February 23, 2020, 05:05:35 PM
The best observation I heard today:

Socialism:  you vote them in and then shoot your way out.
But what countries does this apply to?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on February 23, 2020, 10:49:02 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 23, 2020, 06:54:50 PM
I think he simply is advocating a form of socialism, which, as we all know, doesn't work, because as Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

That ancient quote could just as easily be rewritten as: "The problem with capitalism is eventually you run out of other people's money"  -  The banks are heading towards another crash and they can't be bailed out another time. The money's gone (or rather it's in Bezos et al's pockets).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 24, 2020, 12:23:40 AM
It's truly amazing to watch some Americans be terrified about the government having money and never truly ask themselves what the alternative is.

If you think the alternative is YOU having lots of money, you're probably mistaken. Unless you're a large corporation (and given the degree to which various US court decisions have given corporations personhood, it's entirely possible there might be a few signed up to the forum these days, so hi there).

If we're going to reduce 'socialism' to a caricature and ignore how various countries that are more 'socialist' than the USA have higher quality of living on any number of measures than the USA, then let's reduce US-style capitalism to a few basic points as well:

An accelerating gap between rich and poor for several decades.

Vast numbers of people who have to work multiple jobs and insane hours in order to get a living wage, also large numbers who have to rely on tipping because hell will freeze over before their EMPLOYERS will pay them properly.

The world's most expensive health care without the world's best outcomes (lots of us beat you on life expectancy) plus it's frequently tied to employment which distorts the job market.

An economy that depends to a very large extent on undocumented Hispanic immigrants to be viable.

The most bizarre element of American politics is watching people scream blue murder about fixing some of these things and say that the fixes cannot possibly work, blithely ignoring all the countries where the suggested solutions come from which have better outcomes than you do for the population as a whole. Americans are peculiarly reluctant to adopt ideas from other countries, even when there's hard data to show that those ideas are working.

The form of capitalism that many Americans are so desperate to defend is a form that encapsulates the great American dream of 'making it'. But here's the thing: hardly any of you will actually 'make it'. You end up defending a system that's most unlikely to benefit you personally, because of clinging onto the slight aspirational hope that it will. And you end up rejecting systems that do a little good for a lot of people in favour of systems that do lots of good for only a few people, because you think that 'making it' has to have rewards and people have to be given incentives to drive them forward.

It's all very prosperity gospel.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 02:08:28 AM
Actually, what is socialism? I was born and raised in the Socialist Republic of Romania whose society was officially labelled as "developped socialist society" so socialism as I experienced it was characterized by:

- one-party state (actually, there was no differenece between the Party and the State: most governmental agencies were officially described as "state-and-party entity")

- complete government control over the completely state-run economy, absolutely no privately-owned businesses whatever

- heavy censorship and suppression of any ideas not in line with the official ideology

- omnipresent, omnipotent and universally feared secret police with an extensive network of informers (after 1989 there were numerous cases in which people discovered they had been reported by some of their closest friends and relatives)

- shameless cult of personality of the Party leader and his wife

- relentless anti-Western propaganda by the state-run newspapers, radio and TV stations.

- in the last few years of the regime, chronic and dramatic shortages of pretty much anything, from bread, meat and potatoes to toilet paper and deodorants, plus frequent power, gas and heating outages.

- etc etc etc along the same lines.

This is socialism for me, an odious regime which trampled under foot the common people and their liberty, impoverished, indoctrinated, persecuted them and made them unhappy while securing a life of political and economical privileges for the party nomenklatura, the secret police members and their minions.

Now, I'm sure your mileage --- and Bernie's --- might vary. So, what is socialism, actually?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 24, 2020, 02:16:50 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 02:08:28 AM
Actually, what is socialism? I was born and raised in the Socialist Republic of Romania whose society was officially labelled as "developped socialist society" so socialism as I experienced it was characterized by:

- one-party state (actually, there was no differenece between the Party and the State: most governmental agencies were officially described as "state-and-party entity")

- complete government control over the completely state-run economy, absolutely no privately-owned businesses whatever

- heavy censorship and suppression of any ideas not in line with the official ideology

- omnipresent, omnipotent and universally feared secret police with an extensive network of informers (after 1989 there were numerous cases in which people discovered they had been reported by some of their closest friends and relatives)

- shameless cult of personality of the Party leader and his wife

- relentless anti-Western propaganda by the state-run newspapers, radio and TV stations.

- in the last few years of the regime, chronic and dramatic shortages of pretty much anything, from bread, meat and potatoes to toilet paper and deodorants, plus frequent power, gas and heating outages.

- etc etc etc along the same lines.

This is socialism for me, an odious regime which trampled under foot the common people and their liberty, impoverished, indoctrinated, persecuted them and made them unhappy while securing a life of political and economical privileges for the party nomenklatura, the secret police members and their minions.

Now, I'm sure your mileage --- and Bernie's --- might vary. So, what is socialism, actually?

Well this is precisely my point. There are people who would slap the label "socialist" on Norway. Which AFAIK doesn't look much like this at all. Any label that is being simultaneously used to describe a country that regularly gets marked as one of the best places in the world to live and the horrible mess that was Ceausescu's Romania is not a very helpful label.

And even then, there are plenty of countries on the political spectrum between the USA and Norway, ie countries with a lot fewer government-run things than Norway has. I'm pretty sure I live in one of them. But to some Americans there are things about Australia that are horrible socialism to be avoided.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 03:00:48 AM
Quote from: Madiel on February 24, 2020, 02:16:50 AM
Well this is precisely my point. There are people who would slap the label "socialist" on Norway. Which AFAIK doesn't look much like this at all. Any label that is being simultaneously used to describe a country that regularly gets marked as one of the best places in the world to live and the horrible mess that was Ceausescu's Romania is not a very helpful label.

And even then, there are plenty of countries on the political spectrum between the USA and Norway, ie countries with a lot fewer government-run things than Norway has. I'm pretty sure I live in one of them. But to some Americans there are things about Australia that are horrible socialism to be avoided.

And the same actually applies to capitalism as well. If both Australia and Russia are capitalist countries then it's just an empty word.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 24, 2020, 03:32:51 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 02:08:28 AM
Actually, what is socialism?

I think in the US it is a "scary" word to fearmonger about changes that would benefit the regular people and unrig the oligarchy. It has been a word to keep people in line. For decades it worked and the oligarchs ruled the US, but the younger generation is different, immune to this scare, because they have access to information outside the corporate media to learn about the nyances about socialism and capitalism. They are struggling and justly asking if the (crony) capitalism is working for them at all.

Quote from: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 02:08:28 AMI was born and raised in the Socialist Republic of Romania whose society was officially labelled as "developped socialist society" so socialism as I experienced it was characterized by:

Romania's socialism was authoritarian in nature. Bernie is after completely different kind of "socialism", social democracy, which is actually a variation of capitalism. There is no pure capitalism or sosialism in the world, only mixed economies. The US has a lot of socialistic elements such as the fire department and subsidies to fossil fuel companies. It's just that the system in the US is rigged because of utter corruption for the top 1 % so that for most people things are far from optimal. The US is quite authoritarian country in practice even if on the paper it's supposed to be a striving democracy and beacon of freedom. The words "socialism" and "capitalism" are just labels and countries in the world aren't 100 % socialistic or 100 % capitalistic. Countries have their own mixture of socialism and capitalism. Bernie talks about countries such as Denmark, because he looks out for models that have proven to be the most successful. 

Quote from: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 02:08:28 AM- one-party state (actually, there was no differenece between the Party and the State: most governmental agencies were officially described as "state-and-party entity")

The US has practically only two parties. That's better than one, but far from what social democratic countries have, typically about ten. Bernie's agenda is to make the US more democratic, remove corruption and so on making it easier for additional parties to gain political power.

Quote from: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 02:08:28 AM- complete government control over the completely state-run economy, absolutely no privately-owned businesses whatever

Bernie isn't attacking private ownership. Under Bernie's precidency Amazon, Apple and so on will be just as privately owned businesses as they are now. Just as in Denmark Lego is a privately held company.

Quote from: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 02:08:28 AM- heavy censorship and suppression of any ideas not in line with the official ideology

The US has some censorship, althou probably not as bad as Romania had.

Quote from: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 02:08:28 AM-- omnipresent, omnipotent and universally feared secret police with an extensive network of informers (after 1989 there were numerous cases in which people discovered they had been reported by some of their closest friends and relatives)

The US has NSA spying on people.

Quote from: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 02:08:28 AM- shameless cult of personality of the Party leader and his wife

The US has the cult of Trump and the overall sentiment of billionaires being smarter than other people.

Quote from: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 02:08:28 AM- relentless anti-Western propaganda by the state-run newspapers, radio and TV stations.

The US has anti-socialism propaganda that tries to equate Denmark's social democracy to the socialism in Venezuela. Whereas in Romania the media was ran by the state, in the US it is run by the oligarchs.

Quote from: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 02:08:28 AM- in the last few years of the regime, chronic and dramatic shortages of pretty much anything, from bread, meat and potatoes to toilet paper and deodorants, plus frequent power, gas and heating outages.

Maybe not as bad, but for the richest country in the World, the US has a pretty bad infractructure causing even third world problems and millions of people don't have access to healthcare.

Quote from: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 02:08:28 AMThis is socialism for me, an odious regime which trampled under foot the common people and their liberty, impoverished, indoctrinated, persecuted them and made them unhappy while securing a life of political and economical privileges for the party nomenklatura, the secret police members and their minions.

Yes, socialistic countries like Romania have sufferered from the kind of problems you are describing, but Bernie's social democracy is totally different. He isn't talking about Romania. He is talking about Denmark. How much do these things apply to Denmark? As a matter of fact they apply more to the US than Denmark! As far as I know Denmark has clean drinkable tap water for example, something americans don't have, at least not in Flint, Michigan.

Quote from: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 02:08:28 AMTNow, I'm sure your mileage --- and Bernie's --- might vary. So, what is socialism, actually?

Socialism can be different things and you need to know the nyances. Same applies to capitalism. Both have positive and negative aspects to them. A smart society takes the positive aspects of socialism and capitalism and mix them together. Democracy is an important increadient in this, because it ensures everybody in the society is beingh heard and the system doesn't get rigged, at least not much. Bernie wants to remove corruption and overturn citizen united etc.that made the US an oligarchy. That strenghtens the democracy and leads to better mixture of capitalism and socialism shaping the system to something that works for everyone. Is that so difficult to understand?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 04:13:25 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 24, 2020, 03:32:51 AM
The US has practically only two parties. That's better than one, but far from what social democratic countries have, typically about ten. Bernie's agenda is to make the US more democratic, remove corruption and so on making it easier for additional parties to gain political power.

The US has some censorship, althou probably not as bad as Romania had.

The US has NSA spying on people.

The US has the cult of Trump and the overall sentiment of billionaires being smarter than other people.

The US has anti-socialism propaganda that tries to equate Denmark's social democracy to the socialism in Venezuela. Whereas in Romania the media was ran by the state, in the US it is run by the oligarchs.

Maybe not as bad, but for the richest country in the World, the US has a pretty bad infractructure causing even third world problems and millions of people don't have access to healthcare.

If all that is suppose to mean that the US is even remotely similar to the former Socialist Republic of Romania then you are so far off the mark that I won't even bother with it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 24, 2020, 04:53:11 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 04:13:25 AM
If all that is suppose to mean that the US is even remotely similar to the former Socialist Republic of Romania then you are so far off the mark that I won't even bother with it.

Please try to understand what I mean. Two completely different countries such as Romania and the US can have similar problems. The US isn't a perfect country. It isn't even the best country in the world. It is flawed just like all other countries in it's own way. Bernie is trying to make the US a better country.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 24, 2020, 07:58:05 AM
Socialism is essentially the central government making all important economic decisions and intensively regulating all economic activity.  It is therefore implicitly authoritarian, even if the decision making process has elements of democratic input. 

Going through the policy proposals on Bernie's website, I think they match that description fairly well, and therefore it's very accurate to call him a socialist.

Socialism is inherently elitists, because of the centralized decision making.  The corruption 71db complains about would actually increase, for the simple reason that whenever government makes decisions that have an economic impact, the people affected will use their current resources to make sure the decision comes out in a way that benefits them.  So the more government involvement in the economy, the more lobbying and the more "buying" politicians and regulators.  In other words, socialism increases corruption.  It is, at its best, crony capitalism.  At its worst, Communism.

Medicare for All is a good example of this:
You'll notice the Young Turks demand that everyone accept their premise that single payer is the only way to get health care access to everyone, and pretend that everything else is "oligarchy". 
Whereas if implemented, Medicare for All would simply be bureaucrats decreeing what is and what is not acceptable coverage and care for all 130 million Americans, and contracting out the paperwork to a for profit company that will implement all the paperwork in the decision making process.  Exactly what Medicare does now.  And of course that company, being for profit, would be paid at a level that allows its owners to make profits, just like health care

And so on through what Bernie proposes. The problem with the progressive agenda is not the amount of money that needs to be spent to implement it, but the fact that it requires centralized decision making that is effectively insulated from the people it supposedly "benefits".


A lot of the things which feature on Bernie's agenda are now handled at the state and local level, where they are at least partially subject to political pressures from the general public.  Moving them up to the federal level means insulating them from the actual voters and handing  the general decision making process to bureaucrats who are inclined to fit everything into their preferred Procrustean bed.   So it inherently lessens democracy.  And this is one point where "America is so big" is important.   Finland is about the size of Minnesota, IIRC.  So decision making by the national government  of Finland is on the same scale as decision making by one American state.   If you include Russia, Europe has slightly more than twice the total population of the US.  So decision making by the US Government means making decisions for half of Europe.    So nationalizing decision making is much less democratic in the US than in any European country. 

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 24, 2020, 08:00:09 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 02:08:28 AM
Actually, what is socialism? I was born and raised in the Socialist Republic of Romania

And if you wake up in Pyongyang tomorrow you'll be in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 24, 2020, 08:09:53 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 23, 2020, 06:54:50 PM
I think he simply is advocating a form of socialism, which, as we all know, doesn't work, because as Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
I've wondered before if it could work if the US did a couple things like greatly reduce illegal immigration and also cut military spending among other things to increase the power of the social safety net.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 24, 2020, 08:13:38 AM
Quote from: Madiel on February 24, 2020, 12:23:40 AM
.....
The world's most expensive health care without the world's best outcomes (lots of us beat you on life expectancy) plus it's frequently tied to employment which distorts the job market.

......
The most bizarre element of American politics is watching people scream blue murder about fixing some of these things and say that the fixes cannot possibly work, blithely ignoring all the countries where the suggested solutions come from which have better outcomes than you do for the population as a whole. Americans are peculiarly reluctant to adopt ideas from other countries, even when there's hard data to show that those ideas are working.

The form of capitalism that many Americans are so desperate to defend is a form that encapsulates the great American dream of 'making it'. But here's the thing: hardly any of you will actually 'make it'. You end up defending a system that's most unlikely to benefit you personally, because of clinging onto the slight aspirational hope that it will. And you end up rejecting systems that do a little good for a lot of people in favour of systems that do lots of good for only a few people, because you think that 'making it' has to have rewards and people have to be given incentives to drive them forward.

It's all very prosperity gospel.

Most of the problems you mention either exist as the result of well intentioned government programs, or would be made worse by the progressive agenda. 

I left in your reference to health care because there is something that needs to be point out about what you say.

The claim that our systems has high costs and low outcomes relative to other countries is, if not misleading, at least not accurate enough to be useful, because it lumps everything in together--Medicare, private insurance through employers and individual policies, Medicaid and other poverty linked programs, and the people who don't have any insurance.   Effectively, it mixes in four different systems and makes it seem as if the costs and outcomes are uniform through them all.  I have looked and failed to find any statistic that actually breaks out costs and outcomes among the four.  From what is usually called anecdotal evidence and personal experience,  there are important differences.  In terms of outcomes, it seems Medicaid (public insurance for individuals and families who meet the low income/low asset requirements) has the worst outcomes, private insurance the best outcomes.  Medicare, being specifically for seniors, and open to all seniors, should really be left out altogether, since it covers a population which obviously is more prone to illness than the general population, and obviously all of its beneficiaries will die at some point or other.   Geography has an impact:  rural areas have, in general, worse access overall to health care compared to urban areas.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 24, 2020, 08:20:02 AM
Quote from: Madiel on February 24, 2020, 02:16:50 AM
But to some Americans there are things about Australia that are horrible socialism to be avoided.

The most popular Australian bogeyman is your gun control laws.  If I understand them correctly, they are fairly extreme  by American standards.  Progressives love them, moderates pledge that we never will be like that. (And in fact, they wouldn't pass Constitutional muster.)

If I have it correct, to own a firearm, requires a prior permit from the police,  There is a list of officially allowed reasons to issue the permit.  As I understand it, needing a weapon to protect yourself from an immediate threat (for instance, an abusive ex-spouse who is now stalking you) is not on the list of officially allowed reasons.  Is that true?  If it is, it means, from an American POV, Australia does not recognize the right of self defense.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on February 24, 2020, 09:07:02 AM
Quote from: greg on February 24, 2020, 08:09:53 AM
I've wondered before if it could work if the US did a couple things like greatly reduce illegal immigration and also cut military spending among other things to increase the power of the social safety net.

     Yikes!.....there is no zero sum relationship between the level of military spending and social spending, and there is considerable overlap in that both send income into the private sector that percolates through the whole economy. The notion that we need to insure fewer people to build our next aircraft carrier has no support anywhere. Fiscal expansion deploys resources that aren't presently used until you see the whites of inflation's eyes. The economy usually has idle resources that drag on growth and productivity, else what is "running out of dollars" for? (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)

    So no one should be surprised that you also think that cutting immigration "leaves" more for all of us here. Once against you'll indulge any "shrink to grow" idea out there before you consider "grow to grow" ideas, if you ever get around to that.

     How about this? The most efficient condition of an economy is the deployment of all available resources by mean of the level and targeting of net spending for that purpose. So if we can strengthen the economy in multiple directions within our resource means, there isn't a money argument that says we shouldn't. Maybe another kind of argument says some types of expansion have non-money negative effects that should be avoided. I'm only objecting to "we shouldn't spend for growth because we need to run out of dollars before they run out on their own". That way madness lies. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)

     Immigration adds important resources. Even the terminally stupid Mulvaney knows this. The "immigrant multiplier" may be in the range of 1.6. I don't know, I can't tell. Ask Mulvaney, he's the expert.

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 24, 2020, 09:36:23 AM
Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2020, 07:58:05 AM
Socialism is essentially the central government making all important economic decisions and intensively regulating all economic activity.  It is therefore implicitly authoritarian, even if the decision making process has elements of democratic input.

Capitalism is essentially the rich making all important economic decisions and not only regulating the economic activity for their own benefit.  It is therefore implicitly authoritarian, even if the decision making process has elements of democratic input.

Yeah, that's oversimplifying things, but so is your statement. How authoritarian is Denmark in your opinion? Do you think Danish people suffer because Danish government regulates the purity of tap water?

Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2020, 07:58:05 AMGoing through the policy proposals on Bernie's website, I think they match that description fairly well, and therefore it's very accurate to call him a socialist.

Again, Bernie's proposals are normal social democratic stuff. Sometimes he calls even himself a socialist, but you need to understand what he means when he says it. He is for socialistic aspects in capitalism where they make sense such as tuition free education or healthcare. So, it's important to understand in what sense he is a socialist and in what sense he is not. When you make that analyse you see he is a social democrat who unfortunately calls himself a democratic socialist, because these DAMN labels are poorly known, but they are JUST LABELS!! If someone wants to make the US similar to Denmark (because Denmarks kicks ass when it comes to quality of living), it's idiotic to claim he wants to make the US like Venezuela! Is it that difficult to be intellectually honest?

Btw, even Venezuela would be doing better if it wasn't for the economic sanctions by the US crushing them. That's not to say Venezuela is a good model for anyone - they have made a lot of mistakes for sure - but their problems aren't 100 % caused by socialism. Intellectually honest people take that into account. Deep inside YOU know that, but you need to justify your stupid simplistic right-wing opinions to yourself.

Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2020, 07:58:05 AMSocialism is inherently elitists, because of the centralized decision making.

Depends on what kind of socialism we are talking about. Every socialistic country has been different just as every capitalistic country is different. Some more centralized and authoritarian than the others. Sweden in the 70's was perhaps the closest to Karl Marx's ideal society and I'm sure you wouldn't call it elitistic or the decision making centralized. That's because Sweden has been a highly democratic country. Simpletons may want to simplify the world to understand it better, but it's not a sign off intellectual honesty.

Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2020, 07:58:05 AMThe corruption 71db complains about would actually increase, for the simple reason that whenever government makes decisions that have an economic impact, the people affected will use their current resources to make sure the decision comes out in a way that benefits them.  So the more government involvement in the economy, the more lobbying and the more "buying" politicians and regulators.  In other words, socialism increases corruption.  It is, at its best, crony capitalism.  At its worst, Communism.

You forget that Bernie wants to reduce/remove corruption. When the rich can't buy the elections, politicians are more responsible to the voter, the regular people. This means reduced corruption. Corrupt politicians are simply voted out. You also conveniantly forget that companies are greedy actors. Their desicions are made to benefits them. How is that better? Again, how corrupt is Denmark compared to other countries in the world including the US? Your claims are avoid of any empirical evidence so why would anyone take them seriously?

Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2020, 07:58:05 AMMedicare for All is a good example of this:
You'll notice the Young Turks demand that everyone accept their premise that single payer is the only way to get health care access to everyone, and pretend that everything else is "oligarchy". 
Whereas if implemented, Medicare for All would simply be bureaucrats decreeing what is and what is not acceptable coverage and care for all 130 million Americans, and contracting out the paperwork to a for profit company that will implement all the paperwork in the decision making process.  Exactly what Medicare does now.  And of course that company, being for profit, would be paid at a level that allows its owners to make profits, just like health care

Debating healtcare with you is tiresome af. Theoretically medicare for all may not be the only way to cover everyone, but it is certainly the BEST and most cost effective way backed up with empirical evidence and studies. The reason why we are even debating about this is because the insurance companies and Big Pharma want to protect their MAFIA-like profit model and have bought the MSM to brainwash a lot of people including you to believe stupid lies and smear about single payer healthcare. Luckily the majority of americans aren't as stupid as you and understand how much better medicare for all would be as a healthcare system. Since the single payer is the best model, the other models are compromizes done to serve other interests than providing healthcare to all citizens and that makes them oligarchic in nature, especially when these companies spend millions to misslead the public. You really have some serious mental limitations between your ears not understanding these things despite of me explaining then to you several times. So tiresome!  ::)

A functioning healthcare system is pretty simple: You need help you get help. The more serious your health problem is the quicker you get the help, because everyone can't be given healthcare immediately for resource limitation reasons. Not only is this morally right, but it even benefits the whole society.

Medicare as it is is an underfunded afterthought to "fix" the problems of for profit healtcare. Medicare for all would be expanded version based on medicare, but many ways different, properly funded system. Even as it is medicare is a very popular program and a lot of old people would be in serious trouble without it.

You never answered me what you would lose going from your current healthcare coverage to medicare for all? Isn't it bothering you you can't answer such a simple question? One of your main arguments is medicare for all means worse coverage, but you can't tell how! The truth is your coverage would be the same or better under medicare for all (depends on how good your healthcare plan is), but you would pay less for healthcare even when your taxes would go up. I am on your side here wanting you better healthcare for less money. You may be thoroughly brainwashed and stupid, but you are still a human being and good affordable healthcare is your human right.

Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2020, 07:58:05 AMAnd so on through what Bernie proposes. The problem with the progressive agenda is not the amount of money that needs to be spent to implement it, but the fact that it requires centralized decision making that is effectively insulated from the people it supposedly "benefits".

Medicare saves money. We can discuss about how much (different studies have differing answers), but the real question is how is the US going to pay for the current system, the most expensive healthcare system in the World that gives average results comparable to other countries with half of the costs. More important than whether decision making is entralized or not is what are the incentives. For profit healthcare system creates insane incentives (denying care increases profit) and that's the underlying reason why the US healtcare system is so bad and needs to be reformed into a single payer system. If capitalism and for profit philosophy worked with healthcare the US would probably have one of the best healthcare system in the world, but that's not the case. Capitalism can work with healthcare providers as proven by countries such as France and Canada, but the payer need to be centralized, governmental. That's why single payer system.

All the talk about protection against pre-existing conditions is a prime example of the problems with for profit decision making.

Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2020, 07:58:05 AMA lot of the things which feature on Bernie's agenda are now handled at the state and local level, where they are at least partially subject to political pressures from the general public.  Moving them up to the federal level means insulating them from the actual voters and handing  the general decision making process to bureaucrats who are inclined to fit everything into their preferred Procrustean bed.   So it inherently lessens democracy.  And this is one point where "America is so big" is important.   Finland is about the size of Minnesota, IIRC.  So decision making by the national government  of Finland is on the same scale as decision making by one American state.   If you include Russia, Europe has slightly more than twice the total population of the US.  So decision making by the US Government means making decisions for half of Europe.    So nationalizing decision making is much less democratic in the US than in any European country.

Medicare for all can be mandated so that each State creates it's own single payer system. That solves any problems regarding size as even the biggest States are small compared to such single payer countries as Germany (~80 million people).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 24, 2020, 09:47:00 AM
Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2020, 08:20:02 AM
The most popular Australian bogeyman is your gun control laws.  If I understand them correctly, they are fairly extreme  by American standards.  Progressives love them, moderates pledge that we never will be like that. (And in fact, they wouldn't pass Constitutional muster.)

If I have it correct, to own a firearm, requires a prior permit from the police,  There is a list of officially allowed reasons to issue the permit.  As I understand it, needing a weapon to protect yourself from an immediate threat (for instance, an abusive ex-spouse who is now stalking you) is not on the list of officially allowed reasons.  Is that true?  If it is, it means, from an American POV, Australia does not recognize the right of self defense.

Wait until you learn about the gun laws in Japan.  ;D

Only about a dozen people die every year in Japan because of guns, a country of 130 million people and intense video gaming culture. It's not the video games or violent movies. It's the guns.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 24, 2020, 09:53:29 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 24, 2020, 09:47:00 AM
Wait until you learn about the gun laws in Japan.  ;D

Only about a dozen people die every year in Japan because of guns, a country of 130 million people and intense video gaming culture. It's not the video games or violent movies. It's the guns.
It's also the culture somewhat.

Crime overall is way less. Homelessness in Japan is so low that it's qualifies as a culture shock if you are from the US. Unemployment is very low.

Illegal drugs are almost nonexistent, so black markets and gangs are also almost nonexistent.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 24, 2020, 11:04:17 AM
Quote from: greg on February 24, 2020, 09:53:29 AM
It's also the culture somewhat.

Crime overall is way less. Homelessness in Japan is so low that it's qualifies as a culture shock if you are from the US. Unemployment is very low.

Illegal drugs are almost nonexistent, so black markets and gangs are also almost nonexistent.

Excuses, excuses. 9 out of 10 Americans want common sense gun regulation, even members of NRA because they don't want their kids slaughtered in school. However, the gun manufacturers have brided the leaders of NRA to buy the whole Republican party so all gun law reforms are blocked. Bernie's presidency changes that and gun laws will be written by Americans, not NRA/gun manufacturers.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 24, 2020, 11:11:14 AM
By complete coincidence I just was introduced to a detailed explanation of how the American right came to use the word 'socialism' to mean something completely different to what the term means in the rest of the world.

Apparently it started in 1871 by describing giving black men the vote as socialism.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 24, 2020, 11:16:31 AM
96 % of Nevada precincts reporting and the delegates seems to go like this:

Sanders 24, Biden 9 and Buttigieg 3.

Bernie really benefitted from the "caucus math" as he got 2/3 of the 36 delegates for 47 % of C.C.D.s and about 40 % of second alignment votes...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 24, 2020, 11:18:37 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 24, 2020, 11:04:17 AM
Excuses, excuses. 9 out of 10 Americans want common sense gun regulation, even members of NRA because they don't want their kids slaughtered in school. However, the gun manufacturers have brided the leaders of NRA to buy the whole Republican party so all gun law reforms are blocked. Bernie's presidency changes that and gun laws will be written by Americans, not NRA/gun manufacturers.

Bernie may get around the NRA. But he can't get around the Second Amendment.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 24, 2020, 11:21:11 AM
Quote from: Madiel on February 24, 2020, 11:11:14 AM
By complete coincidence I just was introduced to a detailed explanation of how the American right came to use the word 'socialism' to mean something completely different to what the term means in the rest of the world.

Apparently it started in 1871 by describing giving black men the vote as socialism.

Well, Bernie is for black men (and women) to vote so he is clearly a socialist!  ;D  ;D

Interesting, but in no way surprising piece of information I didn't know.  ;)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 24, 2020, 11:22:33 AM
Quote from: Madiel on February 24, 2020, 11:11:14 AM
By complete coincidence I just was introduced to a detailed explanation of how the American right came to use the word 'socialism' to mean something completely different to what the term means in the rest of the world.

Apparently it started in 1871 by describing giving black men the vote as socialism.

In 1871 that counted as a radical idea, so  I wouldn't be surprised at that.

BTW, is my understanding of Australia's gun laws correct? [In the comment time stamped at 2:20]
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 24, 2020, 11:25:39 AM
Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2020, 11:18:37 AM
Bernie may get around the NRA. But he can't get around the Second Amendment.

Do you have the right to own nukes or biological weapons because of the Second Amendment? I didn't think so. Where is the line? Do you think they thought about powerful firearms of 21st century when they wrote the Second Amendment? If the US can prevent prisoners to vote, it damn sure can prevent people with mental issues to have firearms no matter what the Amendments say.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 24, 2020, 11:35:40 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 24, 2020, 09:36:23 AM
Capitalism is essentially the rich making all important economic decisions and not only regulating the economic activity for their own benefit.  It is therefore implicitly authoritarian, even if the decision making process has elements of democratic input.

Yeah, that's oversimplifying things, but so is your statement. How authoritarian is Denmark in your opinion? Do you think Danish people suffer because Danish government regulates the purity of tap water?

Again, Bernie's proposals are normal social democratic stuff. Sometimes he calls even himself a socialist, but you need to understand what he means when he says it. He is for socialistic aspects in capitalism where they make sense such as tuition free education or healthcare. So, it's important to understand in what sense he is a socialist and in what sense he is not. When you make that analyse you see he is a social democrat who unfortunately calls himself a democratic socialist, because these DAMN labels are poorly known, but they are JUST LABELS!! If someone wants to make the US similar to Denmark (because Denmarks kicks ass when it comes to quality of living), it's idiotic to claim he wants to make the US like Venezuela! Is it that difficult to be intellectually honest?

Btw, even Venezuela would be doing better if it wasn't for the economic sanctions by the US crushing them. That's not to say Venezuela is a good model for anyone - they have made a lot of mistakes for sure - but their problems aren't 100 % caused by socialism. Intellectually honest people take that into account. Deep inside YOU know that, but you need to justify your stupid simplistic right-wing opinions to yourself.

Depends on what kind of socialism we are talking about. Every socialistic country has been different just as every capitalistic country is different. Some more centralized and authoritarian than the others. Sweden in the 70's was perhaps the closest to Karl Marx's ideal society and I'm sure you wouldn't call it elitistic or the decision making centralized. That's because Sweden has been a highly democratic country. Simpletons may want to simplify the world to understand it better, but it's not a sign off intellectual honesty.

You forget that Bernie wants to reduce/remove corruption. When the rich can't buy the elections, politicians are more responsible to the voter, the regular people. This means reduced corruption. Corrupt politicians are simply voted out. You also conveniantly forget that companies are greedy actors. Their desicions are made to benefits them. How is that better? Again, how corrupt is Denmark compared to other countries in the world including the US? Your claims are avoid of any empirical evidence so why would anyone take them seriously?

Debating healtcare with you is tiresome af. Theoretically medicare for all may not be the only way to cover everyone, but it is certainly the BEST and most cost effective way backed up with empirical evidence and studies. The reason why we are even debating about this is because the insurance companies and Big Pharma want to protect their MAFIA-like profit model and have bought the MSM to brainwash a lot of people including you to believe stupid lies and smear about single payer healthcare. Luckily the majority of americans aren't as stupid as you and understand how much better medicare for all would be as a healthcare system. Since the single payer is the best model, the other models are compromizes done to serve other interests than providing healthcare to all citizens and that makes them oligarchic in nature, especially when these companies spend millions to misslead the public. You really have some serious mental limitations between your ears not understanding these things despite of me explaining then to you several times. So tiresome!  ::)

A functioning healthcare system is pretty simple: You need help you get help. The more serious your health problem is the quicker you get the help, because everyone can't be given healthcare immediately for resource limitation reasons. Not only is this morally right, but it even benefits the whole society.

Medicare as it is is an underfunded afterthought to "fix" the problems of for profit healtcare. Medicare for all would be expanded version based on medicare, but many ways different, properly funded system. Even as it is medicare is a very popular program and a lot of old people would be in serious trouble without it.

You never answered me what you would lose going from your current healthcare coverage to medicare for all? Isn't it bothering you you can't answer such a simple question? One of your main arguments is medicare for all means worse coverage, but you can't tell how! The truth is your coverage would be the same or better under medicare for all (depends on how good your healthcare plan is), but you would pay less for healthcare even when your taxes would go up. I am on your side here wanting you better healthcare for less money. You may be thoroughly brainwashed and stupid, but you are still a human being and good affordable healthcare is your human right.

Medicare saves money. We can discuss about how much (different studies have differing answers), but the real question is how is the US going to pay for the current system, the most expensive healthcare system in the World that gives average results comparable to other countries with half of the costs. More important than whether decision making is entralized or not is what are the incentives. For profit healthcare system creates insane incentives (denying care increases profit) and that's the underlying reason why the US healtcare system is so bad and needs to be reformed into a single payer system. If capitalism and for profit philosophy worked with healthcare the US would probably have one of the best healthcare system in the world, but that's not the case. Capitalism can work with healthcare providers as proven by countries such as France and Canada, but the payer need to be centralized, governmental. That's why single payer system.

All the talk about protection against pre-existing conditions is a prime example of the problems with for profit decision making.

Medicare for all can be mandated so that each State creates it's own single payer system. That solves any problems regarding size as even the biggest States are small compared to such single payer countries as Germany (~80 million people).
You know even less about Venezuela than you do about the US. Venezuela cratered because Chavez, and now Maduro, used the Venezuelan economy as a piggybank for himself personally and to pay for loads of free stuff for the poor. The money ran out, and now everyone is poor, except the Chavez family, Maduro, and his cronies. BTW I know thus because I know Venezuelans and their relatives who live here in Florida. I don't need a Youtube channel propagandizing for  the Left to get my information on the subject.

The rest of your comment reveals you understand almost nothing of what U said. For instance, you fail to realize that under Bernie's plans, companies will not stop buying politicians and bureaucrats. (Bureaucrats are easy to buy, in fact.) Instead, their purchases of politicians and bureaucrats will increase because they'll have even bigger reasons to buy them.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 24, 2020, 11:37:34 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 24, 2020, 11:25:39 AM
Do you have the right to own nukes or biological weapons because of the Second Amendment? I didn't think so. Where is the line? Do you think they thought about powerful firearms of 21st century when they wrote the Second Amendment? If the US can prevent prisoners to vote, it damn sure can prevent people with mental issues to have firearms no matter what the Amendments say.

Bernie thinks prisoners who aren't allowed to vote are having their civil rights violated.  I actually agree with him on that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 11:53:29 AM
Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2020, 11:35:40 AM
You know even less about Venezuela than you do about the US. Venezuela cratered because Chavez, and now Maduro, used the Venezuelan economy as a piggybank for himself personally and to pay for loads of free stuff for the poor. The money ran out, and now everyone is poor, except the Chavez family, Maduro, and his cronies. BTW I know thus because I know Venezuelans and their relatives who live here in Florida. I don't need a Youtube channel propagandizing for  the Left to get my information on the subject.

Actually, this is a favorite canard of some leftists, used also in the case of Cuba: that it's the US sanctions, rather than domestic policies, which ruined the country. This is of course nonsense: Cuba benefitted from massive USSR economic aid and Venezuela's trade with any other country than US was completely free. It's the USSR going broke and the inept economic policies of the Chavez-Maduro gang that wreaked havoc in those countries' economies. It's actually a bitter irony that one of the richest countries in oil, Venezuela, is also one of the poorest. There's been talk of Norway here --- one can be sure, at least I am, that had Norway pursued Chavez-like policies she'd have been exactly at the same level of Venezuela.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 12:08:51 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2020, 11:37:34 AM
Bernie thinks prisoners who aren't allowed to vote are having their civil rights violated.  I actually agree with him on that.

I'm puzzled. In the Romanian legal system there are crimes whose legal punishment involves, besides a term in prison, stripping that person of several civil rights, including voting. Therefore only a fraction of the inmates can vote, and it's perfectly legal and nobody complains about it. Isn't that the case in the US as well?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 24, 2020, 12:21:23 PM
Quote from: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 12:08:51 PM
I'm puzzled. In the Romanian legal system there are crimes whose legal punishment involves, besides a term in prison, stripping that person of several civil rights, including voting. Therefore only a fraction of the inmates can vote, and it's perfectly legal and nobody complains about it. Isn't that the case in the US as well?

Generally, yes. But it's something that has started to come under fire from both the Left and the libertarian Right.

One complicating fact is that, given the higher incarceration rate among blacks, this loss of voting rights has a disparate impact on blacks. So it  is a actual instance of what the Left calls systemic racism.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 12:26:39 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2020, 12:21:23 PM
Generally, yes. But it's something that has started to come under fire from both the Left and the libertarian Right.

One complicating fact is that, given the higher incarceration rate among blacks, this loss of voting rights has a disparate impact on blacks. So it  is a actual instance of what the Left calls systemic racism.

I see. Time and again, the racist past of the USA haunts their present. Will there ever come a time when the wounds will be completely healed?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 24, 2020, 12:33:52 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2020, 11:35:40 AM
You know even less about Venezuela than you do about the US. Venezuela cratered because Chavez, and now Maduro, used the Venezuelan economy as a piggybank for himself personally and to pay for loads of free stuff for the poor. The money ran out, and now everyone is poor, except the Chavez family, Maduro, and his cronies. BTW I know thus because I know Venezuelans and their relatives who live here in Florida. I don't need a Youtube channel propagandizing for  the Left to get my information on the subject.

The rest of your comment reveals you understand almost nothing of what U said. For instance, you fail to realize that under Bernie's plans, companies will not stop buying politicians and bureaucrats. (Bureaucrats are easy to buy, in fact.) Instead, their purchases of politicians and bureaucrats will increase because they'll have even bigger reasons to buy them.

I know less about Venezuela than the US. As I said, Venezuela has made a lot of mistakes thinking oil will pay for everything, but that doesn't take away the fact US sanctions have hurt Venezuela even more and without those santions they would be better off.

Bernie wants to make buying politicians illegal. Unless the CEOs want behind the bars they stop the bribery.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 12:50:16 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 24, 2020, 12:33:52 PM
US sanctions have hurt Venezuela even more and without those santions they would be better off.

Nonsense. The sad situation of Venezuela is entirely the fault of the Chavez-Maduro gang.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 24, 2020, 01:26:11 PM
Quote from: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 12:50:16 PM
Nonsense. The sad situation of Venezuela is entirely the fault of the Chavez-Maduro gang.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10715.pdf
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on February 24, 2020, 02:31:04 PM
Quote from: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 02:08:28 AM
Actually, what is socialism? I was born and raised in the Socialist Republic of Romania whose society was officially labelled as "developped socialist society" so socialism as I experienced it was characterized by:

- one-party state (actually, there was no differenece between the Party and the State: most governmental agencies were officially described as "state-and-party entity")

- complete government control over the completely state-run economy, absolutely no privately-owned businesses whatever

- heavy censorship and suppression of any ideas not in line with the official ideology

- omnipresent, omnipotent and universally feared secret police with an extensive network of informers (after 1989 there were numerous cases in which people discovered they had been reported by some of their closest friends and relatives)

- shameless cult of personality of the Party leader and his wife

- relentless anti-Western propaganda by the state-run newspapers, radio and TV stations.

- in the last few years of the regime, chronic and dramatic shortages of pretty much anything, from bread, meat and potatoes to toilet paper and deodorants, plus frequent power, gas and heating outages.

- etc etc etc along the same lines.

This is socialism for me, an odious regime which trampled under foot the common people and their liberty, impoverished, indoctrinated, persecuted them and made them unhappy while securing a life of political and economical privileges for the party nomenklatura, the secret police members and their minions.

If you think life isn't still like this in the USA for people of the "wrong colour" you are either misinformed or have a serious empathy deficit. There are admittedly some small differences:

- economy completely run by multinational billion-dollar corporations rather than the state

- one-party state, but "it has two of them" (- Julius Nyerere) (and in many states, there is effectively only one party e.g. in New York State the state government is indistinguishable from the state Democratic Party, which controls all political activity; the same is true in e.g. Mississippi or Tennessee with the state Republican Party)

- police operate in the open, not in secret

America is a great place to live if you are white and have money. But some examples of what life is like if you are not:

- The states with the largest black populations—especially Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina—impose generational extreme poverty that is almost impossible to escape and resembles situations in the third world (according to a UN report a couple of years ago, which made minimal if any impact on the state/corporate-run media in the USA). Lack of adequate sanitation and clean water have led to the resurgence of diseases like hookworm. Power companies target these areas first for scheduled outages. Pig farms and other local industries—usually owned by multinational agricultural companies—dump effluent into the water supply, while keeping workers' wages low enough that they cannot afford to install, e.g., septic tanks. This is not an aberration or mistake; it is completely intentional and in the service of a system of apartheid.

- Even outside the deep south, in virtually every neighbourhood that is majority black or hispanic, there are few or no grocery stores—and the ones that do exist price their goods out of range for the inhabitants. As a result, people have to primarily shop at dollar stores. This creates artificial but chronic shortages of various foods and goods. Some states are trying to take action to ban dollar stores from majority-minority neighbourhoods—notably Oklahoma—simply because access to even that limited selection of consumer goods is deemed too generous.

- Minority neighbourhoods in every city, and majority-minority towns throughout the USA, are policed and surveilled to a similar degree to that experienced in e.g. socialist Romania or Democratic Kampuchea. Go to any such neighbourhood and you will see armed police officers on every street corner—officers who, if they so choose, can kill you or make you "disappear" into prison for years before you face trial for whatever charges the officer invents. Political protests or strikes are met with tanks, helicopters and armoured vehicles, alongside heavily armed police officers with police dogs and so on. And the repression continues even after the protest is broken up; in Ferguson, MO (for example) the leaders of the Black Lives Matter protests of 2014 have been mysteriously "committing suicide" for six years ("shot himself in the back of the head six times, very tragic" as they might say on Radio Yerevan lol). Surveillance cameras are omnipresent, and (literally) always watching you when you're in public. When you're at home, a police officer can enter your home and kill you for basically any reason with no consequences except perhaps—in the most egregious cases—a public trial (always resulting in acquittal, as juries are extensively vetted to ensure they contain only police sympathisers). Every American prison is essentially a labour camp—with a variety of types of forced labour—and the majority of inmates at any one time have probably not been convicted of any crime and are simply there because they couldn't afford bail (protection money). Every person of colour I know in the USA lives in constant fear of the police.

- The USA has some of the worst health outcomes among developed countries, but this is averaging together the two "classes". White people with money have some of the best healthcare in the world. Everyone else essentially lives in a third-world country: for example black mothers are extremely likely to die in childbirth due to medical neglect, doctors who attended USA medical schools were likely taught that black people feel less pain than white people (this teaching only ended recently), and the average lifespan in poor communities and communities of colour is 10-12 years shorter than in wealthy ones. Again, all of this is completely intentional, not a "mistake"; this is fundamental to how and why the USA was founded.

I don't see the point of addressing the idea of a "shameless cult of personality" given that the capital of the USA is literally named Washington and the faces of several US presidents are carved into a mountain. Only the Soviet Union can really compare, and they at least would delete various past leaders from the cult of personality when tastes changed, whereas in the USA the "Founders" are still revered to an absurd degree. (if I were more religious, I might say blasphemous.) Similarly, the state & corporate-run newspapers, radio and TV stations constantly and relentlessly run propaganda against whatever the current enemy of the USA is—socialist countries, Iran, Syria, China, etc. But I can't really think of any countries where things are different. Go to India and you'll see anti-Pakistan propaganda, go to China and it's anti-American, etc. Propaganda, like death and taxes, is inescapable & one just has to stay aware of it; I don't watch CNN for accurate information on the US government just as I don't watch PressTV for accurate information on the Iranian government.

I also note that polling in Romania has pretty consistently shown that, despite all the downsides of living in essentially a USSR puppet state with enforced austerity, a plurality of respondents think their lives were better under socialism. (See https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/communist-nostalgia-in-romania/—a capitalist propaganda source—or https://www.liberationnews.org/romania-30-years/—a socialist propaganda source—take your pick)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on February 24, 2020, 02:39:07 PM

     Facebook Probed Suspicious Pro-Bernie Sanders Content on Platform: WSJ (https://www.thedailybeast.com/facebook-probed-suspicious-pro-bernie-sanders-content-on-platform-wsj-reports?ref=home)

Facebook probed suspicious content supporting 2020 presidential contender Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), but the social network was unable to determine whether pro-Trump or Russian actors took part in the coordinated inauthentic behavior.

     or.....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on February 24, 2020, 02:42:27 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2020, 11:35:40 AMBTW I know thus because I know Venezuelans and their relatives who live here in Florida.
I also know some Serbs and their relatives who live in Russia, who assure me that any allegations of "war crimes" or "genocide" during the Yugoslav wars are patently false—for example, my good friend Marko Milošević.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 24, 2020, 03:23:11 PM
Quote from: Florestan on February 24, 2020, 12:26:39 PM
I see. Time and again, the racist past of the USA haunts their present. Will there ever come a time when the wounds will be completely healed?

Judging by this presidency, and its enormous base of White Grievance support: Never.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 24, 2020, 03:23:48 PM
Cannot Bernie learn to cool it?

https://www.vox.com/2020/2/24/21147388/bernie-sanders-cuba-60-minutes-nicaragua
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 24, 2020, 03:47:35 PM
Quote from: amw on February 24, 2020, 02:31:04 PM
If you think life isn't still like this in the USA for people of the "wrong colour" you are either misinformed or have a serious empathy deficit. There are admittedly some small differences:

- economy completely run by multinational billion-dollar corporations rather than the state

- one-party state, but "it has two of them" (- Julius Nyerere) (and in many states, there is effectively only one party e.g. in New York State the state government is indistinguishable from the state Democratic Party, which controls all political activity; the same is true in e.g. Mississippi or Tennessee with the state Republican Party)

- police operate in the open, not in secret

America is a great place to live if you are white and have money. But some examples of what life is like if you are not:

- The states with the largest black populations—especially Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina—impose generational extreme poverty that is almost impossible to escape and resembles situations in the third world (according to a UN report a couple of years ago, which made minimal if any impact on the state/corporate-run media in the USA). Lack of adequate sanitation and clean water have led to the resurgence of diseases like hookworm. Power companies target these areas first for scheduled outages. Pig farms and other local industries—usually owned by multinational agricultural companies—dump effluent into the water supply, while keeping workers' wages low enough that they cannot afford to install, e.g., septic tanks. This is not an aberration or mistake; it is completely intentional and in the service of a system of apartheid.

- Even outside the deep south, in virtually every neighbourhood that is majority black or hispanic, there are few or no grocery stores—and the ones that do exist price their goods out of range for the inhabitants. As a result, people have to primarily shop at dollar stores. This creates artificial but chronic shortages of various foods and goods. Some states are trying to take action to ban dollar stores from majority-minority neighbourhoods—notably Oklahoma—simply because access to even that limited selection of consumer goods is deemed too generous.

- Minority neighbourhoods in every city, and majority-minority towns throughout the USA, are policed and surveilled to a similar degree to that experienced in e.g. socialist Romania or Democratic Kampuchea. Go to any such neighbourhood and you will see armed police officers on every street corner—officers who, if they so choose, can kill you or make you "disappear" into prison for years before you face trial for whatever charges the officer invents. Political protests or strikes are met with tanks, helicopters and armoured vehicles, alongside heavily armed police officers with police dogs and so on. And the repression continues even after the protest is broken up; in Ferguson, MO (for example) the leaders of the Black Lives Matter protests of 2014 have been mysteriously "committing suicide" for six years ("shot himself in the back of the head six times, very tragic" as they might say on Radio Yerevan lol). Surveillance cameras are omnipresent, and (literally) always watching you when you're in public. When you're at home, a police officer can enter your home and kill you for basically any reason with no consequences except perhaps—in the most egregious cases—a public trial (always resulting in acquittal, as juries are extensively vetted to ensure they contain only police sympathisers). Every American prison is essentially a labour camp—with a variety of types of forced labour—and the majority of inmates at any one time have probably not been convicted of any crime and are simply there because they couldn't afford bail (protection money). Every person of colour I know in the USA lives in constant fear of the police.

- The USA has some of the worst health outcomes among developed countries, but this is averaging together the two "classes". White people with money have some of the best healthcare in the world. Everyone else essentially lives in a third-world country: for example black mothers are extremely likely to die in childbirth due to medical neglect, doctors who attended USA medical schools were likely taught that black people feel less pain than white people (this teaching only ended recently), and the average lifespan in poor communities and communities of colour is 10-12 years shorter than in wealthy ones. Again, all of this is completely intentional, not a "mistake"; this is fundamental to how and why the USA was founded.

I don't see the point of addressing the idea of a "shameless cult of personality" given that the capital of the USA is literally named Washington and the faces of several US presidents are carved into a mountain. Only the Soviet Union can really compare, and they at least would delete various past leaders from the cult of personality when tastes changed, whereas in the USA the "Founders" are still revered to an absurd degree. (if I were more religious, I might say blasphemous.) Similarly, the state & corporate-run newspapers, radio and TV stations constantly and relentlessly run propaganda against whatever the current enemy of the USA is—socialist countries, Iran, Syria, China, etc. But I can't really think of any countries where things are different. Go to India and you'll see anti-Pakistan propaganda, go to China and it's anti-American, etc. Propaganda, like death and taxes, is inescapable & one just has to stay aware of it; I don't watch CNN for accurate information on the US government just as I don't watch PressTV for accurate information on the Iranian government.

I also note that polling in Romania has pretty consistently shown that, despite all the downsides of living in essentially a USSR puppet state with enforced austerity, a plurality of respondents think their lives were better under socialism. (See https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/communist-nostalgia-in-romania/—a capitalist propaganda source—or https://www.liberationnews.org/romania-30-years/—a socialist propaganda source—take your pick)

Your description matches China rather well.
It is rather ironic that a Maoist complains about cult of personality.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 24, 2020, 03:49:57 PM
Quote from: amw on February 24, 2020, 02:42:27 PM
I also know some Serbs and their relatives who live in Russia, who assure me that any allegations of "war crimes" or "genocide" during the Yugoslav wars are patently false—for example, my good friend Marko Milošević.

You actually understand less about the world than 71db.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 24, 2020, 03:57:13 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 24, 2020, 12:33:52 PM
I know less about Venezuela than the US. As I said, Venezuela has made a lot of mistakes thinking oil will pay for everything, but that doesn't take away the fact US sanctions have hurt Venezuela even more and without those santions they would be better off.
Wrong. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying or a fool.The proof of this is that Venezuela's problems began from the moment Chavez took power.
Quote
Bernie wants to make buying politicians illegal. Unless the CEOs want behind the bars they stop the bribery.

He can't do that. Even if Citizens United was reversed, political contributions and advertisements from individuals are protected by the First Amendment.

You really need to learn how we do things here if you want to actually learn about politics.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on February 24, 2020, 03:57:41 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2020, 03:47:35 PM
Your description matches China rather well.
China is pretty much the same if you substitute Black/Latino/Native American for Uighur/Tibetan (although the oppression is less all-pervasive; I have not seen any evidence of e.g. Tibetans facing systematic discrimination in hospitals) and Washington/Jefferson/Madison for Xi Jinping (although I don't think his face has been carved into any mountains yet). But if you don't think this is an accurate description of the USA, you lead a quite sheltered life.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 24, 2020, 03:58:06 PM
Bernie DOMINATING In The Rust Belt

https://www.youtube.com/v/ghDpIrbKtdw
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 24, 2020, 04:04:22 PM
 
Quote from: 71 dB on February 24, 2020, 01:26:11 PM
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10715.pdf

The sanctions are fairly minimal. They are less than those imposed on Cuba or Iran, which are for some reason not in a state of total collapse despite those sanctions.
Venezuala is what it us because Chavez, Maduro, and cronies have, in the name of the People and the Bolivarian Revolution, looted the country of most its important assets.

As I just said, anyone who claims Venezuela is what it is now is either lying or a fool.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 24, 2020, 04:09:04 PM
Quote from: amw on February 24, 2020, 03:57:41 PM
China is pretty much the same if you substitute Black/Latino/Native American for Uighur/Tibetan (although the oppression is less all-pervasive; I have not seen any evidence of e.g. Tibetans facing systematic discrimination in hospitals) and Washington/Jefferson/Madison for Xi Jinping (although I don't think his face has been carved into any mountains yet). But if you don't think this is an accurate description of the USA, you lead a quite sheltered life.


Well, I work with a lot of black colleagues, and never heard any of them express the fear of being shot you claim. And they are pretty vocal about any perceived racism.

Actually you are cherry picking data points and mixing them with leftist dogma to pretend it is an accurate picture. And some of them, like claim of armed cops on every corner of ghetto neighborhoods, are not even close to reality.  You too live in an echo chamber.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on February 24, 2020, 04:19:51 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2020, 04:04:22 PM

The sanctions are fairly minimal.
https://www.dw.com/en/the-human-cost-of-the-us-sanctions-on-venezuela/a-50647399
https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/14446

Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2020, 04:09:04 PM

Well, I work with a lot of black colleagues, and never heard any of them express the fear you claim.
Consider that your workplace may not be particularly representative of black/latino/native american communities throughout USA, and also that you can't rely exclusively on anecdotal evidence. Cherry pick some of your own data points, maybe. Mine come from a pretty broad variety of sources—the UN, supranational organisations, national governments both socialist and anti-socialist, newspapers, socialist historians, non-socialist historians, activist organisations, NGOs. I don't watch youtube videos.

I could argue with equal accuracy that Florestan's list of the problems of socialist Romania is a mix of cherry picked data points with rightist dogma. (And I do live in an echo chamber of pro-american propaganda, but so do you, & most other people who live in the USA/UK/Australia/New Zealand, really.)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 24, 2020, 04:27:38 PM
Quote from: amw on February 24, 2020, 04:19:51 PM
https://www.dw.com/en/the-human-cost-of-the-us-sanctions-on-venezuela/a-50647399
https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/14446
Consider that your workplace may not be particularly representative of black/latino/native american communities throughout USA, and also that you can't rely exclusively on anecdotal evidence. Cherry pick some of your own data points, maybe. Mine come from a pretty broad variety of sources—the UN, supranational organisations, national governments both socialist and anti-socialist, newspapers, socialist historians, non-socialist historians, activist organisations, NGOs. I don't watch youtube videos.

I could argue with equal accuracy that Florestan's list of the problems of socialist Romania is a mix of cherry picked data points with rightist dogma. (And I do live in an echo chamber of pro-american propaganda, but so do you, & most other people who live in the USA/UK/Australia/New Zealand, really.)

The point is that you are simply channeling leftist propaganda. The DW is completely misleading because it ignores the years of looting by the regime and its cronies. As I said, anyone who blames the current state of Venezuela on sanctions is either lying or a fool.   Decide for yourself which one fits yourself.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 24, 2020, 04:31:34 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2020, 04:04:22 PM

The sanctions are fairly minimal. They are less than those imposed on Cuba or Iran, which are for some reason not in a state of total collapse despite those sanctions.
Venezuala is what it us because Chavez, Maduro, and cronies have, in the name of the People and the Bolivarian Revolution, looted the country of most its important assets.

As I just said, anyone who claims Venezuela is what it is now is either lying or a fool.

You are something, aren't you? The sanctions are fairly minimal? Oh, good! I believe the people of Venezuela might disagree, but maybe they understand as little as I do? I didn't say the problems in Venezuela are 100 % caused by US sanctions, but the sanctions defenitely make things even worse and what the US wants from Venezuela is cheap oil. John Bolton even said it out loud.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on February 24, 2020, 04:33:23 PM
Scarpia has me blocked (with good reason) and I can't send him a private message, so I'll do it on this thread with hopes he'll read it:

QuoteHey Scarpia,

I just wanted to apologize for my ad hominem attack on you last night. It was completely uncalled for and, yes, you were being respectful with your response to my post. I hope this doesn't tarnish things between us. I'm sorry.

Take care,



John
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on February 24, 2020, 04:33:40 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2020, 04:27:38 PM
The DW is completely misleading because it ignores the years of looting by the regime and its cronies.
For which you don't seem to be supplying a source because the top Google results claiming that widespread corruption was harming Venezeula's economy before 2015 are the Cato Institute and Freedom House? Or is this not something you've bothered to look up yourself, and are just repeating what you heard on CNN?

(For the record, a Google Scholar search on the terms "venezuela corruption" mostly turns up either articles from before 1998, when Chávez took power, or from after 2015, when the US's current economic and political war on Venezuela began. The exceptions are articles that come directly from people who held leadership positions in Venezuela's government and economy prior to Chávez's election, and therefore are hard to take at face value.)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 24, 2020, 04:45:58 PM
Quote from: amw on February 24, 2020, 04:33:40 PM
For which you don't seem to be supplying a source because the top Google results claiming that widespread corruption was harming Venezeula's economy before 2017 are the Cato Institute and Freedom House? Or is this not something you've bothered to look up yourself, and are just repeating what you heard on CNN?

I'm assuming you have no real knowledge of Venezuela if you think Chavez was not tanking hus country's economy for over a decade in the name of the People.

Anyway, here' a Wikipedia article that stretches its narrative all the way back to Bolivar.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Venezuela
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on February 24, 2020, 05:15:25 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2020, 04:45:58 PM
Anyway, here' a Wikipedia article that stretches its narrative all the way back to Bolivar.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Venezuela
I note that this article doesn't show any evidence that corruption caused the economic collapse the country has gone thru since 2015, and also that sources like the US Department of the Treasury & Department of Homeland Security, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post have built-in biases that must be accounted for. Some of the claims in the article come from inherently unreliable sources (e.g. Gustavo Coronel, Stratfor). Other claims depend on one's political affiliation (i.e. whether one thinks the FARC and Hezbollah are legitimate political organisations or terrorist groups). Finally there are claims that are sufficiently widely sourced as to probably be accurate.

This is not to say whether and to what extent corruption was a factor in its economic decline after the US imposed sanctions in 2015—to answer that question, I would likely have to learn Spanish, travel to Venezuela and do a good deal of on-the-ground research. I'm just commenting on how sites like Wikipedia use sources that present unreliable or untrue information (eg Cato Institute, US Treasury Dept), alongside sources that present likely-true information in a biased way (eg Washington Post, Foreign Policy), alongside mostly accurate sources (eg Reuters), to build up the false impression of an overwhelming consensus around a certain political view—namely that Chavez and Maduro were "looting the country's wealth" in sufficient quantities as to cause economic collapse. The fact that that economic collapse happened to coincide with US economic warfare is written out of the article altogether. (I note that the Wikipedia article does not contain a single mention of US sanctions against Venezuela.)

So if you're accusing me of media illiteracy while you take Wikipedia articles completely at face value, consider........ not doing that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 24, 2020, 05:28:30 PM
Meantime, I went poking about the Web a bit. Since Denmark is cited as Bernie's ideal, I checked on the Danish approach to affordable housing and housing for the poor. It seems to be close to what we already have here in the US, with public housing and subsidized rents. The main innovation seems to be social housing. If I understand it correctly,  private entities using public subsidies can build an apartment building that functions like public housing, with limits on rent, etc.  But it's not much different from the US now.

Bernie's proposal would be aimed at private housing stock, both houses and apartments, using federal regulations to mandate prices and rents, and to whom, in the name of ethnic diversity, units could be sold or rented to, and mandating size and environmental factors. Some but not all of this is already done at the state and local levels, but not at the federal level. It thus is much more intrusive and controlling than Danish programs.

So in this aspect at least Bernie is not following the Danish model.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 24, 2020, 05:29:54 PM
Quote from: amw on February 24, 2020, 05:15:25 PM
I note that this article doesn't show any evidence that corruption caused the economic collapse the country has gone thru since 2015, and also that sources like the US Department of the Treasury & Department of Homeland Security, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post have built-in biases that must be accounted for. Some of the claims in the article come from inherently unreliable sources (e.g. Gustavo Coronel, Stratfor). Other claims depend on one's political affiliation (i.e. whether one thinks the FARC and Hezbollah are legitimate political organisations or terrorist groups). Finally there are claims that are sufficiently widely sourced as to probably be accurate.

This is not to say whether and to what extent corruption was a factor in its economic decline after the US imposed sanctions in 2015—to answer that question, I would likely have to learn Spanish, travel to Venezuela and do a good deal of on-the-ground research. I'm just commenting on how sites like Wikipedia use sources that present unreliable or untrue information (eg Cato Institute, US Treasury Dept), alongside sources that present likely-true information in a biased way (eg Washington Post, Foreign Policy), alongside mostly accurate sources (eg Reuters), to build up the false impression of an overwhelming consensus around a certain political view—namely that Chavez and Maduro were "looting the country's wealth" in sufficient quantities as to cause economic collapse. The fact that that economic collapse happened to coincide with US economic warfare is written out of the article altogether. (I note that the Wikipedia article does not contain a single mention of US sanctions against Venezuela.)

So if you're accusing me of media illiteracy while you take Wikipedia articles completely at face value, consider........ not doing that.

Your argument amounts to announcing that when facts conflict with your opinions, you'll decide they are not facts.

BTW, the economic collapse started about a decade ago. That's when middle class people started to realize they needed to emigrate.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on February 24, 2020, 05:40:38 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2020, 05:29:54 PM
Your argument amounts to announcing that when facts conflict with your opinions, you'll decide they are not facts.
Seems like you're the one confusing facts with opinions here if you think everything written in the Wall Street Journal or reported in a Treasury Department press release is a "fact".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 24, 2020, 05:50:41 PM
Quote from: amw on February 24, 2020, 05:40:38 PM
Seems like you're the one confusing facts with opinions here if you think everything written in the Wall Street Journal or reported in a Treasury Department press release is a "fact".

I don't make that mistake. You, however, seem to veer in the opposite direction.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on February 24, 2020, 06:06:43 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2020, 05:50:41 PM
I don't make that mistake. You, however, seem to veer in the opposite direction.
Good talk. Let's do it again sometime.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on February 24, 2020, 08:01:59 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 24, 2020, 04:33:23 PM
Scarpia has me blocked (with good reason) and I can't send him a private message, so I'll do it on this thread with hopes he'll read it:

Apology accepted, I also overreacted.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on February 24, 2020, 08:21:33 PM
Quote from: Baron Scapia on February 24, 2020, 08:01:59 PM
Apology accepted, I also overreacted.

Thank you, Scarpia. You're a good friend.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on February 24, 2020, 08:27:19 PM
I also wanted to apologize to everyone here who I acted like a jerk to and this includes the other political threads I have frequented recently. There are some views best left unexpressed and one of them is my own. I don't really have a reason to have any kind of anger or hostility towards anyone --- I've been fortunate in my life (so far). I really should continue to point the mirror on myself. I guess one reason I'm so frustrated (and this really shouldn't be the case) is I haven't found the right woman yet and it just feels like each time I may have met someone, the whole thing explodes right before me. I say this with gratitude to everyone here. I should just stick with music --- this has been the only happiness I've been able to find so far in this life.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 24, 2020, 09:55:33 PM
In my opinion: it's completely fine if you express an opinion completely opposed to my own. Please continue to do so.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on February 24, 2020, 11:05:33 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 24, 2020, 09:55:33 PM
In my opinion: it's completely fine if you express an opinion completely opposed to my own. Please continue to do so.
I agree with this, & don't consider divergent political views something that should get in the way of friendship or comradeship in other areas. Whether you are reactionaries, revisionists, ultras, left-deviationists, or merely have a slight difference of opinion with me over the 1956 Hungarian uprising, you're all OK in my view as human beings (standard exception for the half a dozen or so accounts I have on ignore).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on February 24, 2020, 11:31:17 PM
Quote from: amw on February 24, 2020, 11:05:33 PM
I agree with this, & don't consider divergent political views something that should get in the way of friendship or comradeship in other areas. Whether you are reactionaries, revisionists, ultras, left-deviationists, or merely have a slight difference of opinion with me over the 1956 Hungarian uprising, you're all OK in my view as human beings (standard exception for the half a dozen or so accounts I have on ignore).

Now you've got me wondering if that's me. :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on February 24, 2020, 11:44:27 PM
Quote from: Baron Scapia on February 24, 2020, 11:31:17 PM
Now you've got me wondering if that's me. :)
Nope. Actually the majority of them are probably not active here anymore—Sean was one, Josquin des Prez another, I can't remember if Michael Rozenzweig (sp?) was here or on another forum....

Generally you've got to make a consistent and long-term effort to be rude and disagreeable to everyone, offer as many bigoted and inflammatory statements as possible, and also have very little to say about music, in which case I will concede that yes, your human being skills need work.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 25, 2020, 02:00:25 AM
Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2020, 11:22:33 AM
BTW, is my understanding of Australia's gun laws correct? [In the comment time stamped at 2:20]

I don't know, because there's too much detail in what you say and I would have to check the laws of 8 different states and territories to be sure. We're a federal country too, you know.

Of course we have a right to self-defence. We just don't believe that that means having a gun, and as I'm sure I've pointed out before the notion that having a gun improves your self-defence  runs contrary to the actual statistics on this. Congress passed laws preventing official statistics being collected precisely because they would tend to show that gun ownership is not helpful to self-defence. That's just how fucked up the gun lobby ownership of your politicians is.

EDIT: Besides, you don't have a "right to self-defence" in the sense you put forward, you have a "right to bear arms". And the whole process by which a long of line of authority that said this wasn't an individual right got overturned is also a lengthy discussion of how first the NRA and then other institutions got infiltrated. You want to bear arms? Join a proper, well-regulated militia.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 25, 2020, 02:02:05 AM
Quote from: amw on February 24, 2020, 02:31:04 PM
America is a great place to live if you are white and have money.

Every person of colour I know in the USA lives in constant fear of the police.

How about blacks who have money? There are lots of them in Hollywood, NBA and other sports, music & entertainment industry, academia, mass media; if I recall correctly, one of them was even elected POTUS twice.

How about Indians (Asian Indians, that is) who have money? There are lots of them in IT, academia and medical professions.

Maybe you should go tell them all that the police is after them, that they live in a country specifically designed to keep them down and out and that they should find another one more open and fair to them.

Actually, how about yourself? You live in the USA, which is not even your native country, and apparently have no intention of leaving. Shall we presume you have enough money to live well?

QuoteI don't see the point of addressing the idea of a "shameless cult of personality" given that the capital of the USA is literally named Washington and the faces of several US presidents are carved into a mountain. Only the Soviet Union can really compare, and they at least would delete various past leaders from the cult of personality when tastes changed, whereas in the USA the "Founders" are still revered to an absurd degree. (if I were more religious, I might say blasphemous.) 

When was the last time all US newspapers and TV stations reported only about the most beloved son of the nation, the genius of the Carpathians Appalachians and his tremendous dedication to the welfare and happiness of the people? When was the last time a POTUS gave "priceless pieces of advice" to managers and professionals of industry, agriculture, education, healthcare, culture, mass-media, sports and whatnot? When was the last time a POTUS gave a 6-hour long speech in front of a two-thousand-party-member audience which interrupted him every 10 minutes with standing ovations, thunderous applause and shouting slogans like "Our esteem and our pride, [insert name] and USA?" When was the last time a FLOTUS who couldn't even read and write properly was acclaimed as a worldwide renowned scientist and made president of the US Academy of Science? When was the last time all US mass media praised the same FLOTUS in terms like "brave comrade of her husband", "heroic mother", "woman among women" etc? When was the last time that 8 years in the USA history were named after the then POTUS as "the [insert name] era" (in Romania there were actually 25 years)? When was the last time a POTUS allegedly receive millions of letters from the people urging him to run again and pledging their vote to him? When was the last time a POTUS was credited with being the author or inspirator of everything great, good, beauty and true in the country? When was the last time when etc.

Because that has been happening in Romania for 25 years, 24/24, 7/7. Compared to this, Mount Rushmore and the reverence for the Founding Fathers are a trifle.

Quote
I also note that polling in Romania has pretty consistently shown that, despite all the downsides of living in essentially a USSR puppet state with enforced austerity, a plurality of respondents think their lives were better under socialism. (See https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/communist-nostalgia-in-romania/—a capitalist propaganda source—or https://www.liberationnews.org/romania-30-years/—a socialist propaganda source—take your pick)

That's true but only among people aged 60 and higher, located mostly in rural or small town areas. And if you ask me, this "communist" nostalgia is less about communism per se and more about their youth. It's their being young, healthy and active they're nostalgic about. In every regime people try to live their lives as best they can and be happy. And in the 10 years between 1965 and 1975 if you just kept your mouth shut and did your job life was nowhere nearly as bad as it would increasingly become starting in 1975 (when Ceausescu visited China and North Korea and came back with the same demented ideas he encountered there) with the absolute worst after 1985.

EDIT: Btw, the socialist propaganda article is full-packed with factual errors starting from the first paragraph and looks as if taken straight from "The Spark", the official newspaper of the Romanian Communist Party.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 25, 2020, 02:03:19 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 25, 2020, 02:02:05 AM
How about blacks who have money? There are lots of them in Hollywood, NBA and other sports, music & entertainment industry, academia, mass media; if I recall correctly, one of them was even elected POTUS twice.

Very rich blacks still experience the joys of being pulled over by police for 'driving while black' and so forth. Not least because the police are inherently suspicious of a black person in a NICE car. Maybe they stole it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 25, 2020, 02:34:35 AM
Quote from: Madiel on February 25, 2020, 02:03:19 AM
Very rich blacks still experience the joys of being pulled over by police for 'driving while black' and so forth. Not least because the police are inherently suspicious of a black person in a NICE car. Maybe they stole it.

I'm very curious if this really happened to, say, Morgan Freeman, Michael Jordan, Beyonce or Barack Obama while he was a professor of law.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 25, 2020, 02:35:12 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 25, 2020, 02:34:35 AM
I'm very curious if this really happened to, say, Morgan Freeman, Michael Jordan, Beyonce or Barack Obama while he was a professor of law.

There are documented cases, yes.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 25, 2020, 02:39:06 AM
All this talk about the alleged equivalence of life in the USA with life in the former communist regimes reminded me of a joke.

An American and a Russian meet in a pub. [There are literally hundreds of jokes that start this way] After some drinking, the American says to the Russian:

- You know, USA is a free country. For instance, if I go right in the front of the White House and shout "Down with Nixon!" nothing's going to happen to me.

The Russian thinks for some time and then replies:

- You know, USSR is exactly the same. If I go right in the front of the Kremlin and shout "Down with Nixon!" nothing's going to happen to me either.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 25, 2020, 02:41:28 AM
For the curious:

Being a US Senator doesn't insulate you: https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/14/news/economy/wealthy-blacks-racial-profiling/index.html

Being the richest black man in America doesn't insulate you: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/the-stop-race-police-traffic/
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 25, 2020, 02:47:06 AM
Quote from: Madiel on February 25, 2020, 02:35:12 AM
There are documented cases, yes.

Quote from: Madiel on February 25, 2020, 02:41:28 AM
For the curious:

Being a US Senator doesn't insulate you: https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/14/news/economy/wealthy-blacks-racial-profiling/index.html

Being the richest black man in America doesn't insulate you: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/the-stop-race-police-traffic/

As I said before, the racist past of the USA still haunts their present.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 25, 2020, 04:08:43 AM
I'm not so interested of the type of discussion we have been witnessing here. Debating with US sanctions denialists is not much different from debating with climate change denialists or flat earthers. The fact that people need to "attack" Bernie saying his housing policies aren't Danish enough tells a lot about how good candidate Bernie is. You can't attack Bernie talking about Stop and Frisk. You can't attack Bernie on Busing. You can't attack Bernie on wine caves/billionaire donors. So what do you do? Bernie's housing policy isn't build of Lego blocks!!!  ;D

Good luck establishment stopping Bernie. If he wins* South-Carolina it's OVER. The oligarchy had a good run of about 45 years, but everything come to an end eventually. Obama was the first try to end oligarchy, but Obama turned out a corrupt centrist. Trump was the second try, but Trump turned out a pathological liar. Benie is the real deal. Americans are finally getting it right!

* Biden seems to win according to the polls, but you never know...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 25, 2020, 05:07:26 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 24, 2020, 01:26:11 PM
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10715.pdf

If you had read yoiur own link you'd have learned that 99% of those sanctions apply to specific individuals and have nothing to do with the Venezuelan economy as a whole.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 25, 2020, 05:31:34 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 25, 2020, 04:08:43 AM
I'm not so interested of the type of discussion we have been witnessing here. Debating with US sanctions denialists is not much different from debating with climate change denialists or flat earthers. The fact that people need to "attack" Bernie saying his housing policies aren't Danish enough tells a lot about how good candidate Bernie is. You can't attack Bernie talking about Stop and Frisk. You can't attack Bernie on Busing. You can't attack Bernie on wine caves/billionaire donors. So what do you do? Bernie's housing policy isn't build of Lego blocks!!!  ;D

Good luck establishment stopping Bernie. If he wins* South-Carolina it's OVER. The oligarchy had a good run of about 45 years, but everything come to an end eventually. Obama was the first try to end oligarchy, but Obama turned out a corrupt centrist. Trump was the second try, but Trump turned out a pathological liar. Benie is the real deal. Americans are finally getting it right!

* Biden seems to win according to the polls, but you never know...

If you had actually read my comment, you would have observed that I said Denmark's housing policies seem very much like what we have now in the US, and that Bernie's proposal goes much further in terms of federal control of housing. So Denmark is not his model.

And if sanctions are the true cause of Venezuela's problems, why haven't they tanked the economies of Iran and Cuba...especially since the sanctions on those countries are greater and have been in effect for longer (decades, in the case of Cuba).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 25, 2020, 07:03:55 AM
Quote from: JBS on February 25, 2020, 05:31:34 AM
If you had actually read my comment, you would have observed that I said Denmark's housing policies seem very much like what we have now in the US, and that Bernie's proposal goes much further in terms of federal control of housing. So Denmark is not his model.

The idea is not to make the US identical to Denmark. Nobody has said Denmark has the BEST models on everything from healthcare to housing. Good perhaps? Great perhaps? Maybe Denmark's housing policy isn't that great? I don't know. Denmark is just one example of a social democratic country which even with it's problems does many things better than the US.

Quote from: JBS on February 25, 2020, 05:31:34 AMAnd if sanctions are the true cause of Venezuela's problems, why haven't they tanked the economies of Iran and Cuba...especially since the sanctions on those countries are greater and have been in effect for longer (decades, in the case of Cuba).

I never said they are. I said the sanctions make things worse and without them Venezuela would be doing better. That's the point of sanctions. What is the point of sanction which don't create pressure? The US wants cheap oil and use the sanctions for that goal.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 25, 2020, 07:06:12 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 25, 2020, 05:07:26 AM
If you had read yoiur own link you'd have learned that 99% of those sanctions apply to specific individuals and have nothing to do with the Venezuelan economy as a whole.

Those are key individuals. Applying pressure on them is effective in respect of the whole economy of Venezuela. that's why they are targeted.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 25, 2020, 08:02:37 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 25, 2020, 07:06:12 AM
Those are key individuals. Applying pressure on them is effective in respect of the whole economy of Venezuela. that's why they are targeted.

I'm sure you can explain us how denying entry in the US for, and freezing the bank accounts of, a dozen key people of the Venezuelan regime impacted the country's economy in such a dramatic manner.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on February 25, 2020, 08:17:21 AM
What got Venezuela was the collapse of the price of oil. Their economy depends heavily on oil and they borrowed a lot of money against that revenue stream. When the price collapsed they lost a huge amount of revenue and their loans went into default. Now they are not able to produce oil because of a combination of sanctions and inability to pay for production. No, U.S. sanctions didn't cause their problems but it is making it a lot harder for them to solve the problem.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 25, 2020, 09:01:37 AM
Quote from: Madiel on February 25, 2020, 02:03:19 AM
Very rich blacks still experience the joys of being pulled over by police for 'driving while black' and so forth. Not least because the police are inherently suspicious of a black person in a NICE car. Maybe they stole it.
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.  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 25, 2020, 09:44:45 AM
Quote from: Baron Scapia on February 25, 2020, 08:17:21 AM
What got Venezuela was the collapse of the price of oil. Their economy depends heavily on oil and they borrowed a lot of money against that revenue stream. When the price collapsed they lost a huge amount of revenue and their loans went into default. Now they are not able to produce oil because of a combination of sanctions and inability to pay for production. No, U.S. sanctions didn't cause their problems but it is making it a lot harder for them to solve the problem.

Exactly! Your post is on point.  ;)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on February 25, 2020, 11:06:57 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 25, 2020, 09:44:45 AM
Exactly! Your post is on point.  ;)

You could say that they did the same thing as Norway, using oil revenues to support social programs, but Norway put the oil revenue in a trust fund that they draw on. They didn't go deep into debt, as Venezuela did. In Venezuela they exposed themselves to great risk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on February 25, 2020, 12:35:51 PM
Quote from: Baron Scapia on February 25, 2020, 11:06:57 AM
You could say that they did the same thing as Norway, using oil revenues to support social programs, but Norway put the oil revenue in a trust fund that they draw on. They didn't go deep into debt, as Venezuela did. In Venezuela they exposed themselves to great risk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway

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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 25, 2020, 12:46:43 PM
Quote from: André on February 25, 2020, 12:35:51 PM
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.  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on February 25, 2020, 05:38:46 PM
Quote from: greg on February 25, 2020, 09:01:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 26, 2020, 06:46:46 AM
Oof:

The debate in South Carolina was heavy on the shouting matches, flat jokes and opponent shivving, but light on winning.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 26, 2020, 06:50:10 AM
This felt worse. This felt like a genuine freakout.


The Democratic Party devours Itself (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/26/opinion/democratic-debate-south-carolina.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 07:03:45 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 25, 2020, 12:46:43 PM
The (in)famous quote should be modified accordingly: the problem with "socialism" is that you eventually run out of your own money.  ;D

The problem with capitalism is eventually 10 billionaires have all the wealth...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 07:07:14 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 26, 2020, 06:46:46 AM
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.  :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: BasilValentine on February 26, 2020, 07:38:47 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 26, 2020, 06:46:46 AM
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.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 26, 2020, 07:49:24 AM
Quote from: Madiel on February 25, 2020, 05:38:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 07:55:34 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 26, 2020, 06:50:10 AM
This felt worse. This felt like a genuine freakout.


The Democratic Party devours Itself (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/26/opinion/democratic-debate-south-carolina.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage)

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. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 08:07:43 AM
Quote from: BasilValentine on February 26, 2020, 07:38:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 26, 2020, 08:10:27 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 07:55:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 26, 2020, 09:30:24 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 07:55:34 AM

All the customary rubbish of his impenetrable feedback loop.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 26, 2020, 09:31:10 AM
FWIW, vox.com lists Trump as one of four winners of the debate.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on February 26, 2020, 09:58:18 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 07:03:45 AM
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?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on February 26, 2020, 10:09:39 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 26, 2020, 09:58:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on February 26, 2020, 10:19:13 AM
Quote from: Baron Scapia on February 26, 2020, 10:09:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 10:26:49 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 26, 2020, 09:58:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 10:28:51 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 26, 2020, 10:19:13 AM
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?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on February 26, 2020, 10:43:42 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 10:26:49 AM
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?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 26, 2020, 10:46:18 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 10:28:51 AM
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. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 11:10:31 AM
Quote from: JBS on February 26, 2020, 10:46:18 AM
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.

According to a soundbite?? Corporate soundbite perhaps?? All the studies tell MfA saves money. The richest people would be paying more, other less.

Quote from: JBS on February 26, 2020, 10:46:18 AMAnd 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.

Well, "federal control" (tax money funded social programs) is the way to go with some issues. That's the whole point of social democracy. It's the incentives as I have said a million times, but your nutbrain head just doesn't get it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 11:11:12 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 26, 2020, 10:43:42 AM
So you don't work?

None of your business!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 11:13:37 AM
Even Fox News Thinks MSNBC's Anti-Bernie Hysteria is Ridiculous

https://www.youtube.com/v/9PKocgKjsPU
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 26, 2020, 11:21:17 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 11:10:31 AM
According to a soundbite?? Corporate soundbite perhaps?? All the studies tell MfA saves money. The richest people would be paying more, other less.

Well, "federal control" (tax money funded social programs) is the way to go with some issues. That's the whole point of social democracy. It's the incentives as I have said a million times, but your nutbrain head just doesn't get it.

Did  I just not mention MfA is just part of Bernie's agenda. He has a whole list of proposals that are even worse.  The total adds up to almost $100 trillion, according to that soundbite.

Federal control does not mean spending money. Federal control means regulations that  say what can and can not be done. In other words, bureaucrats telling everyone what they can not do or what they must do. And Bernie wants to do it on all issues, not just some issues.Does the Finnish government tell people who they can or cannot sell or rent homes/apartments to, and at what price or rent amount? Or even better, tell them whom they must sell/rent to?  Bernie wants that in the US: it's the essence of his housing program. It qualifies as socialism, but I wouldn't call it democratic.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: BasilValentine on February 26, 2020, 12:01:50 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 26, 2020, 09:58:18 AM
To be fair, poor people don't run successful businesses and create jobs, the wealthy do. Do you have a job, 71 dB?

You haven't really thought this through. Lots of people who start businesses do so while they're poor. That's how — and why —they get rich (Duh!). NPR runs a weekly segment called "How I Built This" interviewing formerly poor people who now run billion dollar firms — or who have cashed out of them. For those who don't have fathers willing to give them $400,000,000 dollars in seed money through elaborate tax fraud schemes (the Trump's), being saddled with enormous student loan debt, for example, can stifle creative poor people who want to become the blessed job creators you worship.   
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 26, 2020, 12:17:59 PM
Masha Geesen in the New Yorker:

WHAT BERNIE SANDERS SHOULD HAVE SAID ABOUT SOCIALISM AND TOTALITARIANISM IN CUBA
The Democratic front-runner's recent comments exposed a divide between the native-born American left and those who fled totalitarian regimes. (https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-bernie-sanders-should-have-said-about-socialism-and-totalitarianism-in-cuba)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 12:21:58 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 26, 2020, 11:21:17 AM
Did  I just not mention MfA is just part of Bernie's agenda. He has a whole list of proposals that are even worse.  The total adds up to almost $100 trillion, according to that soundbite.

Federal control does not mean spending money. Federal control means regulations that  say what can and can not be done. In other words, bureaucrats telling everyone what they can not do or what they must do. And Bernie wants to do it on all issues, not just some issues.Does the Finnish government tell people who they can or cannot sell or rent homes/apartments to, and at what price or rent amount? Or even better, tell them whom they must sell/rent to?  Bernie wants that in the US: it's the essence of his housing program. It qualifies as socialism, but I wouldn't call it democratic.

The people I follow have not talked about Bernie's housing plans so I don't know much about them, but what you say sounds right-wing fearmongering.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on February 26, 2020, 12:32:28 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 12:21:58 PM
The people I follow have not talked about Bernie's housing plans so I don't know much about them, but what you say sounds right-wing fearmongering.

And pretty much everything you say sounds like left-wing fearmongering. So we're equal!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 12:35:31 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 26, 2020, 12:32:28 PM
And pretty much everything you say sounds like left-wing fearmongering. So we're equal!

Fearmongering? This is about hope. Hope for better tomorrow.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on February 26, 2020, 12:37:01 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 11:11:12 AM
None of your business!

It's alright as Bernie will lose and you can go back to your Elgar avatar soon enough.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on February 26, 2020, 12:37:43 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 12:35:31 PM
Fearmongering? This is about hope. Hope for better tomorrow.

Said the Socialist.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: BasilValentine on February 26, 2020, 12:51:23 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 26, 2020, 12:17:59 PM
Masha Geesen in the New Yorker:

WHAT BERNIE SANDERS SHOULD HAVE SAID ABOUT SOCIALISM AND TOTALITARIANISM IN CUBA
The Democratic front-runner's recent comments exposed a divide between the native-born American left and those who fled totalitarian regimes. (https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-bernie-sanders-should-have-said-about-socialism-and-totalitarianism-in-cuba)

Thanks for that. Masha Gessen is brilliant and should be on Bernie's reading list.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 01:11:54 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 26, 2020, 12:37:01 PM
It's alright as Bernie will lose and you can go back to your Elgar avatar soon enough.

I'm planning to go back to the Elgar avatar regardless of the election result.

Bernie got the most votes on the three first states and is getting closer to Biden in SC polls and you look at that and go "Bernie is losing!"  ;D We don't know for sure who wins the election, but at the moment it certainly doesn't look like Bernie is losing for sure, is it? As I explained earlier, moderate voters are different from establishment and you are totally brainwashed by the establishment.

Quote from: Mirror Image on February 26, 2020, 12:37:43 PM
Said the Socialist.

I don't call myself a socialist (On left-right axis I'm a social democrat who votes for the Finnish Green Party), but even if I was so what?


Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on February 26, 2020, 01:20:50 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 01:11:54 PM
I'm planning to go back to the Elgar avatar regardless of the election result.

I don't call myself a socialist (On left-right axis I'm a social democrat who votes for the Finnish Green Party), but even if I was so what?

Bernie Sanders being your avatar tells me everything I need to know about you and your political leanings and I think it's moronic how you're so worried about American politics, because they don't affect you one iota nor do they concern you. Again, as I've said before, you really need to stick to music.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 01:31:39 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 26, 2020, 01:20:50 PM
Bernie Sanders being your avatar tells me everything I need to know about you and your political leanings and I think it's moronic how you're so worried about American politics, because they don't affect you one iota nor do they concern you. Again, as I've said before, you really need to stick to music.

American politics does affect me alot, because the US is THE superpower in the World so that it's actions affect the damn whole World! Even if it didn't, I find american politics interesting and it's not your business whether I follow it or not.

I don't hide my political leanings. Social democracy is the most successul political agenda in the World so I can be proud of being part of it. Maybe it's you who should stick to music as you are clearly triggered by Bernie's successful campaign.  0:)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on February 26, 2020, 01:36:48 PM
Quote from: BasilValentine on February 26, 2020, 12:01:50 PM
You haven't really thought this through. Lots of people who start businesses do so while they're poor. That's how — and why —they get rich (Duh!). NPR runs a weekly segment called "How I Built This" interviewing formerly poor people who now run billion dollar firms — or who have cashed out of them. For those who don't have fathers willing to give them $400,000,000 dollars in seed money through elaborate tax fraud schemes (the Trump's), being saddled with enormous student loan debt, for example, can stifle creative poor people who want to become the blessed job creators you worship.

Quite so, the current tax and regulatory structure benefits entrenched, large firms and creates hurdles for startups, small firms and people who are starting out. Economic dynamism has decreased across the U.S. since the early 1990s, as tax on corporations and high incomes have been dramatically reduced. The tax cuts enacted during the last three years were supposed to spur business investment, instead it seems to have simply benefited near monopoly firms and given them more power to suppress competition.

https://ig.ft.com/us-economic-dynamism/
https://hbr.org/2018/03/is-lack-of-competition-strangling-the-u-s-economy

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on February 26, 2020, 02:30:28 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 01:31:39 PM
American politics does affect me alot, because the US is THE superpower in the World so that it's actions affect the damn whole World! Even if it didn't, I find american politics interesting and it's not your business whether I follow it or not.

I don't hide my political leanings. Social democracy is the most successul political agenda in the World so I can be proud of being part of it. Maybe it's you who should stick to music as you are clearly triggered by Bernie's successful campaign.  0:)

Bernie's successful campaign? Social democracy? Give me a break. ::) There's nothing wrong with taking an interest in American politics, but the fact that you've become possessed by it to where it's your sole contribution to this forum makes me think that you're not doing too well mentally.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 03:02:52 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 26, 2020, 02:30:28 PM
Bernie's successful campaign? Social democracy? Give me a break. ::) There's nothing wrong with taking an interest in American politics, but the fact that you've become possessed by it to where it's your sole contribution to this forum makes me think that you're not doing too well mentally.

Perhaps I wouldn't need to post so much about US politics if people here weren't so ignorant. Bernie's campaign has been very successful. So has social democracy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on February 26, 2020, 03:48:52 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 03:02:52 PM
Perhaps I wouldn't need to post so much about US politics if people here weren't so ignorant. Bernie's campaign has been very successful. So has social democracy.

Yeah, we're all ignorant and you're only intelligent person posting. Gotcha! ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 04:23:29 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 26, 2020, 03:48:52 PM
Yeah, we're all ignorant and you're only intelligent person posting. Gotcha! ::)

Not all members here write ignorant stuff (about US politics), but amazingly many do. I am surprised how many here doesn't seem to understand the rise of populist left in the US and how regular people are totally ready and even demanding changes that are based on lefty ideology.

I don't know everything and I am willing to learn more when the facts prove me wrong I admit it. I am arrogant because people here have horrible attitude (foreigners can't know US politics/lefty youtubers lie etc. nonsense).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 26, 2020, 05:16:47 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 12:21:58 PM
The people I follow have not talked about Bernie's housing plans so I don't know much about them, but what you say sounds right-wing fearmongering.

Why don't you know about them? I mean given that he seems to be your every waking thought? I'd expect you to know his every position backwards by now and be able to quote his own words on any issue verbatim.

Is it that you don't get your information on Sanders from Sanders own writing or directly from his own campaign but exclusively from what your Youtubers happen to feel like commenting on? How many other gaps are there in their commentary, do you suppose? Perhaps Sanders has a number of polices you'd disagree with that you're not being made aware of. Read his own writings and see if it really is consistent with Kyle's "reporting".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 26, 2020, 07:01:07 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 12:21:58 PM
The people I follow have not talked about Bernie's housing plans so I don't know much about them, but what you say sounds right-wing fearmongering.

Actually I got my information about his plans from his own website.  I just read them, and noticed what his campaign's description said.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 26, 2020, 07:08:29 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 12:21:58 PM
The people I follow have not talked about Bernie's housing plans so I don't know much about them


An intelligent free-thinker would have perceived by now the shortcomings of relying on biased second-hand sources.

But not you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 26, 2020, 07:10:03 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 04:23:29 PM
Not all members here write ignorant stuff (about US politics), but amazingly many do. I am surprised how many here doesn't seem to understand the rise of populist left in the US and how regular people are totally ready and even demanding changes that are based on lefty ideology.

I don't know everything and I am willing to learn more when the facts prove me wrong I admit it. I am arrogant because people here have horrible attitude (foreigners can't know US politics/lefty youtubers lie etc. nonsense).

Actually close to 40% of Americans are demanding changes that are based on rightwing ideologies. They are the ones who support Trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: BasilValentine on February 26, 2020, 07:20:24 PM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on February 26, 2020, 01:36:48 PM
Quite so, the current tax and regulatory structure benefits entrenched, large firms and creates hurdles for startups, small firms and people who are starting out. Economic dynamism has decreased across the U.S. since the early 1990s, as tax on corporations and high incomes have been dramatically reduced. The tax cuts enacted during the last three years were supposed to spur business investment, instead it seems to have simply benefited near monopoly firms and given them more power to suppress competition.

https://ig.ft.com/us-economic-dynamism/
https://hbr.org/2018/03/is-lack-of-competition-strangling-the-u-s-economy

Well yeah, the supply side, trickle down nonsense is laughable of course. Economic stimulus and dynamism would be more effectively furthered by simply dropping loads of cash from airplanes. And the process would be way more festive.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 10:23:31 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 26, 2020, 05:16:47 PM
Why don't you know about them?

I know Bernie tries to fix things, get a roof over the heads of people living in the streets, but I don't know the details I admit.

Bernie's pages say this:

Homelessness: We must increase affordable housing and work to reduce homelessness, especially among veterans.

Bernie has released a detailed plan The Right to a Secure Retirement to protect and expand Social Security, protect Pensions, Expand the Older Americans Act, and so much more. He has also released a Housing for All plan that would make it a fundamental right to have a safe, decent, accessible, and affordable home.


https://berniesanders.com/issues/housing-all/
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 10:24:51 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 26, 2020, 07:08:29 PM

An intelligent free-thinker would have perceived by now the shortcomings of relying on biased second-hand sources.

But not you.

At least I am not as dumb as you relying on corporate media.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 10:27:00 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 26, 2020, 07:10:03 PM
Actually close to 40% of Americans are demanding changes that are based on rightwing ideologies. They are the ones who support Trump.

It's not that simple. Some people voted for Trump because he campaigned more left than Hillary. Supporting the wall doesn't mean you oppose higher minimum wage. The reason you support the wall is the brown people keep wages low for you. That's whu many WOULD HAVE voted for Bernie in 2016. People are right-wing socially, not economically. They struggle economically. They need healthcare too.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 26, 2020, 11:46:07 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 10:23:31 PM

Bernie's pages say this:



Bernie has released a detailed plan .



And you haven't read that "plan", have you?

You sound like one of those Christian zealots who hasn't read the Bible. The details would just get in the way. Better to just project onto it your preconceived notions.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on February 27, 2020, 12:27:50 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 26, 2020, 09:58:18 AM
To be fair, poor people don't run successful businesses and create jobs, the wealthy do.

That's a rather naive idea.
Many of the  very wealthy have gotten their billions by downsizing labor and outsourcing, chopping up and slashing companies.
Of course your president used to have a reputation of hiring undocumented workers and stiffing them on their pay, by threatening to call in the cops to check their papers.
In addition I suggest we tone down the discussion a bit, partly by getting used to the possibility that B. Sanders (I / D) is going to be the Dem nominee. That's a lot better than Uncle Joe.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 27, 2020, 01:36:14 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 26, 2020, 11:46:07 PM
And you haven't read that "plan", have you?

You sound like one of those Christian zealots who hasn't read the Bible. The details would just get in the way. Better to just project onto it your preconceived notions.

Well have you? I have never claimed to be an expert of Bernie's housing plan. I said I don't know the details. Bernie has TONS of detailed policy proposals and knowing it all would take a lot of studying. I trust his proposals are good, superior to other candidates because he is the true progressive.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 27, 2020, 01:41:58 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 26, 2020, 09:58:18 AM
To be fair, poor people don't run successful businesses and create jobs, the wealthy do.

60 % of the wealth in the US is inherited. It's much easier to create jobs if you inherit a couple of millions compared to nothing.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on February 27, 2020, 01:51:25 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 26, 2020, 01:20:50 PM
Bernie Sanders being your avatar tells me everything I need to know about you and your political leanings and I think it's moronic how you're so worried about American politics, because they don't affect you one iota nor do they concern you. Again, as I've said before, you really need to stick to music.

Personally, I'm never happy with words like 'moronic'.

Quote from: Dungeon Master on February 13, 2019, 10:22:48 AM
I have no intention of banning the discussion of politics on this forum. It is a legitimate areas of discussion. It is not illegal and does not contravene the rules of the forum (or civilised countries) in any way, so they will stay.

Please discuss politics. Argue politics. Robustly. They deserve to be discussed and argued. But do NOT use the excuse of politics to attack any other member of the forum. You can say "I disagree with your political views". You cannot say "You are an idiot because of your political views". Simple, isn't it?

[...]

Besides that, if 'reasoning' like this becomes the normal way to argue about whatever here, then why do you yourself bovver about anything at all?
He's Finnish, you're not. Why bovver?
He's bovvered about the USA, you can't be bovvered by his bovvering. Again: why bovver?

He likes Elgar, you like Debussy. So?
He's changed his avatar maybe 2 or 3 times the last 12 years, you about 1.947 times. What does that say about anyone? anyhow? And why bovver?

My advice at least would be: be happy that people from allied (and other) countries bovver about what happens in yours. You don't have to agree with their opinions, but at least they are bovvered and they show some interest. And what the USA does or does not has got great impact on their allies. So yes, we're interested and we care.

Personally, I might find the 'crawl back within one's 'own' borders' mentality more worrying. It just won't work anymore, whether we like it or not. The world has become a village in the last 100 to 150 years. This forum actually being one of the many proofs of that. You might as well get used to it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 27, 2020, 02:17:47 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 12:21:58 PM
The people I follow have not talked about Bernie's housing plans so I don't know much about them

In other words, you openly acknowledge that you know about Bernie and his policies only what the people you follow tell you and that you don't know much about things the people you follow tell you nothing about. You did not even bother to read Bernie's own site until challenged by JBS. Your whole information is taken from a biased, cherry-picking, second-hand source. And yet you lose no opportunity to boast of your vast knowledge about, and understanding of, US politics and to trash everuone who disagrees with you. If that's free thinking then I'm Pope Francis.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on February 27, 2020, 02:33:48 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 27, 2020, 02:17:47 AM
[...] If that's free thinking then I'm Pope Francis.

I always thought you were.

The Vatican has long arms.
(I read that somewhere. Forgot the details.)

:laugh:
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 27, 2020, 02:47:13 AM
Quote from: Marc on February 27, 2020, 01:51:25 AM
be happy that people from allied (and other) countries bovver about what happens in yours. You don't have to agree with their opinions, but at least they are bovvered and they show some interest. And what the USA does or does not has got great impact on their allies. So yes, we're interested and we care.

In principle there's nothing wrong with a non-American being interested in American politics but when it becomes as obsessive, opinionated and misinformed a fixation as Poju's then something is clearly amiss.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 27, 2020, 02:47:59 AM
Quote from: Marc on February 27, 2020, 02:33:48 AM
I always thought you were.

The Vatican has long arms.
(I read that somewhere. Forgot the details.)

:laugh:

;)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on February 27, 2020, 03:00:07 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 27, 2020, 02:47:13 AM
In principle there's nothing wrong with a non-American being interested in American politics but when it becomes as obsessive, opinionated and misinformed a fixation as Poju's then something is clearly amiss.

Come on... there are plenty of members on this MUSIC forum who mainly show interest in political topics.
(And the 'moronic' references I can still do without.)

And he's quite right in some things: Sanders is doing pretty well so far (despite the fact that the 'core Democrats' are mostly all against him, no surprise, after all he's actually an Independent), and yes, social democracy has brought good things to North-West Europe. The stats of those countries (Scandinavia, Netherlands, Belgium), both in welfare and prosperity, aren't all that bad. But, since it's almost considered communism by many many (and many) USA citizens, I don't think that Sanders has got a chance to become the next POTUS. And even if he were elected, then I fear that he will have many many (and many) problems to get the bulk of his ideas through Congress.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 27, 2020, 03:18:35 AM
Quote from: Marc on February 27, 2020, 03:00:07 AM
Come on... there are plenty of members on this MUSIC forum who mainly show interest in political topics.

That's true but none of them exhibit the same degree of fixation and none of them claim to be the only knowledgeable person while all others are dupes.

Quote(And the 'moronic' references I can still do without.)

Agreed again but may I respectfully remind you that most people in this thread have been repeatedly insulted by Poju and I didn't see you intervening to rebuke him on those occasions.

Quote
And he's quite right in some things: Sanders is doing pretty well so far (despite the fact that the 'core Democrats' are mostly all against him, no surprise, after all he's actually an Independent), and yes, social democracy has brought good things to North-West Europe. The stats of those countries (Scandinavia, Netherlands, Belgium), both in welfare and prosperity, aren't all that bad.

There's no denying of any of the above.

Quote
But, since it's almost considered communism by many many (and many) USA citizens, I don't think that Sanders has got a chance to become the next POTUS. And even if he were elected, then I fear that he will have many many (and many) problems to get the bulk of his ideas through Congress.

See? Although I'm sure you don't follow the Young Turks you have a far more realistic picture of how US politics works than Poju, for all his speniding the whole day listening to Kyle Kulinsky, will ever have.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 27, 2020, 03:28:09 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 27, 2020, 02:17:47 AM
In other words, you openly acknowledge that you know about Bernie and his policies only what the people you follow tell you and that you don't know much about things the people you follow tell you nothing about. You did not even bother to read Bernie's own site until challenged by JBS. Your whole information is taken from a biased, cherry-picking, second-hand source. And yet you lose no opportunity to boast of your vast knowledge about, and understanding of, US politics and to trash everuone who disagrees with you. If that's free thinking then I'm Pope Francis.

One voter found out AFTER voting for Buttigieg in Iowa caucus he is gay and lives with a man. I think I am better informed than many americans who actually cast their vote. Do you know every detail of every policy of every candidate yourself? I doubt that. I'm sure Bernie is the non-brainer next president for the US without knowing every detail.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 27, 2020, 03:31:58 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 27, 2020, 02:47:13 AM
In principle there's nothing wrong with a non-American being interested in American politics but when it becomes as obsessive, opinionated and misinformed a fixation as Poju's then something is clearly amiss.

Are all those people in Nevada who supported Bernie to landslide victory also obsessive, opinionated and misinformed?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 27, 2020, 03:44:11 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 27, 2020, 03:18:35 AMSee? Although I'm sure you don't follow the Young Turks you have a far more realistic picture of how US politics works than Poju, for all his speniding the whole day listening to Kyle Kulinsky, will ever have.

You do understand that for the left including TYT and Kyle Kulinski getting rid of Trump is extremely important. They would NOT endorse Bernie if he had weak chances beating Trump, but to my frustration people here don't take the facts seriously, the facts that show that Bernie is actually the BEST chance of beating Trump. Polls show it. I keep telling how Bernie dominates the rust belt, but people here don't realize it. Bernie is inspiring. He gives people a reason to vote for him. He can get people to vote, increase turnout. He can get the votes of moderates and indepandents. He can even get some Trump voters (2 time Obama voters) who voted for Trump because Trump campaigned a fake progressive. To have a realistic picture of how US politics works you need to analyse the facts and not just believe Bernie haters on MSNBC.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 27, 2020, 04:56:03 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 27, 2020, 03:28:09 AM
Do you know every detail of every policy of every candidate yourself?

Actually, I couldn't care less about them, candidates and their policies alike, but I find the notion that the only hope for the USA is an octogenariian with serious heart problems preposterous. Imo what the Democrats desperately need and, in the present conditions, can't have is another JFK.

Quote from: 71 dB on February 27, 2020, 03:31:58 AM
Are all those people in Nevada who supported Bernie to landslide victory also obsessive, opinionated and misinformed?

If they think and talk only about politics all day long, if they claim to be the only knowledgeable people while all those who disagree with them are dupes and if they take their information from biased, cherry-picking, second-hand sources, then yes they are.

Quote from: 71 dB on February 27, 2020, 03:44:11 AM
Bernie is inspiring. He gives people a reason to vote for him. He can get people to vote, increase turnout. He can get the votes of moderates and indepandents. He can even get some Trump voters

Dream on!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on February 27, 2020, 05:11:42 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 27, 2020, 03:18:35 AM
[...]
Agreed again but may I respectfully remind you that most people in this thread have been repeatedly insulted by Poju and I didn't see you intervening to rebuke him on those occasions.
[...]

Andrei, I made a longer post to react on this, but apparently, due to a time-out in my connection or whatever, it did not get posted and the text disappeared.
Let's just say that I also had my minor struggles with Poju before, maybe even already on the old board. But I'm not in the spirit to type the entire message again. Apologies. Maybe later.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on February 27, 2020, 05:36:13 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 27, 2020, 04:56:03 AM
Actually, I couldn't care less about them, candidates and their policies alike, but I find the notion that the only hope for the USA is an octogenariian with serious heart problems preposterous.

Since you're fond of popes ;): think about John XXIII.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 27, 2020, 05:48:28 AM
Quote from: Marc on February 27, 2020, 05:36:13 AM
Since you're fond of popes ;): think about John XXIII.

The more I think about it, the more I fail to see any analogy between the USA and the Roman Catholic Church. Can you please be more speciific?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 27, 2020, 06:49:15 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 26, 2020, 10:23:31 PM
I know Bernie tries to fix things, get a roof over the heads of people living in the streets, but I don't know the details I admit.

Bernie's pages say this:

Homelessness: We must increase affordable housing and work to reduce homelessness, especially among veterans.

Bernie has released a detailed plan The Right to a Secure Retirement to protect and expand Social Security, protect Pensions, Expand the Older Americans Act, and so much more. He has also released a Housing for All plan that would make it a fundamental right to have a safe, decent, accessible, and affordable home.


https://berniesanders.com/issues/housing-all/

If you read the whole page you will see that Bernie's plans involve the federal government taking control of things that either have been not regulated or which have been regulated by the state and local governments. IOW, taking power away from the people and giving it to people who already have too much power,

Bernie has only one tool in his toolbox to fix problems: a government program. Which is a tool that works on only a few problems.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 27, 2020, 06:50:33 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 27, 2020, 05:48:28 AM
The more I think about it, the more I fail to see any analogy between the USA and the Roman Catholic Church. Can you please be more speciific?
The analogy is the person: John XXIII was an octogenarian with heart problems.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 27, 2020, 06:56:41 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 27, 2020, 03:44:11 AM
You do understand that for the left including TYT and Kyle Kulinski getting rid of Trump is extremely important. They would NOT endorse Bernie if he had weak chances beating Trump, but to my frustration people here don't take the facts seriously, the facts that show that Bernie is actually the BEST chance of beating Trump. Polls show it. I keep telling how Bernie dominates the rust belt, but people here don't realize it. Bernie is inspiring. He gives people a reason to vote for him. He can get people to vote, increase turnout. He can get the votes of moderates and indepandents. He can even get some Trump voters (2 time Obama voters) who voted for Trump because Trump campaigned a fake progressive. To have a realistic picture of how US politics works you need to analyse the facts and not just believe Bernie haters on MSNBC.

Bernie will inspire people to vote for Trump, and he will do so in higher numbers than any other Democratic candidate with the possible exception of Warren. Trump campaigned as the anti-progressive in 2016, so those who voted for him then are not going to switch to Bernie.

To get a realistic view of US politics, you need to listen to the Young Turks, to Fox, to the "corporate media", and treat them all with the same degree of skepticism and distrust.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 27, 2020, 06:59:35 AM
Quote from: Marc on February 27, 2020, 03:00:07 AM
Come on... there are plenty of members on this MUSIC forum who mainly show interest in political topics.
(And the 'moronic' references I can still do without.)

And he's quite right in some things: Sanders is doing pretty well so far (despite the fact that the 'core Democrats' are mostly all against him, no surprise, after all he's actually an Independent), and yes, social democracy has brought good things to North-West Europe. The stats of those countries (Scandinavia, Netherlands, Belgium), both in welfare and prosperity, aren't all that bad. But, since it's almost considered communism by many many (and many) USA citizens, I don't think that Sanders has got a chance to become the next POTUS. And even if he were elected, then I fear that he will have many many (and many) problems to get the bulk of his ideas through Congress.

Sanders's proposals seem to involve a much higher degree of federal government regulation and control than their equivalents in Europe.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 27, 2020, 07:57:42 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 27, 2020, 04:56:03 AM
Actually, I couldn't care less about them, candidates and their policies alike, but I find the notion that the only hope for the USA is an octogenariian with serious heart problems preposterous. Imo what the Democrats desperately need and, in the present conditions, can't have is another JFK.

Well then you aren't much into policies, but rather superficial aspects of the candidates such as gender, age and looks. Those things matter too, but imo 1000 times less than policies. Bernie is old, but according to his doctors in very good physical condition for someone of his age and you won't find many gaffes by Bernie, because his head is sharp. There are 100 years old people with sharp mind. Intellectually curious people stay sharp longer and Bernie is intellectually curious unlike mr Trump. Bernie's routine heart operation made him feel better than he has felt in years. He is fit to become the president according to his doctors. If you doubt his physical condition, try following him doing the campaign rallies!

Policies matter. Not doing medicare for all means thousands of american will keep dying every year just because they don't have access to basic healthcare. Not canceling the student loan debt means millions of people can't participate properly to the economy or get the education they need to improve their social-economic status. Not legalizing marihuana and ending private prisons means thousands of people gets locked behind bars just to make profit for the rich. Not addressing the corruption means the oligarchy will continue. etc.

Quote from: Florestan on February 27, 2020, 04:56:03 AMIf they think and talk only about politics all day long, if they claim to be the only knowledgeable people while all those who disagree with them are dupes and if they take their information from biased, cherry-picking, second-hand sources, then yes they are.

People have problem and they want solutions to those problems. A lot of people find the solutions offered by Bernie convincing.

Quote from: Florestan on February 27, 2020, 04:56:03 AMDream on!

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/23/politics/nevada-caucuses-takeaways/index.html

"Sanders dominated among Latinos and young voters, entrance polls showed. But he was broadly successful across demographic groups -- reaching parity with his rivals among moderate voters."

As I have said, "moderate" voters are not like the establishment. The establishment is comfortable. They are millionaires. They have healthcare no matter what. Inside their Wall Street bubble they are out of touch of the problems of regular people who needs to worry about things like healthcare. The establishment sees Bernie someone who will unrig the system they are benefitting from. Moderate Democratic voters see Bernie someone who makes a lot of sense. A moderate voter may vote for Biden or Buttigieg in the primary, but that doesn't mean they become Trumpists in the general if it's Trump vs Bernie. In fact you need Bernie to make some Trumpists to vote for the Democratic nominee. You defeat a fake populist with a real populist. Why would a Trumpist vote for Biden? He doesn't build the wall nor give healthcare (well, a minor improvement on Obamacare at best). If it's Trump vs Bernie it's the Wall vs healthcare and healthcare wins.  :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 27, 2020, 08:06:52 AM
Quote from: JBS on February 27, 2020, 06:56:41 AM
Bernie will inspire people to vote for Trump, and he will do so in higher numbers than any other Democratic candidate with the possible exception of Warren. Trump campaigned as the anti-progressive in 2016, so those who voted for him then are not going to switch to Bernie.

To get a realistic view of US politics, you need to listen to the Young Turks, to Fox, to the "corporate media", and treat them all with the same degree of skepticism and distrust.

You have your "facts" completely wrong. If DNC allows Bernie become the nominee you will learn this yourself the hard way.

The Dems tried a moderate candidate against Trump in 2016. Good luck finding a moderate who is more liked than Hillary. Obama had the kind of charisma which made him liked, but you are delusional if you think Buttigieg has Obama's charisma. Also, never fixing the core problem of oligarchy will keep people struggling and desperate meaning Trump-like authoritarian maniacs in the White House in the future.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 27, 2020, 08:11:15 AM
Quote from: JBS on February 27, 2020, 06:49:15 AM
If you read the whole page you will see that Bernie's plans involve the federal government taking control of things that either have been not regulated or which have been regulated by the state and local governments. IOW, taking power away from the people and giving it to people who already have too much power,

Bernie has only one tool in his toolbox to fix problems: a government program. Which is a tool that works on only a few problems.

Sometimes government regulation is a good thing. You want the government to regulate the cleanness of tap water. You want regulation on pollution. You want regulation on food production (Trump has made it so that now you can have feaces/genitals/eye balls in your meet. Bon Apetit!). Regulation can also help homelessness.

It's a Republican talking point to be against all regulation. It's their trick to rig the system. Bernie is NOT a Republican.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on February 27, 2020, 08:34:50 AM
Quote from: JBS on February 27, 2020, 06:50:33 AM
The analogy is the person: John XXIII was an octogenarian with heart problems.

Yep.
That's what I was referring at.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on February 27, 2020, 08:45:03 AM
Quote from: JBS on February 27, 2020, 06:59:35 AM
Sanders's proposals seem to involve a much higher degree of federal government regulation and control than their equivalents in Europe.

I can't really 'judge' about that.
But even so, I'm rather convinced that his ideas are a bridge too far for his country. Too many people won't accept it. This also goes for many democrats. And Sanders is no Trump, I think. 'Outsider' Trump changed the stubborn GOP into the Trump Party within almost a year, mainly by using his big mouth, insulting, threatening and firing the mavericks. I don't think that 'outsider' Sanders can manage such a thing with the Dems. I also don't think he's the person who would be willing to do that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 27, 2020, 08:55:36 AM
Quote from: Marc on February 27, 2020, 08:45:03 AM
I also don't think he's the person who would be willing to do that.

Good God, one hopes not.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on February 27, 2020, 09:10:10 AM
     Some voters vote for the ideology they affirm. Many vote for the person they think will produce needed change. It's not hard to see that in the analysis of voter preferences. A moderate will be the first choice, a radical the second, or vice versa. Even I am like that. I evaluate candidates like a normal person. I want to elect a candidate that will be most able, not just most willing, to make necessary changes. I find that I do what many others do, pick someone who'll get to the goal that is widely agreed to more than the person who will take the exact path to getting there.

     71 dB is correct. Among the Dems Sanders is as likely as any and more than some to draw support from former Trump voters. That doesn't make Sanders my choice, it's just an observation about one strength he has. Elsewhere I discuss his weaknesses.

Quote from: Marc on February 27, 2020, 08:45:03 AM

But even so, I'm rather convinced that his ideas are a bridge too far for his country. Too many people won't accept it.

     It's still the case that it's often the "too far" bridge that gets us where we end up. Progress is a continuous series of too far bridges, or so they seem at the outset. I observe that as a strategy asking for less than what you want is questionable as an effective means of getting what you do want. Asking for more than you'll settle for looks pretty good to me. And who knows, some too far bridges aren't too far after all.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on February 27, 2020, 09:11:43 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 27, 2020, 03:18:35 AM
[...]
Agreed again but may I respectfully remind you that most people in this thread have been repeatedly insulted by Poju and I didn't see you intervening to rebuke him on those occasions.
[...]

Quote from: Marc on February 27, 2020, 05:11:42 AM
Andrei, I made a longer post to react on this, but apparently, due to a time-out in my connection or whatever, it did not get posted and the text disappeared.
Let's just say that I also had my minor struggles with Poju before, maybe even already on the old board. But I'm not in the spirit to type the entire message again. Apologies. Maybe later.

In short: I'm just sick of the 'insane' and 'moron' and whatever name calling here.
And to me it's no excuse to say: he's doing it, so I'm allowed to do it also.
Can I always manage that myself? No. But some people don't even seem to try and start the heavy language again and again. Apparently, they all adore Trump, in a way. He would be proud of them.

I had my (short) stories of differences with Poju, and I even advised him (like Mirror Image) to stay away from the policital topics, in a different way though ;), after Poju himself had said that the language used against him made him kinda depressed and he didn't like this forum anymore. But he didn't take it well and thought I was behaving like an arrogant teacher. I tried to explain that I did not mean it like that, and decided to leave it after that.

If someone's really a pain in the ass to you on this board, then the best advice I can give is: push the ignore button, or just try to manage not to comment on his messages anymore. I admit (again :-[) that this doesn't always work with me, either.

I try not to react that much anymore on either Poju's or Todd's messages, imho they're both too much filled with complete condescension towards people who think/analyze differently. In the political spectrum I'm (much) more on Poju's side, but, if I were looking for an advisor or speech writer for Bernie Sanders, I would not phone him.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on February 27, 2020, 09:16:08 AM
Quote from: drogulus on February 27, 2020, 09:10:10 AM
     Some voters vote for the ideology they affirm. Many vote for the person they think will produce needed change. It's not hard to see that in the analysis of voter preferences. A moderate will be the first choice, a radical the second, or vice versa. Even I am like that. I evaluate candidates like a normal person. I want to elect a candidate that will be most able, not just most willing, to make necessary changes. I find that I do what many others do, pick someone who'll get to the goal that is widely agreed to more than the person who will take the exact path to getting there.

     71 dB is correct. Among the Dems Sanders is as likely as any and more than some to draw support from former Trump voters. That doesn't make Sanders my choice, it's just an observation about one strength he has. Elsewhere I discuss his weaknesses.

     It's still the case that it's often the "too far" bridge that gets us where we end up. Progress is a continuous series of too far bridges, or so they seem at the outset. I observe that as a strategy asking for less than what you want is questionable as an effective means of getting what you do want. Asking for more than you'll settle for looks pretty good to me. And who knows, some too far bridges aren't too far after all.

If I were an American citizen, I would vote for Sanders.
I only don't agree with the analysis that he will be the next POTUS.

But if I'm proven wrong, then I won't shed a tear.

I did shed a tear when I was proven right when The Donald won the election, though.
Apologies, now I'm exaggerating. I was probably still hoping that some sane GOPs would be able to advice him in a decent way. But within one or two years they're all either a regular guest on Trump's golf courses, or have left policits, or have died. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 27, 2020, 09:34:13 AM
Quote from: JBS on February 27, 2020, 06:50:33 AM
The analogy is the person: John XXIII was an octogenarian with heart problems.

Yeah but how the USA works and how the RCC works are two different things. One is a constitutional republic, the other an absolute monarchy. The level of mental and psychological stress (which more often than not translate into physical one) experienced by the POTUS is much higher than the Pope's. The probability of an octogenarian POTUS with heart problems dying in office is alos much higher than such a Pope's.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on February 27, 2020, 09:43:43 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 27, 2020, 09:34:13 AM
Yeah but how the USA works and how the RCC works are two different things. One is a constitutional republic, the other an absolute monarchy. The level of mental and psychological stress (which more often than not translate into physical one) experienced by the POTUS is much higher than the Pope's. The probability of an octogenarian POTUS with heart problems dying in office is alos much higher than such a Pope's.

John XXIII worked extremely hard though, despite health and age.
Organised the 2nd Vatican Council.
And had some hard-fought results.

(Although some of them seemed to have gone 'astray' nowadays.)

I meant to say: if a candidate represents your view or your wish for a change, just vote for him/her.
To me, age/health is less important than view or ideas.

I won't stop anyone voting for Sanders. I don't think he will win, but if he does, I will raise a glass of Dutch pilsener to him. And if he manages to get a few hard-fought results, well, kudos to him (in advance). But again, I don't think he's gonna beat Trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 27, 2020, 09:46:22 AM
There's no question that, if Bernie is the nominee, all the Democrats who turn out to vote, will vote for him.

We're just wondering who else will.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 27, 2020, 10:00:54 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 27, 2020, 09:46:22 AM
There's no question that, if Bernie is the nominee, all the Democrats who turn out to vote, will vote for him.
Waiiit.. This is the weirdest statement. Was it meant as a joke? 😁

Like "there is no question that when he turns 13 he will become a teenager" type of obvious joke.

I mean some Democrats could technically vote for Trump but would they technically become Republican?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on February 27, 2020, 10:01:33 AM
Quote from: Marc on February 27, 2020, 09:43:43 AM
John XXIII worked extremely hard though, despite health and age.
Organised the 2nd Vatican Council.
And had some hard-fought results.

(Although some of them seemed to have gone 'astray' nowadays.)

I meant to say: if a candidate represents your view or your wish for a change, just vote for him/her.
To me, age/health is less important than view or ideas.

I won't stop anyone voting for Sanders. I don't think he will win, but if he does, I will raise a glass of Dutch pilsener to him. And if he manages to get a few hard-fought results, well, kudos to him (in advance). But again, I don't think he's gonna beat Trump.

I'm not so worried about his health. He may be at the nominal life expectancy, but people who lived to his age have a life expectancy of many more years.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on February 27, 2020, 10:06:23 AM
Quote from: greg on February 27, 2020, 10:00:54 AM
Waiiit.. This is the weirdest statement. Was it meant as a joke? 😁

Like "there is no question that when he turns 13 he will become a teenager" type of obvious joke.

I mean some Democrats could technically vote for Trump but would they technically become Republican?

Waiiit... since when is Karl making jokes?

I read his entire comment in the context of the discussion about 'who will support Bernie to give him an advantage over Trump i.c. make him the next POTUS?'
(Because of his leftish ideas.)
So, first Karl kicked in an already opened door ("no question..."), but then came the real question.

Dead serious stuff, I assure you. ;)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 27, 2020, 10:14:24 AM
Ok... I get it but..

the phrasing "Democrats who turn out to vote will vote" (for the only Democrat they will be able to vote for) made me laugh a little.  >:D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on February 27, 2020, 10:22:36 AM
Quote from: greg on February 27, 2020, 10:14:24 AM
Ok... I get it but..

the phrasing "Democrats who turn out to vote will vote" (for the only Democrat they will be able to vote for) made me laugh a little.  >:D

I like to laugh. :laugh:

Of course Karl himself will give a much better 'analysis' than I did. After all, he is the composer of the phrasing.
And I'm not 100 percent sure whether my interpretation was entirely HIP (Henningly Informed Performance).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 27, 2020, 10:31:08 AM
Quote from: Marc on February 27, 2020, 09:43:43 AM
the 2nd Vatican Council.

Of which I am not a fan, honestly. Eliminating the Tridentine Mass and replacing it with the cringe-inducing, theologically and esthetically offensive Conciliar "Mass" was a major cultural crime.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on February 27, 2020, 10:38:35 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 27, 2020, 10:31:08 AM
Of which I am not a fan, honestly. Eliminating the Tridentine Mass and replacing it with the cringe-inducing, theologically and esthetically offensive Conciliar "Mass" was a major cultural crime.

I left the church.
My parents grew up during the more ole-fashioned days and they were as happy as children with the 2nd Council, that I do know. As were other family members who turned priest or nun.
My mum and dad still work, aged 80+, as volunteers for the church. I respect that a lot. But they are very sad that conservatism has gotten the upper hand again. Well... to each their own. The churches here are mostly empty. If I want a mass, I'll throw a cd in.

I'm not into 'churchy' or religious debates though, and it's also off-topic here. Just used John XXIII as an example of an almost dead but very lively ole grey. Just like Bernie. ;)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on February 27, 2020, 11:01:35 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 27, 2020, 09:46:22 AM
There's no question that, if Bernie is the nominee, all the Democrats who turn out to vote, will vote for him.

We're just wondering who else will.

Jokes or non-jokes aside, if Sanders gets a plurality but not a majority and the superdelegates put their fingers on the scales and give the nomination to someone else then it is a lead pipe cinch that Trump is reelected. The Sanders supporters will be justifiably infuriated and will vote for anyone but the Democrat nominee.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on February 27, 2020, 11:03:17 AM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on February 27, 2020, 11:01:35 AM
Jokes or non-jokes aside, if Sanders gets a plurality but not a majority and the superdelegates put their fingers on the scales and give the nomination to someone else then it is a lead pipe cinch that Trump is reelected. The Sanders supporters will be justifiably infuriated and will vote for anyone but the Democrat nominee.

That's likely - if they bother to vote, that is. Either way, Trump wins.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 27, 2020, 12:42:34 PM
Quote from: Marc on February 27, 2020, 10:38:35 AM
I left the church.
[...]The churches here are mostly empty.

Why, of course. The 2nd Vatican Council thought that the protestantization of the RCC will save it from depopulation. Grave error, both theological and psychological. To borrow Poju's language, why would people stick to a surrogate (post-2VC RCC) when they can have the real thing (the various truly protestant churches)? Perhaps more important, why would sincere Catholics stick to a Church which is no longer Catholic in its outward expression and appearance?

The top of this madness was reached in 2017 when the RCC joined in the celebration of the 500 years of Reformation. To see the Catholic Church celebrating the most catastrophic schism in its whole history and praising the man who started it all and savagely attacked it was a disconcerting spectacle even for a non-Catholic like me. Tbh, in my youth I seriously contemplated converting from Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism --- now I'm only too glad I eventually didn't. The Romanian Orthodox Church might not have all the merits of the RCC but it certainly has very few of the RCC's defects.

End of my churchy off topic.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 27, 2020, 12:52:00 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 27, 2020, 08:06:52 AM
You have your "facts" completely wrong. If DNC allows Bernie become the nominee you will learn this yourself the hard way.

The Dems tried a moderate candidate against Trump in 2016. Good luck finding a moderate who is more liked than Hillary. Obama had the kind of charisma which made him liked, but you are delusional if you think Buttigieg has Obama's charisma. Also, never fixing the core problem of oligarchy will keep people struggling and desperate meaning Trump-like authoritarian maniacs in the White House in the future.

1) Pretty much everyone who is running for POTUS is more likeable than Hillary. She lost because she personally was totally unlikeable. Hillary's policies did not lose her the election. Hillary's arrogance and corruption lost her the election.
2) Sanders won't fix the problem of oligarchy. He'll just replace them with bureaucrats.  From the POV of average people, it will still be the same: elites bossing the rest of us around.
3) His specific policies will likely make things worse for the average American. You are a convinced Leftist, so you naturally don't understand the basic problem with the progressive agenda: it wants to use government to fix problems that often can not be fixed by government. For them government is the first resort to solve a problem, when in fact government should only be the last resort, for things only government can solve.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 27, 2020, 12:54:28 PM
And what will you learn, yourself, "the hard way," Poju?  You're nearly as arrogant as Hillary, and less likeable.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on February 28, 2020, 12:19:53 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 27, 2020, 08:06:52 AM
You have your "facts" completely wrong. If DNC allows Bernie become the nominee you will learn this yourself the hard way.

The Dems tried a moderate candidate against Trump in 2016. Good luck finding a moderate who is more liked than Hillary.

Hillary was not much liked in 2016, even though she clearly won the popular vote.

A lot of people voted for her with their noses held.

That in itself is only normal, most politicians don't come across as yr best friend.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 28, 2020, 01:11:18 AM
Quote from: Herman on February 28, 2020, 12:19:53 AM
Hillary was not much liked in 2016, even though she clearly won the popular vote.

A lot of people voted for her with their noses held.

That in itself is only normal, most politicians don't come across as yr best friend.

Amen! I've almost always voted *against* rather than *for* and in the two instances when I truly voted *for* I was eventually disappointed.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 28, 2020, 03:23:39 AM
Quote from: Herman on February 28, 2020, 12:19:53 AM
Hillary was not much liked in 2016, even though she clearly won the popular vote.

A lot of people voted for her with their noses held.

That in itself is only normal, most politicians don't come across as yr best friend.

I know all of this. I got to know these things little over 3 years ago when I wanted to understand how a reality tv buffoon won the presidency. I also learned that Hillary lost the rust belt and how it cost her the election. If she had campaigned more progressive she would have gotten more votes in the rust belt and perhaps lose some moderate votes elsewhere, but she could have won. However, she is so utterly corrupt becoming her former seft, young progressive Hillary Clinton wasn't possible for her. My mistake in 2016 was seeing clips of younger Hillary and thinking she is a progressive (as she was advocating even single payer healthcare), but I didn't know how corrupt she had become since. That's what I learned about three years ago to understand why she lost the election to Trump. Some people are so easy to buy. Bernie is someone you can't buy. That's why the rich fear/hate him. They can't buy him. That's the reason why Bernie is the real deal.

Now, people seem to think the current "moderate" candidates are more liked than Hillary. I don't think they are. Biden perhaps, but not the others. The left despises them!

The establishment loves Buttigieg, but the left calls him a rat, a rodent. Mayor Cheat. This man is a dangerous opportunist. He is into this for himself, not for the people. This man sells his soul in a second for power. Yes, he is smart and can speak Norwegian (badly), but that's not what americans need.

Klobuchar is a Republican lite, whose only positive trade is her honesty of not lying about wanting to improve people's lives. She doesn't promise you healhtcare. Instead she tells you you can't have it. You want healthcare? Die away peasants! Rich people want more money! The left despises her Republican policies, but respect her honesty.

Mr. Bloomberg is a minimum wage rise blocking, authoritarian soda banning, stop and frisking Republican who calls himself now a Democrat. He is Trump lite and people on the left may stay home if it's Bloomberg vs Trump. If he is not better than Trump why bother? The only reason why Bloomberg is high in the polls is some people are politically total idiots and utterly ignorant. They support this oligarch because they see his tv adds 30 times a day! Crazy! Bloomberg is a mockery of whatever democracy there is left in the US.

Tom Steyer is the nicer billionaire in this race. Tom is actually likeable at times, but do americans really want a billionaire in the White House? Well, last time around they wanted a fake billionare Trump there... ...not saying Tom Steyer is a good candidate, but among the other "moderates" in the race he isn't particularly bad either. Of course Steyer has nearly zero chance of getting the nomination so that's that. Maybe he hopes to become Elizabeth Warren's VP or something...

Joe Biden is one of the more likeable moderates in the race, but it's because he has got this "friendly uncle" -like charisma and people have nostalgic memories of Obama's presidency, the times of "normalcy" when the president didn't write 20 crazy tweets every day. The problem with Biden is he is for status quo. Obama's "Not much change" presidency led to Trump. Biden's "Nothing will change" presidency would lead to another Trump, even more dangerous one. Also, Biden's mental health is clearly deterioating. Biden says the truth even himself: "My time is up" and "Vote for someone else." Biden's support is pretty soft and now that the myth of Biden being the most electable has been shattered, his support will deterioate. Looks like he will win in South Carolina, but that's about all he will win.

Elizabeth Warren doesn't know if she wants to be a progressive or a moderate so she moves somewere in between as a progressive lite. The left has started to dislike her and call her a snake, but she did it to herself keeping attacking Bernie in ridiculous ways. At one moment (when she was the most progressive she has been!) she was on top of the polls. Now she struggles getting any delegates and she seems to think the brokered convention will hand the nomination to her as a compromise between a moderate and a progressive candidate. However, there will be blood if the nomination is robbed again from Bernie. The left doesn't allow it to happen. Enough is enough.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 28, 2020, 04:35:52 AM
Poju, you obviously have no idea of what Americans think about Hillary. You obviously have no idea of what the various candidates stand for, or what Americans think about them.

And you obviously haven't comprehended that a candidate whose entire platform consists of creating new government programs and expanding existing government programs is a candidate whose platform is based on taking power from the people over their own lives and handing it over to a army of government bureaucrats, and has a platform that is the opposite of populism. If it's bad for oligarchs to control our lives, it's also bad for bureaucrats to control our lives.  I don't want a politician who can't be bought. I want a system in which it doesn't matter if politicians are bought.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on February 28, 2020, 05:10:48 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 28, 2020, 01:11:18 AM
Amen! I've almost always voted *against* rather than *for* and in the two instances when I truly voted *for* I was eventually disappointed.
I wish voting had this option... I would probably vote if this were the case. And would be hilarious if the winner had negative votes. Would show a more realistic portrayal of what people think.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 28, 2020, 05:57:48 AM
Gotta love how a Kulinski groupie casts our "facts" in scare-quotes.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on February 28, 2020, 07:15:34 AM
Quote from: JBS on February 28, 2020, 04:35:52 AM

And you obviously haven't comprehended that a candidate whose entire platform consists of creating new government programs and expanding existing government programs is a candidate whose platform is based on taking power from the people over their own lives and handing it over to a army of government bureaucrats, and has a platform that is the opposite of populism. If it's bad for oligarchs to control our lives, it's also bad for bureaucrats to control our lives.  I don't want a politician who can't be bought. I want a system in which it doesn't matter if politicians are bought.

     All government programs were new once and run by "armies". The purpose is to give people powers the private sector won't or can't provide them. There are good reasons for this, which is why all the blather about returning Social Security and Medicare power to the citizens supposedly disempowered by them won't happen. The model is incoherent. We don't need to re-theorize why we chose government tools. The attempts to cast deconstruction of government as giving power to citizens founders immediately. It's like imagining how OCare destruction adds to "choice" because it multiplies the ways people can be made poorer.

    Of course if you don't care how much effective freedom people have and only the abstract "rich and poor can all sleep under the same bridge" kind, why not abandon concern fakery and say "promote the general welfare" has no practical meaning?

     Even the rich who buy this for its propaganda value have not been so money poisoned that they don't see what might result if the government didn't prevent banana republicanism from rendering the entirety of their customer base impoverished.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 28, 2020, 09:13:17 AM
Quote from: JBS on February 28, 2020, 04:35:52 AM
Poju, you obviously have no idea of what Americans think about Hillary. You obviously have no idea of what the various candidates stand for, or what Americans think about them.

Please stop this nonsense of me not having idea. I believe my posts here are among the most insightful. You can disagree all you want, but you need to be a hack to say I don't have idea! There are a lot of Americans who think exactly what I think. In fact when I watch Status Coup livestream where Jenn Dize interviews people after a Bernie Sanders rally (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tw5jJ0DzrU) I feel strong connection with these people! I really connect with their feelings of the politics in the US and how these people fight for democracy and better tomorrow. So, please leave your comments about how I don't have idea of what Americans think! Four years ago I didn't have idea. Now I have.

Quote from: JBS on February 28, 2020, 04:35:52 AMAnd you obviously haven't comprehended that a candidate whose entire platform consists of creating new government programs and expanding existing government programs is a candidate whose platform is based on taking power from the people over their own lives and handing it over to a army of government bureaucrats, and has a platform that is the opposite of populism. If it's bad for oligarchs to control our lives, it's also bad for bureaucrats to control our lives.  I don't want a politician who can't be bought. I want a system in which it doesn't matter if politicians are bought.

People don't have power! That's the damn problem! What is your power if you can't afford healthcare? What is your power if you have healthcare from your employer? You can't choose the plan, it's chosen for you and the plan limits the doctor you can visit because of networks. Your employer can use healthcare as leverage preventing you to fight for better benefits. If you go on strike, you are in danger of loosing your helthcare. If you leave your job because you don't like it you are on your own. What exactly is your power here?? Bernie can't take power away, because people don't have power. He can only GIVE power. Medicare for all removes networks so you can visit any doctor. Employers can give you better benefits because they don't have to provide healthcare. You can leave a job without loosing your healthcare. That's freedom, power to control your own life! So even with government bureaucracy medicare for all means more power for the people.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 28, 2020, 10:11:16 AM
Whoopi Attacked Bernie, Defended Obama for Exact Same Cuba Comments

https://www.youtube.com/v/lbZueOOUd0U
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on February 28, 2020, 10:38:22 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 28, 2020, 09:13:17 AM


People don't have power! That's the damn problem! What is your power if you can't afford healthcare? What is your power if you have healthcare from your employer? You can't choose the plan, it's chosen for you and the plan limits the doctor you can visit because of networks. Your employer can use healthcare as leverage preventing you to fight for better benefits. If you go on strike, you are in danger of loosing your helthcare. If you leave your job because you don't like it you are on your own. What exactly is your power here?? Bernie can't take power away, because people don't have power. He can only GIVE power. Medicare for all removes networks so you can visit any doctor. Employers can give you better benefits because they don't have to provide healthcare. You can leave a job without loosing your healthcare. That's freedom, power to control your own life! So even with government bureaucracy medicare for all means more power for the people.

     That a bit too absolute for my tastes, though it does refer to how power dynamics in a deep (that is, accountable to law and public welfare) state work. The goal is to enhance the degree of practical freedom of the propertied and unpropertied alike by the exercise of government power to facilitate growth and invest in a better future. Growth is best realized by expensive projects to solve the largest problems. What better direction would there be? I find it odd to imagine that we can decay our way to greater prosperity better than investing in the solutions to our most urgent needs.

    When we recover our reason and a little optimism we'll undertake the next great projects. We'll bulldoze through the howyougonnas and build the means that pays for them, just like always.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 28, 2020, 11:07:22 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 28, 2020, 09:13:17 AM
I believe my posts here are among the most insightful.

Good god.

Lets try a different approach...What are some of the things Sanders does that, much as you love him, you wish he'd stop? More importantly: what are the occasional policies of his, though you like many, you find you still have to disagree with?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 28, 2020, 12:00:53 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 28, 2020, 09:13:17 AM
PI believe my posts here are among the most insightful.

As Shakespeare is rumored to have said: No shit, Sherlock!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 28, 2020, 12:23:39 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 28, 2020, 09:13:17 AM
I believe

Credo in unum Bernium.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 28, 2020, 12:41:31 PM
I think I have no choice but to simply ignore others here. If you keep thinking I am clueless I don't know what else I can do because apparently people here don't take anything I write seriously. If you behave like hacks I tread you as hacks. Just know that your opinions do not represent well the will of americans and this election will prove it to you. Then we see who is clueless and who isn't. It's pretty alarming what people here think about lefty political commentators like Kyle Kulinski. Belittle him all you want. It only demonsrates what kind of people you are. Frankly I wonder what is wrong with you. How in the World you expect me to respect you?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 28, 2020, 12:45:26 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 28, 2020, 12:41:31 PM
I think I have no choice but to simply ignore others here. If you keep thinking I am clueless I don't know what else I can do because apparently people here don't take anything I write seriously. If you behave like hacks I tread you as hacks. Just know that your opinions do not represent well the will of americans and this election will prove it to you. Then we see who is clueless and who isn't. It's pretty alarming what people here think about lefty political commentators like Kyle Kulinski. Belittle him all you want. It only demonsrates what kind of people you are. Frankly I wonder what is wrong with you. How in the World you expect me to respect you?

Nice color.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 28, 2020, 01:03:06 PM
Few things funnier on this thread than a self-important Finn averring that my opinion "does not represent the will of Americans" (And he says he wonders how he can respect US.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 28, 2020, 01:09:14 PM
Interesting take by one vox.com contributor ( Dylan Matthews):

Pete Buttigieg is more electable than Bernie Sanders — and more progressive than you think (https://www.vox.com/2020/2/4/21121636/pete-buttigieg-beat-trump-win-2020-election-primaries)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 28, 2020, 01:16:28 PM
Quotesarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): With just one day before the South Carolina primary on Saturday, former Vice President Joe Biden has a 14 in 15 shot at winning the most votes in South Carolina, according to our forecast. He is a heavy favorite and is expected to win 39 percent of the vote, on average.

But a lot of Biden's gains in South Carolina, both in our forecast and our polling average, have come in the last several days as polls following Nevada and Tuesday night's debate have started to trickle in. Prior to this week, things had looked pretty close in South Carolina, and the model even had Sanders in the lead there prior to the Nevada caucuses.

For now, it looks like Biden has managed to reverse the trends of the past couple weeks of Sen. Bernie Sanders and billionaire Tom Steyer gaining support — in particular black support — here in South Carolina. A Monmouth poll just came out today showing Biden up by 20 points and winning black voters by almost 30 points.

But to give you some on-the-ground color for what it's like: I spent yesterday morning at the National Action Network's Ministers' Breakfast at Mount Moriah Missionary Baptist Church, a large black church in North Charleston, and what I observed in both speaking with attendees and observing the crowd's reaction was that Biden was far and away the favorite of the candidates that spoke.

In the afternoon, I went to a Sanders rally in North Charleston that — while more diverse than his New Hampshire rallies — was still very white for a state where 60 percent of the Democratic electorate is black.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 28, 2020, 01:28:54 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 28, 2020, 01:03:06 PM
Few things funnier on this thread than a self-important Finn averring that my opinion "does not represent the will of Americans" (And he says he wonders how he can respect US.

How many pledged delegates does your candidate have Karl? Bernie has 45 (and after super Tuesday A LOT more). The other candidates don't even try to get the plurality of delegates at this point. They try to take enough delegates away from Bernie so that Bernie can only get plurality but not majority and there is brokered convention where they can steal the nomination from him with superdelegates. For Bernie this is a fight to get the majority of delegates so that the nomination can't be taken away. How can you say your candidate represents the will of Americans if undemocratic brokered convention is needed for nomination? Yes, some Americans do share your opinions, but you are in a minority. The amount of Americans sharing my opinions is larger and that's why my favorite candidate senator Bernand Sanders is winning and collecting at least the plurality of delegates if not the majority. Tell me Americans are not for "socialism" when Bernie stops doing well in the polls, primaries and caucuses. The corporate media has fearmongered Bernie's "socialism" for years. It hasn't worked, has it?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 28, 2020, 01:45:06 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 28, 2020, 01:28:54 PM
How many pledged delegates does your candidate have Karl? Bernie has 45 (and after super Tuesday A LOT more). The other candidates don't even try to get the plurality of delegates at this point. They try to take enough delegates away from Bernie so that Bernie can only get plurality but not majority and there is brokered convention where they can steal the nomination from him with superdelegates. For Bernie this is a fight to get the majority of delegates so that the nomination can't be taken away. How can you say your candidate represents the will of Americans if undemocratic brokered convention is needed for nomination? Yes, some Americans do share your opinions, but you are in a minority. The amount of Americans sharing my opinions is larger and that's why my favorite candidate senator Bernand Sanders is winning and collecting at least the plurality of delegates if not the majority. Tell me Americans are not for "socialism" when Bernie stops doing well in the polls, primaries and caucuses. The corporate media has fearmongered Bernie's "socialism" for years. It hasn't worked, has it?

There will be 4750 delegates at the Convention. Which means Bernie currently has just under 1% of the delegates. Not exactly a commanding lead.  Nineteen ahead of my own preferred candidate, btw.
If Bernie doesn't get a majority, that means a majority of Democratic voters chose someone else over him.
Trump's supporters are about 40% of the American voting public. Bernie's supporters are about 30% of Democrats. So Trump has many more supporters than Bernie. If pluralities count, Trump is the clear winner.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 28, 2020, 01:53:43 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 28, 2020, 01:09:14 PM
Interesting take by one vox.com contributor ( Dylan Matthews):

Pete Buttigieg is more electable than Bernie Sanders — and more progressive than you think (https://www.vox.com/2020/2/4/21121636/pete-buttigieg-beat-trump-win-2020-election-primaries)

Pete Buttigieg is more electable than Bernie Sanders? Based on what? Polls? Nope. These writers keep saying what they feel, but they don't provide facts for their claims. You can make a case for Buttigieg (Smart, speaks Norwegian, young etc.), but you can't say he is more electable than Bernie Sanders because the facts (polls) don't support that claim. Also, Buttigieg isn't a progressive. He collects millionaire money in wine caves. That kills progressive thinking and makes you a moderate.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 28, 2020, 02:14:57 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 28, 2020, 01:45:06 PM
There will be 4750 delegates at the Convention. Which means Bernie currently has just under 1% of the delegates. Not exactly a commanding lead.
What? Should Bernie have 500 delegates at this point? Bernie has more than Biden and Buttigieg combined and almost as much as Klobuchar, Biden and Buttigieg combined.

Quote from: JBS on February 28, 2020, 01:45:06 PMNineteen ahead of my own preferred candidate, btw.
If Bernie doesn't get a majority, that means a majority of Democratic voters chose someone else over him.
Trump's supporters are about 40% of the American voting public. Bernie's supporters are about 30% of Democrats. So Trump has many more supporters than Bernie. If pluralities count, Trump is the clear winner.

Looks like they have given the 14th delegate to Buttigieg in Iowa. Bernie won the popular vote there, but got 2 delegates less. It was rigged for Buttigieg and Buttigieg paid $42k for it. Coin flips and rounding errors that benefitted Buttigieg. Do you feel good about your candidate? That cheating rodent!

If none of the candidates get a majority, that means a majority of Democratic voters chose someone else. If Bernie gets more delegates than other candidates he wins others. You can't "combine" moderates (or progressives), because elections don't work that way. The second choice for many Biden, Buttigieg and Warren voters is Bernie so if moderates drop out of the race, a lot of support goes to Bernie. You can't compare 40% of the American voting public to  30% of Democrats. That's different. Those 40 % did not vote for Trump in the Republican primary and if it's Bernie vs Trump Biden/Buttigieg/Warren/... voters don't go Trump. Your math sucks. Look at the polls. Bernie beats Trump.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on February 28, 2020, 03:54:04 PM

Poju, you describe one of the candidates as a rat (now a rodent), another one as a snake. What's next? Cockroaches? Bats ? You make us wish Bernie has another heart attack - the sooner the better - just so you stop polluting this thread.  >:(

GET A LIFE !!!

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 28, 2020, 04:16:26 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 28, 2020, 02:14:57 PM
What? Should Bernie have 500 delegates at this point? Bernie has more than Biden and Buttigieg combined and almost as much as Klobuchar, Biden and Buttigieg combined.

Looks like they have given the 14th delegate to Buttigieg in Iowa. Bernie won the popular vote there, but got 2 delegates less. It was rigged for Buttigieg and Buttigieg paid $42k for it. Coin flips and rounding errors that benefitted Buttigieg. Do you feel good about your candidate? That cheating rodent!

If none of the candidates get a majority, that means a majority of Democratic voters chose someone else. If Bernie gets more delegates than other candidates he wins others. You can't "combine" moderates (or progressives), because elections don't work that way. The second choice for many Biden, Buttigieg and Warren voters is Bernie so if moderates drop out of the race, a lot of support goes to Bernie. You can't compare 40% of the American voting public to  30% of Democrats. That's different. Those 40 % did not vote for Trump in the Republican primary and if it's Bernie vs Trump Biden/Buttigieg/Warren/... voters don't go Trump. Your math sucks. Look at the polls. Bernie beats Trump.

A man who has the backing of 30 percent of one party is not a man who has the backing of the majority of American  voters. He merely has the backing of 30 percent of one party.  That's math.  And therefore he has no right to claim to be entitled to the nomination. It's not his, so it can't be stolen from him.  And at the moment about 98 percent of the delegates are yet to be chosen. You are not merely counting your chickens before thet have been hatched. You sre counting them before the eggs have been laid.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 28, 2020, 04:26:16 PM
Quote from: André on February 28, 2020, 03:54:04 PM
Poju, you describe one of the candidates as a rat (now a rodent), another one as a snake. What's next? Cockroaches? Bats ? You make us wish Bernie has another heart attack - the sooner the better - just so you stop polluting this thread.  >:(

GET A LIFE !!!



He's demonstrating just how little respect he merits.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 28, 2020, 04:27:44 PM
"It was rigged!" What delusional rubbish.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 28, 2020, 04:30:47 PM
71db: I was actually hoping for an answer to this question:

Quote from: SimonNZ on February 28, 2020, 11:07:22 AM
What are some of the things Sanders does that, much as you love him, you wish he'd stop? More importantly: what are the occasional policies of his, though you like many, you find you still have to disagree with?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 28, 2020, 04:33:07 PM
Tick Tock Tick Tock ....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 28, 2020, 04:36:15 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 28, 2020, 04:30:47 PM
71db: I was actually hoping for an answer to this question:

Kyle Kulinski has a few disagreements with Bernie, but I don't remember them. Palestines?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 28, 2020, 04:42:47 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 28, 2020, 04:36:15 PM
Kyle Kulinski has a few disagreements with Bernie, but I don't remember them. Palestines?

Simon is not interested in Kulinski's disagreements with Bernie.

Simon is interested in your disagreements with Bernie's policies.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 28, 2020, 04:44:23 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 28, 2020, 04:42:47 PM
Simon is not interested in Kulinski's disagreements with Bernie.

Simon is interested in your disagreements with Bernie's policies.

Behold the "free-thinker"!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 28, 2020, 04:46:55 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 28, 2020, 04:42:47 PM
Simon is not interested in Kulinski's disagreements with Bernie.

Simon is interested in your disagreements with Bernie's policies.

Quite so. Any policy or opinion or off the cuff remark of his at all which you thought was at odds with your own worldview.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 28, 2020, 05:04:08 PM
Bernie could adopt Yang's basic income ideas.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 28, 2020, 05:10:49 PM
Okay. So what is Sanders position on this and why do you disagree with him?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 28, 2020, 05:14:51 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 28, 2020, 04:16:26 PM
A man who has the backing of 30 percent of one party is not a man who has the backing of the majority of American  voters. He merely has the backing of 30 percent of one party.  That's math.  And therefore he has no right to claim to be entitled to the nomination. It's not his, so it can't be stolen from him.  And at the moment about 98 percent of the delegates are yet to be chosen. You are not merely counting your chickens before thet have been hatched. You sre counting them before the eggs have been laid.

People can back many candidates but vote only one. People can back Bernie, Biden AND Warren for example, but when they vote that have to choose only one of those. That's why candidates have larger backing than the votes indicate. Also, other candidates have EVEN lower backing!! Haven't you noticed Bernie is leading national polls??? That is the reason the establishment is panicking!! The others have EVEN LESS right to  claim nomination!! THAT'S MATH TO YOU!!!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 28, 2020, 05:17:09 PM
I spend too much time. I should do other things. Go out or something. Clear my head of Bernie...  :P

Quote from: SimonNZ on February 28, 2020, 05:10:49 PM
Okay. So what is Sanders position on this and why do you disagree with him?

Bernie supports job quarantee instead of basic income. Bernie's policy is good, Yang's policy is better.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 28, 2020, 06:12:45 PM
Yeah, see, that's still not disagreeing - that's just a less vocal agreement. I want one example of any kind where you thought he might have been just plain wrong.

(also: aren't Sanders and Yang both calling for a $15ph minimum wage?).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 29, 2020, 01:20:05 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 28, 2020, 06:12:45 PM
Yeah, see, that's still not disagreeing - that's just a less vocal agreement. I want one example of any kind where you thought he might have been just plain wrong.

(also: aren't Sanders and Yang both calling for a $15ph minimum wage?).

Well what can I say? I don't support candidates whose policies I don't like. Bernie Sanders may have some small thing here and there I don't agree about, but it's irrelevant as I think as a candidate he is superior to the others.

I'm not sure if Yang calls for $15 minimum wage and it doesn't even matter at this point as he has dropped out.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on February 29, 2020, 01:55:17 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 29, 2020, 01:20:05 AM
Bernie Sanders may have some small thing here and there I don't agree about

And yet when asked to define precisely those Bernie things you disagree about you were not able to do it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 29, 2020, 02:09:15 AM
Quote from: Florestan on February 29, 2020, 01:55:17 AM
And yet when asked to define precisely those Bernie things you disagree about you were not able to do it.

I don't understand why I am asked to define precisely those things and why I should be able to to define them.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 29, 2020, 05:06:40 AM
Don't worry, Poju: Devoted Trumpkins cannot think of anything bad that Trump has ever done or said, either.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 29, 2020, 07:57:39 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 29, 2020, 05:06:40 AM
Don't worry, Poju: Devoted Trumpkins cannot think of anything bad that Trump has ever done or said, either.

Bernie rises minimum wage, Trump puts children in cages. I hope you are not suggesting Trump and Bernie are the same?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 29, 2020, 10:46:16 AM
I started to feel this thread does harm to my mental health so I try to be less active and do other things, therapeutic things such as making music and walking outside in the fresh air. It helps. I just need to be careful about becoming too active here, because this forum is toxic af. I don't understand how people into classcal music are so anti-Bernie. I can understand if we have ONE Todd here, but Bernie supporters seem to be a small minority here. I am being attacked for not being able to name negative things about Bernie, the candidate I support while other candidates get a total pass. Biden's gaffes and South Africa lies. Buttigieg's wine cave money. Bloomberg's authoritarian oligarchy. Total pass while Bernie gets attacked for increasing bureaucracy for trying to give everyone healthcare and roof over their head. Crazy!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 29, 2020, 11:17:18 AM
What lesson will you learn if Biden bests Bernie in the Palmetto State?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on February 29, 2020, 11:47:52 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 29, 2020, 11:17:18 AM
What lesson will you learn if Biden bests Bernie in the Palmetto State?

I don't know what "lesson" that would teach me.  ::)  I expect Biden to win South Carolina. Polls indicate that, don't they?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on February 29, 2020, 04:24:41 PM
They're calling SC for Biden.  If it holds, it's a win he has desperately needed.

Will any of the laggards drop out?

Steyer's performance was strong enough to sustain a little steam.  Buttigieg (at present) appears to be running ahead of Warren, Klobuchar, & al.

Probably no one wants to drop out before "Super Tuesday."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on February 29, 2020, 06:25:35 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 29, 2020, 04:24:41 PM
They're calling SC for Biden.  If it holds, it's a win he has desperately needed.

Will any of the laggards drop out?

Steyer's performance was strong enough to sustain a little steam.  Buttigieg (at present) appears to be running ahead of Warren, Klobuchar, & al.

Probably no one wants to drop out before "Super Tuesday."

Steyer has dropped out.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on February 29, 2020, 11:30:33 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 29, 2020, 10:46:16 AM
I started to feel this thread does harm to my mental health so I try to be less active and do other things, therapeutic things such as making music and walking outside in the fresh air. It helps. I just need to be careful about becoming too active here,

That's a good idea. Your enthusiasm is admirable, but you can't help getting a little preachy sometimes, and that's counterproductive.

Also, perhaps it would be better if people in non-American parts of the world focused a little more on the political etc situation in their own region. The international media, whether you call them corporate or not, make it seem US-politics is the only game on the planet.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on February 29, 2020, 11:53:54 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on February 29, 2020, 10:46:16 AM
I started to feel this thread does harm to my mental health so I try to be less active and do other things, therapeutic things such as making music and walking outside in the fresh air. It helps. I just need to be careful about becoming too active here, because this forum is toxic af. I don't understand how people into classcal music are so anti-Bernie. I can understand if we have ONE Todd here, but Bernie supporters seem to be a small minority here. I am being attacked for not being able to name negative things about Bernie, the candidate I support while other candidates get a total pass. Biden's gaffes and South Africa lies. Buttigieg's wine cave money. Bloomberg's authoritarian oligarchy. Total pass while Bernie gets attacked for increasing bureaucracy for trying to give everyone healthcare and roof over their head. Crazy!

Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie  Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie 

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/3xBrSIgWMS1ZC/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on March 01, 2020, 12:32:41 AM
Recent news suggest economic dark clouds. The current pandemic shows why honesty an competency are still relevant in government.
I'm feeling more and more that Bernie would be a wasted opportunity and a loser. Can the candidates give away their delegates? I think everyone will gang up against him eventually. It'll be controversial if they all throw it to Biden at the convention and the Bros will scream but it could be a gamble that pays off.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 01, 2020, 01:58:53 AM
Quote from: Herman on February 29, 2020, 11:30:33 PM
That's a good idea. Your enthusiasm is admirable, but you can't help getting a little preachy sometimes, and that's counterproductive.

Yeah, that's who I am, a preachy guy. Sorry. I think it's asperger that makes me that way.

Quote from: Herman on February 29, 2020, 11:30:33 PMAlso, perhaps it would be better if people in non-American parts of the world focused a little more on the political etc situation in their own region. The international media, whether you call them corporate or not, make it seem US-politics is the only game on the planet.

Finnish politics is SO boring compared to US politics. We have single payer healthcare. We have tuition free education. We have had those for decades. We also have ambitious climate change agenda. We have pretty good democracy. We have those things the US doesn't have. There are no elections going on so what is there to focus on exactly?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on March 01, 2020, 09:06:10 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 01, 2020, 01:58:53 AM
[...] There are no elections going on so what is there to focus on exactly?

Loads of things, but NO politics. Politics is about abuse of power and corruption. Let them corrupt and abuse themselves.

Instead, focus on (to mention a few):

Music.
Songbirds (springtime is coming!).
Nature in general.
Damn fine history books and/or novels.
Poetry.
Learn how to play chess and then play online.
Art.
A chat with your neighbour.
Pretty girls.

All much more fun than politics.
Even for Aspergers.

Yeah.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 01, 2020, 09:09:04 AM
Quote from: Marc on March 01, 2020, 09:06:10 AM
Loads of things, but NO politics. Politics is about abuse of power and corruption. Let them corrupt and abuse themselves.

Instead, focus on (to mention a few):

Music.
Songbirds (springtime is coming!).
Nature in general.
Damn fine history books and/or novels.
Poetry.
Learn how to play chess and then play online.
Art.
A chat with your neighbour.
Pretty girls.

All much more fun than politics.
Even for Aspergers.

Yeah.

Amen!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on March 01, 2020, 09:46:48 AM
Quote from: Marc on March 01, 2020, 09:06:10 AM


Instead, focus on (to mention a few):

Music.
Songbirds (springtime is coming!).
Nature in general.
Damn fine history books and/or novels.
Poetry.
Learn how to play chess and then play online.
Art.
A chat with your neighbour.
Pretty girls.

All much more fun than politics.


This obviously goes for all of us.

talk to yr loved ones
playing an instrument
picking up a pencil and making a picture
read those novels you piled up
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 01, 2020, 10:55:30 AM
Music: Yes. I have been making music. I am preparing for mixing my track.
I have been listening to music. Revisiting my CDs I have not listened to for a long time.

I started to watch my favorite tv show The X-Files again on Blu-ray last November and I just started season 7. Also just bought/watched the Japanese "One Missed Call" Trilogy on Blu-ray. Even if this trilogy isn't the best that J-horror has to offer it is SO COOL to see these on Blu-ray!!

Nature? Not much that now as it has been a "gray" snowless winter.

So, I have stuff "outside" politics, but it has been INTENSE because of the election cycle... ...I say this: If americans fuck up this chance to elect Bernie Sanders as their president I will forget the damn country even exists! The rest of the World needs to save this planet as the US keeps enriching fossil fuckers and I won't care about the suffering of americans because of oligarchy. YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE!! Don't whine in South Carolina when your social security is cut so billionaires can have bigger tax cuts! YOU voted for Biden instead of Bernie! YOU fucked up yourself. Suffer the consequencies. Pray that people on other States are smarter than you. 10.8 % of people in South Carolina don't have healthcare. Biden's "lets make ObamaCare a little better" incrementalism won't make that zero, not even close!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on March 01, 2020, 11:43:14 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 01, 2020, 10:55:30 AM
Music: Yes. I have been making music. I am preparing for mixing my track.
I have been listening to music. Revisiting my CDs I have not listened to for a long time.

I started to watch my favorite tv show The X-Files again on Blu-ray last November and I just started season 7. Also just bought/watched the Japanese "One Missed Call" Trilogy on Blu-ray. Even if this trilogy isn't the best that J-horror has to offer it is SO COOL to see these on Blu-ray!!

Nature? Not much that now as it has been a "gray" snowless winter.

So, I have stuff "outside" politics, but it has been INTENSE because of the election cycle... ...I say this: If americans fuck up this chance to elect Bernie Sanders as their president I will forget the damn country even exists! The rest of the World needs to save this planet as the US keeps enriching fossil fuckers and I won't care about the suffering of americans because of oligarchy. YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE!! Don't whine in South Carolina when your social security is cut so billionaires can have bigger tax cuts! YOU voted for Biden instead of Bernie! YOU fucked up yourself. Suffer the consequencies. Pray that people on other States are smarter than you. 10.8 % of people in South Carolina don't have healthcare. Biden's "lets make ObamaCare a little better" incrementalism won't make that zero, not even close!

I think that is what many of us are hoping for. :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 01, 2020, 12:29:22 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 29, 2020, 06:25:35 PM
Steyer has dropped out.

Kudos to him for "adulting"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 01, 2020, 02:24:38 PM
Quote from: JBS on February 29, 2020, 06:25:35 PM
Steyer has dropped out.

Steyer is worth $1.2 billion. Bloomberg is worth $60 billion. Steyer realized Bloomberg can buy 50 times more tv adds than he so If a billionaire buys himself the presidency it's not Steyer but Bloomberg. Steyer is a much nicer guy than Bloomberg and would definitely be a better president, but idiots supporting candidates just because they have lots of add on tv don't have the mental capacity to realize that. Steyer can't compete with Bloomberg with his money, but Bernie can compete with his populist message and "Not me. Us" -grassroots movement. It's money vs. people. Money wins in oligarchy. People win in democracy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 01, 2020, 03:18:52 PM
Buttigieg is out!   :o
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 01, 2020, 05:11:45 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 01, 2020, 03:18:52 PM
Buttigieg is out!  :o

Aye, part of me is sorry, as I prefer him to Biden, though he would make a good VP choice; however, Biden may need to designate a woman Veep ... which is fine, Buttigieg can be future talent.

However, with Biden's recent Palmetto landslide, the "non-Bernie" lane is awfully crowded. A sober good move on Pete's part, reflecting well on him.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on March 01, 2020, 06:25:59 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 01, 2020, 05:11:45 PM
Aye, part of me is sorry, as I prefer him to Biden, though he would make a good VP choice; however, Biden may need to designate a woman Veep ... which is fine, Buttigieg can be future talent.

However, with Biden's recent Palmetto landslide, the "non-Bernie" lane is awfully crowded. A sober good move on Pete's part, reflecting well on him.

+ 1

Our friend Pujo would probably say that the 'rat' is back in the gutter  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on March 01, 2020, 07:15:40 PM
I get to vote in Super Tuesday! :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on March 01, 2020, 07:20:43 PM
Who do I vote for. :(
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on March 01, 2020, 07:45:27 PM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 01, 2020, 07:20:43 PM
Who do I vote for. :(

Daffy Duck. :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on March 01, 2020, 07:50:12 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 01, 2020, 07:45:27 PM
Daffy Duck. :)

Not on the ballot, even here.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 01:26:18 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 01, 2020, 05:11:45 PM
Aye, part of me is sorry, as I prefer him to Biden, though he would make a good VP choice; however, Biden may need to designate a woman Veep ... which is fine, Buttigieg can be future talent.

However, with Biden's recent Palmetto landslide, the "non-Bernie" lane is awfully crowded. A sober good move on Pete's part, reflecting well on him.

Which Buttigieg did you prefer? Buttigieg a year ago supporting medicare-for-all or more recent "who wants him" -Buttigieg attacking medicare-for-all to make wine cave millionaires happy? Buttigieg is a smart guy, but clearly also very opportunistic and has demonstrated narcissistic, even psychopathic tendencies evident on how he handled things in South Bend and during his presidential campaign. Are those good tendencies for the president of the united states? I encourage you to rewatch him talking in the debates and analyse what he says. It's not much more than word sallad.

Buttigieg can be future talent IF he starts to think himself and his career less and more what he can do for Americans. I doubt that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Wendell_E on March 02, 2020, 01:49:46 AM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 01, 2020, 07:15:40 PM
I get to vote in Super Tuesday! :)

Me too!

Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 01, 2020, 07:20:43 PM
Who do I vote for. :(

I'll vote for Warren, or if she drops out in the next 26½ hours, Sanders.

One of my sisters from out of state is staying overnight for a dentist visit. I was pleased, and a bit surprised when she said she's switched her registration from Republican to Democrat because she thought the most important thing was to get Trump out. She's expressed some support for him in the past. And she lives in Florida, a swing state. I'm in Alabama, so my presidential vote in November's pretty useless.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 01:51:38 AM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 01, 2020, 07:20:43 PM
Who do I vote for. :(

There's several Insurance Company/Big Pharma -friendly "healthcare is NOT a human right, but the rich have the right to rig the system" -candidates left to choose from if you want to make sure millions of American's will lack healthcare also in the future. Klobuchar is still in the race to take delegates away from Bernie in her home state Minnesota, but she had to cancel a a rally there because of  Black Lives Matter -protesters. Same with Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts. They want to stop Bernie, because the 1 % donor class means to them more than the 99 % of regular people.

According to Morning Consult Buttigieg's exit could amount to a 2-point boost each for Sanders, Biden, Warren and Bloomberg.
https://morningconsult.com/2020/03/01/pete-buttigieg-second-choice-polling/
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 02, 2020, 02:44:19 AM
Ffs...Your posts make me wish Sanders would have another heart attack.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 02:56:57 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 02, 2020, 02:44:19 AM
Ffs...Your posts make me wish Sanders would have another heart attack.

What a nice guy you are wishing harm to others.

I hope you don't have an heart attack when you see how many delegates Bernie gets on Super Tuesday.  ;)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on March 02, 2020, 04:08:32 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 02:56:57 AM
What a nice guy you are wishing harm to others.

[...]

Yeah.

Quote from: 71 dB on March 01, 2020, 10:55:30 AM
[...]
I say this: If americans fuck up this chance to elect Bernie Sanders as their president I will forget the damn country even exists! The rest of the World needs to save this planet as the US keeps enriching fossil fuckers and I won't care about the suffering of americans because of oligarchy. YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE!! Don't whine in South Carolina when your social security is cut so billionaires can have bigger tax cuts! YOU voted for Biden instead of Bernie! YOU fucked up yourself. Suffer the consequencies. [...]

Nice indeed.

Music.
Songbirds (springtime is coming!).
Nature in general.
Damn fine history books and/or novels.
Poetry.
Learn how to play chess and then play online.
Art.
A chat with your neighbour.
Pretty girls.

All much more fun than politics.
Even for Aspergers.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 02, 2020, 04:26:30 AM
Quote from: Marc on March 02, 2020, 04:08:32 AM
Pretty girls.

Even a Sanna Marin poster could do the trick.  ;D >:D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 04:32:54 AM
I don't wish harm to Americans. I want them to have a better country, but if they don't take the great chance they now have with Bernie Sanders I can't help them. I have my own life. I can't make millions of Americans to realize they have been brainwashed by the corporate media. That's what I mean.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on March 02, 2020, 04:46:08 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 04:32:54 AM
I don't wish harm to Americans. I want them to have a better country, but if they don't take the great chance they now have with Bernie Sanders I can't help them. I have my own life. I can't make millions of Americans to realize they have been brainwashed by the corporate media. That's what I mean.

Some people are brainwashed by media.

Others by one-sided ideals.

In their behaviour, they show some similarities.

We're all individuals, we're all different (yeah yeah all right), but in the end we all have to live together.
My 'one-sided ideal' would be: search for the similarities, not for the differences.

That's why I keep my fingers crossed that in my own country we won't go to a 2 or 3 political party system, which has been advocated here in the past.
We have 4.924 :) (or was it 5.137?) different political parties in this small country. I hope we keep it that way. To govern, at least 4 or 5 parties have to seriously seek for similarities and agreements. It's way better than to seek for differences, disagreements and division.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 02, 2020, 05:26:39 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 04:32:54 AM
I have my own life.

(https://media2.giphy.com/media/mBMDcBe9uidYltQzWJ/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on March 02, 2020, 05:47:56 AM
Quote from: Wendell_E on March 02, 2020, 01:49:46 AM
Me too!

I'll vote for Warren, or if she drops out in the next 26½ hours, Sanders.

One of my sisters from out of state is staying overnight for a dentist visit. I was pleased, and a bit surprised when she said she's switched her registration from Republican to Democrat because she thought the most important thing was to get Trump out. She's expressed some support for him in the past. And she lives in Florida, a swing state. I'm in Alabama, so my presidential vote in November's pretty useless.
Florida is one state Sanders will never win. I liked Warren whom I think is a great failed candidate. She's smart, she means well, she's optimistic, and she makes huge blunders. I can't believe I'm getting to the point of thinking Biden is the best we can do against tump. I never would have thought I'd have such a thought.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on March 02, 2020, 05:50:02 AM
Can someone tell me what happens to the delegates of a candidate that drops out?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 02, 2020, 05:55:25 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 01, 2020, 10:55:30 AM
I say this: If americans fuck up this chance to elect Bernie Sanders as their president I will forget the damn country even exists! The rest of the World needs to save this planet as the US keeps enriching fossil fuckers and I won't care about the suffering of americans because of oligarchy. YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE!! Don't whine in South Carolina when your social security is cut so billionaires can have bigger tax cuts! YOU voted for Biden instead of Bernie! YOU fucked up yourself. Suffer the consequencies. Pray that people on other States are smarter than you. 10.8 % of people in South Carolina don't have healthcare. Biden's "lets make ObamaCare a little better" incrementalism won't make that zero, not even close!

You are one sorry shot.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 02, 2020, 06:55:19 AM
QuoteWith the Super Tuesday primaries rapidly approaching, a broad swath of Democratic  voters are less interested in the political "revolution" promised by front-runner Bernie Sanders than they are in someone who would simply restore decency to the White House and provide stable leadership without wrecking the economy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 02, 2020, 06:57:33 AM
Star Trek has a lesson Bernie bros need to hear: We're not ready

If you are a progressive, I understand you yearn for President Sanders with all your heart. But I beg you. Consider the rest of us. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/02/29/star-trek-first-contact-bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-column/4913386002/)
Quote
The Bernie Sanders campaign is based on an idea that the data just does not support, that there are millions of invisible voters who will rise up and help Bernie throw Donald Trump out of office. The reality is that Presidential Candidate Sanders would present voters in critical, must-win states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida and Michigan with the question of who terrifies them less. And it is by no means certain that they will conclude that a committed socialist, even a democratic one, is the lesser of two evils.

But suppose Bernie did win the presidency. What then? If there is no evidence that millions of previously-unseen voters will flock to his banner, there is massive, irrefutable evidence that huge swaths of America absolutely will not. We all saw the debate and the extreme discomfort that even many Democrats have with many of Bernie's ideas. Imagine how Independents and Republicans feel.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 02, 2020, 07:43:07 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 04:32:54 AM
I don't wish harm to Americans. I want them to have a better country, but if they don't take the great chance they now have with Bernie Sanders I can't help them. I have my own life. I can't make millions of Americans to realize they have been brainwashed by the corporate media. That's what I mean.

Well, we can't get you to realize you've been brainwashed by leftist Youtubers...

Bernie's agenda is devoted to giving a bunch of bureaucrats the power to boss ordinary people around in important areas of their life, with no chance of those ordinary people bring able to push back. Bernie's agenda is premised on handing control over to an elite. Please explain to me how that will be better than having the oligarchs boss us around.

And don't bother telling me health care will be better, because it won't. Bernie's proposal is a fantasy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on March 02, 2020, 09:00:16 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 01:51:38 AM
There's several Insurance Company/Big Pharma -friendly "healthcare is NOT a human right, but the rich have the right to rig the system" -candidates left to choose from if you want to make sure millions of American's will lack healthcare also in the future. Klobuchar is still in the race to take delegates away from Bernie in her home state Minnesota, but she had to cancel a a rally there because of  Black Lives Matter -protesters. Same with Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts. They want to stop Bernie, because the 1 % donor class means to them more than the 99 % of regular people.

According to Morning Consult Buttigieg's exit could amount to a 2-point boost each for Sanders, Biden, Warren and Bloomberg.
https://morningconsult.com/2020/03/01/pete-buttigieg-second-choice-polling/

You have this bizarre idea that Bernie Sanders is an angel sent from heaven to save us and every other politician is a corrupt vampire. There are a lot of politicians that seek office because they want to serve their country and its people. They have to do things they would rather not do in order to get the funding they need to succeed. I don't disagree with much of what Sanders wants to do. But it is delusional to think there is a mandate for his "revolution."  Even if he were elected, he would deliver nothing but government impasse. That would be an improvement over what we have now. I don't think he would best Trump.

I agree with Buttigieg (and Booker) that the right way forward is to create a government health care option and work to make it do good that most people will select it. That will be the transition to Medicare for all, or whatever they call it. It is critical that health insurance be delivered to those who have none or inadequate insurance without disrupting the insurance of those who have satisfactory health insurance. The ACA was a big improvement and we can work forward from there.

I support Warren.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 02, 2020, 09:39:56 AM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 02, 2020, 09:00:16 AM
You have this bizarre idea that Bernie Sanders is an angel sent from heaven to save us and every other politician is a corrupt vampire. There are a lot of politicians that seek office because they want to serve their country and its people. They have to do things they would rather not do in order to get the funding they need to succeed. I don't disagree with much of what Sanders wants to do. But it is delusional to think there is a mandate for his "revolution."  Even if he were elected, he would deliver nothing but government impasse. That would be an improvement over what we have now. I don't think he would best Trump.

I agree with Buttigieg (and Booker) that the right way forward is to create a government health care option and work to make it do good that most people will select it. That will be the transition to Medicare for all, or whatever they call it. It is critical that health insurance be delivered to those who have none or inadequate insurance without disrupting the insurance of those who have satisfactory health insurance. The ACA was a big improvement and we can work forward from there.

I support Warren.

Very interested to see how she fares tomorrow.  Of course, I do like her, and appreciate her work in the Senate.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 02, 2020, 09:44:51 AM
Klobuchar is dropping out, flying to Dallas to join Biden at his rally there.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 10:09:32 AM
Quote from: JBS on March 02, 2020, 07:43:07 AM
Bernie's proposal is a fantasy.

You are still using that argument? Other countries do the things Bernie is proposing. Have been doing for decades. The US has been talking about medicare for all for a century by now. Just how long does it take to be ready for change? 500 years? You are not part of the top 1 % so why the fuck do you defend the rigged system? You are part of the 99 %. Bernie is your guy. You just need to realize it, but I have given up on you and pretty much the whole GMG! Vote for who you want and say what you want. I don't give a rats ass anymore...  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 02, 2020, 10:36:34 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 10:09:32 AM
You are still using that argument? Other countries do the things Bernie is proposing. Have been doing for decades. The US has been talking about medicare for all for a century by now. Just how long does it take to be ready for change? 500 years? You are not part of the top 1 % so why the fuck do you defend the rigged system? You are part of the 99 %. Bernie is your guy. You just need to realize it, but I have given up on you and pretty much the whole GMG! Vote for who you want and say what you want. I don't give a rats ass anymore...  ::)

Bernie's plans claims to be able to provide everyone better health care for free, and most drugs for a minimal charge. How many countries do that? And do those countries have a Congress like the US, which was designed to give all factions a say and a veto over every important idea?

You seem incapable of understanding my main point.  Bernie wants programs that consist of bureaucrats bossing everyone around. If it's bad for oligarchs to boss me around, it's also bad for bureaucrats to boss me around.
He won't get rid of the system. He'll just add another layer to the elite.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 02, 2020, 12:27:22 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 10:09:32 AM
Vote for who you want and say what you want.

That's exactly what they (American GMGers, that is) did, do and will keep doing without ever asking for your approval. They will nevertheless appreciate your generosity and open-mindedness, I'm quite sure of that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 12:38:32 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 02, 2020, 10:36:34 AM
Bernie's plans claims to be able to provide everyone better health care for free, and most drugs for a minimal charge. How many countries do that?

There is no "free" healthcare. There is just ways to pay for it. As single payer healthcare is payed by taxes, it means rich people pay more, poor people less which mean everyone can afford healtcare. It's no different from the fire department. It's payed by taxes too and rich people pay more than poor people. As single payer saves money, but it's not "free."

Big Pharma price gauges in the US because it can. It has bought the politicians to do so. In countries where politician serve the people rather than the top 1 % the drug prices are reasonable and often at least partially payed by the government so that everyone can afford their medicine and no die because of that. In Finland for example 577,66 euros (about $600) is the most one needs to pay for drugs within one year. Bernie's plan is $200, three times lower than in Finland. The US is a richer country than Finland so it can do that for it's citizens. Maybe it's needed, because the social security isn't as good as in Finland and $200 for poor Americans is about the same as $600 for poor Finns. Every country has it's one way to do these things, but Americans pay the highest prices for drugs by far.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: Florestan on March 02, 2020, 12:27:22 PM
That's exactly what they (American GMGers, that is) did, do and will keep doing without ever asking for your approval. They will nevertheless appreciate your generosity and open-mindedness, I'm quite sure of that.

Yes, and who is leading in the delegates? Yes, Bernie Sanders. I am treaded like a lunatic supporting Bernie, but what I am actually supporting the candidate with most delegates so if anyone here represents the will of democratic voters it's me! I actually understand American workers who struggle and want change. Members like Karl and JBS seem to be totally clueless of these things. I don't know why that is (too much corporate media?), but that's how it is.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on March 02, 2020, 12:53:49 PM
Oh ciel, che noia!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 02, 2020, 12:59:39 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 12:47:23 PM
Yes, and who is leading in the delegates? Yes, Bernie Sanders. I am treaded like a lunatic supporting Bernie, but what I am actually supporting the candidate with most delegates so if anyone here represents the will of democratic voters it's me! I actually understand American workers who struggle and want change. Members like Karl and JBS seem to be totally clueless of these things. I don't know why that is (too much corporate media?), but that's how it is.

I sincerely hope you will survive November 2020, ie Trump's winning a second term.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 02, 2020, 01:02:41 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 12:47:23 PM
Yes, and who is leading in the delegates? Yes, Bernie Sanders. I am treaded like a lunatic supporting Bernie, but what I am actually supporting the candidate with most delegates so if anyone here represents the will of democratic voters it's me! I actually understand American workers who struggle and want change. Members like Karl and JBS seem to be totally clueless of these things. I don't know why that is (too much corporate media?), but that's how it is.

You wouldn't have the first idea of where Karl and JBS get their news from. Try guessing - I'll bet you cant. And even if they told you the variety of names you'd have no firsthand experience of any of them so couldn't say if they live up to your definition of "corporate".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 01:25:49 PM
Quote from: Florestan on March 02, 2020, 12:59:39 PM
I sincerely hope you will survive November 2020, ie Trump's winning a second term.

We don't even know who will be the democratic nominee. Trump can't breath easy if Bernie is the nominee. How can he compete with Bernie in the rust belt? He is a fake populist. Bernie is a real populist.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 02, 2020, 01:36:19 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 01:25:49 PM
Trump can't breath easy if Bernie is the nominee.

Its clear from dozens of Trumps public utterances and tweets that he desperately wants Sanders to be his rival in the general.

You'd know that if you stepped out of your YT bubble.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 01:41:41 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 02, 2020, 01:36:19 PM
Its clear from dozens of Trumps public utterances and tweets that he desperately wants Sanders to be his rival in the general.

You'd know that if you stepped out of your YT bubble.

So those polls are bs and Trump knows better? You didn't hear the tape??

Bernie is winning, has delegates which PROVES americans WANT lefty policies BECAUSE right wing oligarcy makes them struggle!!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 02, 2020, 01:43:18 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 01:41:41 PM
So those polls are bs and Trump know better?

Yes, polls that say that Trump is frightened of Bernie are BS
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on March 02, 2020, 01:48:45 PM
Too bad 71 dB doesn't use his time on the forum to talk about music anymore, especially since this is the main goal of this forum --- you know, to discuss music. :-\ He's clearly obsessed with American politics to the point where it begs the question whether he's even able to sleep at night. Go outside sometime, 71 dB. Breath in the air. There is a world beyond Bernie Sanders (who you apparently put on a pedestal as if he's some kind of god). Scary times we live in that someone would do such a thing in the first place.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 02, 2020, 01:49:59 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 01:41:41 PM
So those polls are bs and Trump knows better?


2016 should have taught everyone not to put too much faith in polling.

But anyway this is just polling today, and meaningless because we haven't yet started to see what dirty tricks and swiftboating the Trump team has planned for Sanders.

You're going to suggest that it will all be water off a ducks back to Sanders and he'll rise above it all beatifically. But no, its going to be ugly.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 01:52:04 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 02, 2020, 01:48:45 PM
Too bad 71 dB doesn't use his time on the forum to talk about music anymore, especially since this is the main goal of this forum --- you know, to discuss music. :-\ He's clearly obsessed with American politics to the point where it begs the question whether he's even able to sleep at night. Go outside sometime, 71 dB. Breath in the air. There is a world beyond Bernie Sanders (who you apparently put on a pedestal as if he's some kind of god). Scary times we live in that someone would do such a thing in the first place.

When I make a music related post it is often ignored. My political posts are not ignored. That makes me feel it's politics you want me to post about
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 02, 2020, 01:53:21 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 12:38:32 PM
There is no "free" healthcare. There is just ways to pay for it. As single payer healthcare is payed by taxes, it means rich people pay more, poor people less which mean everyone can afford healtcare. It's no different from the fire department. It's payed by taxes too and rich people pay more than poor people. As single payer saves money, but it's not "free."

Big Pharma price gauges in the US because it can. It has bought the politicians to do so. In countries where politician serve the people rather than the top 1 % the drug prices are reasonable and often at least partially payed by the government so that everyone can afford their medicine and no die because of that. In Finland for example 577,66 euros (about $600) is the most one needs to pay for drugs within one year. Bernie's plan is $200, three times lower than in Finland. The US is a richer country than Finland so it can do that for it's citizens. Maybe it's needed, because the social security isn't as good as in Finland and $200 for poor Americans is about the same as $600 for poor Finns. Every country has it's one way to do these things, but Americans pay the highest prices for drugs by far.

Bernie's plan won't reduce Big Pharma's profits. It will merely increase the percentage they recieve from the government. 

Klobuchar had a plan that would actually cut their profits.  Did Kulinski ever mention it to you?

Bernie promised that patients would pay little or nothing for doctor visits.
That's what I meant by free health care . He of course made no mention of how long they would need to wait for an appointment, or how many doctor visits they would be allowed. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 01:56:41 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 02, 2020, 01:49:59 PM
2016 should have taught everyone not to put too much faith in polling.

But anyway this is just polling today, and meaningless because we haven't yet started to see what dirty tricks and swiftboating the Trump team has planned for Sanders.

You're going to suggest that it will all be water off a ducks back to Sanders and he'll rise above it all beatifically. But no, its going to be ugly.

2016 polling was right. Hillary got more votes just as indicated by the polls. It was just the idiots interpreted the poll incorrectly and didn't realise Hillary was WEAK on rust belt.

Yes, dirty tricks will come, but Bernie has means to answer them because he is true progressive. He can expose what a lier/conman Trump is.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 02, 2020, 01:57:08 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 01:52:04 PM
When I make a music related post it is often ignored. My political posts are not ignored. That makes me feel it's politics you want me to post about

That's a lie, and you know it's a lie because you know people have asked you to stop with this nonsense zealotry.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 02, 2020, 01:57:39 PM
(If it's transactional) Pete and Amy's Voters Could Give Biden a Genuinely Super Tuesday
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 02, 2020, 01:58:49 PM
Biden and Bernie look neck-&-neck-ish in Texas.

Bernie seems heavily favored in California.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 01:59:49 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 02, 2020, 01:53:21 PM
Bernie promised that patients would pay little or nothing for doctor visits.
That's what I meant by free health care . He of course made no mention of how long they would need to wait for an appointment, or how many doctor visits they would be allowed.

That's the point of tax money paid things. You pay taxes, but things are free at the point of service.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 02, 2020, 02:01:30 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 01:41:41 PM
So those polls are bs and Trump knows better? You didn't hear the tape??

Bernie is winning, has delegates which PROVES americans WANT lefty policies BECAUSE right wing oligarcy makes them struggle!!

If you checked you'd discover a lot of the oligarchs are leftists...because they know the elitism inherent in progressivism will help them keep their money.
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 01:25:49 PM
We don't even know who will be the democratic nominee. Trump can't breath easy if Bernie is the nominee. How can he compete with Bernie in the rust belt? He is a fake populist. Bernie is a real populist.



In American terms, Sanders is as equally a fake populist as Trump.  Improving people's lives is not populism. Populism means giving the people control over their own lives, for better or for worse. Sanders's agenda is based on  giving government bureaucrats control over their lives.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 02, 2020, 02:01:51 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 01:59:49 PM
but things are free at the point of service.

In the U.S., that is pure Fantasy-Land
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 02, 2020, 02:03:21 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 01:59:49 PM
That's the point of tax money paid things. You pay taxes, but things are free at the point of service.

Any plan that comes out if Congress will not have "free at point of service".

That's something that if you actually understood American politics, you would not need being told,
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 02, 2020, 02:05:18 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 02, 2020, 01:58:49 PM
Biden and Bernie look neck-&-neck-ish in Texas.

Bernie seems heavily favored in California.

In Florida (official voting day is March 17), the latest poll shows Biden and Bloomberg both at 25%, Sanders at 17% or 18%.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 02:06:00 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 02, 2020, 02:01:51 PM
In the U.S., that is pure Fantasy-Land

Yep, but not elsewhere. Are you sure you want your country to stay the same forever, never becoming anything better?

The X-Files time...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 02:07:51 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 02, 2020, 02:03:21 PM
Any plan that comes out if Congress will not have "free at point of service".
Not even fire department?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 02, 2020, 02:09:06 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 02, 2020, 01:49:59 PM
2016 should have taught everyone not to put too much faith in polling.

But anyway this is just polling today, and meaningless because we haven't yet started to see what dirty tricks and swiftboating the Trump team has planned for Sanders.

You're going to suggest that it will all be water off a ducks back to Sanders and he'll rise above it all beatifically. But no, its going to be ugly.

And with Sanders, Trump will merely need to run clips of Bernie speaking.   His "there's some good things about Castro" remark last week means he'll lose whatever chance he had of taking Florida, and maybe even New Jersey: there's a large Cuban presence there.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 02, 2020, 02:10:00 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 02:07:51 PM
Not even fire department?

Would you like to see my property tax bill? A hefty part of it goes to the fire department.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on March 02, 2020, 02:23:48 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 01:52:04 PM
When I make a music related post it is often ignored. My political posts are not ignored. That makes me feel it's politics you want me to post about

Why? It's clear that most people here don't even agree with you. Give it up. Go home.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 02:42:40 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 02, 2020, 02:09:06 PM
And with Sanders, Trump will merely need to run clips of Bernie speaking.   His "there's some good things about Castro" remark last week means he'll lose whatever chance he had of taking Florida, and maybe even New Jersey: there's a large Cuban presence there.

Obama said the exact same things and nobody cared. Why? Because Obama is corporate enough
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 02:43:34 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 02, 2020, 02:23:48 PM
Why? It's clear that most people here don't even agree with you. Give it up. Go home.

Go home? Where do you think I am?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 02:45:37 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 02, 2020, 02:10:00 PM
Would you like to see my property tax bill? A hefty part of it goes to the fire department.

Sure I don't know everything, but to my understanding you don't pay property tax unless you actually own a property. So, if you pay property tax it means you own property, right?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 02, 2020, 03:10:38 PM
Running Bernie Sanders Against Trump Would Be an Act of Insanity (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/bernie-sanders-electable-trump-2020-nomination-popular-socialism.html)

[...]"As we now know, it was a good strategy to win the House. Democrats flipped 40 seats. Tellingly, while progressives managed to nominate several candidates in red districts — Kara Eastman in Nebraska, Richard Ojeda in West Virginia, and many others — any one of whose victory they would have cited as proof that left-wing candidates can win Trump districts, not a single one of them prevailed in November. Our Revolution went 0–22, Justice Democrats went 0–16, and Brand New Congress went 0–6.* The failed technocratic 26-year-old bourgeoise shills who were doing it wrong somehow accounted for 100 percent of the party's House gains.

Had Democrats failed to win back the House, their left-wing critics would have claimed vindication. Instead, the entire debate sank below the surface without a trace. Indeed, what happened instead was something peculiar. The leftists chose to focus on a handful of left-wing candidates, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who defeated center-left Democrats in deep-blue districts. The conservative media strategically elevated her in a bid to make AOC and her squad the party's face. The mutual interest of the two sides made AOC the narrative center of the election. The fact that the party had just run a field experiment between two factions, and the moderate faction prevailed conclusively, was forgotten.

At this point there is hardly any serious evidence to believe that the best strategy to defeat Trump is to mobilize voters with a radical economic agenda. Public satisfaction with the economy is now at its highest point since the peak of the dot-com boom two decades ago. Trump has serious weaknesses of issues like health care, corruption, taxes, and the environment, and a majority of the public disapproves of Trump's performance, but he does enjoy broad approval of his economic management. Therefore, his reelection strategy revolves around painting his opponents as radical and dangerous. You may not like me, he will argue, but my opponents are going to turn over the apple cart. A Sanders campaign seems almost designed to play directly into Trump's message.

Whatever evidence might have supported a Sanders-esque populist strategy for Democrats after the 2016 election, it has since collapsed. But in the ideological hothouse of the Sanders world, no setbacks have been acknowledged, no rethinking has taken place, and the skeptics are dismissed as elitist neoliberal corporate shills, as ever. The project moves forward even as the key tests of its viability have all failed. Once enough energy has been invested in a cause, it has too much momentum to be abandoned. For the socialist left, which has no other standard-bearer to choose from, Bernie is too big to fail. The question is whether the Democratic Party, the only political force standing between Donald Trump and his authoritarian ambitions, will risk failing with him."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 04:22:20 PM
Trump happened after 2 terms of Obama. Gee I wonder why...  ::)

What kind of "Trump" happens after Biden or Bloomberg? I don't want to know.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 02, 2020, 04:41:47 PM
Is that supposed to be a response to the article I linked to above?

Did you even bother to read the text? I thought they made their point well.

Or are you just - as I would have expected - arguing with the title? (not that "gee I wonder why" counts as an argument.)

Try reading.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 05:03:12 PM
Predictions for Super Tuesday (just for fun  ;D )

Joe Biden wins in Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia

Bernie Sanders wins in American Samoa, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Vermont

Quote from: SimonNZ on March 02, 2020, 04:41:47 PM
Is that supposed to be a response to the article I linked to above?

Did you even bother to read the text? I thought they made their point well.

Or are you just - as I would have expected - arguing with the title? (not that "gee I wonder why" counts as an argument.)

Try reading.

No. The article is nonsencical establishment propaganda. Leftist candidates are in systemic financial disadvantage and perform in elections well when this is taken into account. In many races losing progressive candidates came closer to winning than moderate candidates. Bernie Sanders is not in financial disadvantage: Small dollar donations to him are record breaking.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 02, 2020, 05:11:01 PM
You still haven't read it. You're still just arguing with the title.

Cite actual quotes and then demonstrate how they are specifically false. Particularly wrt the first two paragraphs in the quote above.

And, please, not just "they're false because Bernie is great".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 02, 2020, 05:49:14 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 02:45:37 PM
Sure I don't know everything, but to my understanding you don't pay property tax unless you actually own a property. So, if you pay property tax it means you own property, right?

I own the 1300 square foot townhouse in which I live. Does that make me an oligarch?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 02, 2020, 05:56:24 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2020, 05:03:12 PM

No. The article is nonsencical establishment propaganda. Leftist candidates are in systemic financial disadvantage and perform in elections well when this is taken into account. In many races losing progressive candidates came closer to winning than moderate candidates. Bernie Sanders is not in financial disadvantage: Small dollar donations to him are record breaking.

If you read the article, you obviously didn't understand the point; in swing districts progressives lost across the board, while moderates generally won.  Swing voters will vote for moderates, and will vote for Republicans when their opponent is a progressive. This is especially so because the economic discontent is not as strong as it was in 2016.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 03, 2020, 12:02:03 AM
Quote from: JBS on March 02, 2020, 05:56:24 PM
If you read the article, you obviously didn't understand the point; in swing districts progressives lost across the board, while moderates generally won.  Swing voters will vote for moderates, and will vote for Republicans when their opponent is a progressive. This is especially so because the economic discontent is not as strong as it was in 2016.

Because moderates are corrupt and have more money! That's the financial disadvantantage! Also, corporate media ATTACKS the left. It's name recognition. It's turnout. It's not a fair playfield, but lefties are trying hard to improve the country.

Quote from: JBS on March 02, 2020, 05:49:14 PM
I own the 1300 square foot townhouse in which I live. Does that make me an oligarch?

So what's your problem? You own a lot more than many and you are clearly doing okay. I never said you are an oligarch. Instead I said you are part of the 99 %, because  1300 square foot doesn't make you a member of the 1 % club, does it?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 03, 2020, 12:14:00 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 02, 2020, 04:41:47 PM
Is that supposed to be a response to the article I linked to above?

Did you even bother to read the text? I thought they made their point well.

Or are you just - as I would have expected - arguing with the title? (not that "gee I wonder why" counts as an argument.)

Try reading.

I don't want to waste my time debunking stupid corporate hit pieces for politically illiterate people. When lefties have money they do well. Bernie has money.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 03, 2020, 12:38:31 AM
You wont know if this is "nonsencical establishment propaganda. " or "stupid corporate hit piece" if you don't read it.

Coward.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 03, 2020, 01:16:32 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 03, 2020, 12:38:31 AM
You wont know if this is "nonsencical establishment propaganda. " or "stupid corporate hit piece" if you don't read it.

Coward.

Yeah, I wouldn't, but I did read it so much to notice it's propaganda.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 03, 2020, 03:56:08 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 02, 2020, 03:10:38 PM
Running Bernie Sanders Against Trump Would Be an Act of Insanity (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/bernie-sanders-electable-trump-2020-nomination-popular-socialism.html)

Excellent article. This paragraph is also relevant:

Compounding those vulnerabilities is a long history of radical associations. Sanders campaigned for the Socialist Workers' Party and praised communist regimes. Obviously, Republicans call every Democratic nominee a "socialist." But it's one thing to have the label thrown at you by the opposition, another for it to be embraced willingly, and yet another thing altogether to have a web of creepy associations that make it child's play for the opposition to paint your program as radical and dangerous. Viewing these attacks in isolation, and asking whether voters will care about Bernie's views on the Cold War, misses the way they will be used as a stand-in to discredit his entire worldview. Nobody "cared" how Michael Dukakis looked in a tank, and probably not many voters cared about Mitt Romney's dismissive remarks about the 47 percent, but both reinforced larger attack narratives. Vintage video of Bernie palling around with Soviet communists will make for an almost insultingly easy way for Republicans to communicate the idea that his plans to expand government are radical.[/u]

(emphasis mine)


Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 03, 2020, 04:15:18 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 03, 2020, 12:38:31 AM
Coward.

But . . . but . . . his head feels so GOOD in the sand!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 03, 2020, 04:20:30 AM
"Warren, meanwhile, will go into Tuesday on the defensive: Sanders currently has an advantage of more than 5 points in the FiveThirtyEight polling average for Massachusetts, and losing her home state could be a devastating blow to the Massachusetts senator's campaign."

And . . . why is Tulsi Gabbard still around?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 03, 2020, 04:26:38 AM
Americans don't fear socialism anymore. Well, old people maybe, but not the younger generation. They get alternative information from the interner/social media to debunk the fearmongering of corporate media. They also struggle in crony capitalism so they know that's not working for them.

In polls Biden and Sanders have been the two strongest against Trump. However, I believe Biden is not actually strong, because Trump can attack him more effectively than Bernie. What is Biden going to say when Trump says Biden lied about being arrested in South Africa? Bernie can easily defend himself of the crazy communist claim by saying if giving people healthcare is crazy then call me crazy!! Also, Sanders is strong in the rust belt while Biden isn't. Just as with Hillary, Bidens support is in the wrong places. We also have the clear altzheimer/dementia of Biden (constants gaffes) while Sanders is sharp. All this considered it's clear Sanders is much stronger against Trump and the corporate fearmongering is complete nonsense, propaganda to make people support Biden.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 03, 2020, 04:27:42 AM
"California Is The First Big Test Of Sanders's Voter Turnout Machine
Sanders's lead in the polls is, however, dependent on voters who have historically been less likely to vote — particularly young people, independents and Latinos. According to the L.A. Times/Berkeley poll, slightly more than half (51 percent) of Latinos are now supporting Sanders, up 13 points from January. He also has the support of half of voters who identify as very liberal.

One way to judge the success of his outreach machine is whether he can consolidate support among these groups and convince them to turn out in high numbers. And that's not an easy task, particularly in a place like Los Angeles, where the presidential primary can easily be forgotten. Many voters told me they weren't really talking about the election with their friends. "It's confusing to me, because I think this election is so, so important, but I just don't think most people are that interested in it," said Avery Robinson, 21, who is planning to vote for Sanders."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 03, 2020, 04:30:58 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 03, 2020, 04:20:30 AM
And . . . why is Tulsi Gabbard still around?

The only thing I can think of being still around makes it possible for her to keep anti-war agenda relevant.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 03, 2020, 04:36:56 AM
I presume this is just corporate propaganda and fearmongering...

https://www.youtube.com/v/KgCfJxpqhd0
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 03, 2020, 04:44:56 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 03, 2020, 04:36:56 AM
I presume this is just corporate propaganda and fearmongering...

https://www.youtube.com/v/KgCfJxpqhd0

Like someone commented on the video: Is this supposed to make me dislike him?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 03, 2020, 05:06:45 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 03, 2020, 04:44:56 AM
Like someone commented on the video: Is this supposed to make me dislike him?

Whether you or anyone else of his fans like him is beside the point. The point, which the article Simon refered you to makes extremely clear, is that such dubious associations from his past will be used by Trump as proof that he is a dangerous radical. I think even you will admit than drinking oneself silly with a bunch of Soviets is not a particuarly endearing feature of a US presidential candidate. What JBS and Karl repeatedly told you and you repeteadly chose to ignore is that Bernie's being a favorite among registered Democrats in a particular state is no indication whatever about his nationwide popularity among independent non-Democrats, let alone Republicans. Bernie's record of explicitly praising socialist dictatorships and associating himself with Soviets and radicals to the point of spending his honeymoon in the USSR will play against him big time. Trump will eat him alive on these issues.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 03, 2020, 05:14:24 AM
Recently posted by a friend on Facebook:

"I support Warren but I would much rather vote for Biden than Bernie. It has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with governing. I really dislike Bernie's "my way or the highway" inflexibility and stubbornness. He votes against progressive legislation that he feels doesn't go far enough (the Brady Bill, the Magnitsky Act, the US-Mexico-Canada trade deal (USMCA)) rather than seeing it as a step in the right direction on which to build. Believe me, I have significant concerns about Biden, but at least Biden has an open mind and isn't in the "burn the house down" camp. I'd much rather reform and rebuild the house than destroy it.

It's also no accident that Bernie attracts the kinds of supporters who are just as inflexible, yell-y, and "my way or the highway" as he is. NO other candidate has supporters that threaten voters who oppose them with violence and death threats (most recently the culinary union leader in Las Vegas). No other candidate has such a large percentage of supporters who won't support the winner if it isn't their candidate. This is a big problem and I DO hold Bernie responsible for his supporters, because he has set that example for them.

Of course I'll vote for Bernie if he's the nominee. But I really hope he isn't."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 03, 2020, 05:15:59 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 03, 2020, 04:44:56 AM
Like someone commented on the video: Is this supposed to make me dislike him?

1. You are so in love, nothing will make you dislike him.

2. When is the last time you formed an original thought?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 03, 2020, 05:39:50 AM
     Why has Sanders come so far in spite of being a radical socialist who says nice things about communists? Why isn't he competing with Tulsi for last place? How did he almost knock off Hillary in 2016?

     The electorate in recent years has overthrown prior assumptions about the value of mainstream and radical designations by the Dept. of Categorization. A few reasons are clear, such as the near total paralysis of the government which occurred in the wake of the largest economic crash since the GD. Repubs led by McConnell wanted to make it nearly impossible for Obama and the Dems to accomplish anything. And now the majority of the electorate have been enlightened to see that with Repubs in charge they are pursuing the same strategy, undermining the government from within. The goal of the government now is to destroy its own functionality, not for a worthy goal, but as a goal in itself. It's "big anti-government".

     So, what does radical mean now? It never actually meant "big government". Government doesn't have a size in that sense. It will always be as big as it needs to be for what it's supposed to do.

     When the government dedicates itself to destroying the possibility of positive action, mere old school radicalism loses its scare function.

     Finally, you don't need a replay of the '30s all the way to a world war to understand the forces at work. History is like that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 03, 2020, 05:53:58 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 03, 2020, 04:26:38 AM
Americans don't fear socialism anymore. Well, old people maybe, but not the younger generation. They get alternative information from the interner/social media to debunk the fearmongering of corporate media. They also struggle in crony capitalism so they know that's not working for them.

In polls Biden and Sanders have been the two strongest against Trump. However, I believe Biden is not actually strong, because Trump can attack him more effectively than Bernie. What is Biden going to say when Trump says Biden lied about being arrested in South Africa? Bernie can easily defend himself of the crazy communist claim by saying if giving people healthcare is crazy then call me crazy!! Also, Sanders is strong in the rust belt while Biden isn't. Just as with Hillary, Bidens support is in the wrong places. We also have the clear altzheimer/dementia of Biden (constants gaffes) while Sanders is sharp. All this considered it's clear Sanders is much stronger against Trump and the corporate fearmongering is complete nonsense, propaganda to make people support Biden.

Pointing out that Sanders is well to the Left is not fear mongering. Pointing out that Sanders's agenda  consists of imposing national bureaucratic control over major areas of life and taking away decision making from the average person is not fear mongering. Pointing out that Sanders's program includes a host of things beyond health care is not fear mongering. They are facts, and it doesn't require anything beyond reading Sanders's website to realize that. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 03, 2020, 05:58:06 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 03, 2020, 05:39:50 AM
     Why has Sanders come so far in spite of being a radical socialist who says nice things about communists? Why isn't he competing with Tulsi for last place? How did he almost knock off Hillary in 2016?

     The electorate in recent years has overthrown prior assumptions about the value of mainstream and radical designations by the Dept. of Categorization. A few reasons are clear, such as the near total paralysis of the government which occurred in the wake of the largest economic crash since the GD. Repubs led by McConnell wanted to make it nearly impossible for Obama and the Dems to accomplish anything. And now the majority of the electorate have been enlightened to see that with Repubs in charge they are pursuing the same strategy, undermining the government from within. The goal of the government now is to destroy its own functionality, not for a worthy goal, but as a goal in itself. It's "big anti-government".

     So, what does radical mean now? It never actually meant "big government". Government doesn't have a size in that sense. It will always be as big as it needs to be for what it's supposed to do.

     When the government dedicates itself to destroying the possibility of positive action, mere old school radicalism loses its scare function.

     Finally, you don't need a replay of the '30s all the way to a world war to understand the forces at work. History is like that.

The GOP is not anti-government. The GOP is government that benefits them and no one else.
Right now, there's almost no one in the corridors of power in DC who takes the classic position: there's not really much that government needs to do, and most of what government does now is something government doesn't need to do.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 03, 2020, 06:12:12 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 03, 2020, 05:39:50 AM
How did he almost knock off Hillary in 2016?

By being other than Hillary.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 03, 2020, 06:21:28 AM
QuoteI feel like we should pause and think of the sad early voters who already cast their ballots for Buttigieg and Klobuchar.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Irons on March 03, 2020, 06:54:51 AM
Much to my surprise as an outsider this is getting more and more interesting. The main problem is keeping up with the turnover of this thread! Don't you guys sleep!

Apparently Bernie Sanders brother lives in England. He appeared on our TV and came over well. Beside the obvious comparison with Corbyn, a question he hit to touch with ease, what I found most interesting was his point that the very people who put Trump in power - the less well off - would find his brother's left wing views appealing. Then on a radio discussion today an American political pundit said Trump will be praying for a Sanders victory! So I am completely confused.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 03, 2020, 07:05:28 AM
Quote from: Irons on March 03, 2020, 06:54:51 AM
Much to my surprise as an outsider this is getting more and more interesting. The main problem is keeping up with the turnover of this thread! Don't you guys sleep!

Yes, indeed! Rested beautifully last night, thanks.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 03, 2020, 07:07:00 AM
Quote from: JBS on March 03, 2020, 05:53:58 AM
Pointing out that Sanders's agenda  consists of imposing national bureaucratic control over major areas of life and taking away decision making from the average person is not fear mongering.

     Government does that. It's what it's for, even if it can be pejoratively described as such. What is hard to understand apparently is that the size of a government has no fixed meaning in a constantly evolving and expanding economy. You can't run a 2016 system from a 1916 set of parts and the role of ideology is blown way out of proportion, describing more than deciding.

     If "big government" was a thing it's purported to be, we'd find another way of building the system components we want. Conservatives will fantasize about another way with their alternative plans, rightly ridiculed by almost everyone. When a branch of the conservative intelligentsia came up with an alternative that turned out to be a practical possibility, Repub politicians recoiled in horror. ObomneyCare unmasked them brutally. Especially irksome was that it lacked a public option that would characterize it as communistic.

     If the state is big when it does something big, and bigness itself is to be avoided, why it is only the now or the near past to which this understanding is applied? Why are there no serious efforts to repeal everything government has done since the Louisiana Purchase? The real answer is that government and total system function are not separate but intertwined. They evolve together guided by a rule set that is itself undergoing transformation. I judge that the systems of self-government with a democratic predisposition are the best at doing this.

Quote from: JBS on March 03, 2020, 05:58:06 AM
The GOP is not anti-government. The GOP is government that benefits them and no one else.
Right now, there's almost no one in the corridors of power in DC who takes the classic position: there's not really much that government needs to do, and most of what government does now is something government doesn't need to do.

     As far as I'm concerned, there isn't much difference. Of course undermining government function relatively benefits those who need it least. I understand this through the lens of behavioral economics. The rich are aware that they will get money richer in a more equal society where people can afford the products produced by companies the rich own. Income flows up. It takes an army of poor to middle income people to support a billionaire.

     So why impoverish most people, the customers? The answer is that it's the power and prestige money confers that matter most, not the purchasing power of it. The growing inequality in income and wealth is not an unfortunate byproduct. The rich want as much power and prestige as their wealth can give them, even if it means getting richer more slowly.

     As for what government needs to do, it doesn't have to be re-litigated for ideological purposes. Once you figure out that it's necessary for everyone to have health insurance for the benefit of the whole and all the parts (IOW where are are now), plans with various roles for the government (all plans, that is) will be compared for their consequences.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 03, 2020, 06:12:12 AM
By being other than Hillary.

    That doesn't say why Sanders, with all his obvious negatives according to conventional wisdom, was so good at climbing such a greasy pole as the Hillary alternative. Why him?

    If you don't accept my answer about how economic decline manifests itself by partially erasing old categories of radical/mainstream, what explains Trump and Sanders? History suggests strong parallels with similar disruptions.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 03, 2020, 07:35:56 AM
Quote from: Irons on March 03, 2020, 06:54:51 AM
Much to my surprise as an outsider this is getting more and more interesting. The main problem is keeping up with the turnover of this thread! Don't you guys sleep!

I do rather worry for Poju that he may stay up until the California polls close, though.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on March 03, 2020, 07:40:11 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 03, 2020, 07:07:00 AM
     Government does that. It's what it's for, even if it can be pejoratively described as such. What is hard to understand apparently is that the size of a government has no fixed meaning in a constantly evolving and expanding economy. You can't run a 2016 system from a 1916 set of parts and the role of ideology is blown way out of proportion, describing more than deciding.

     If "big government" was a thing it's purported to be, we'd find another way of building the system components we want. Conservatives will fantasize about another way with their alternative plans, rightly ridiculed by almost everyone. When a branch of the conservative intelligentsia came up with an alternative that turned out to be a practical possibility, Repub politicians recoiled in horror. ObomneyCare unmasked them brutally. Especially irksome was that it lacked a public option that would characterize it as communistic.

     If the state is big when it does something big, and bigness itself is to be avoided, why it is only the now or the near past to which this understanding is applied? Why are there no serious efforts to repeal everything government has done since the Louisiana Purchase? The real answer is that government and total system function are not separate but intertwined. They evolve together guided by a rule set that is itself undergoing transformation. I judge that the systems of self-government with a democratic predisposition are the best at doing this.

     As far as I'm concerned, there isn't much difference. Of course undermining government function relatively benefits those who need it least. I understand this through the lens of behavioral economics. The rich are aware that they will get money richer in a more equal society where people can afford the products produced by companies the rich own. Income flows up. It takes an army of poor to middle income people to support a billionaire.

     So why impoverish most people, the customers? The answer is that it's the power and prestige money confers that matter most, not the purchasing power of it. The growing inequality in income and wealth is not an unfortunate byproduct. The rich want as much power and prestige as their wealth can give them, even if it means getting richer more slowly.

     As for what government needs to do, it doesn't have to be re-litigated for ideological purposes. Once you figure out that it's necessary for everyone to have health insurance for the benefit of the whole and all the parts (IOW where are are now), plans with various roles for the government (all plans, that is) will be compared for their consequences.

    That doesn't say why Sanders, with all his obvious negatives according to conventional wisdom, was so good at climbing such a greasy pole as the Hillary alternative. Why him?

    If you don't accept my answer about how economic decline manifests itself by partially erasing old categories of radical/mainstream, what explains Trump and Sanders? History suggests strong parallels with similar disruptions.

You mean Hitler and Stalin ?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 03, 2020, 07:55:05 AM
Quote from: André on March 03, 2020, 07:40:11 AM
You mean Hitler and Stalin ?

     We don't know how far it will go this time, except by how far it has gone already. I don't assume a fixed end point.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 03, 2020, 07:57:35 AM
An opinion piece by Michelle Goldberg:

As Bernie Sanders has taken the lead in the Democratic primary, those of us with doubts that America would elect a Jewish democratic socialist president have been able to comfort ourselves with polls showing him beating Donald Trump, often by larger margins than his competitors.

New political science research by David Broockman of the University of California, Berkeley, and Joshua Kalla of Yale erodes some of that comfort. Broockman and Kalla surveyed over 40,000 people — far more than a typical poll — about head-to-head presidential matchups. They found that when they weight their numbers to reflect the demographic makeup of the population rather than the likely electorate, as many polls do, Sanders beats Trump, often by more than other candidates.

But the demographics of people who actually vote are almost always different from the demographics of people who can vote. That's where their analysis raises concerns about Sanders's chances.

According to Broockman and Kalla's figures, Sanders loses a significant number of swing votes to Trump, but he makes up for them in support from young people who say they won't vote, or will vote third party, unless Sanders is the nominee. On the surface, these Bernie-or-bust voters might seem like an argument for Sanders. After all, Sanders partisans sometimes insist that Democrats have no choice but to nominate their candidate because they'll stay home otherwise, a sneering imitation of traditional centrist demands for progressive compromise.

But if Broockman and Kalla are right, by nominating Sanders, Democrats would be trading some of the electorate's most reliable voters for some of its least. To prevail, Democrats would need unheard-of rates of youth turnout. That doesn't necessarily mean Sanders would be a worse candidate than Joe Biden, given all of Biden's baggage. It does mean polls might be underestimating how hard it will be for Sanders to beat Trump.

"Given how many voters say they would switch to Trump in head-to-heads against Sanders compared to the more moderate candidates, the surge in youth turnout Sanders would require to gain back this ground is large: around 11 percentage points," Broockman and Kalla write in a new working paper.

About 37 percent of Democrats and independents under 35 voted in 2016. According to Broockman and Kalla's figures, Sanders would need to get that figure up to 48 percent. By comparison, Broockman told me, in 2008, Barack Obama raised black turnout by about five percentage points.

Disclosure: My husband is consulting for Elizabeth Warren. According to Broockman, she fares even worse than Sanders in their data, sharing his disadvantages among moderates without any sign of a compensatory surge among young people. Broockman said that if either Warren or Sanders is on the ballot, more Republicans will likely be motivated to go to the polls in response. "When parties nominate candidates further from the center, it actually inspires the other party to turn out," he told me.

In our age of extreme polarization, a widespread school of thought holds that swing voters are nearly extinct, and that turnout is everything. But that's an exaggeration. While there seem to be fewer swing voters than in the past, they can still be decisive.

As Ruy Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, pointed out in The Washington Post, the 2018 elections saw the highest midterm turnout in over a century, yet most of Democrats' improved performance "came not from fresh turnout of left-of-center voters, who typically skip midterms, but rather from people who cast votes" in the last two national elections and "switched from Republican in 2016 to Democratic in 2018."

The primaries have yet to demonstrate that Sanders can generate the hugely expanded turnout his campaign is promising, though that could change when the Super Tuesday results come in. In New Hampshire, turnout increased most in the places that voted for Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar.

Dave Wasserman, an editor at The Cook Political Report, tweeted that most of the Democrats' turnout bump was attributable to moderate Republicans "crossing over from '16 G.O.P. primary — not heightened progressive/Sanders base enthusiasm." South Carolina saw record turnout, but it benefited Biden, not Sanders.

None of this means that Democrats would be justified in denying Sanders the nomination if he arrives at the convention with a strong plurality of delegates. Doing so would tear the party apart, probably leaving the eventual nominee even less electable than Sanders is. But it does mean that if Sanders wins the primary, his campaign has to learn to persuade people, not just mobilize them.

College-educated white women, for example, helped flip the House in 2018. They favor Biden over Trump by double digits, but Sanders by only two points. Sanders, however, seems to see little need to reach out to them. Speaking to The Los Angeles Times editorial board in December, Sanders said he didn't believe the way to win against Trump "is to just speak to Republican women in the suburbs."

Instead, he said, "The key to this election is, can we get millions of young people who have never voted before into the political process, many working people who understand that Trump is a fraud, can we get them voting?" Even if the answer is yes, it probably won't be enough. If he's going to be the nominee, the rest of us can only hope his campaign has a Plan B."


Emphases mine ~kh
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 03, 2020, 08:14:44 AM
Yes, this insistence on "getting young people to vote massively" while ignoring or downplaying other categories might prove self-defeating, because "young people" are notoriously unreliable when it comes to voting. Broockman and Kalla are spot on.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 03, 2020, 08:17:16 AM
Quote from: André on March 03, 2020, 07:40:11 AM
You mean Hitler and Stalin ?

Paralleling Hitler with Trump or Stalin with Sanders is sheer lunacy. Sorry, I can't put it milder.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 03, 2020, 08:53:31 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 03, 2020, 08:17:16 AM
Paralleling Hitler with Trump or Stalin with Sanders is sheer lunacy. Sorry, I can't put it milder.

    The analysis from history doesn't have to be exact. TrumpPutin is not the Hitler-Stalin Pact and the odds are it never will be. On the other side, most people didn't think the "30s would produce what it did and it took many years for them to become convinced that Chuchill was right that an existential crisis was in the works.

    My goal is neither to over- or underplay the parallels, only to suggest that it explains better than any other framework the nature of the crisis. The democratic capitalist states have undermined themselves with disastrous economic policy that deliberately undermined the recovery/expansion of the present cycle. We got the populist/authoritarian response we had every reason to expect.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 03, 2020, 09:03:19 AM
Quote from: Irons on March 03, 2020, 06:54:51 AM
Much to my surprise as an outsider this is getting more and more interesting. The main problem is keeping up with the turnover of this thread! Don't you guys sleep!

America, Australia/New Zealand, Europe... ...we are all over the time zones and someone can always be active here.  :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 03, 2020, 09:03:42 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 03, 2020, 08:53:31 AM
    The democratic capitalist states have undermined themselves with disastrous economic policy that deliberately undermined the recovery/expansion of the present cycle. We got the populist/authoritarian response we had every reason to expect.

While this might be true, it's no parallel to the situation of Germany in 1933, not even by a long stretch. But if you really find it to be the case, then you must also tell us who are the USA equivalents of Hindenburg and von Papen.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on March 03, 2020, 09:50:57 AM
No Hitlers or Stalins on the ballot. Obama was our Gorbachev, Trump is our Berlusconi and Sanders could be our Hugo Chavez.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 03, 2020, 10:02:37 AM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 03, 2020, 09:50:57 AM
No Hitlers or Stalins on the ballot. Obama was our Gorbachev, Trump is our Berlusconi and Sanders could be our Hugo Chavez.

:D :D :D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 03, 2020, 10:08:50 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 03, 2020, 09:03:42 AM
While this might be true, it's no parallel to the situation of Germany in 1933, not even by a long stretch. But if you really find it to be the case, then you must also tell us who are the USA equivalents of Hindenburg and von Papen.

     It's the pattern of economic crisis leading to an assault on democracy and the institutions of government that I'm observing. It doesn't go to the level of individual personalities. The fascist buffoonery and other elements, the lying and propagandizing with no discernible resemblance to anything true, the enhanced racism and scapegoating, the disestablishment of objective truth, they are all present. If there is an alternative framework to explain this, what is it?

     The institutional disruption will produce a set of personalities that don't correspond one for one with famous '30s individuals. Today's authoritarian/populist buffoons will bear a general resemblance to their predescessors, not a specific one.

     For instance the austerity mongers of today are none of them Heinrich Brüning, whose policy of austerity in 1930 did more to gift us with Mr. Hilter than anything else. The austerity of the last decade has many authors and assumed a privileged position in the economic zeitgeist with no major figure to blame for it. What was idiotically called "expansionary austerity" in Europe was herdthink of the worst kind. Funny, you don't hear much about that version of "shrink to grow" any more. The shrinksters are a little more cautious these days.

     We had our economic crisis, we had the response, and we have the pattern laid out for all to see. Do we need "this guy is just like that one", too? No, we don't.

     (https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190305190954-trump-hugs-flag-large-169.jpg)

     This is a system wide failure, not just an accident that puts a radically unsuitable person in the WH.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on March 03, 2020, 10:25:36 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 03, 2020, 08:17:16 AM
Paralleling Hitler with Trump or Stalin with Sanders is sheer lunacy. Sorry, I can't put it milder.
For real. They're both in the same direction but each are like thousands of miles away. People would have to be extremely neurotic think either would come to that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 03, 2020, 10:56:53 AM
Quote from: greg on March 03, 2020, 10:25:36 AM
For real. They're both in the same direction but each are like thousands of miles away. People would have to be extremely neurotic think either would come to that.

     We are in the midst of a crisis and will be for some years. Sanders isn't Huey Long and neither is Trump. The Great Recession wasn't the Great Depression.

     No sheer lunacy is involved. You can get sick from a disease that made you sicker in the past. The disease is the same, the outcome, though very bad, isn't the same as before, with the same symptoms of lesser severity, at least up to now.

     The cure for an economic crisis is to bring it to an end and put aside theistic objections to doing so. You earn the confidence of the populace by performing needed tasks. If the mainstream is no longer trusted, it has to earn trust back by doing the job it should have done when the economy fell apart. We have to build the new economy because that's what we are supposed to do, not think of clever ways to not do it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 03, 2020, 11:15:47 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 03, 2020, 10:08:50 AM
     Heinrich Brüning, whose policy of austerity in 1930 did more to gift us with Mr. Hilter than anything else.

This is wrong but I'm not going to pursue this off topic any further.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Jo498 on March 03, 2020, 11:38:18 AM
Sanders and Trump are not in the same "direction" as Stalin or Hitler.
We have some examples of democratic states falling into fascism in the 1920s30s (but the conditions were quite different to 2020s US, so different that "fascism" is an almost useless label nowadays, despite being thrown around in a facile manner). I am not aware of any country that has ever devolved from social democracy (in the fashion of 1970s Scandinavia or Germany which is roughly where Sanders belongs) into Stalinist Gulags, despite Hayek and disciples claiming that a bit of welfare state gets you on the road to serfdom.
IMO throwing around fascist, communist etc. labels is bad in at least three ways:
It's a total misapprehension and belittling of the horrors of real fascism and Stalinism/Maoism etc.
It's lazy because it is a shortcut for damning instead of debating/critizing the real positions of today's politicians.
And it is foolish because by using obsolete labels that belong to movements of another century one will probably miss the totalitarian ways the present or the future will take that don't quite align with these old oppositions and are usually far more subtle and cut along different lines. Like the social control in China or the private company censorship on western social media and countless other ways, used both by the "corporatist right" as well as the "woke left".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 03, 2020, 11:44:52 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 03, 2020, 11:15:47 AM
This is wrong but I'm not going to pursue this off topic any further.

     Wise choice, I'd say.

     To this day it's widely believed that hyperinflation was responsible for Hitler, and not the more proximate deflation/depression that created 7 million unemployed in Germany.

Before the crash, 1.25 million people were unemployed in Germany. By the end of 1930 the figure had reached nearly 4 million, 15.3 per cent of the population. Even those in work suffered as many were only working part-time. With the drop in demand for labour, wages also fell and those with full-time work had to survive on lower incomes. Hitler, who was considered a fool in 1928 when he predicted economic disaster, was now seen in a different light. People began to say that if he was clever enough to predict the depression maybe he also knew how to solve it.

By 1932 over 30 per cent of the German workforce was unemployed. In the 1933 Election campaign, Adolf Hitler promised that if he gained power he would abolish unemployment.


     As is the case today, it's not the crash that creates the political crisis, it's the response to it. Brüning didn't create the depression, he deepened it. It was deflation as policy that did Germany in.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 03, 2020, 11:50:10 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on March 03, 2020, 11:38:18 AM
Sanders and Trump are not in the same "direction" as Stalin or Hitler.
We have some examples of democratic states falling into fascism in the 1920s30s (but the conditions were quite different to 2020s US, so different that "fascism" is an almost useless label nowadays, despite being thrown around in a facile manner). I am not aware of any country that has ever devolved from social democracy (in the fashion of 1970s Scandinavia or Germany which is roughly where Sanders belongs) into Stalinist Gulags, despite Hayek and disciples claiming that a bit of welfare state gets you on the road to serfdom.
IMO throwing around fascist, communist etc. labels is bad in at least three ways:
It's a total misapprehension and belittling of the horrors of real fascism and Stalinism/Maoism etc.
It's lazy because it is a shortcut for damning instead of debating/critizing the real positions of today's politicians.
And it is foolish because by using obsolete labels that belong to movements of another century one will probably miss the totalitarian ways the present or the future will take that don't quite align with these old oppositions and are usually far more subtle and cut along different lines. Like the social control in China or the private company censorship on western social media and countless other ways, used both by the "corporatist right" as well as the "woke left".

I agree with almost all the points you made except the one about Hayek. Please read this:

https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/hayeks-tragic-capitalism/ (https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/hayeks-tragic-capitalism/)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on March 03, 2020, 11:56:10 AM
My Super Tuesday ballot had 20 candidates for President. Some recent or not so recent drop-outs, others I have never heard of. Daffy Duck didn't get enough signatures to qualify, apparently. :) I decided to vote my real preference, rather than the stop Sanders (Biden) candidate. Elizabeth Warren.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 03, 2020, 12:42:18 PM
Quote from: drogulus on March 03, 2020, 11:44:52 AM
     Wise choice, I'd say.

     To this day it's widely believed that hyperinflation was responsible for Hitler, and not the more proximate deflation/depression that created 7 million unemployed in Germany.

Before the crash, 1.25 million people were unemployed in Germany. By the end of 1930 the figure had reached nearly 4 million, 15.3 per cent of the population. Even those in work suffered as many were only working part-time. With the drop in demand for labour, wages also fell and those with full-time work had to survive on lower incomes. Hitler, who was considered a fool in 1928 when he predicted economic disaster, was now seen in a different light. People began to say that if he was clever enough to predict the depression maybe he also knew how to solve it.

By 1932 over 30 per cent of the German workforce was unemployed. In the 1933 Election campaign, Adolf Hitler promised that if he gained power he would abolish unemployment.


     As is the case today, it's not the crash that creates the political crisis, it's the response to it. Brüning didn't create the depression, he deepened it. It was deflation as policy that did Germany in.

I still disagree with your reductionist economism. It's not Bruning who did the Weimar Republic in; its soon-to-come doom was writ large since the very beginning. The main reasons and circumstances which caused and favored Hitler's ascension to power were political, social and cultural rather than economic and were all present long before Bruning became chancellor. But as I said, this is widely off topic.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 03, 2020, 03:36:37 PM
Vermont is projected for Bernie, which is in no wise a surprise.

Virginia appears to be projected for Biden, which may a post-SC bump portend.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 03, 2020, 03:38:33 PM
And they've called No. Carolina for Biden.  A strong start.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 03, 2020, 03:43:05 PM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 03, 2020, 11:56:10 AM
My Super Tuesday ballot had 20 candidates for President. Some recent or not so recent drop-outs, others I have never heard of. Daffy Duck didn't get enough signatures to qualify, apparently. :) I decided to vote my real preference, rather than the stop Sanders (Biden) candidate. Elizabeth Warren.



Good on ya!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 03, 2020, 03:44:03 PM
"Biden is now about twice as likely as Sanders to win a plurality of pledged delegates, according to our primary model, which gives him a 65 percent chance of doing so compared with a 34 percent chance for Sanders. This represents the culmination of a trend that has been underway in the model for about a week; it started to shift toward Biden once polls showed the potential for him to win big in South Carolina — and it anticipated a polling bounce in the Super Tuesday states if he did win big there. Still, even after South Carolina, Biden's plurality chances had risen only to 32 percent, compared with 64 percent for Sanders. That means the polling bounce from the events of the past few days has been bigger than the model anticipated."


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/our-final-forecast-for-super-tuesday-shows-bidens-surge-and-lots-of-uncertainty/ (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/our-final-forecast-for-super-tuesday-shows-bidens-surge-and-lots-of-uncertainty/)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 03, 2020, 03:46:21 PM
From this distance it saddens me that Elizabeth Warren is being forgotten.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 03, 2020, 03:50:07 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 03, 2020, 03:46:21 PM
From this distance it saddens me that Elizabeth Warren is being forgotten.

She's one of my US Senators, and I like her; but it does seem that the race this time has looped around her.  Down the road, perhaps she'll be the first female President.


Some political/governance seasoning will serve her well.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 03, 2020, 03:51:02 PM
Want to Know Who Won Super Tuesday? Get Ready to Wait. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/03/us/politics/super-tuesday-democratic-delegates-count.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 03, 2020, 03:51:36 PM
     It's looking very good for Biden. He won N. Carolina and Virginia by monstrous margins, over 30% above Sanders.

     I read the numbers wrong, but it's still a big win in both states.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 03, 2020, 03:57:13 PM
     It should be pointed out that Biden has not attracted lots of money up to now. If he wins it will be because his appeal may be shallow but it's very wide. He is insanely easy to vote for as the last, best hope of humanity against the Alien Infestation.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 03, 2020, 04:05:26 PM
Don't get me wrong, Bernie may well be fine for Vermont ....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 03, 2020, 05:41:09 PM
Tennessee for Biden.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 03, 2020, 05:44:55 PM
So far, Biden appears stronger in Mass. than Bernie.  They're neck-&-neck in Maine, though.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 03, 2020, 06:29:42 PM
Minnesota to Biden. Colorado to Bernie.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 03, 2020, 07:00:11 PM
Warren at a disappointing 3rd here in Mass.

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/3/21161603/bernie-sanders-beat-elizabeth-warren-in-massachusetts
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 03, 2020, 07:09:35 PM
"The Associated Press is being aggressive and has called California for Sanders just as polls there close."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 03, 2020, 07:17:54 PM
Arkansas & Oklahoma to Biden.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on March 04, 2020, 12:14:17 AM
I guess Warren will bow out soon, which is also sad because McKinnon's impressions on SNL were really amusing.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 04:05:09 AM
Super Tuesday (super Thursday for dementia Biden) was a huge disappointment! If this continue, Biden wins the nomination, loses to Trump and the US becomes TOTAL shithole country. I had hope, but I might have been naive. Bernie can still win, if miracles happen, but I'm affraid this process kills all my hope. I will be just an ultracynical person with VERY LITTLE reason to live. You can dislike and belittle me all you want, but don't be surprise if you don't see joy in me. The world killed it in me.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 04:07:20 AM
Joe Biden Just Performed a Miracle (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/opinion/joe-biden-super-tuesday.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 04:13:58 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 04, 2020, 04:07:20 AM
Joe Biden Just Performed a Miracle (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/opinion/joe-biden-super-tuesday.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage)

"It was as if the meteoric and historic rise of Pete Buttigieg, who led in the delegate count after Iowa and New Hampshire, had never happened. It was as if the Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar moments, not to mention the longer stretch during which Warren was ascendant, had been hallucinations.

It was almost — almost — as if Bloomberg hadn't complicated the race with his wall-to-wall television commercials, funded by his personal Fort Knox.


All of that receded as Biden and Sanders took center stage. Each focused on the other in dueling remarks on Tuesday night. Sanders used his to bash Biden's record, portraying him as a foreign-policy hawk, a pawn of billionaires and a tool of the financial industry.

Biden returned fire. "We want a nominee who will beat Donald Trump but also keep Nancy Pelosi as the speaker of the House and win back the United States Senate," Biden said. "We've got to beat Donald Trump, and we will, but we can't become like him." He didn't mention Sanders. He didn't have to."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 04:19:16 AM
Crucially, Biden also won Texas in a close race; ABC News finally called the state at 2 a.m. Eastern as Biden held a 33-percent-to-29-percent lead over Sanders. Texas was the most up-in-the-air state in our forecast, so it was always going to be a bellwether for who was having a good night on Tuesday. Of course, the fact that it is worth the second-most delegates of any state doesn't hurt either.

But Biden's most impressive wins came in Massachusetts and Minnesota, where Sanders entered Super Tuesday as a slight favorite — and Biden wasn't even the most likely candidate to upset him. Per our forecast, Biden had only a 1 in 5 chance of carrying each state, and yet he won Massachusetts by 7 points and Minnesota by a daunting 9. Both wins showed Biden's ability to expand his coalition outside his usual comfort zone. Minnesota is a state that has relatively few voters of color (a key part of Biden's base) and that Sanders won by 23 points in 2016. But the last-minute endorsement of Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who dropped out of the race to support Biden, was apparently very influential. And in Massachusetts, Biden effectively kneecapped home-state Sen. Elizabeth Warren by usurping her former base of college-educated whites; Biden carried the upper-class suburbs that ring Boston.

So far, the only states that Sanders is projected or likely to win are three Western states — California, Colorado and Utah — plus Vermont. Sanders was never in danger of losing his home state (he had a greater than 99 percent chance to win Vermont, according to our forecast), and he may have been saved in the West by the fact that all three states vote primarily by mail (and therefore cast many of their ballots before this week, when Biden experienced a surge of endorsements and popular support). According to exit polls, voters who made up their mind on whom to vote for within the last few days broke heavily for Biden. And even in states like North Carolina, Biden did merely OK among early voters but cleaned up among Election Day voters.

Finally, there are a couple states where we still don't have conclusive results. As of Wednesday morning, Maine was still too close to call, although that in and of itself is a win for Biden; we gave him only a 1 in 4 chance of carrying the state entering the night. And although some outlets (though not our colleagues at ABC News) have called California for Sanders, the results there are still very preliminary, since mail-in ballots can arrive as late as Friday and still be counted. Given that California is worth 415 pledged delegates, the exact, final results there could make a big difference to each candidate's delegate math. Indeed, with plenty of votes still to be counted in Colorado, Maine and Utah as well, the final national delegate totals probably won't be clear for several days.

Read the whole thing (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-biden-beat-expectations-on-super-tuesday/)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 04:22:13 AM
They seem to use the word with a finer-bristled brush than our Poju:

A bad day for oligarchy, a good day for Joe Biden. (https://www.vox.com/2020/3/3/21163826/super-tuesday-winners-losers-biden-sanders)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 04:22:22 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 04:05:09 AM
Super Tuesday (super Thursday for dementia Biden) was a huge disappointment! If this continue, Biden wins the nomination, loses to Trump and the US becomes TOTAL shithole country. I had hope, but I might have been naive. Bernie can still win, if miracles happen, but I'm affraid this process kills all my hope. I will be just an ultracynical person with VERY LITTLE reason to live. You can dislike and belittle me all you want, but don't be surprise if you don't see joy in me. The world killed it in me.

Making your joy dependent on Bernie's becoming POTUS was the worst decision of your life anyway. The best thing for you to do now is to forget the whole damn thing and concentrate on creating a life of your own centered around those things that you really enjoy (no, following US politics doesn't qualify).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 04:27:47 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 04:05:09 AM
Super Tuesday (super Thursday for dementia Biden)

If all you've got is self-pity and juvenile Trumpian nicknames, you should leave this thread to grown-ups.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 04:32:47 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 04, 2020, 04:27:47 AM
If all you've got is self-pity and juvenile Trumpian nicknames, you should leave this thread to grown-ups.

Fixed.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 05:10:04 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 04:32:47 AM
Fixed.

Well, all right.  Although, the unexamined life, you know.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on March 04, 2020, 05:34:02 AM
One thing we can see clearly is that having the primary process start with an obsession with Iowa is idiotic.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on March 04, 2020, 05:46:33 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 04, 2020, 04:27:47 AM
If all you've got is self-pity and juvenile Trumpian nicknames, you should leave this thread to grown-ups.

He really should see if he can't get an ongoing appointment with a clinical psychologist. I say this not with the intent to be mean, but with the intent of hoping he seeks help.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 06:01:33 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 04, 2020, 05:46:33 AM
He really should see if he can't get an ongoing appointment with a clinical psychologist. I say this not with the intent to be mean, but with the intent of hoping he seeks help.

Agreed 100%. The sooner the better.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 04, 2020, 06:07:16 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 04:05:09 AM
Super Tuesday (super Thursday for dementia Biden) was a huge disappointment! If this continue, Biden wins the nomination, loses to Trump and the US becomes TOTAL shithole country. I had hope, but I might have been naive. Bernie can still win, if miracles happen, but I'm affraid this process kills all my hope. I will be just an ultracynical person with VERY LITTLE reason to live. You can dislike and belittle me all you want, but don't be surprise if you don't see joy in me. The world killed it in me.

The fact that American voters, using their own minds, have ideas different from yours about  Biden and Sanders, should not depress you one jot or tittle.  Democrats are choosing who they think is the best candidate against Trump.   That should please you, not dishearten you. A free thinker is supposed to want people to think for themselves.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 06:16:11 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 04, 2020, 05:46:33 AM
He really should see if he can't get an ongoing appointment with a clinical psychologist. I say this not with the intent to be mean, but with the intent of hoping he seeks help.

I have exchanged emails with a psychologist today. In Finland this kind of help is "free" thanks to "socialism"  ;D

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 04, 2020, 04:07:20 AM
Joe Biden Just Performed a Miracle (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/opinion/joe-biden-super-tuesday.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage)

The miracle was the whole establishment getting behind Biden in desperation to stop Bernie + SNAKE Warren splitting progressive votes. Biden needs another miracle against Trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 06:16:25 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 04, 2020, 05:10:04 AM
Well, all right.  Although, the unexamined life, you know.

He needs professional examination of his life. It's obvious that self-scrutiny is of no help.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 06:18:27 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 06:16:11 AM
I have exchanged emails with a psychologist today. In Finland this kind of help is "free" thanks to "socialism"  ;D

Excellent news. When is the first appointment?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 06:19:07 AM
Quote from: JBS on March 04, 2020, 06:07:16 AM
The fact that American voters, using their own minds, have ideas different from yours about  Biden and Sanders, should not depress you one jot or tittle.  Democrats are choosing who they think is the best candidate against Trump.   That should please you, not dishearten you. A free thinker is supposed to want people to think for themselves.

I totally agree, except the bias in corporate media against Bernie. People are misled to vote against the own best.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 06:20:55 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 06:18:27 AM
Excellent news. When is the first appointment?

The first appointment was in January. The next is in about 3 weeks.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 06:25:12 AM
Quote from: JBS on March 04, 2020, 06:07:16 AM
The fact that American voters, using their own minds, have ideas different from yours about  Biden and Sanders, should not depress you one jot or tittle.  Democrats are choosing who they think is the best candidate against Trump.   That should please you, not dishearten you. A free thinker is supposed to want people to think for themselves.

Truly.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 06:25:37 AM
Bloomberg has bowed out.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on March 04, 2020, 06:27:37 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 04, 2020, 06:25:37 AM
Bloomberg has bowed out.
That's good. Screw that guy.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: BasilValentine on March 04, 2020, 06:28:08 AM
I haven't been a Bernie supporter (Warren would be my first choice)  but I heard a bit of analysis by an unidentified (by me, because I was doing other things and not fully focused) voice on NPR that gave me pause on the whole electability issue. The voice was challenging the received wisdom that Biden is more likely than Bernie to win the support of so-called "swing voters." The thesis was that there are in fact two species of swing voter, the garden variety who voted for Obama in 08 and 12 but for Trump in 16, and the other kind, those who in 16 supported Bernie and then failed to vote altogether or who supported third party candidates in preference to Hillary. It was claimed that the garden variety are 70% Republican leaning in their views and far less persuadable than the other kind, who lean left by the same amount. The conclusion was to suggest that Bernie actually had (or has?) more swing voters in hand than Biden. For what it's worth.

As for Biden's mental health, I must say that seeing his performance in the debates and in other public venues of late, I was concerned that he has lost several steps and might be in decline. I hope it's just a situational problem of stress and fatigue because, obviously, even a senile Biden is preferable to the current infestation.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 06:30:50 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 06:20:55 AM
The first appointment was in January. The next is in about 3 weeks.

Why such a large time gap between them? Usually such appointments are weekly.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 06:32:37 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 06:16:11 AM
I have exchanged emails with a psychologist today. In Finland this kind of help is "free" thanks to "socialism"  ;D

Excellent! I am really glad for you.
Quote
The miracle was the whole establishment getting behind Biden in desperation to stop Bernie + SNAKE Warren splitting progressive votes. Biden needs another miracle against Trump.


The miracle is that this is a matter of people voting rather than narrow-viewed activists bloviating. I have to hope that at some point in future, you can learn from your mistakes in judgment, mistakes which still hold you in thrall.

I want to be clear: your juvenile name-calling doesn't matter a damn to Biden or Warren.

You are determined to demonstrate what a peevish child you are, intellectually.

Knock yourself out, junior!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 06:36:52 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 06:30:50 AM
Why such a large time gap between them? Usually such appointments are weekly.

I guess "free" is not always "timely."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 06:37:27 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 06:30:50 AM
Why such a large time gap between them? Usually such appointments are weekly.

There has been many appointment 2-4 weeks apart. It is what it is. Not your business anyway is it?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 06:42:17 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 06:37:27 AM
By now we all are used to the lunacy of president Trump so I guess 4 more years is okay. Then Ivanka Trump as the first female president! Oligarchs have NOTHING to worry about. Taxes will raise (sunset provision) only for the bottom 90 % of people.

We'll file that with all your other forecasts.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 06:48:20 AM
Quote from: BasilValentine on March 04, 2020, 06:28:08 AM
The conclusion was to suggest that Bernie actually had (or has?) more swing voters in hand than Biden. For what it's worth.

Bravo! Finally someone other than myself says this out loud!  0:)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 04, 2020, 06:51:27 AM
Quote from: BasilValentine on March 04, 2020, 06:28:08 AM
I haven't been a Bernie supporter (Warren would be my first choice)  but I heard a bit of analysis by an unidentified (by me, because I was doing other things and not fully focused) voice on NPR that gave me pause on the whole electability issue. The voice was challenging the received wisdom that Biden is more likely than Bernie to win the support of so-called "swing voters." The thesis was that there are in fact two species of swing voter, the garden variety who voted for Obama in 08 and 12 but for Trump in 16, and the other kind, those who in 16 supported Bernie and then failed to vote altogether or who supported third party candidates in preference to Hillary. It was claimed that the garden variety are 70% Republican leaning in their views and far less persuadable than the other kind, who lean left by the same amount. The conclusion was to suggest that Bernie actually had (or has?) more swing voters in hand than Biden. For what it's worth.

As for Biden's mental health, I must say that seeing his performance in the debates and in other public venues of late, I was concerned that he has lost several steps and might be in decline. I hope it's just a situational problem of stress and fatigue because, obviously, even a senile Biden is preferable to the current infestation.

I think the  most crucial thing is a Democratic nominee who will not motivate Republicans not thrilled with Trump to vote for Trump. Bernie's hard leftism would motivate many people to vote for Trump. Biden's swampy senile stability will motivate fewer. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 06:54:26 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 06:48:20 AM
Bravo! Finally someone other than myself says this out loud!  0:)

You still do not perceive the difference: You see the word suggest?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 06:57:09 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 06:37:27 AM
Not your business anyway is it?

This kind of aggressiveness towards people who mean and wish you well is not justified.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 06:57:38 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 04, 2020, 06:36:52 AM
I guess "free" is not always "timely."

Quite so.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on March 04, 2020, 07:00:30 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 06:16:11 AMThe miracle was the whole establishment getting behind Biden in desperation to stop Bernie + SNAKE Warren splitting progressive votes. Biden needs another miracle against Trump.

You are beneath contempt.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 07:08:01 AM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 04, 2020, 07:00:30 AM
You are beneath contempt.


He certainly appears determined to earn the respect of no one.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 07:24:42 AM
Tons of California delegates out of all 415 are not counted for yet so Bernie's delegate amount will come closer to Biden if not even above. So, this is not over yet.

Saagar Enjeti of The Hill makes an interesting observation: Biden didn't have to do a debate between South Carolina and Super Tuesday and it might have helped him, because he struggles speaking coherent sentences. In the next debate there won't be many candidates on stage and Biden has to speak a lot. People may (finally) notice his mental issues and support Bernie instead. We'll see, but there is still hope for the left.

Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 04, 2020, 07:00:30 AM
You are beneath contempt.

Warren claims to be progressive and she knows she doesn't have a pathway to become the nominee. Why is she still in the race? To get a humiliating 3rd place at her home state? If she cares about progressive issues and fighting corruption as she keeps saying all the time she could have dropped out and endorsed Bernie before Super Tuesday, but she didn't do that not to mention all the backstabbing of Bernie in the recent months. Sorry, but she is a snake with an ego bigger than the will to improves the country. If Warren had been the front-runner and Bernie had been struggling at ~10 % of support Bernie would have dropped out and supported Warren to have someone at least mildly progressive in the White House. So, please! I AM NOT beneath contempt with this.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 07:29:46 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 06:57:09 AM
This kind of aggressiveness towards people who mean and wish you well is not justified.

These are sensitive private issues. Surely you understand. I write too much. I tell too much and people here use it all against me.

YOU ARE NOT HELPING ME AT ALL!! SHUT THE FUCK UP IF YOU WANT TO HELP.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 07:34:18 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 04, 2020, 06:54:26 AM
You still do not perceive the difference: You see the word suggest?

Why do you think pepple suggest things? Because they are at least partial evidence for it. Hillary lost. In other words a moderate like Hillary doesn't win Trump. Is there a moderate who can beat Trump? If so, how do we know Biden is like that? Look at Biden speaking and imagine him against Trump. I hope Biden can win. People hoped Hillary won. Didn't happen... ...because of RUST BELT!

Bernie rules in the RUST BELT because his anti-outsourcing pro unions message resonates to the people living there. You can't be that stupid to not understand this.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 07:36:20 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 07:24:42 AM


Sorry, but she is a snake with an ego bigger than

Look in a mirror lately?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 07:37:56 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 04, 2020, 07:36:20 AM
Look in a mirror lately?

I looked in my mirror, but I didn't see a presidential candidate. In other words, WHO CARES if I am a snake or not? I am not running for president.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 07:38:57 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 07:29:46 AM
YOU ARE NOT HELPING ME AT ALL!! SHUT THE FUCK UP IF YOU WANT TO HELP.

YOU ARE NOT HELPING YOUR SORRY SELF AT ALL!! GET AND STAY THE FUCK OFF THIS THREAD IF YOU SINCERELY SEEK HELP.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 07:40:10 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 07:37:56 AM
I looked in my mirror, but I didn't see a presidential candidate. In other words, WHO CARES if I am a snake or not? I am not running for president.

Talking about your sick unchecked ego, idiot! 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 04, 2020, 07:48:08 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 04, 2020, 05:10:04 AM
Well, all right.  Although, the unexamined life, you know.

     The unlived life is not worth examining.

Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 07:24:42 AM
We'll see, but there is still hope for the left.


     The hope for the left doesn't depending on President Sanders, it depends on Sens. Sanders and Warren exerting pressure on the next Dem administration to follow through.

     Ideology doesn't automatically equip its owner with blinders about how politics actually works. You need different types and skill sets to work together. Sanders worked with Sen. McCain on reforming the Veterans Administration. Warren founded the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Trump wants to destroy.

     Repubs will sacrifice their first born to Moloch to get their tax cuts. They can't comprehend that Dems have to be pushed hard to even attempt to get what they want. Sanders and Warren are needed where they are.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: j winter on March 04, 2020, 07:50:13 AM
Greetings,

I have avoided posting on this thread for a long while, for two reasons:  1) political arguments are just not my thing, and 2) I'm biased, having lived in Delaware for my entire life (Delaware being Joe Biden's home state).  Parts of my family have been active in Democratic party politics in Delaware literally since FDR; it's a small state, and while I can't claim to really know Biden personally, I've met him at least a couple of dozen times over the course of my life, in restaurants, state fairs, weddings & family functions.  Members of my extended family have worked for him, and I've voted for him for various offices ever since I was old enough to vote. 

So, as I say, I'm biased.  I'm personally convinced that Biden has the character and the deep experience to make an excellent President – any concerns I've had have always been around whether he can survive the campaign process, rather than any reservations on how he would perform once elected.  But I don't expect any of the above to influence anyone here – it's my own personal experience, and unlikely to transfer to others.

What I do want to say is this:  I believe the source of Biden's appeal yesterday is a great deal simpler than many media pundits seem to think.  Biden is, if nothing else, a centrist – on almost every issue, he believes in the governing principle that compromise and consensus is more effective than conflict.  A large majority of American citizens share this pragmatic outlook – while the far right and far left get all the media attention, most Americans are actually somewhere in the middle.  Both Trump and Sanders thrive on conflict, and on pushing the discourse away from the ideological center towards the edges – I don't mean to make a false equivalency here, but both men clearly are pushing a rhetoric of all-out war against their "enemies," and consider any form of compromise to be a weakness.   Both of them are constantly itching for a fight – they thrive on conflict, on being the candidate who will wage war on behalf of their followers.

What Biden's rhetoric offers is the prospect of peace, a return to quiet civility after many long years of politicians and pundits yelling and screaming at each other.  Such a return is likely impossible, of course, but the appeal is visceral and powerful.  Biden often comes across as old-fashioned, a man who's a bit out of his time.  This is not necessarily a weakness, IMO; a LOT of voters look at the hellscape that Twitter and cable news have wrought, and simply ask, "we're all Americans... we have far more in common that what separates us... why can't we all stop yelling at each other, roll up our sleeves, and get something done?" 

THAT's the basis of Biden's appeal – and it's addressing a deep, psychological need among many conflict-fatigued voters.  It isn't about detailed policy positions or economic plans; when so many Democrats say that their top priority is ousting Trump, I think what they really mean is that they simply want the shouting to stop.  A large part of the electorate, myself very much included, is suffering from something like PTSD at this point -- the constant roller-coaster of bellicosity and scandal from this administration is literally making us ill.  Sanders' revolution would fundamentally mean more war, albeit on a front and for causes that are much more noble than Trump's.  The US electorate is simply tired of conflict: more than radical change (and necessary as that change may be in the long term), right now more than anything else they want a "normal" President who understands the basic function of the Executive Branch, will stay off Twitter, and will bring calm and consensus back to politics.  Based on that, I think Biden has an excellent chance of winning the White House in November.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on March 04, 2020, 07:58:00 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 04, 2020, 07:48:08 AM
     The hope for the left doesn't depending on President Sanders, it depends on Sens. Sanders and Warren exerting pressure on the next Dem administration to follow through.

     Ideology doesn't automatically equip its owner with blinders about how politics actually works. You need different types and skill sets to work together. Sanders worked with Sen. McCain on reforming the Veterans Administration. Warren founded the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Trump wants to destroy.

     Repubs will sacrifice their first born to Moloch to get their tax cuts. They can't comprehend that Dems have to be pushed hard to even attempt to get what they want. Sanders and Warren are needed where they are.

I'll say this, when I understand your posts I generally agree with them. :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on March 04, 2020, 07:59:57 AM
Quote from: j winter on March 04, 2020, 07:50:13 AM
Greetings,

I have avoided posting on this thread for a long while, for two reasons:  1) political arguments are just not my thing, and 2) I'm biased, having lived in Delaware for my entire life (Delaware being Joe Biden's home state).  Parts of my family have been active in Democratic party politics in Delaware literally since FDR; it's a small state, and while I can't claim to really know Biden personally, I've met him at least a couple of dozen times over the course of my life, in restaurants, state fairs, weddings & family functions.  Members of my extended family have worked for him, and I've voted for him for various offices ever since I was old enough to vote. 

So, as I say, I'm biased.  I'm personally convinced that Biden has the character and the deep experience to make an excellent President – any concerns I've had have always been around whether he can survive the campaign process, rather than any reservations on how he would perform once elected.  But I don't expect any of the above to influence anyone here – it's my own personal experience, and unlikely to transfer to others.

What I do want to say is this:  I believe the source of Biden's appeal yesterday is a great deal simpler than many media pundits seem to think.  Biden is, if nothing else, a centrist – on almost every issue, he believes in the governing principle that compromise and consensus is more effective than conflict.  A large majority of American citizens share this pragmatic outlook – while the far right and far left get all the media attention, most Americans are actually somewhere in the middle.  Both Trump and Sanders thrive on conflict, and on pushing the discourse away from the ideological center towards the edges – I don't mean to make a false equivalency here, but both men clearly are pushing a rhetoric of all-out war against their "enemies," and consider any form of compromise to be a weakness.   Both of them are constantly itching for a fight – they thrive on conflict, on being the candidate who will wage war on behalf of their followers.

What Biden's rhetoric offers is the prospect of peace, a return to quiet civility after many long years of politicians and pundits yelling and screaming at each other.  Such a return is likely impossible, of course, but the appeal is visceral and powerful.  Biden often comes across as old-fashioned, a man who's a bit out of his time.  This is not necessarily a weakness, IMO; a LOT of voters look at the hellscape that Twitter and cable news have wrought, and simply ask, "we're all Americans... we have far more in common that what separates us... why can't we all stop yelling at each other, roll up our sleeves, and get something done?" 

THAT's the basis of Biden's appeal – and it's addressing a deep, psychological need among many conflict-fatigued voters.  It isn't about detailed policy positions or economic plans; when so many Democrats say that their top priority is ousting Trump, I think what they really mean is that they simply want the shouting to stop.  A large part of the electorate, myself very much included, is suffering from something like PTSD at this point -- the constant roller-coaster of bellicosity and scandal from this administration is literally making us ill.  Sanders' revolution would fundamentally mean more war, albeit on a front and for causes that are much more noble than Trump's.  The US electorate is simply tired of conflict: more than radical change (and necessary as that change may be in the long term), right now more than anything else they want a "normal" President who understands the basic function of the Executive Branch, will stay off Twitter, and will bring calm and consensus back to politics.  Based on that, I think Biden has an excellent chance of winning the White House in November.

Eloquently said. My main concern, will he survive a debate with Trump? It takes a lot of energy to bat down the torrent of lies and bullshite.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 08:04:58 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 04, 2020, 07:38:57 AM
YOU ARE NOT HELPING YOUR SORRY SELF AT ALL!! GET AND STAY THE FUCK OFF THIS THREAD IF YOU SINCERELY SEEK HELP.

THRICE AMEN, BROTHER!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 04, 2020, 08:12:29 AM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 04, 2020, 07:58:00 AM
I'll say this, when I understand your posts I generally agree with them. :)

     I'll do better next time. (http://forums.mozillazine.org/images/smilies/lildevil.gif)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 04, 2020, 08:20:39 AM
Quote from: j winter on March 04, 2020, 07:50:13 AM
Greetings,

I have avoided posting on this thread for a long while, for two reasons:  1) political arguments are just not my thing, and 2) I'm biased, having lived in Delaware for my entire life (Delaware being Joe Biden's home state).  Parts of my family have been active in Democratic party politics in Delaware literally since FDR; it's a small state, and while I can't claim to really know Biden personally, I've met him at least a couple of dozen times over the course of my life, in restaurants, state fairs, weddings & family functions.  Members of my extended family have worked for him, and I've voted for him for various offices ever since I was old enough to vote. 

So, as I say, I'm biased.  I'm personally convinced that Biden has the character and the deep experience to make an excellent President – any concerns I've had have always been around whether he can survive the campaign process, rather than any reservations on how he would perform once elected.  But I don't expect any of the above to influence anyone here – it's my own personal experience, and unlikely to transfer to others.

What I do want to say is this:  I believe the source of Biden's appeal yesterday is a great deal simpler than many media pundits seem to think.  Biden is, if nothing else, a centrist – on almost every issue, he believes in the governing principle that compromise and consensus is more effective than conflict.  A large majority of American citizens share this pragmatic outlook – while the far right and far left get all the media attention, most Americans are actually somewhere in the middle.  Both Trump and Sanders thrive on conflict, and on pushing the discourse away from the ideological center towards the edges – I don't mean to make a false equivalency here, but both men clearly are pushing a rhetoric of all-out war against their "enemies," and consider any form of compromise to be a weakness.   Both of them are constantly itching for a fight – they thrive on conflict, on being the candidate who will wage war on behalf of their followers.

What Biden's rhetoric offers is the prospect of peace, a return to quiet civility after many long years of politicians and pundits yelling and screaming at each other.  Such a return is likely impossible, of course, but the appeal is visceral and powerful.  Biden often comes across as old-fashioned, a man who's a bit out of his time.  This is not necessarily a weakness, IMO; a LOT of voters look at the hellscape that Twitter and cable news have wrought, and simply ask, "we're all Americans... we have far more in common that what separates us... why can't we all stop yelling at each other, roll up our sleeves, and get something done?" 

THAT's the basis of Biden's appeal – and it's addressing a deep, psychological need among many conflict-fatigued voters.  It isn't about detailed policy positions or economic plans; when so many Democrats say that their top priority is ousting Trump, I think what they really mean is that they simply want the shouting to stop.  A large part of the electorate, myself very much included, is suffering from something like PTSD at this point -- the constant roller-coaster of bellicosity and scandal from this administration is literally making us ill.  Sanders' revolution would fundamentally mean more war, albeit on a front and for causes that are much more noble than Trump's.  The US electorate is simply tired of conflict: more than radical change (and necessary as that change may be in the long term), right now more than anything else they want a "normal" President who understands the basic function of the Executive Branch, will stay off Twitter, and will bring calm and consensus back to politics.  Based on that, I think Biden has an excellent chance of winning the White House in November.


     I think you're generally right about Biden and voter motivations. I see voters as willing to trade chaotic and damaging conflict away for a big fight that can produce a positive result. Conflict won't end.
Repubs will defend white minority rule with every weapon at their disposal, because they are doing it now. It's Lost Cause II, and they have no safe pathway out of their predicament other than retirement.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 08:28:23 AM
Kyle Kulinski: How to go forward:

1. Bernie's team has to expose Biden's record. Bernie has been too kind to Biden calling him a "friend." This is a primary!

2. Tell voters that this highly organized effort to take Bernie down is because Bernie represents people and not the corporate owners (call out corruption).

3. Bernie has to stress that Biden is the extremist. Bernie is the moderate advocating stuff that is commonplace in other countries and popular among the majority of Americans according to the polls. That makes Bernie the moderate and Biden an extremist. Enough with Bernie calling himself a democratic socialist. That is an unnecessory scary label for some people (especially older people). Instead try to get the people you are struggling with.

4. Hammer away electability and how Biden would definitely lose to Trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 08:33:03 AM
Quote from: j winter on March 04, 2020, 07:50:13 AM
Greetings,

I have avoided posting on this thread for a long while, for two reasons:  1) political arguments are just not my thing, and 2) I'm biased, having lived in Delaware for my entire life (Delaware being Joe Biden's home state).  Parts of my family have been active in Democratic party politics in Delaware literally since FDR; it's a small state, and while I can't claim to really know Biden personally, I've met him at least a couple of dozen times over the course of my life, in restaurants, state fairs, weddings & family functions.  Members of my extended family have worked for him, and I've voted for him for various offices ever since I was old enough to vote. 

So, as I say, I'm biased.  I'm personally convinced that Biden has the character and the deep experience to make an excellent President – any concerns I've had have always been around whether he can survive the campaign process, rather than any reservations on how he would perform once elected.  But I don't expect any of the above to influence anyone here – it's my own personal experience, and unlikely to transfer to others.

What I do want to say is this:  I believe the source of Biden's appeal yesterday is a great deal simpler than many media pundits seem to think.  Biden is, if nothing else, a centrist – on almost every issue, he believes in the governing principle that compromise and consensus is more effective than conflict.  A large majority of American citizens share this pragmatic outlook – while the far right and far left get all the media attention, most Americans are actually somewhere in the middle.  Both Trump and Sanders thrive on conflict, and on pushing the discourse away from the ideological center towards the edges – I don't mean to make a false equivalency here, but both men clearly are pushing a rhetoric of all-out war against their "enemies," and consider any form of compromise to be a weakness.   Both of them are constantly itching for a fight – they thrive on conflict, on being the candidate who will wage war on behalf of their followers.

What Biden's rhetoric offers is the prospect of peace, a return to quiet civility after many long years of politicians and pundits yelling and screaming at each other.  Such a return is likely impossible, of course, but the appeal is visceral and powerful.  Biden often comes across as old-fashioned, a man who's a bit out of his time.  This is not necessarily a weakness, IMO; a LOT of voters look at the hellscape that Twitter and cable news have wrought, and simply ask, "we're all Americans... we have far more in common that what separates us... why can't we all stop yelling at each other, roll up our sleeves, and get something done?" 

THAT's the basis of Biden's appeal – and it's addressing a deep, psychological need among many conflict-fatigued voters.  It isn't about detailed policy positions or economic plans; when so many Democrats say that their top priority is ousting Trump, I think what they really mean is that they simply want the shouting to stop.  A large part of the electorate, myself very much included, is suffering from something like PTSD at this point -- the constant roller-coaster of bellicosity and scandal from this administration is literally making us ill.  Sanders' revolution would fundamentally mean more war, albeit on a front and for causes that are much more noble than Trump's.  The US electorate is simply tired of conflict: more than radical change (and necessary as that change may be in the long term), right now more than anything else they want a "normal" President who understands the basic function of the Executive Branch, will stay off Twitter, and will bring calm and consensus back to politics.  Based on that, I think Biden has an excellent chance of winning the White House in November.


Best post on the thread in some little while, thanks.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 08:34:37 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 08:28:23 AM
Kyle Kulinski: How to go forward:

1. Bernie's team has to expose Biden's record. Bernie has been too kind to Biden calling him a "friend." This is a primary!

2. Tell voters that this highly organized effort to take Bernie down is because Bernie represents people and not the corporate owners (call out corruption).

3. Bernie has to stress that Biden is the extremist. Bernie is the moderate advocating stuff that is commonplace in other countries and popular among the majority of Americans according to the polls. That makes Bernie the moderate and Biden an extremist. Enough with Bernie calling himself a democratic socialist. That is an unnecessory scary label for some people (especially older people). Instead try to get the people you are struggling with.

4. Hammer away electability and how Biden would definitely lose to Trump.


Will you go away back to the safe space of your bubble?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 04, 2020, 08:57:38 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 08:28:23 AM
Kyle Kulinski: How to go forward:


2. Tell voters that this highly organized effort to take Bernie down is because Bernie represents people and not the corporate owners (call out corruption).



     It doesn't look very well organized to me. The Biden resurgence was about as far from the result of a cabal of "anyone but Sanders" operatives as one could imagine. Voters did it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 09:08:59 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 04, 2020, 08:57:38 AM
     It doesn't look very well organized to me. The Biden resurgence was about as far from the result of a cabal of "anyone but Sanders" operatives as one could imagine. Voters did it.

Kyle is not any less delusional than Poju.

"Bernie has to stress that Biden is the extremist"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 09:10:38 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 04, 2020, 08:57:38 AM
     It doesn't look very well organized to me. The Biden resurgence was about as far from the result of a cabal of "anyone but Sanders" operatives as one could imagine. Voters did it.

Well it was better organized than what the Republican party did (or didn't do) to stop Trump in 2016.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 09:13:54 AM
Sanders can't lead the Democrats if his campaign treats them like the enemy (https://www.vox.com/2020/3/4/21164091/sanders-biden-super-tuesday-endorsements-primary-2020)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 09:14:14 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 04, 2020, 09:08:59 AM
Kyle is not any less delusional than Poju.

"Bernie has to stress that Biden is the extremist"

Biden doesn't believe healthcare is a human right, but he thinks it's ok to bomb foreign countries to enrich the military industry complex. That makes him an extremist.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 09:14:53 AM
Sanders's pledge to bring new voters into his movement seems fairly empty in the results we're seeing so far. His coalition has shrunk since 2016, not grown.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 09:17:06 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 04, 2020, 09:13:54 AM
Sanders can't lead the Democrats if his campaign treats them like the enemy (https://www.vox.com/2020/3/4/21164091/sanders-biden-super-tuesday-endorsements-primary-2020)

"It's not that Sanders is running a weak campaign. But he is, in a way, running the wrong campaign. He's the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination — at least he was until tonight — but he's still running as an insurgent. The political revolution was supposed to close the gap between these realities: If Sanders could turn out enough new voters, he could sweep away the Democratic establishment and build his own party in its place. But going all the way back to Iowa, that strategy failed. Sanders won as a Democrat, not a revolutionary, and he needed to pivot to a strategy that would unite the existing Democratic Party around him.

But it's hard to move from treating the Democratic Party establishment with contempt to treating it like a constituency, and so far, the Sanders campaign hasn't."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 09:23:48 AM
Quote from: j winter on March 04, 2020, 07:50:13 AM
Greetings,

I have avoided posting on this thread for a long while, for two reasons:  1) political arguments are just not my thing, and 2) I'm biased, having lived in Delaware for my entire life (Delaware being Joe Biden's home state).  Parts of my family have been active in Democratic party politics in Delaware literally since FDR; it's a small state, and while I can't claim to really know Biden personally, I've met him at least a couple of dozen times over the course of my life, in restaurants, state fairs, weddings & family functions.  Members of my extended family have worked for him, and I've voted for him for various offices ever since I was old enough to vote. 

So, as I say, I'm biased.  I'm personally convinced that Biden has the character and the deep experience to make an excellent President – any concerns I've had have always been around whether he can survive the campaign process, rather than any reservations on how he would perform once elected.  But I don't expect any of the above to influence anyone here – it's my own personal experience, and unlikely to transfer to others.

What I do want to say is this:  I believe the source of Biden's appeal yesterday is a great deal simpler than many media pundits seem to think.  Biden is, if nothing else, a centrist – on almost every issue, he believes in the governing principle that compromise and consensus is more effective than conflict.  A large majority of American citizens share this pragmatic outlook – while the far right and far left get all the media attention, most Americans are actually somewhere in the middle.  Both Trump and Sanders thrive on conflict, and on pushing the discourse away from the ideological center towards the edges – I don't mean to make a false equivalency here, but both men clearly are pushing a rhetoric of all-out war against their "enemies," and consider any form of compromise to be a weakness.   Both of them are constantly itching for a fight – they thrive on conflict, on being the candidate who will wage war on behalf of their followers.

What Biden's rhetoric offers is the prospect of peace, a return to quiet civility after many long years of politicians and pundits yelling and screaming at each other.  Such a return is likely impossible, of course, but the appeal is visceral and powerful.  Biden often comes across as old-fashioned, a man who's a bit out of his time.  This is not necessarily a weakness, IMO; a LOT of voters look at the hellscape that Twitter and cable news have wrought, and simply ask, "we're all Americans... we have far more in common that what separates us... why can't we all stop yelling at each other, roll up our sleeves, and get something done?" 

THAT's the basis of Biden's appeal – and it's addressing a deep, psychological need among many conflict-fatigued voters.  It isn't about detailed policy positions or economic plans; when so many Democrats say that their top priority is ousting Trump, I think what they really mean is that they simply want the shouting to stop.  A large part of the electorate, myself very much included, is suffering from something like PTSD at this point -- the constant roller-coaster of bellicosity and scandal from this administration is literally making us ill.  Sanders' revolution would fundamentally mean more war, albeit on a front and for causes that are much more noble than Trump's.  The US electorate is simply tired of conflict: more than radical change (and necessary as that change may be in the long term), right now more than anything else they want a "normal" President who understands the basic function of the Executive Branch, will stay off Twitter, and will bring calm and consensus back to politics.  Based on that, I think Biden has an excellent chance of winning the White House in November.

Excellent post, reasoned and reasonable, a voice of sanity! Bravo!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 09:23:57 AM
"In recent weeks, Biden has been racking up endorsements from Democratic Party heavyweights. Days before the crucial South Carolina primary, Rep. Jim Clyburn blessed Biden — giving him the single most important endorsement a Democrat can win in South Carolina. Biden went on to win the primary by almost 30 points. Days later, Biden got endorsements from Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Beto O'Rourke, and Harry Reid — endorsements that, in his speech Tuesday night, he credited with helping him notch a shockingly strong Super Tuesday performance.

Sanders's supporters have reacted to these endorsements with fury. To them[ i.e., in the little bubble of their "reality], it's proof the fix is in.

Quote from: A twit on twitterIf Biden wins the nomination, it will be a real lesson in how power works. Bernie was on track to win, Biden had no campaign, and they all knew it. So a few phone calls were made behind the scenes to Amy, Pete, Beto. Several million was put into a pro-Warren Super PAC. Voila!
If that's the lesson Sanders's supporters take about how power works, it's the wrong lesson. The work of the president requires convincing legislators in your party to support your agenda, sometimes at the cost of your political or policy ambitions. If Sanders and his team don't figure out how to do it, they could very well lose to Biden, and even if they win, they'll be unable to govern.

Persuading the Amy Klobuchars of the world to support you, even when they know it's a risk, is exactly what the president needs to do to pass bills, whether that's a Green New Deal or Medicare-for-all or just an infrastructure package. Biden, for all his weak debate performances and meandering speeches, is showing he still has that legislator's touch. That he can unite the party around him, and convince even moderate Democrats to support a liberal agenda, is literally the case for his candidacy."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on March 04, 2020, 09:27:48 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 04, 2020, 08:57:38 AM
     It doesn't look very well organized to me. The Biden resurgence was about as far from the result of a cabal of "anyone but Sanders" operatives as one could imagine. Voters did it.

Quite so. "Who can beat Trump?" is foremost in the mind of every democrat. People were bewildered because the electable candidate (Biden) wasn't winning any elections. Who is the electable candidate, could it be Sanders, could it really be Buttigieg, could it be Warren, could it be Bloomberg? Then the electable candidate actually won an election. "Ok, it's Biden after all." At the beginning I liked Booker, Warren and Harris. Now that they are gone, I'm a reluctant Biden supporter. I mainly worry that he won't do well deflecting Trump's torrent of bullshite at a debate.

The debates are critical, I think, because Trump supporters won't even see Biden, except in Fox News takedowns, except when he is actually on the stage with Trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 09:29:45 AM
"On Super Tuesday, it was better late than never for former Vice President Joe Biden. Late-deciding voters, that is. One consistent trend across the country was that voters who made their minds up in the last few days moved toward Biden, helping him win some states unexpectedly and run up bigger margins in others. Biden's strength among late-deciding voters was further evidence of his stunning turnaround since the Nevada caucuses — rising from a distant second to Sen. Bernie Sanders and competing with former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to the race's front-runner.

Based on preliminary exit poll data from 10 Super Tuesday states,1 Biden won at least 40 percent of the late-deciding vote in every state except for Sanders's home state of Vermont. In six states, Biden performed at least 16 percentage points better among late deciders than early deciders. Conversely, Sanders did far worse among late deciders, harming his chances of winning some states."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 09:35:22 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 04, 2020, 08:34:37 AM
Will you go away back to the safe space of your bubble?

The internet and these forums are just as much for my bubble as it is to your bubble. You seem to think you are more entitled to be here. This is not "your" safe space. This is an internet forum. We have to withstand each other here or leave. I am greatly surprised about your political opinions, but I respect your right to have them and express them here. How about you?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 09:36:40 AM
Poju, take off!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 09:38:46 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 08:28:23 AM
Kyle Kulinski: How to go forward:

1. Bernie's team has to expose Biden's record. Bernie has been too kind to Biden calling him a "friend." This is a primary!

2. Tell voters that this highly organized effort to take Bernie down is because Bernie represents people and not the corporate owners (call out corruption).

3. Bernie has to stress that Biden is the extremist. Bernie is the moderate advocating stuff that is commonplace in other countries and popular among the majority of Americans according to the polls. That makes Bernie the moderate and Biden an extremist. Enough with Bernie calling himself a democratic socialist. That is an unnecessory scary label for some people (especially older people). Instead try to get the people you are struggling with.

4. Hammer away electability and how Biden would definitely lose to Trump.


You simply can''t help it, can you? I'm beginning to think your psychological disturbance is much deeper and serious than we all thought and than you realize, if at all. I hate to say it but you might need long-term psychiatric medication.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on March 04, 2020, 09:48:28 AM
I'm starting to think he's taking the mickey out of all of us....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 09:50:14 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 04, 2020, 09:36:40 AM
Poju, take off!

I don't take orders from you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 09:52:30 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 09:38:46 AM
You simply can''t help it, can you? I'm beginning to think your psychological disturbance is much deeper and serious than we all thought and than you realize, if at all. I hate to say it but you might need long-term psychiatric medication.

How is quoting a political commentator demonstration of psychological disturbance?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 09:58:32 AM
A Letter to My Children Regarding Bernie Sanders[ (https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/digital/a-letter-to-my-children-regarding-bernie-sanders/)

JBS, you're gonna love this! And so are all moderates here, methinks.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 04, 2020, 10:00:32 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 09:35:22 AM
The internet and these forums are just as much for my bubble as it is to your bubble. You seem to think you are more entitled to be here. This is not "your" safe space. This is an internet forum. We have to withstand each other here or leave. I am greatly surprised about your political opinions, but I respect your right to have them and express them here. How about you?

If you're calling people  brainwashed then you most certainly are NOT respecting them or their opinions.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 10:02:00 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 09:52:30 AM
How is quoting a political commentator demonstration of psychological disturbance?

The demonstration is in the compulsive need of posting in this thread even after it was made clear to you, both by almost all of us and the US reality, that in the best interest of your sanity you really, desperately need to take a loooooong break from US politics
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on March 04, 2020, 10:40:11 AM
Personally, I'm just waiting for 71 dB to go back to the Elgar avatar. It suits him much better than Bernie "Your Money Is Our Money" Sanders.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 10:51:16 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 04, 2020, 10:00:32 AM
If you're calling people  brainwashed then you most certainly are NOT respecting them or their opinions.

Nodoby needs to respects anyones opinions. That's different from respecting the right to have opinions. If you say 2+2=5, I respect your right to suck at math, but I don't respect/admire your skills in math. The corporate media in the US manufactures consent and that's effectively brainwashing. When I think I recognize an opinion that looks like it came to be via manufactures consent (e.g. "Biden is most electable" or "We must start this war") I will call it out and it's more of an attack toward the dishonesty oligarchic nature of corporate media than the person having the said opinion.

I do respect everyones right to have their opions, whatever they are, but I have hardly any respect toward the opinions expressed here and I am myself shocked by that. Why are classical music fans so right-wing? Maybe it's the elitist nature of classical music and having a leftist classical music fan seems to be a rarity and I happen to be one such rare example. Drogulus is one example of someone whose political posts I do respect. I don't say I ALWAYS agree with him 100 %, but at least he seems to know what he is talking about and is clearly free of corporate brainwashing. I very rarely comment on his posts, because I don't need to. They are knowledgeable and respectable. It's you, Florestan and Karl Henning I am feuding nonstop, because I find your and their posts the "manufacturing consent" -type.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on March 04, 2020, 10:55:08 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 09:14:14 AM
Biden doesn't believe healthcare is a human right
But it is and it isn't. People have the right to live but someone else's labor is not one's human right.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 10:55:47 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 09:58:32 AM
A Letter to My Children Regarding Bernie Sanders (https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/digital/a-letter-to-my-children-regarding-bernie-sanders/)

JBS, you're gonna love this! And so are all moderates here, methinks.



Very nice.  Sharing!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 10:56:47 AM
Poju, pack a lunch!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 10:57:54 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 04, 2020, 10:40:11 AM
Personally, I'm just waiting for 71 dB to go back to the Elgar avatar. It suits him much better than Bernie "Your Money Is Our Money" Sanders.

If Biden becomes the nominee instead of Bernie, I might go to Trump "four more years" avatar before going back to Elgar avatar.

Your money goes via taxes to military industry complex. So, corporates say "Your money is military industry complex's money". The US as it is is socialism for the rich. You don't like socialism, so why do you like status quo?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 11:01:49 AM
6) Medicare-for-all support didn't translate into a big Sanders win

The exit polls displayed Sanders's problem: He beat Biden among voters who support Medicare-for-all, but Biden still picked up a decent chunk of those people — and the former vice president won easily with Democratic voters who prefer the public option. Exit polls aren't a perfect metric, but the trend was consistent across the 14 states that voted on the primary's biggest day. (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/3/4/21164479/super-tuesday-results-exit-polls-turnout-patterns)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 11:04:49 AM
Quote from: greg on March 04, 2020, 10:55:08 AM
But it is and it isn't. People have the right to live but someone else's labor is not one's human right.

You are right, but society can arrange enough labor to be allocated based on need so that in practice it looks like it's a right. That's how the dilemma is solved elsewhere. In the US the labor is allocated based on the size of wallet and that is a really really moronic way to do it if we try to keep people alive and healthy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 11:47:48 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 10:51:16 AM
Why are classical music fans so right-wing?
[...]
It's you, Florestan and Karl Henning I am feuding nonstop, because I find your and their posts the "manufacturing consent" -type.

You forgot to mention JBS.  :)

As I told another GMGer recently, I am hardly a right-winger because all political tests I've ever taken put me solidly in the center. Yes, I'm a centrist, a bourgeois centrist if it makes you happy, and proud of it (bourgeois included). As jwinter put it in his outstanding post, compromise and reformism are much more conducive to civilization and progress than ideological fanaticism and I-want-it-all-and-I-want-it-now revolutionism. I also think that there is no blueprint for universal happiness and that a scheme that works wonders in a country might not be optimal for another country. If this makes me a right-winger in your eyes, then so be it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 11:48:48 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 04, 2020, 10:55:47 AM
Very nice.  Sharing!

Glad you like it, fellow right-winger!  :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 11:50:31 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 11:48:48 AM
Glad you like it, fellow right-winger!  :P
0:)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 11:58:22 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 11:04:49 AM
You are right, but society can arrange enough labor to be allocated based on need

"Society" cannot arrange anything, based on need or anything else, because "society" has no personality, will or feeling. "Society" always and everyhwere translates into "some people". And always and everywhere, Finland included, those people are an oligarchy, because that's the very definition of the oligarchy: that a few people decide what the vast majority of all other people should do or need. It doesn't matter if that oligarchy is self-imposed or democratically elected every 4 or 5 years --- in either case it's they who make the rules and enforce them, and everybody else must obey.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 12:09:57 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 09:35:22 AM
This is not "your" safe space. This is an internet forum. We have to withstand each other here or leave.
Never said this is anyone's safe space.  My remark has everything to do with your benefiting from taking a break and trying to incubate a healthy perspective.  I am not the one in emotional denial of reality.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 12:21:16 PM
"Mr. Sanders acknowledged in a news conference that he had "not done as well in bringing young people into the process" as he had expected, but he argued that would change in November should he get the nomination. He also declined to call on Ms. Warren to drop out, saying she should have time to make her own decision and pronouncing himself "disgusted" by the vitriol directed at her by some of his supporters."


See that, Poju? Bernie is disgusted by you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on March 04, 2020, 12:22:27 PM
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 11:58:22 AM
"Society" cannot arrange anything, based on need or anything else, because "society" has no personality, will or feeling. "Society" always and everyhwere translates into "some people". And always and everywhere, Finland included, those people are an oligarchy, because that's the very definition of the oligarchy: that a few people decide what the vast majority of all other people should do or need. It doesn't matter if that oligarchy is self-imposed or democratically elected every 4 or 5 years --- in either case it's they who make the rules and enforce them, and everybody else must obey.
Volunteer work? Gofundme?

But on a large scale it might not be enough.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 12:24:01 PM
Maine has been called for Biden.

And:

Biden's Delegate Lead Is Small, but Could Be Hard to Overcome

Bernie Sanders had an advantage on Super Tuesday he will not see again: many early votes cast before moderates coalesced around one candidate. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/upshot/biden-sanders-delegate-count-analysis.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: j winter on March 04, 2020, 12:42:50 PM
Thanks to all for your kind comments on my earlier post.  :)

Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 09:58:32 AM
A Letter to My Children Regarding Bernie Sanders[ (https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/digital/a-letter-to-my-children-regarding-bernie-sanders/)

JBS, you're gonna love this! And so are all moderates here, methinks.



Interesting link, thanks for sharing.  It's tempting to filter all of the media noise so as to hear that Sanders is not truly a "socialist" in the classic sense, but rather using the term as a euphemism for a less radical left-wing approach -- and that may be true, but the honeymoon in the Soviet Union does gives one pause (and would provide endless fodder for commercials for Trump in the fall, justified or not...)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 12:44:25 PM
Quote from: greg on March 04, 2020, 12:22:27 PM
Volunteer work?

Oh yeah, as if people seeking, or having, places in the government or the Congress do volunteer work.  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 12:57:09 PM
Quote from: j winter on March 04, 2020, 12:42:50 PM
Thanks to all for your kind comments on my earlier post.  :)

Interesting link, thanks for sharing.  It's tempting to filter all of the media noise so as to hear that Sanders is not truly a "socialist" in the classic sense, but rather using the term as a euphemism for a less radical left-wing approach -- and that may be true, but the honeymoon in the Soviet Union does gives one pause (and would provide endless fodder for commercials for Trump in the fall, justified or not...)

I think the article is spot on.

Questions for you all: why does Sanders need to qualify his socialism as "democratic"? Does this not imply that there is an "undemocratic" socialism? Would anyone of you buy the notion of "democratic" fascism or nazism?

Another spot on article below:

the highest duty of leftist intellectuals is not to inspire us to believe that a socialist future will be different from the capitalist present, but to argue convincingly that it can and will be very different from the socialist past. On these crucial points, however, [Sanders] will persuade only those already convinced of socialism's nobility and feasibility.. (https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/a-kinder-gentler-gulag/)

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 12:59:48 PM
I made some calculations about what the final delegate amounts could be for Biden and Sanders based on how the delegates have gone so far:

My estimate:

Biden 651 delegates
Sanders 662 delegates

Hard to say how this goes, but it's not impossible Bernie actually takes the delegate lead (thanks to California), but it's a close race nevertheless!  ???
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 01:06:53 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 12:59:48 PM
I made some calculations about what the final delegate amounts could be for Biden and Sanders based on how the delegates have gone so far:

My estimate:

Biden 651 delegates
Sanders 662 delegates

Hard to say how this goes, but it's not impossible Bernie actually takes the delegate lead (thanks to California), but it's a close race nevertheless!  ???

Non si dà follia maggiore dell'amare un solo oggetto
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 04, 2020, 01:20:36 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 10:51:16 AM

I do respect everyones right to have their opions, whatever they are, but I have hardly any respect toward the opinions expressed here and I am myself shocked by that. Why are classical music fans so right-wing? Maybe it's the elitist nature of classical music and having a leftist classical music fan seems to be a rarity and I happen to be one such rare example. Drogulus is one example of someone whose political posts I do respect. I don't say I ALWAYS agree with him 100 %, but at least he seems to know what he is talking about and is clearly free of corporate brainwashing. I very rarely comment on his posts, because I don't need to. They are knowledgeable and respectable. It's you, Florestan and Karl Henning I am feuding nonstop, because I find your and their posts the "manufacturing consent" -type.

You don't see the irony, so let me point it out to you...

You used to go on about the Overton Window, how everyone not as far right as the most rabid Trumpist was now branded a filthy leftist or at the very least a RINO, but here you are holding the position that anyone not as left as Sanders is shockingly right-wing.

Then, of course, there's that other irony we've been over and over: that you get your "news" from a small few on just one media, whereas everyone else takes it in from a huge variety, but its they who are brainwashed (and never mind that "they" don't agree among themselves about much and often argue heatedly here).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 01:25:23 PM
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 12:57:09 PM
Questions for you all: why does Sanders need to qualify his socialism as "democratic"? Does this not imply that there is an "undemocratic" socialism? Would anyone of you buy the notion of "democratic" fascism or nazism?

There is not just capitalism and socialism, but mixed economies having different combinations of capitalistic and socialistic ideas. For example Cuba is about 80 % communist and 20 % capitalist. People consider it a communist country because the communism is so dominant, but in reality Cuba is a mixed economy of some capitalism mixed with communism.

In reality Bernie Sanders is a social democrat who mistakenly calls himself a democratic socialist. I think this because of how the left has labeled itself in the US for decades.

Social Democracy is based on regulated capitalism with welfare state and has been very successful model in the World. It kind of takes the best aspects of capitalism and socialism and tries to avoid the downsides such as insane wealth inequaty of crony capitalism which not only creates unnecessory poverty/suffering but also destabilisizes democracy in oligarchic manner as demonstrated by Bloomberg. Nobody can works so hard or be so smart to really "earn" $60 billion. Not even Superman. It's wealth generated mostly by the workers, but all the money has gone to Bloomberg because of crony capitalism. Who thinks Bloomberg would have been less motivated to work if he had earned "only" $30 billion? Heck, I'm sure he would have been motived for "only" $30 million!! A lot of people are expected to be motivated to work for minimum wage struggling to make the ends meet. Bloomberg can spend 20 million a day for the rest of his life. Yes, a new Ferrari sports car and much more every single day! If that's not enough money I don't know what is.

Bloomberg's and Steyer's vanity projects cost together a billion dollars. Just imagine if that money had been used to tackle homelessness!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 04, 2020, 01:27:32 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 12:59:48 PM
I made some calculations about what the final delegate amounts could be for Biden and Sanders based on how the delegates have gone so far:

My estimate:

Biden 651 delegates
Sanders 662 delegates

Hard to say how this goes, but it's not impossible Bernie actually takes the delegate lead (thanks to California), but it's a close race nevertheless!  ???

If such pointless speculation gives you jollies ... wait for the California dust to settle, and there are more contests ahead,
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 01:33:13 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 01:25:23 PM
Social Democracy is based on regulated capitalism with welfare state and has been very successful model in the World. It kind of takes the best aspects of capitalism and socialism and tries to avoid the downsides such as insane wealth inequaty of crony capitalism

Very well.

Now please let us know what such insane downsides of socialism it tries to avoid --- because you gave us an example of insane capitalism only.

Or are you trying to tell us that only capitalism is bad and need regulation while socialism is perfect and need only to be expanded worldwide?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 04, 2020, 01:34:25 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 01:25:23 PM

In reality Bernie Sanders is a social democrat who mistakenly calls himself a democratic socialist.


Wow. Your arrogance extends to knowing better than Sanders how he should define his own politics.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 01:55:14 PM
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 01:33:13 PM
Very well.

Now please let us know what such insane downsides of socialism it tries to avoid --- because you gave us an example of insane capitalism only.

Or are you trying to tell us that only capitalism is bad and need regulation while socialism is perfect and need only to be expanded worldwide?

Sorry, I thought the downsides of socialism (lack of competition, innovation etc.) are well-known.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 01:58:48 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 01:55:14 PM
Sorry, I thought the downsides of socialism (lack of competition, innovation etc.) are well-known.

Please explain us how the downsides of socialism (lack of competition, innovation etc.) will be eschewed in democratic socialism.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 02:01:21 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 04, 2020, 01:34:25 PM
Wow. Your arrogance extends to knowing better than Sanders how he should define his own politics.

Yeah, we progressives are that arrogant.  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 04, 2020, 02:08:44 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 02:01:21 PM
Yeah, we progressives are that arrogant.  ;D

No, really: Sanders will have been studying socialism his whole life, will have read vastly more books than you on the subject (ie: more than zero), including the foundational texts, so what gives you the right to say he's mistaken about how he terms his political worldview?

Especially arrogant as I'm guessing everything you think you know about socialism comes from watching some Kyle rants.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 02:15:16 PM
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 01:58:48 PM
Please explain us how the downsides of socialism (lack of competition, innovation etc.) will be eschewed in democratic socialism.

What is this? School? That's the capitalism in social democracy (called democratic socialism by Bernie). Competition and innovation are the strengths of capitalism.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: mc ukrneal on March 04, 2020, 04:46:26 PM
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 01:33:13 PM
Very well.

Now please let us know what such insane downsides of socialism it tries to avoid --- because you gave us an example of insane capitalism only.

Or are you trying to tell us that only capitalism is bad and need regulation while socialism is perfect and need only to be expanded worldwide?
Ah. You were doing so well. You are going to have to start going to meetings again! :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: mc ukrneal on March 04, 2020, 04:55:26 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 12:59:48 PM
I made some calculations about what the final delegate amounts could be for Biden and Sanders based on how the delegates have gone so far:

My estimate:

Biden 651 delegates
Sanders 662 delegates

Hard to say how this goes, but it's not impossible Bernie actually takes the delegate lead (thanks to California), but it's a close race nevertheless!  ???
Based on info as of 5:30PM today,
Biden: 566
Sanders: 501

Keep in mind that Sanders faces another hurdle in that some key states have closed primaries (meaning non-registered Democrats cannot vote). This likely affects Sanders more in states like NY or Florida, which have a lots of delegates up for grab.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 05:45:57 PM
Warren seems to be dropping out soon...

Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 04, 2020, 04:55:26 PM
Based on info as of 5:30PM today,
Biden: 566
Sanders: 501

Keep in mind that Sanders faces another hurdle in that some key states have closed primaries (meaning non-registered Democrats cannot vote). This likely affects Sanders more in states like NY or Florida, which have a lots of delegates up for grab.

93 % reporting. Lots of delegates not given and most of those goes to Bernie. Bernie has to work harder. Supporters have to work harder. Biden supporters don't understand what is in stake. Biden would be a lousy demented president, but he can't win Trump! That's why Bernie HAS TO WIN NO MATTER WHAT!!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on March 04, 2020, 05:50:15 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2020, 10:57:54 AM
If Biden becomes the nominee instead of Bernie, I might go to Trump "four more years" avatar before going back to Elgar avatar.

Your money goes via taxes to military industry complex. So, corporates say "Your money is military industry complex's money". The US as it is is socialism for the rich. You don't like socialism, so why do you like status quo?

You really should stop obsessing about U.S. politics. I mean now it's gotten to the point where I'm going to ask you a serious question: do you sleep at all?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 04, 2020, 06:59:07 PM
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 09:58:32 AM
A Letter to My Children Regarding Bernie Sanders[ (https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/digital/a-letter-to-my-children-regarding-bernie-sanders/)

JBS, you're gonna love this! And so are all moderates here, methinks.

Pretty much expresses what I think, except for the .22 rifle.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on March 04, 2020, 10:58:44 PM
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2020, 06:30:50 AM
Why such a large time gap between them? Usually such appointments are weekly.

71B's therapy appointments are NONE OF OUR BUSINESS, please lay off.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Jo498 on March 05, 2020, 12:03:40 AM
The problem with "social democracy" is usually NOT that it devolves into "socialism". The US was more social democratic than now between the 1940s and late 1970s and there was no threat of Soviet style socialism whatsoever. The same is true for most of Western Europe (partly still today, but certainly between the 1950s and 1980s when even most conservative parties were in favor of relatively high taxes, public healthcare, public control of train and phone companies etc.). According to most data, these societies were hugely successful, innovative (like going to the moon and stuff), made rising through the social strata (that were not so strongly separated) possible for many, didn't have the less fortunate in abject poverty and had a fairly high proportion of content citizens.
The problem is rather that social democracy is not very stable towards the other direction, namely less regulated global capitalism. This process took place in the last 30-40 years.
This is not contradicted by the fact that some things are more highly regulated than in the 70s, that some people have their well-paid jobs from crony bureaucracy rather than crony capitalism etc.
I think we today often have worst of both worlds: Capitalism run amok with hugely grown wealth disparities, lobbyism controlling policies etc. and pseudo-socialist bureaucracy (like the EU but also more locally) also out of control.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 05, 2020, 12:29:40 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 04, 2020, 05:50:15 PM
You really should stop obsessing about U.S. politics. I mean now it's gotten to the point where I'm going to ask you a serious question: do you sleep at all?

All people have obsessions. Your obsession seems to be telling me to stop obsessioning about US politics. I sleep well when Bernie is the president, because then I know the superpower is finally in good hands.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on March 05, 2020, 04:34:39 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on March 05, 2020, 12:03:40 AM
The problem with "social democracy" is usually NOT that it devolves into "socialism". The US was more social democratic than now between the 1940s and late 1970s and there was no threat of Soviet style socialism whatsoever. The same is true for most of Western Europe (partly still today, but certainly between the 1950s and 1980s when even most conservative parties were in favor of relatively high taxes, public healthcare, public control of train and phone companies etc.). According to most data, these societies were hugely successful, innovative (like going to the moon and stuff), made rising through the social strata (that were not so strongly separated) possible for many, didn't have the less fortunate in abject poverty and had a fairly high proportion of content citizens.
The problem is rather that social democracy is not very stable towards the other direction, namely less regulated global capitalism. This process took place in the last 30-40 years.
This is not contradicted by the fact that some things are more highly regulated than in the 70s, that some people have their well-paid jobs from crony bureaucracy rather than crony capitalism etc.
I think we today often have worst of both worlds: Capitalism run amok with hugely grown wealth disparities, lobbyism controlling policies etc. and pseudo-socialist bureaucracy (like the EU but also more locally) also out of control.

Well said !
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 04:37:18 AM
Quote from: André on March 05, 2020, 04:34:39 AM
Well said !

Indeed.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 05, 2020, 05:40:15 AM
     
Quote from: Jo498 on March 05, 2020, 12:03:40 AM
The problem with "social democracy" is usually NOT that it devolves into "socialism".

     Social democracy inoculates a political/economic system against socialism of the old textbook kind. Devolution, while possible "in principle", ought to be rare. When was the last time you saw an egg unscramble?

     Something to keep in mind (or put there) is that these discussions center on political and economic arrangements in the advanced countries that have passed though particular evolutionary stages. In my terminology evolutionary success is the result of an "open architecture" in thought and practice, in which government power is used to create environments with the necessaries for practical freedom. Keeping faith with tradition and to give maximum lift to new ideas and forms we "put a god on it", blaming nature for our cultural innovations.

     We don't waste time comparing the features of one lousy system with another one to see which is better. Most discussion is about what arrangements are best among the best on earth. We don't study the Nordic model to find out what went terribly wrong. We want to understand why they are so happily suicidal. How they do that? Maybe, just maybe the "closed architecture" concepts of the dogmatists suck mightily, preventing us from learning what we need to know.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on March 05, 2020, 06:43:50 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 05, 2020, 12:29:40 AM
All people have obsessions. Your obsession seems to be telling me to stop obsessioning about US politics. I sleep well when Bernie is the president, because then I know the superpower is finally in good hands.

Bernie never will be president, so it looks like you won't be getting any sleep. Biden will be the Democratic candidate.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on March 05, 2020, 07:20:13 AM
Most likely. Warren is bowing out. I wonder if she'll back one of the remainers and, if so, if she still has any influence over her supporters.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 05, 2020, 09:22:29 AM
Quote from: André on March 05, 2020, 07:20:13 AM
Most likely. Warren is bowing out. I wonder if she'll back one of the remainers and, if so, if she still has any influence over her supporters.

     It's harder for her because unlike recent dropouts she has a progressive set of programs to advance, but backing Sanders may not be the best way to get where she wants to go. Her goal almost certainly will be to have great influence on the next Dem administration, whether she has a formal role or not.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 05, 2020, 09:42:22 AM
Polls show Biden and Sanders are probably going to split Warren's voters

That's arguably a win for Biden after his strong Super Tuesday performance.
(https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/3/5/21166321/democratic-primary-polls-2020-warren-voters-biden-sanders)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 05, 2020, 09:55:13 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 05, 2020, 06:43:50 AM
Bernie never will be president

The top 1 % certainly do everything to stop Bernie. The US is a shithole oligarchy pretending to be a beacon of democracy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on March 05, 2020, 09:58:52 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 05, 2020, 09:55:13 AM
The top 1 % certainly do everything to stopping Bernie. The US is a shithole oligarchy pretending to be a beacon of democracy.
So according to this standard, actual third world countries are black holes filled with shit from several different alien species over millions of years?

I mean I don't disagree, everything is shit pretty much. Even tasty food. Just future shit.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 05, 2020, 10:16:30 AM
Quote from: greg on March 05, 2020, 09:58:52 AM
So according to this standard, actual third world countries are black holes filled with shit from several different alien species over millions of years?

I mean I don't disagree, everything is shit pretty much. Even tasty food. Just future shit.

     You know what I can't stand about this galaxy, really? It's the way the fat part at the center rotates in sync with the outside. Shouldn't it go faster like a bathtub drain? It gives me the creeps. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 05, 2020, 10:21:07 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 05, 2020, 10:16:30 AM
     You know what I can't stand about this galaxy, really? It's the way the fat part at the center rotates in sync with the outside. Shouldn't it go faster like a bathtub drain? It gives me the creeps. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)

     

Possibly your best post to date.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 05, 2020, 10:22:55 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 05, 2020, 09:55:13 AM
yada yada

Voters and not "the 1%" spoke on Tuesday  Get over your self-pitying self!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: staxomega on March 05, 2020, 10:42:33 AM
Not entirely surprising I see many anarchists also love Bernie. This article from yesterday: https://www.npr.org/2020/03/04/811729200/former-prisoner-recalls-sanders-saying-i-don-t-know-what-s-so-wrong-with-cuba

Absolutely absurd. At this point I'm convinced many of his supporters would like to see the country that props up the entire world's economy burn to the ground.

"I don't know what's so wrong about Cuba" adds to his remarks about having absolutely no idea how the economy works, how you can't wave a magic wand to erase student debt, enslave US taxpayers with socialist style healthcare, etc.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on March 05, 2020, 10:51:56 AM
Quote from: hvbias on March 05, 2020, 10:42:33 AM
Not entirely surprising I see many anarchists also love Bernie. This article from yesterday: https://www.npr.org/2020/03/04/811729200/former-prisoner-recalls-sanders-saying-i-don-t-know-what-s-so-wrong-with-cuba

Absolutely absurd. At this point I'm convinced many of his supporters would like to see the country that props up the entire world's economy burn to the ground.

"I don't know what's so wrong about Cuba" adds to his remarks about having absolutely no idea how the economy works, how you can't wave a magic wand to erase student debt, enslave US taxpayers with socialist style healthcare, etc.
They simply can't be wholeheartedly anarchist in that case. They are first and foremost leftist and secondly "anarchist." Liking expansion of government reach doesn't make sense with anarchists.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 05, 2020, 10:56:47 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 05, 2020, 10:22:55 AM
Voters and not "the 1%" spoke on Tuesday  Get over your self-pitying self!

Well obviously 1 % can't win elections alone so they brainwash at least half the people. I guess people voted for Biden for many reasons. Some fear "socialism", some think Biden is more electable, some have nostalgic feels of Obama years and so on. Most of these reasons are due to being misled by the corporate media and these people voted against their own good.

I want to see your self-pity when Trump beats Biden, but I want even more Bernie to beat both Biden and Trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 05, 2020, 10:59:07 AM
Quote from: hvbias on March 05, 2020, 10:42:33 AM
Not entirely surprising I see many anarchists also love Bernie. This article from yesterday: https://www.npr.org/2020/03/04/811729200/former-prisoner-recalls-sanders-saying-i-don-t-know-what-s-so-wrong-with-cuba

Absolutely absurd. At this point I'm convinced many of his supporters would like to see the country that props up the entire world's economy burn to the ground.

Aye.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: staxomega on March 05, 2020, 11:23:24 AM
Quote from: greg on March 05, 2020, 10:51:56 AM
They simply can't be wholeheartedly anarchist in that case. They are first and foremost leftist and secondly "anarchist." Liking expansion of government reach doesn't make sense with anarchists.

True, I don't mean in the very literal definition because then the lines between anarchist and libertarian start to get blurred, I think it is pretty common to use anarchist in a malicious sense no? Simply meant people that would love nothing more than to see the US (and its economy for instance) burn down.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 11:29:31 AM
Quote from: Bernie SandersWhen Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing, even though Fidel Castro did it?

Mr. Sanders (or rather Comrade Sanders), may I ask you what's the use of spreading literacy if the only thing one will ever read in one's whole life is governmental communist propaganda?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 05, 2020, 11:34:48 AM
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 04, 2020, 04:55:26 PM
Based on info as of 5:30PM today,
Biden: 566
Sanders: 501

Now it's

Biden: 596
Sanders: 531

290 delegates yet to be allocated, 166 of them in California.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 11:37:08 AM
Quote from: greg on March 05, 2020, 10:51:56 AM
They simply can't be wholeheartedly anarchist in that case. They are first and foremost leftist and secondly "anarchist." Liking expansion of government reach doesn't make sense with anarchists.

I tolerate anarchists more than extreme leftists. The former are a bunch of innocuous dreamers (with whose ideas I can even sympathize) who will never have any chance of putting their theories in practice. The latter are a dangerous bunch who, given even half a chance, will unleash hell on earth.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 05, 2020, 11:39:56 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 11:37:08 AM
I tolerate anarchists more than extreme leftists. The former are a bunch of innocuous dreamers (with whose ideas I can even sympathize) who will never have any chance of putting their theories in practice. The latter are a dangerous bunch who, given even half a chance, will unleash hell on earth.

I mean, Poju has assured us that we will learn some things "the hard way."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 11:43:23 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 05, 2020, 11:39:56 AM
I mean, Poju has assured us that we will learn some things "the hard way."

He was unwittingly quoting Lenin.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on March 05, 2020, 11:44:57 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 11:37:08 AM
I tolerate anarchists more than extreme leftists. The former are a bunch of innocuous dreamers (with whose ideas I can even sympathize) who will never have any chance of putting their theories in practice. The latter are a dangerous bunch who, given even half a chance, will unleash hell on earth.
Agreed 100%.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 11:48:47 AM
Quote from: greg on March 05, 2020, 11:44:57 AM
Agreed 100%.

:-*
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 05, 2020, 11:49:11 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 05, 2020, 05:40:15 AM
     
     Social democracy inoculates a political/economic system against socialism of the old textbook kind.

Yes. That's why the people in the far left, left of Benie, the true socialists and communists for whom Bernie is too right don't like Bernie's social democratic ideas. They allow the system to be mostly capitalistic taking the "edge", the stuff that is bad about capitalism, away with social programs and regulation.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 05, 2020, 11:50:03 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 05, 2020, 10:56:47 AM
Well obviously 1 % can't win elections alone so they brainwash at least half the people. I guess people voted for Biden for many reasons. Some fear "socialism", some think Biden is more electable, some have nostalgic feels of Obama years and so on. Most of these reasons are due to being misled by the corporate media and these people voted against their own good.

I want to see your self-pity when Trump beats Biden, but I want even more Bernie to beat both Biden and Trump.

I bolded the part that displays the elitism that is inherent in your progressivism. You think you know better than us. You think that any alternate view is the result of ignorance. Your problem with the 1% percent is that it does not consist of the people you like.  My problem with the 1% is that it exists in the first.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 05, 2020, 11:51:46 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 11:29:31 AM
Mr. Sanders (or rather Comrade Sanders), may I ask you what's the use of spreading literacy if the only thing one will ever read in one's whole life is governmental communist propaganda?

It's always good to make the trains run on time,  after all.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 11:53:03 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 05, 2020, 11:49:11 AM
Bernie's social democratic ideas.

Bernie identifies himself as a "democratic socialist" not as a "social -democrat". Do you, or rather does Kyle Kulinski, have any rational and reasonable explanation for this discrepancy?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 05, 2020, 11:54:28 AM
Quote from: hvbias on March 05, 2020, 11:23:24 AM
True, I don't mean in the very literal definition because then the lines between anarchist and libertarian start to get blurred, I think it is pretty common to use anarchist in a malicious sense no? Simply meant people that would love nothing more than to see the US (and its economy for instance) burn down.

The more extreme form of libertarianism is often called anarcho-capitalism because it thinks an ideal society will have no formal government.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 11:58:28 AM
Quote from: JBS on March 05, 2020, 11:51:46 AM
It's always good to make the trains run on time,  after all.

Well, if my personal anecdotal evidence is any worth, in AD 2000 Italian trains were running exactly on time, as opposed to French ones which were often behind time. :D

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on March 05, 2020, 12:02:40 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 05, 2020, 11:54:28 AM
The more extreme form of libertarianism is often called anarcho-capitalism because it thinks an ideal society will have no formal government.
That's not exactly right because that's only right-wing style anarchy... somehow here in the US libertarianism is only thought of as rightwing. Left wing extreme libertarianism is anarchocommunism.

There's also centrist-style anarchy... haven't learned about them yet, but I do see the terms Syndicalism and Mutualism mentioned.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 12:03:19 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 05, 2020, 11:54:28 AM
The more extreme form of libertarianism is often called anarcho-capitalism because it thinks an ideal society will have no formal government.

Whenever I hear about "an ideal society", be it from the right or form the left, I recoil in horror. Paradise on Earth is downright impossible but Hell on Earth in the name of Paradise was/is a sad reality.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 12:05:04 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 05, 2020, 11:50:03 AM
I bolded the part that displays the elitism that is inherent in your progressivism. You think you know better than us. You think that any alternate view is the result of ignorance. Your problem with the 1% percent is that it does not consist of the people you like.  My problem with the 1% is that it exists in the first.

Agreed 150%
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 05, 2020, 12:15:29 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 05, 2020, 11:50:03 AM
I bolded the part that displays the elitism that is inherent in your progressivism. You think you know better than us. You think that any alternate view is the result of ignorance. Your problem with the 1% percent is that it does not consist of the people you like.  My problem with the 1% is that it exists in the first.

This is not about "liking" the top 1 %. Annual pretax income needed to be in the top 1 % in the US is about $500.000. The problems is power. These people have insane amount of power in the society and they are also living in their bubbles not understanding the problems of regular people. For them it's impossible to understand millions and millions of hard working Americans struggle to put food on the table and to pay electrical bills.

Yes, I may appear elitistic, but I say it like it is. Regular people don't have much time in their life to follow politics and study things themselves. Make a convincing case of alternative views! For example if you think Biden is stronger than Bernie in the rust belt make your case why. If you think rust belt is not important make your case why.

Of course the top 1 % exists because 99 % can't make up 100 % of population, but in reasonable society the top 1 % doesn't alone dictate the politics. They pay their fair sharing acknowledging that not only hard work but also some luck has been needed to take them where they are and out of solidarity they can pay back to the society making it better for everyone. It makes a safer society with less crime. Everybody benefits from that. Societies aren't zero sum games. Smart policies make it so that everybody wins.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 05, 2020, 12:15:36 PM
Quote from: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 11:43:23 AM
He was unwittingly quoting Lenin.



Well, you know, "Lenin said some good things" . . .
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 05, 2020, 12:18:15 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 05, 2020, 12:15:36 PM
Well, you know, "Lenin said some good things" . . .

I suppose everything Lenin said was good. It was what he DID that was bad...  :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 12:26:00 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 05, 2020, 12:18:15 PM
I suppose everything Lenin said was good.

You're wrong.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 05, 2020, 12:27:11 PM
Quote from: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 11:53:03 AM
Bernie identifies himself as a "democratic socialist" not as a "social -democrat". Do you, or rather does Kyle Kulinski, have any rational and reasonable explanation for this discrepancy?

     It has to do with something about the American tradition. Sanders advocates social democratic programs, but his personal history says he joined radical socialist splinter groups. My puritanical approach is to deem someone a socialist because they want the government to own major industry, because that's what I learned. I don't know what's wrong with these American socialists. Don't they have any values?

     

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 12:32:32 PM
Quote from: drogulus on March 05, 2020, 12:27:11 PM
     It has to do with something about the American tradition. Sanders advocates social democratic programs, but his personal history says he joined radical socialist splinter groups. My puritanical approach is to deem someone a socialist because they want the government to own major industry, because that's what I learned. I don't know what's wrong with these American socialists. Don't they have any values?   

Imnsho, the best definition of socialism was given by the (national) socialist Hitler: "We don't nationalize industries, we nationalize souls".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 05, 2020, 12:34:49 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 05, 2020, 12:15:29 PM
This is not about "liking" the top 1 %. Annual pretax income needed to be in the top 1 % in the US is about $500.000. The problems is power. These people have insane amount of power in the society and they are also living in their bubbles not understanding the problems of regular people. For them it's impossible to understand millions and millions of hard working Americans struggle to put food on the table and to pay electrical bills.

Yes, I may appear elitistic, but I say it like it is. Regular people don't have much time in their life to follow politics and study things themselves. Make a convincing case of alternative views! For example if you think Biden is stronger than Bernie in the rust belt make your case why. If you think rust belt is not important make your case why.

Of course the top 1 % exists because 99 % can't make up 100 % of population, but in reasonable society the top 1 % doesn't alone dictate the politics. They pay their fair sharing acknowledging that not only hard work but also some luck has been needed to take them where they are and out of solidarity they can pay back to the society making it better for everyone. It makes a safer society with less crime. Everybody benefits from that. Societies aren't zero sum games. Smart policies make it so that everybody wins.

You don't understand the problem. It's not about having money. It's about bossing people around.  Bernie and the Young Turks want to boss me around. More precisely, they want armies of bureaucrats bossing me around.
I object to being bossed around by anyone. Biden will boss me around less than Bernie, therefore he is objectively better than Bernie.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 12:44:08 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 05, 2020, 12:34:49 PM
I object to being bossed around by anyone.

Honestly, so do I in the abstract. Unfortunately, we live in reality not in abstraction: being bossed around is unavoidable. It's the degree of bossing around which makes the difference between a relatively free society and a full-fledged tyranny.

Quote
Biden will boss me around less than Bernie, therefore he is objectively better than Bernie.

This.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on March 05, 2020, 12:44:36 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 05, 2020, 12:34:49 PM
You don't understand the problem. It's not about having money. It's about bossing people around.  Bernie and the Young Turks want to boss me around. More precisely, they want armies of bureaucrats bossing me around.
I object to being bossed around by anyone. Biden will boss me around less than Bernie, therefore he is objectively better than Bernie.

That's true of most Americans, I believe. They will not be bossed around or lectured. It's a trait that is alien to some people (from another culture), so they have trouble understanding that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 12:49:14 PM
Quote from: André on March 05, 2020, 12:44:36 PM
That's true of most Americans, I believe. They will not be bossed around or lectured. It's a trait that is alien to some people (from another culture), so they have trouble understanding that.

I don't know. Do you wholeheartedly accept being bossed around or lectured?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 05, 2020, 12:52:25 PM
Quote from: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 12:32:32 PM
Imnsho, the best definition of socialism was given by the (national) socialist Hitler: "We don't nationalize industries, we nationalize souls".

     Hitler purged the left wing Nazis in 1934 along with other factions. The German socialist party (SPD) was banned a year earlier. I think your definition of socialism is of polemical value to you but would be misleading to someone trying to learn about the subject.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 01:03:48 PM
Quote from: drogulus on March 05, 2020, 12:52:25 PM
     Hitler purged the left wing Nazis in 1934 along with other factions. The German socialist party (SPD) was banned a year earlier. I think your definition of socialism is of polemical value to you but would be misleading to someone trying to learn about the subject.

Oh yes, big and unexpected news: various branches of socialism each claiming to be the true one and each fighting to death all other ones deemed as deviationists and traitors. Stalin did it on a regular basis. And if I may ask you, what party mercilessly crushed the socialist 1919 uprising in Germany?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 05, 2020, 01:48:36 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 05, 2020, 12:34:49 PM
You don't understand the problem. It's not about having money. It's about bossing people around.  Bernie and the Young Turks want to boss me around. More precisely, they want armies of bureaucrats bossing me around.
I object to being bossed around by anyone. Biden will boss me around less than Bernie, therefore he is objectively better than Bernie.

Fire department is a "socialistic" tax funded program. Bureaucrats are behind it, right? Now, tell me how these bureaucrats boss you around when your house is on fire, you call the fire department and the come and  put the flames out? Your fears of being bossed around are irrational. Bernie and the Young Turks DON*T WANT TO BOSS YOU AROUND!! They have better things to do.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 05, 2020, 01:52:51 PM
Quote from: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 12:32:32 PM
Imnsho, the best definition of socialism was given by the (national) socialist Hitler: "We don't nationalize industries, we nationalize souls".

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea must be democratic since it has the word democratic in the name...  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 02:04:13 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 05, 2020, 01:52:51 PM
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea must be democratic since it has the word democratic in the name...  ::)

Bernie must be democratic since he has the word democratic in the name...  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 05, 2020, 02:10:47 PM
This is important so please watch. Do people want to risk 4 more years of Trump just because they disagree ideologically with Bernie?

Joe Biden Is Incoherent

https://www.youtube.com/v/2WwFDktA3Cc

Quote from: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 02:04:13 PM
Bernie must be democratic since he has the word democratic in the name...  ::)

Bernie and everybody else is defined by what he says and does.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 05, 2020, 02:29:55 PM
Quote from: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 01:03:48 PM
Oh yes, big and unexpected news: various branches of socialism each claiming to be the true one and each fighting to death all other ones deemed as deviationists and traitors. Stalin did it on a regular basis. And if I may ask you, what party mercilessly crushed the socialist 1919 uprising in Germany?

      So they all claimed to serve the One True Thing. I'm getting your drift now. Not only did they fight each other, none of them had the right Bog, so it was all in vain. Now, back to earth.

      The authoritarians and totalitarians get rid of the liberal and democratic elements. Hitler went after the conservatives, too. Of course Stalin crushed any faction or party with democratic leanings. Of course Hitler did.

Quote from: 71 dB on March 05, 2020, 01:52:51 PM
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea must be democratic since it has the word democratic in the name...  ::)

     It's not all the way down to that but it's close.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 05, 2020, 02:51:50 PM
Quote from: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 02:04:13 PM
Bernie must be democratic since he has the word democratic in the name...  ::)

     You don't have to be a Bernie-head to understand that he is well within the democratic tradition.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 05, 2020, 03:05:28 PM
Quote from: Florestan on March 05, 2020, 12:32:32 PM
Imnsho, the best definition of socialism was given by the (national) socialist Hitler: "We don't nationalize industries, we nationalize souls".

Absolutely any book on the third reich will tell you why it was useful to them to give lip service to socialist rhetoric as they were growing without themselves being socialists.

But you must know this, surely.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 05, 2020, 04:34:21 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 05, 2020, 01:48:36 PM
Fire department is a "socialistic" tax funded program. Bureaucrats are behind it, right? Now, tell me how these bureaucrats boss you around when your house is on fire, you call the fire department and the come and  put the flames out? Your fears of being bossed around are irrational. Bernie and the Young Turks DON*T WANT TO BOSS YOU AROUND!! They have better things to do.

You clearly don't understand what I am saying. 
The whole aim of the Young Turks is to boss people around. That's what regulation is, and Bernie's programs are supersized regulation.  Bernie wants to bring vast amounts of economic activity under direct control of the federal government.

How something is funded is irrelevant. That's why your reference to the fire department is irrelevant.

It's the ability of people to choose for themselves that I am talking about.  Bernie wants to severely limit that ability.  That's why he does not deserve the term "populist", and why he shouldn't be Presidemt.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 05, 2020, 04:38:11 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 05, 2020, 02:10:47 PM
This is important so please watch. Do people want to risk 4 more years of Trump just because they disagree ideologically with Bernie?

Joe Biden Is Incoherent

https://www.youtube.com/v/2WwFDktA3Cc

Bernie and everybody else is defined by what he says and does.

Having listened quite a lot over the last few days, I can say with confidence Biden talks quite coherently.

And since more people will vote against Bernie than against Biden, your question needs correction:
Do people want to risk 4 more years of Trump just because they disagree ideologically with Biden?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 05, 2020, 10:14:02 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 05, 2020, 04:38:11 PM
Having listened quite a lot over the last few days, I can say with confidence Biden talks quite coherently.

Even just a few years ago Biden was quite coherent and nobody questions that, but if you don't see his recent cognitive decline you are in denial mode yourself and lying to yourself.

Quote from: JBS on March 05, 2020, 04:38:11 PMAnd since more people will vote against Bernie than against Biden, your question needs correction:
Do people want to risk 4 more years of Trump just because they disagree ideologically with Biden?

Show me the evidence. Do you think the turnout would be the same? It matters.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 05, 2020, 10:20:01 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 05, 2020, 04:34:21 PM
You clearly don't understand what I am saying. 
The whole aim of the Young Turks is to boss people around. That's what regulation is, and Bernie's programs are supersized regulation.  Bernie wants to bring vast amounts of economic activity under direct control of the federal government.

How something is funded is irrelevant. That's why your reference to the fire department is irrelevant.

It's the ability of people to choose for themselves that I am talking about.  Bernie wants to severely limit that ability.  That's why he does not deserve the term "populist", and why he shouldn't be Presidemt.

You don't understand what TYT is about, what progressives are about. I don't know what you are doing and why, but you are are so wrong about so many things yourself. I don't know what to do with you. Total igonore? I really don't know.

How somethng is funded is VERY relevant. For profit healthcare DOES NOT COVER everynone. Single payer DOES! That's massive differentce. The US tried private fire department in the past. DID NOT WORK!! It matters!  deleted.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on March 05, 2020, 10:37:04 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 05, 2020, 10:20:01 PM
You don't understand what TYT is about, what progressives are about. I don't know what you are doing and why, but you are are so wrong about so many things yourself. I don't know what to do with you. Total igonore? I really don't know.

How somethng is funded is VERY relevant. For profit healthcare DOES NOT COVER everynone. Single payer DOES! That's massive differentce. The US tried private fire department in the past. DID NOT WORK!! It matters! deleted

It's a strange thing that more and more GMG members who have been complaining about other people's offending behaviour, seem to think that making this board a miserable place is only allowed for themselves. I just wonder why music lovers around here seem to enjoy to treat other music lovers like shit and call each others morons and insane idiots, just because of different political/religious views.

As The Donald would say: sad.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 06, 2020, 01:38:39 AM
Young turnout was not huge on Super Tuesday and Bernie suffered from that.

What is wrong with you young Americans? You want climate change dealt with? VOTE! You don't want to pay away student loans the rest of you life? VOTE! Boomers don't struggle with student loans. They didn't need higher education for decent paying jobs. YOU DO! Their education cost much less than yours! Boomers are comfortable and can afford status quo. YOU CAN'T so VOTE!!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 06, 2020, 01:42:42 AM
Quote from: Marc on March 05, 2020, 10:37:04 PM
It's a strange thing that more and more GMG members who have been complaining about other people's offending behaviour, seem to think that making this board a miserable place is only allowed for themselves. I just wonder why music lovers around here seem to enjoy to treat other music lovers like shit and call each others morons and insane idiots, just because of different political/religious views.

As The Donald would say: sad.

Sorry, but I am so frustrated. I REALLY hope Biden wins Trump but he's mental faculties are declining.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on March 06, 2020, 01:48:42 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 06, 2020, 01:42:42 AM
Sorry, but I am so frustrated. I REALLY hope Biden wins Trump but he's mental faculties are declining.

That's not my point, Poju.
(And I think you know that.)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 06, 2020, 01:52:11 AM
Quote from: Marc on March 06, 2020, 01:48:42 AM
That's not my point, Poju.
(And I think you know that.)

I don't care if people offend each other. That's life. My frustration comes from seeing ignorance, misinformation etc. causing suffering and problems and what not...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on March 06, 2020, 03:06:59 AM
Quote from: JBS on March 05, 2020, 04:38:11 PM
Having listened quite a lot over the last few days, I can say with confidence Biden talks quite coherently.

And since more people will vote against Bernie than against Biden, your question needs correction:
Do people want to risk 4 more years of Trump just because they disagree ideologically with Biden?

Biden is, unfortunately, not always coherent. Just because he's preferable to Bernie (I'm not even sure about that, tho) doesn't mean that he's a stirring speaker or that he's given anybody a clear idea what he's about other than replacing Trump.

Both Biden and Bernie are deeply flawed candidates, and it really makes me wonder what is wrong with the USA system that by now it only moves forward extremily old, rather unattractive candidates, especially in the D party.

Obama seems to have been a once in a lifetime thing, in terms of charisma, smarts and temperament (maybe his temperament was too good).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on March 06, 2020, 03:21:37 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 06, 2020, 01:52:11 AM
I don't care if people offend each other. That's life. My frustration comes from seeing ignorance, misinformation etc. causing suffering and problems and what not...

Continue like this and you'll be on a dead end street.

You are one of the members who were whining earlier on about other members offending you. Now why should you, a freethinker who doesn't care about offensive behaviour, complain about that?
Maybe because you're human?
Maybe because offensive behaviour can hurt your feelings?

This is an international public forum, everybody is welcome here, even you.
If you feel the need to offend other people, then why don't you go searching for a platform where such behaviour is allowed and even greeted with joy?
Or, as an alternative: go out on the Helsinki streets and offend every 'moron' you meet, but please remember that this is an internet board with some decency rules. You're a longtime member here, so I guess that you know about that.

GMG Forum Abuse Policy
The vast majority of members will never transgress the Guidelines and will never incur the wrath of myself or the other moderators. We all understand that every now and again, we get a little hot under the collar, and post something in haste that we regret in hindsight.  We, as moderators, will often overlook these.

It is the repeat offenders that cause us more concern. Any member who develops a pattern of abusive behaviour will at first get a polite message from the moderators reminding them of the Guidelines and the standards of behaviour expected on the forum. Members who repeatedly ignore such warnings will be dealt with more harshly, which may include restricted privileges on the forum or a complete ban. Such decisions will not be made lightly, and only after extensive discussion and consultation between all moderators and the forum administrator. Note that no single moderator has the power to ban any member - that action can only be taken by the forum administrator, although it may be at the recommendation of the moderators.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on March 06, 2020, 03:31:18 AM
Quote from: Herman on March 06, 2020, 03:06:59 AM
Biden is, unfortunately, not always coherent. Just because he's preferable to Bernie (I'm not even sure about that, tho) doesn't mean that he's a stirring speaker or that he's given anybody a clear idea what he's about other than replacing Trump.

Both Biden and Bernie are deeply flawed candidates, and it really makes me wonder what is wrong with the USA system that by now it only moves forward extremily old, rather unattractive candidates, especially in the D party.

Obama seems to have been a once in a lifetime thing, in terms of charisma, smarts and temperament (maybe his temperament was too good).

Yeah... I have a weak spot for Bernie, but at least Buttigieg and Klobuchar were (more or less) 'fresh' blood.
Trump turns 100 next year (fake news?), Bernie 106, Warren is a Cherokee great-great-grandmother and Biden has risen from the grave. ;)

And apparently young folks prefer to stay home (or somewhere else) instead of bringing out their votes. We saw that in the UK (Brexit referendum) and there are more western democracies suffering from it.
Not a good sign if you ask me.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 06, 2020, 04:44:10 AM
Quote from: Marc on March 05, 2020, 10:37:04 PM
It's a strange thing that more and more GMG members who have been complaining about other people's offending behaviour, seem to think that making this board a miserable place is only allowed for themselves. I just wonder why music lovers around here seem to enjoy to treat other music lovers like shit and call each others morons and insane idiots, just because of different political/religious views.

As The Donald would say: sad.

He's a "freethinker" who believes he should tell everybody else what to think?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 06, 2020, 04:45:17 AM
Quote from: Herman on March 06, 2020, 03:06:59 AM
Biden is, unfortunately, not always coherent. Just because he's preferable to Bernie (I'm not even sure about that, tho) doesn't mean that he's a stirring speaker or that he's given anybody a clear idea what he's about other than replacing Trump.

Both Biden and Bernie are deeply flawed candidates, and it really makes me wonder what is wrong with the USA system that by now it only moves forward extremily old, rather unattractive candidates, especially in the D party.

Obama seems to have been a once in a lifetime thing, in terms of charisma, smarts and temperament (maybe his temperament was too good).

The human factor has failed us bigly, on many levels.


I believe in the system yet;  not sure I believe we can staff it with decency, integrity, humanity and talent.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Gurn Blanston on March 06, 2020, 05:39:38 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 06, 2020, 01:52:11 AM
I don't care if people offend each other. That's life. My frustration comes from seeing ignorance, misinformation etc. causing suffering and problems and what not...

Well, you seem to care mightily when it is YOU being offended (often justly, I must add). We don't care how frustrated you are, name calling to the degree you practised it there won't be tolerated.

GB
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Gurn Blanston on March 06, 2020, 05:46:00 AM
Quote from: Marc on March 06, 2020, 03:31:18 AM
And apparently young folks prefer to stay home (or somewhere else) instead of bringing out their votes. We saw that in the UK (Brexit referendum) and there are more western democracies suffering from it.
Not a good sign if you ask me. 

Interesting you should bring that up. After the initial Brexit referendum, I read numberless posts on Twitter from young Brits to the effect that all the old fogeys were deciding the future for them. Then, when a redo was offered, they had nothing to do with it. I was 20 the first time I voted in a Pres election, and have voted in every one since. So I don't tolerate any whining and complaining about what's going on from anyone who didn't vote. I ask them if they voted. If not, I essentially tell them to shut the fuck up then.

8)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 06, 2020, 05:46:16 AM
Super Tuesday Democrats Picked A Lane: Pragmatism (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/super-tuesday-democrats-picked-a-lane-pragmatism/)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 06, 2020, 05:52:08 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 06, 2020, 01:38:39 AM
Young turnout was not huge on Super Tuesday and Bernie suffered from that.

I guess Bernie does not convince/motivate them.  Faults on both sides, I am sure.

Speaking of which:  Poju, I have not always addressed you with the polite equanimity and mutual respect which you deserve.  I earnestly apologize, and assure you that I shall endeavor to do better by you in future.

(* typo *)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: BasilValentine on March 06, 2020, 06:09:29 AM
Quote from: JBS on March 05, 2020, 04:34:21 PM
You clearly don't understand what I am saying. 
The whole aim of the Young Turks is to boss people around. That's what regulation is, and Bernie's programs are supersized regulation.  Bernie wants to bring vast amounts of economic activity under direct control of the federal government.

How something is funded is irrelevant. That's why your reference to the fire department is irrelevant.

It's the ability of people to choose for themselves that I am talking about.  Bernie wants to severely limit that ability.  That's why he does not deserve the term "populist", and why he shouldn't be Presidemt.

A simplistic analysis. Millions of people who don't have insurance and can't afford it don't have any choice whatever about their health care, unless you count the choice between eating and dying. Moreover, private insurers in the middle of the equation between hospitals, doctors, pharma, medical testing and devices and those who use their services and products allows for enormous waste and gouging. The system also negates any potential collective power to negotiate prices downward. Then there is the whole moral hazard question associated with an industry whose profits can depend on denying care to those who need it.   
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on March 06, 2020, 07:03:06 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 06, 2020, 01:52:11 AM
I don't care if people offend each other. That's life. My frustration comes from seeing ignorance, misinformation etc. causing suffering and problems and what not...

QuoteAnd why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
And you are not the only offender here.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 06, 2020, 07:06:14 AM

     The purpose of government is to increase the effective freedom of citizens by making the best tradeoffs. We always do this and no fancy ideological footwork will make it a new threatening thing. We lived through the 20th century innovations, it's not a new proposition to test.

     Sanders' bullying is not different in kind from standard issue left/right bullying, and not all that much in degree from progressives that don't fly the socialist flag. The name hasn't got additional bullying in it.

     Oh no, it's a "socialist" thingamagig! Flush the whole Welfare State before it goes too far!!

     Nothing is at stake in the "government is bullying" proposition as baldly stated. Everything government does is a regulation, a spend or a tax. You define as government the authority to do these things, OK? Lovers of abstract liberty want to attack the host, kind of Big Anti-Government.

      The philosophical nihilists operate the same way, making arguments that rationally prove that it would be better if humans didn't exist "for their own good". It's an argument from high principle. We shouldn't want what we want because we're wrong from a point of view that doesn't admit of practical considerations and lived experience.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: staxomega on March 06, 2020, 07:46:20 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 06, 2020, 05:52:08 AM
I guess Bernie does not convince/motivate them.  Faults on both sides, I am sure.

Gen Z as a whole are the most fiscally conservative generation and small government minded, they see how inefficient big government is now. I've read this from right, left and centrist leading news outlets. I'm sure if you focus only on very far right or very far left only news outlets it will seem to only skew one way or another.

The thought of a Libertarian president in my life time seems pretty unreal :laugh: Probably more so that more millenials will become more conservative as they get older, it happens with every single generation.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on March 06, 2020, 08:10:49 AM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 06, 2020, 07:03:06 AM
And you are not the only offender here.

Let's carry on offending then.
It's fun, isn't it?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 06, 2020, 08:20:57 AM

     Perhaps Sanders has a problem because of his hectoring style. I not so fondly remember it from my misspent youth.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 06, 2020, 08:23:13 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 06, 2020, 05:52:08 AM
I guess Bernie does not convince/motivate them.  Faults on both sides, I am sure.

I think the system demoralizes them more than Bernie can motivate them.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 06, 2020, 05:52:08 AMSpeaking of which:  Poju, I have not always addressed you with the polite equanimity and mutual respect which you deserve.  I earnestly apologize, and assure you that I shall endeavor to do better by you in future.

(* typo *)

Thank You Karl and I should apologize You because I have said some pretty nasty things to You. I have respected You on this forum from day one and kept in high esteem, but something weird happened a couple of years ago between us. I try to tread You and others here better. I have had really bad years and my left wing political beliefs make it difficult ot cope with the World as it is. Trump's presidency has been astonishedly detrimental to my mental health...  :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 06, 2020, 08:24:54 AM
Quote from: hvbias on March 06, 2020, 07:46:20 AM


The thought of a Libertarian president in my life time seems pretty unreal :laugh:

    I would extend that to all lifetimes. We won't have an UnPresident of the ungovernment.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 06, 2020, 08:28:28 AM

     The value of high principle formulations is that it allows people to "imagine a vain thing" without bothering to notice they are doing it, and argue for its propositions as though it was a question of how many post offices should remain open.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 06, 2020, 08:31:32 AM
Quote from: BasilValentine on March 06, 2020, 06:09:29 AM
A simplistic analysis. Millions of people who don't have insurance and can't afford it don't have any choice whatever about their health care, unless you count the choice between eating and dying. Moreover, private insurers in the middle of the equation between hospitals, doctors, pharma, medical testing and devices and those who use their services and products allows for enormous waste and gouging. The system also negates any potential collective power to negotiate prices downward. Then there is the whole moral hazard question associated with an industry whose profits can depend on denying care to those who need it.

Thanks for posting this. I feel it corroborates what I have been writing here.  ;)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 06, 2020, 08:44:01 AM
     "Choice" is a purely adversarial gambit. It concerns no actual ability to choose. I have more choice under Med. Advantage than I had under private insurance incarceration. Who goes to their employer and unfurls a "right to choose" flag? Go ahead, try it.

     If you accept this argument in all its glory, does that mean you think additional choice will just pop out of the private insurance market? It will reward you for defeating "socialized medicine" with real choices you don't have now?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 06, 2020, 08:45:30 AM
Quote from: Herman on March 06, 2020, 03:06:59 AM
Obama seems to have been a once in a lifetime thing, in terms of charisma, smarts and temperament (maybe his temperament was too good).

Before starting to follow US politics some three years ago I thought Obama was a brilliant president, but I didn't know better. It was devastating to learn about the truth. The truth about a mixed bag presidency. He campaigned as a progressive but governed as a centrist. While ObamaCare was a step to the right direction and got millions of people covered, Obama got an originally Republican healthcare plan passed during supermajority. Charisma gets you elected, but it doesn't automatically translate into good policy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 06, 2020, 09:04:09 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 06, 2020, 08:45:30 AM
Before starting to follow US politics some three years ago I thought Obama was a brilliant president, but I didn't know better. It was devastating to learn about the truth. The truth about a mixed bag presidency. He campaigned as a progressive but governed as a centrist. While ObamaCare was a step to the right direction and got millions of people covered, Obama got an originally Republican healthcare plan passed during supermajority. Charisma gets you elected, but it doesn't automatically translate into good policy.

     I only differ with you on the question of how Obama initially presented himself. I saw him as a center-left Dem with flashes of progressivity, and he governed pretty much as advertised. It was the electorate that changed. More of them are nonwhite than ever before and the White Panther party is as hostile to them as they are to it. That doesn't make Obama radical in a programmatic sense, though in a larger sense it indicates one of the most profound changes in U.S. history.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on March 06, 2020, 09:20:46 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 06, 2020, 09:04:09 AM
     I only differ with you on the question of how Obama initially presented himself. I saw him as a center-left Dem with flashes of progressivity, and he governed pretty much as advertised. It was the electorate that changed. More of them are nonwhite than ever before and the White Panther party is as hostile to them as they are to it. That doesn't make Obama radical in a programmatic sense, though in a larger sense it indicates one of the most profound changes in U.S. history.

I agree... I think Obama was a very inspiring politician, but I always thought that the Clintons were more progressive.
Besides that, there are more causes and reasons for the fact that promises can't be delivered. There's a Congress, for instance, that has to approve with many plans and decisions. And its composition changes during one's presidency. This is something every president has to face.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 06, 2020, 12:05:24 PM
Joe Biden was in 2007 for Medicare for All (Before the health industry bought him)

https://www.youtube.com/v/UFiGoJbycdQ
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 06, 2020, 12:43:55 PM
Quote from: BasilValentine on March 06, 2020, 06:09:29 AM
A simplistic analysis. Millions of people who don't have insurance and can't afford it don't have any choice whatever about their health care, unless you count the choice between eating and dying. Moreover, private insurers in the middle of the equation between hospitals, doctors, pharma, medical testing and devices and those who use their services and products allows for enormous waste and gouging. The system also negates any potential collective power to negotiate prices downward. Then there is the whole moral hazard question associated with an industry whose profits can depend on denying care to those who need it.

The "public option" takes care of those millions of people.
Drogulus's experience with Medicare is, based on the experiences of my family (some of whom live, like Drogulus, in Massachusetts), neighbors and co-workers (in Florida), not typical. Medicare patients have about the same access/lack of access as most private insurance patients.  Medicaid seems to be worse. Medicare may not have the profit motive, but it does have the bureaucrats tasked with spending as little money as possible and denying any care outside the routine, so the end result for the patient is no better, and sometimes worse, and the same moral hazard transformed into "keeping to the budget".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 06, 2020, 12:50:58 PM
Quote from: drogulus on March 06, 2020, 08:44:01 AM
     "Choice" is a purely adversarial gambit. It concerns no actual ability to choose. I have more choice under Med. Advantage than I had under private insurance incarceration. Who goes to their employer and unfurls a "right to choose" flag? Go ahead, try it.

     If you accept this argument in all its glory, does that mean you think additional choice will just pop out of the private insurance market? It will reward you for defeating "socialized medicine" with real choices you don't have now?

The argument is the reverse. Medicare means even less choice than what we have now, as limited ss that is.

As I said in my prior post, your experience of Medicare is not typical of the experiences if my family, neighbors, etc.

I do think Medicare works best for the people who least need it, those who just needed periodic cholesterol checks,  yearly flu vaccines, a GP who can prescribe antibiotics for their sinus infections, etc. The more you need it, the more the problems display themselves.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 06, 2020, 01:11:59 PM
We don't know the total delegate count of Super Tuesday. Four states, 3 of them strong to Bernie have delegates to allocate:

California: 73 delegates => Sanders should get 42 and Biden 31 in my estimation.
Colorado: 27 delegates => Sanders should gets 13 and Biden 9 in my estimation. The rest 5 goes to drop outs.
Tennessee: 1  delegates =>  Sanders should gets 0 and Biden 1 in my estimation.
Utah: 13 delegates => Sanders should gets 6 and Biden 3 in my estimation. The rest 4 goes to drop outs.

So, if that's the case, the delegate count would be:

Biden: 696 (652 as of now)
Sanders: 634 (573 as of now)

So, the situation isn't as good for Bernie as I previously estimated (election math is unpredictable!) but what can you do? Bernie has to do the right things and it seems he is doing that. We progressives can only hope it works...  0:)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 06, 2020, 01:19:18 PM
Public option leads to cherry picking where the private sector takes care of the most profitable healthy people and public sector has to deal with the rest. Public option is just another way to protect the profits of insurance companies and when the public sector collapses (because it has to take care of the sickest people) corporates can say public sector doesn't work making real single payer system politically even more difficult (that's why incrementalism in healthcare works so badly). Public option is better than ObamaCare, but far form how good medicare for all is because of the healthy risk pool as everyone are in it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 06, 2020, 01:23:39 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 06, 2020, 01:19:18 PM
Public option leads to cherry picking where the private sector takes care of the most profitable healthy people and public sector has to deal with the rest. Public option is just another way to protect the profits of insurance companies and when the public sector collapses (because it has to take care of the sickest people) corporates can say public sector doesn't work making real single payer system politically even more difficult (that's why incrementalism in healthcare works so badly). Public option is better than ObamaCare, but far form how good medicare for all is because of the healthy risk pool as everyone are in it.

Actually, it will be the reverse.  Employers will cut down on health benefits because employees will be able to sign up for public option.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 06, 2020, 01:31:23 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 06, 2020, 01:23:39 PM
Actually, it will be the reverse.  Employers will cut down on health benefits because employees will be able to sign up for public option.

I don't know what you mean by this. Public option wouldn't be "free". It's just a public option for private companies.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 06, 2020, 01:40:36 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 06, 2020, 01:31:23 PM
I don't know what you mean by this. Public option wouldn't be "free". It's just a public option for private companies.

I have no idea of what you mean by this, in my turn.
Public option means making Medicare available to people who can't get insurance for one reason or another. It will allow employers to drop health benefits with the excuse that their employees will be able to get the public option insurance.  They already do this with Obamacare.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 06, 2020, 02:01:26 PM
Interesting: Google searches for "Joe Biden social security" has been skyrocketing in the forthcoming primary states.

Maybe just maybe when people educate themselves and learn about Biden's history of wanting to cut social security they do better informed voting decisions.  :)

Quote from: JBS on March 06, 2020, 01:40:36 PM
I have no idea of what you mean by this, in my turn.
Public option means making Medicare available to people who can't get insurance for one reason or another. It will allow employers to drop health benefits with the excuse that their employees will be able to get the public option insurance.  They already do this with Obamacare.

The public health insurance option, also known as the public insurance option or the public option, is a proposal to create a government-run health insurance agency that would compete with other private health insurance companies within the United States.

Public option is not Medicare.

Medicare for all means employers don't need to provide health benefits, because everyone has healthcare coverage anyway.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 06, 2020, 02:16:46 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 06, 2020, 02:01:26 PM
Interesting: Google searches for "Joe Biden social security" has been skyrocketing in the forthcoming primary states.

Maybe just maybe when people educate themselves and learn about Biden's history of wanting to cut social security they do better informed voting decisions.  :)

The public health insurance option, also known as the public insurance option or the public option, is a proposal to create a government-run health insurance agency that would compete with other private health insurance companies within the United States.

Public option is not Medicare.

Medicare for all means employers don't need to provide health benefits, because everyone has healthcare coverage anyway.

Social Security will be cut. Just a matter of how, when, or where. The US Government doesn't have enough revenue to fund it or Medicare. Even if it confiscated all the wealth of all the billionaires in the country, it couldn't do it.  Bernie"s agenda would just speed up the process.
Public option is not what you think it is. It won't compete. It will cover the 30 million people who can't get insurance.

ETA

And the actual facts show Biden on Social Security isn't what Bernie wants people to think.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/biden-vs-sanders-on-social-security-and-medicare/
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 06, 2020, 03:02:47 PM
Wonkette:

Elizabeth Warren Still Happy She Murderized Mike Bloomberg Right Before Our Eyes (https://www.wonkette.com/elizabeth-warren-still-happy-she-killed-bloomberg-in-front-of-us)

[...]
"Perhaps the biggest moment in the interview is when Warren addressed the "organized nastiness" directed at her online from some Bernie Sanders supporters. Warren's been called a "snake" and a "traitor" and some other even less kind descriptions. Warren didn't focus on those personal attacks. She took issue with the targeted harassment of others, specifically union leaders in Nevada who were doxxed after criticizing Sanders.

WARREN: They actually published the phone numbers and home addresses of the two women, immigrant women, and really put them in fear for their families. ... These are tough women who run labor organizing campaigns ... and yet said for the first time because of this onslaught of online threats that they felt really under attack, and that wasn't the first time it happened.

Sanders has rightly disavowed and denounced any of his supporters who behave like fetid assholes, but Warren contends that every candidate is "responsible for the people who claim to be our supporters and do really threatening, ugly, dangerous things." Warren said she'd spoken to Sanders about this and the conversation was "short." I agree with her that it's a serious problem, regardless of whether Sanders is the nominee. Maddow described it as "factionalist" and "injurious" to the party. I don't disagree."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 06, 2020, 04:58:29 PM
After Super Tuesday, Joe Biden Is A Clear Favorite To Win The Nomination

Sanders has a window, but it's small. (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/after-super-tuesday-joe-biden-is-a-clear-favorite-to-win-the-nomination/)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 06, 2020, 07:21:57 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 06, 2020, 02:16:46 PM
Social Security will be cut. Just a matter of how, when, or where. The US Government doesn't have enough revenue to fund it or Medicare. Even if it confiscated all the wealth of all the billionaires in the country, it couldn't do it.  Bernie"s agenda would just speed up the process.
Public option is not what you think it is. It won't compete. It will cover the 30 million people who can't get insurance.

ETA

And the actual facts show Biden on Social Security isn't what Bernie wants people to think.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/biden-vs-sanders-on-social-security-and-medicare/

     If social security is cut on the basis that a dollar run out must be engineered because of how much money the rich have or don't have it will be just as stupid as it sounds.

     How much money the government spends into peoples pockets doesn't depend on how much they have now. As Kelton says, money does not grow on rich people, it goes to them from everyone else in the economy when they spend to buy what the rich sell them. That's why demand side tax cuts work and supply side cuts don't. Demand side cuts are spent on, supply side cuts are largely parked in a "paradox of thrift" dollar hospice.

    The government doesn't have or not have dollars. Having is not a function, spending them into the economy and taxing a portion of them back are what the government knows how to do, or swapping one kind for a different kind so they are "owed". The "rich piggy bank" is a myth.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on March 06, 2020, 07:31:03 PM
Quote from: drogulus on March 06, 2020, 07:21:57 PM
     If social security is cut on the basis that a dollar run out must be engineered because of how much money the rich have or don't have it will be just as stupid as it sounds.

     How much money the government spends into peoples pockets doesn't depend on how much they have now. As Kelton says, money does not grow on rich people, it goes to them from everyone else in the economy when they spend to buy what the rich sell them. That's why demand side tax cuts work and supply side cuts don't. Demand side cuts are spent on, supply side cuts are largely parked in a "paradox of thrift" dollar hospice.

    The government doesn't have or not have dollars. Having is not a function, spending them into the economy and taxing a portion of them back are what the government knows how to do, or swapping one kind for a different kind so they are "owed". The "rich piggy bank" is a myth.

That's an example of something I understood, and agree with. :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 06, 2020, 08:26:15 PM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 06, 2020, 07:31:03 PM
That's an example of something I understood, and agree with. :)

     The idea that a government needs dollars to spend from the rich, or from anyone for that matter, is a joke. It's taxing back dollars it spent, which is where dollars come from. It's spend and tax, not tax and spend. How could we have dollars if they weren't spent into existence first? I don't have my own currency, I use the government supplied one, which has spent $23T more of them than it has taxed so we can all have them. I mean wtf man? Why would a government that can do that need my dollars? Taxes are necessary to soak up the excess, to prevent unwanted inflation and keep the dollar price in the target range. My taxes stabilize the economy for the common good, they don't feed poor hungry children.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 07, 2020, 05:11:41 AM
Quote from: JBS on March 06, 2020, 02:16:46 PM
Social Security will be cut. Just a matter of how, when, or where. The US Government doesn't have enough revenue to fund it or Medicare. Even if it confiscated all the wealth of all the billionaires in the country, it couldn't do it.  Bernie"s agenda would just speed up the process.
Public option is not what you think it is. It won't compete. It will cover the 30 million people who can't get insurance.

ETA

And the actual facts show Biden on Social Security isn't what Bernie wants people to think.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/biden-vs-sanders-on-social-security-and-medicare/

The US is the richest country in the world controlling it's own currency. Poorer countries have better social security. Social security is not cut because the the can't afford it. It's cut because the rich don't want to pay their fair share of taxes. The billionaires own more wealth than the bottom half of the people so confiscating all the wealth of all the billionaires would allow INSANE social security. Even Bernie isn't proposing anything like that. He proposes wealth tax which allows billionaires to exist, but they would pay their fair share and still have more money than anyone needs. He also proposes transaction tax on Wall Street and medicare for all is paid by increasing taxes for everyone (most people still save money, because the raise in taxes is less than what they save not paying for premiums, copays, deductibles and so on). Bernie plans to EXTEND social security instead of cutting it and he has the details to how to pay for it (basically those taxes I mentioned above).

Public option is a lacklustre compromise to cover people and still protect the profits of insurance companies and even that was too left-wing for Obama. Pathetic.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 07, 2020, 07:03:25 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 07, 2020, 05:11:41 AM
The US is the richest country in the world controlling it's own currency. Poorer countries have better social security. Social security is not cut because the the can't afford it.

     In the US dollar run outs are arranged so it looks like they just "ran out on their own". Politicians inform us that net currency issuance is not limited by resources to deploy, but by how many that already exist. It's a blatant lie as the national debt proves, but people buy it because they are so used to thinking about dollars as things that can run out, extrapolating from a position as a user of money to the dynamic behavior of the system itself. I can run out of money so the money system can, too. It's common sense, right? No, it's common something else.

     Social Security will always be affordable, and since there's no reason to doubt the abundance of resources for the program, running out of dollars for it by means of "trustfund-itis" should be transparently bogus. I wish that were the case.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 07, 2020, 07:48:50 AM
Bernie is AMAZING !!!

Separately:

Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders supporters, and how online meanness backfires. (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/3/6/21167830/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-rachel-maddow-bernie-bros)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 07, 2020, 07:51:14 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 07, 2020, 07:48:50 AM
Bernie is AMAZING !!!

Separately:

Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders supporters, and how online meanness backfires. (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/3/6/21167830/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-rachel-maddow-bernie-bros)

Of course, in Poju's view, if Bernie cannot get on with "the elites," it cannot be at all Bernie's fault!  He's the victim!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 07, 2020, 07:53:07 AM
"The purported aim of all the pro-Sanders trolling, the snake emojis directed at Warren on Twitter, and the vitriolic attacks on the Nevada Culinary Union is to shame or bully the targets into getting behind Sanders. Judging by this interview, it seems to have had the opposite effect on Warren.

Online anger and abuse may not filter down to the ordinary voter directly, but it shapes the way Democratic Party elites see the Sanders campaign. If they see it as a font of negativity and anger or a source of direct attacks on them and people they admire, they're less likely to see it as something they're comfortable lining up behind. And these sorts of endorsements can matter in primaries; support from Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) seems to have really helped buoy Joe Biden in their respective states."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 07, 2020, 08:34:57 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 07, 2020, 07:51:14 AM
Of course, in Poju's view, if Bernie cannot get on with "the elites," it cannot be at all Bernie's fault!  He's the victim!

What can I say? Frustrated people say mean things online. Bernie has got millions of supporters. Is he supposed to control the social media behavior of all of them?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 07, 2020, 08:47:58 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 07, 2020, 08:34:57 AM
Frustrated people say mean things online.

Your frustration --- and acompanying anger and resentment --- stems from your manifest immaturity. By your age the vast majority of people has long since learned and accept that the world is what it is, that it's not going to change by fiat or wishful thinking and that the only thing in the world one can ever hope to change is oneself -- and still!

RE: all other posters than Poju --- it has just occured to me that, if Poju can't stop posting in this thread, and he obviously can't, then we can and should. Replying to his posts only fuels his frustration, resentment and anger and feeds a vicious circle. Gentlemen, if you mean good to Poju, please stop replying to his posts! I'll start myself from now on.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 07, 2020, 08:58:27 AM
The corporate media isn't talking much about Joe Biden's cognitive decline. Joe Rogan is perhaps the "biggest" media figure to do so.

Quote from: Florestan on March 07, 2020, 08:47:58 AM
Your frustration...

Thanks for your concern, but I wasn't talking about my frustrations. I was talking about the frustrated Bernie supporters who post snake emojis to Elizabeth Warren. That's what Karl's post was about, wasn't it?

As for myself, I'm not planning to stop posting here, but I try to do it respectfully from now on. I can do it if I just control my frustrations and if others here are willing to join me in displaying respect to others it will be even easier. Deal?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 07, 2020, 09:16:18 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 07, 2020, 08:58:27 AM
As for myself, I'm not planning to stop posting here, but I try to do it respectfully from now on. I can do it if I just control my frustrations and if others here are willing to join me in displaying respect to others it will be even easier. Deal?

No. You'll break your promise in the next few hours by calling someone brainwashed. As for myself, I be damned if I ever reply to one of your posts again.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 07, 2020, 09:45:55 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 07, 2020, 09:16:18 AM
No. You'll break your promise in the next few hours by calling someone brainwashed. As for myself, I be damned if I ever reply to one of your posts again.

     I'm glad I got a functional definition of damnation at last. The lack of one was making me batty.

    I like talking to a variety of people who are less than optimally even-tempered. It may be a flaw in my genetic makeup.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 07, 2020, 09:48:34 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 07, 2020, 09:45:55 AM
     I like talking to a variety of people who less than optimally even-tempered.

By all means, go ahead talking to Poju! You deserve each other.  >:D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 07, 2020, 09:49:58 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 07, 2020, 09:45:55 AM
     I'm glad I got a functional definition of damnation at last. The lack of one was making me batty.

    I like talking to a variety of people who are less than optimally even-tempered. It may be a flaw in my genetic makeup.

I should have called that a "condition," and not a "definition" ....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 07, 2020, 09:51:35 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 07, 2020, 09:48:34 AM
By all means, go ahead talking to Poju! You deserve each other.  >:D

"I now pronounce you ..."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 07, 2020, 09:57:55 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 07, 2020, 09:48:34 AM
By all means, go ahead talking to Poju! You deserve each other.  >:D

     I wasn't specifically referring to him. I'll leave it there. (http://forums.mozillazine.org/images/smilies/lildevil.gif)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 07, 2020, 10:07:48 AM
     How do you talk to people you want to talk to while fulfilling your sacred obligation to let them know you hate talking to them? I'm damned if I know, so fortunately I don't. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 07, 2020, 10:39:25 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 07, 2020, 10:07:48 AM
     How do you talk to people you want to talk to while fulfilling your sacred obligation to let them know you hate talking to them?

If you really want to talk to people you really hate talking to then you'd better call a shrink.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 07, 2020, 10:54:16 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 07, 2020, 10:39:25 AM
If you really want to talk to people you really hate talking to then you'd better call a shrink.

     So you really don't hate talking to people here, it's just a kind of "hate theater". See, I may have indulged in this on occasions while disapproving of it in general. At the moment I'm working on a treatise that says it's all your fault. I'll let you know how it comes out. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 07, 2020, 10:59:55 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 07, 2020, 10:54:16 AM
     So you really don't hate talking to people here

I don't hate talking to you, that's for sure.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 07, 2020, 11:26:25 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 07, 2020, 10:59:55 AM
I don't hate talking to you, that's for sure.

     I find it hard to take the attitude you have towards the Finnish Flash. I don't see it as helpful.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 07, 2020, 12:17:26 PM
Bernie ad destroys Biden for Iraq war support

https://www.youtube.com/v/H-hvazISfjc
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on March 07, 2020, 03:24:25 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 07, 2020, 12:17:26 PM
Bernie ad destroys Biden for Iraq war support

https://www.youtube.com/v/H-hvazISfjc

Looks like Kyle needs a proofreader... ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 07, 2020, 03:25:59 PM

     Bernie took away Biden's toys?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on March 07, 2020, 03:40:00 PM
Biden will most likely win the nomination.

He will most likely lose to Trump, unless the coronavirus upsets the American economy enough to make people dislike Trump (because let's face it his appalling behaviour isn't going to achieve the necessary levels of dislike).

See you in a few months probably.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 07, 2020, 05:12:57 PM
Quote from: Madiel on March 07, 2020, 03:40:00 PM
Biden will most likely win the nomination.

He will most likely lose to Trump, unless the coronavirus upsets the American economy enough to make people dislike Trump (because let's face it his appalling behaviour isn't going to achieve the necessary levels of dislike).

See you in a few months probably.

There's no denying that uncertainty is high (apart from Bernie being GRRRREAT!, I mean)

I must hope for the best, of course.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 07, 2020, 11:44:48 PM
Quote from: drogulus on March 07, 2020, 11:26:25 AM
     I find it hard to take the attitude you have towards the Finnish Flash. I don't see it as helpful.

None of us can help him.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on March 08, 2020, 12:31:38 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 07, 2020, 09:45:55 AM
     I'm glad I got a functional definition of damnation at last. The lack of one was making me batty.

    I like talking to a variety of people who are less than optimally even-tempered. It may be a flaw in my genetic makeup.

Lol. Yeah.
My genetics are flawed too, I'm afraid.
Therefore I always switch to Bach to make me well-tempered again.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Christabel on March 08, 2020, 12:55:29 AM
I feel sorry for Joe Biden;  he has obvious cognitive deficits.  He said 150 million Americans had been killed by guns.  Presumbly he's talking about the period from Plymouth Rock!!  But he seems like a rather decent man;  and he's going to be devoured by a crocodile.  Dreadful.  Bloomberg;  the only billionaire to pay money so that he can be scalped by a fake Indian.  Bernie Sanders - lover of the USSR and communism and anathema to American capitalism.

Get some decent candidates, make healthcare at least reasonably affordable for your people and keep them in work.  That means closing the southern border.  If not, adios. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 08, 2020, 01:19:19 AM
Quote from: Christabel on March 08, 2020, 12:55:29 AM
Bernie Sanders - lover of the USSR and communism and anathema to American capitalism.

Are you a supporter of the government of Italy or Italian mafia if you visit Venice as a tourist?

No, Bernie Sanders isn't a lover of communism and he is not against capitalism, just crony capitalism where the society only works for the rich. That's why he talks about the Nordic countries, examples of countries where socialism and capitalism has been mixed very successfully.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 08, 2020, 03:05:20 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 07, 2020, 11:44:48 PM
None of us can help him.

Truly not.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on March 08, 2020, 04:06:58 AM
Maybe someone can help Christabel then.  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 08, 2020, 07:02:19 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 07, 2020, 11:44:48 PM
None of us can help him.

     It doesn't occur to me that people need your kind of help as much as you need to provide it.

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 08, 2020, 07:15:45 AM
Quote from: Madiel on March 08, 2020, 04:06:58 AM
Maybe someone can help Christabel then.  ::)

     Some arguments are all about the conclusions and not much about any process that could arrive at them.

     Hey, did you notice how people on the political left use the word "dynamic" as a noun and those on the right don't? It occurred to me as soon as I noticed it that processes of social transformation were a heavier lift for those who didn't want them than for those who were more receptive, and this would leave evidence in word choice.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 08, 2020, 07:37:40 AM
CNN admits Joe Biden is hiding from public to prevent people seeing his cognitive decline.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 08, 2020, 07:43:18 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 08, 2020, 07:02:19 AM
     It doesn't occur to me that people need your kind of help as much as you need to provide it.

     

Some time ago he started a thread complaining about his problems. A lot of people sympathized wiith him and oferred him pieces of advice with the best intention and in all earnest. The result? He complained about being patronized.

The only help he needs and which he seems to be finally getting is professional psychological help.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 08, 2020, 07:57:59 AM
DNC changing Arizona debate to town hall to protect Joe Biden from Bernie Sanders taking him down
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 08, 2020, 08:10:17 AM
Quote from: Madiel on March 07, 2020, 03:40:00 PM
Biden will most likely win the nomination.

He will most likely lose to Trump, unless the coronavirus upsets the American economy enough to make people dislike Trump (because let's face it his appalling behaviour isn't going to achieve the necessary levels of dislike).

Most probably, indeed.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 08, 2020, 08:44:04 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 08, 2020, 07:43:18 AM
Some time ago he started a thread complaining about his problems. A lot of people sympathized wiith him and oferred him pieces of advice with the best intention and in all earnest. The result? He complained about being patronized.

The only help he needs and which he seems to be finally getting is professional psychological help.

     Try something else if what you do doesn't work.

Quote from: 71 dB on March 08, 2020, 07:37:40 AM
CNN admits Joe Biden is hiding from public to prevent people seeing his cognitive decline.



     
     It's not much of an admission IMV. Biden has symptoms of decline appropriate to his age, plus the well known Biden factor that's been visible for decades. Am I worried? Do I look worried?

     In a post Trump world cognitive decline won't mean the same thing. Biden won't refuse to listen to advice or consult experts, nor will he imagine the world is composed of him and his posse facing an inexhaustible supply of enemies, a proposition that brings about its fulfillment.
     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 08, 2020, 09:02:13 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 08, 2020, 08:44:04 AM
     Try something else if what you do doesn't work.

That's exactly what I said I'd be doing from now on yet you objected to that as well. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 08, 2020, 09:20:02 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 08, 2020, 09:02:13 AM
That's exactly what I said I'd be doing from now on yet you objected to that as well. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

     Without objection, so ordered. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 08, 2020, 09:29:35 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 08, 2020, 07:37:40 AM
CNN admits Joe Biden is hiding from public to prevent people seeing his cognitive decline.


Link?

Are you getting this from CNN or is Kyle telling you what CNN is saying and you're taking it on faith?

I'm not seeing a recent piece from them with a title like that.

Also: if Biden is "hiding" its something *he* would "admit", not CNN.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 08, 2020, 09:45:25 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 08, 2020, 09:29:35 AM
Link?

Are you getting this from CNN or is Kyle telling you what CNN is saying and you're taking it on faith?

I'm not seeing a recent piece from them with a title like that.

Also: if Biden is "hiding" its something *he* would "admit", not CNN.

     That's right, though I think the question of cognitive ability still comes up for anyone watching how Biden performs, regardless of who is admitting what.

     Biden doesn't say "I'm not being facetious!" any more. Should I be worried?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 08, 2020, 09:56:21 AM

     I have a cognitive decline name block for Nicole Kidman. Here I am going through the most excruciating "confuse a cat" philosophical disquisitions with all my powers intact and I can't remember the name of the actress who played Gretchen Carlson in Bombshell! It's very unfair. Who do I have to damn to get this fixed?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on March 08, 2020, 10:30:56 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 08, 2020, 09:56:21 AM
     I have a cognitive decline name block for Nicole Kidman. Here I am going through the most excruciating "confuse a cat" philosophical disquisitions with all my powers intact and I can't remember the name of the actress who played Gretchen Carlson in Bombshell! It's very unfair. Who do I have to damn to get this fixed?

Hmmm. When I try to remember who painted Water Lilies the name that springs to my mind is Claude Debussy. It takes me at least 15 seconds to suppress that and remember Claude Monet.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 08, 2020, 10:34:09 AM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 08, 2020, 10:30:56 AM
Hmmm. When I try to remember who painted Water Lilies the name that springs to my mind is Claude Debussy. It takes me at least 15 seconds to suppress that and remember Claude Monet.

Sans blague!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on March 08, 2020, 10:45:52 AM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 08, 2020, 10:30:56 AM
Hmmm. When I try to remember who painted Water Lilies the name that springs to my mind is Claude Debussy. It takes me at least 15 seconds to suppress that and remember Claude Monet.

Then I am mortified to think how superficial I am to think that Debussy was an "impressionist."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 08, 2020, 10:49:55 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 08, 2020, 07:43:18 AM
Some time ago he started a thread complaining about his problems. A lot of people sympathized wiith him and oferred him pieces of advice with the best intention and in all earnest. The result? He complained about being patronized.

The only help he needs and which he seems to be finally getting is professional psychological help.

And instead, he's all about wanking on this thread.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 08, 2020, 10:51:26 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 08, 2020, 09:29:35 AM
Link?

Are you getting this from CNN or is Kyle telling you what CNN is saying and you're taking it on faith?

I'm not seeing a recent piece from them with a title like that.

Also: if Biden is "hiding" its something *he* would "admit", not CNN.

Why, you ask him, as if he were not merely a shallow propagandist.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 08, 2020, 12:43:39 PM
OOPS: Joe Biden's Campaign LEAKS His Vice President On ACCIDENT!
(Amy Klobuchar).


Quote from: SimonNZ on March 08, 2020, 09:29:35 AM
Link?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce7sjbqfBQY
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 08, 2020, 01:28:09 PM
Right. So its not Kyle telling you what to think, its that guy I said makes Kyle look professional telling you what to think.

Its frightening that that's what you consider a serious news source, so I'm glad you don't get to vote in US elections. Every time you link to this ridiculous rubbish you're embarrassing yourself.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 08, 2020, 01:37:10 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 08, 2020, 01:28:09 PM
Right. So its not Kyle telling you what to think, its that guy I said makes Kyle look professional telling you what to think.

Its frightening that that's what you consider a serious news source, so I'm glad you don't get to vote in US elections. Every time you link to this ridiculous rubbish you're embarrassing yourself.

Are you saying we on the left are wrong about this and Biden is hiding nothing? Are you saying he doesn't have cognitive decline? Biden is speaking for hours in campaign rallies like Bernie? He does't have "gaffes"?

You don't show respect toward me. You question my honesty and ability to think myself. You question my sources of information. I don't have a clue why. For some reason you seem to think Bernie would be a bad president. I disagree. He has earned the presidency and would do so much good for the country. I don't understand you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 08, 2020, 01:47:18 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 08, 2020, 01:37:10 PM
Are you saying we on the left are wrong about this and Biden is hiding nothing? Are you saying he doesn't have cognitive decline? Biden is speaking for hours in campaign rallies like Bernie? He does't have "gaffes"?

You don't show respect toward me. You question my honesty and ability to think myself. You question my sources of information. I don't have a clue why. For some reason you seem to think Bernie would be a bad president. I disagree. He has earned the presidency and would do so much good for the country. I don't understand you.

What's all this "we on the left" stuff? Plenty on the left disagree with Sander and everyone on the left on this forum disagrees with you, myself included. You don't speak for them and neither does Kyle or Basement Guy, whatever his name is.

You" don't have a clue why"? Oh yes you do. You're being utterly dishonest by saying you don't because its been explained to you hundreds of times. And I never said Sanders would be a bad president, I just don't believe for a second he can deliver the icecreams and ponies he's promising.

I almost said in my previous post that you were like someone who gets all their news exclusively from Stephen Colbert, but then had to stop myself because you'd in all honesty be vastly better informed if that's what you did.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 08, 2020, 01:59:44 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 08, 2020, 01:37:10 PM
Are you saying we on the left are wrong about this and Biden is hiding nothing? Are you saying he doesn't have cognitive decline? Biden is speaking for hours in campaign rallies like Bernie? He does't have "gaffes"?

You don't show respect toward me. You question my honesty and ability to think myself. You question my sources of information. I don't have a clue why. For some reason you seem to think Bernie would be a bad president. I disagree. He has earned the presidency and would do so much good for the country. I don't understand you.

You demonstrate constantly that you fail to think for yourself.  You are the laziest excuse for an "intelllectual" that I have ever encountered.  And since I know some Trump voters, that is saying something.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 08, 2020, 02:03:48 PM
BTW vox.com skews way left, and they fail to be sanguine about Bernie the All-Awesome:
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/7/21166643/bernie-sanders-primary-map
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 08, 2020, 02:09:46 PM
Confidence Interval: Sanders still has a shot (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/confidence-interval-bernie-sanders-still-has-a-chance-to-win-the-nomination/) -- seems to be a pereiodic piece on fivethirtyeight.com
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 08, 2020, 02:14:02 PM
Interesting:

Bernie Sanders Has Already Won the Democratic Primary

He set the tone, determined the issues and tugged the party toward him. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/07/opinion/bernie-sanders-democratic-primary.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 08, 2020, 02:38:18 PM
For anyone wondering how "frightened" Republicans are about running against Bernie the All-Awesome:

Bernie Sanders Is Wrong about Cuba's Literacy Program
By FREDERICK M. HESS
& BRENDAN BELL
March 6, 2020 3:40 PM

[snip]
Sanders's defense of Castro was roundly condemned. New Jersey Democratic senator Robert Menendez thundered, "I'm sure all of those who died at Castro's hands and were shot at firing squads, all those who were tortured, those who live in my state and suffered enormously under the regime, the more than a million people who fled, I'm sure they all think that the literacy program was worth all of that."

But the responses were so focused on Sanders's moral obtuseness that they often left his point about the purported merits of the literacy program unchallenged. This is a mistake. For the evidence that Castro's program, launched in 1961, drove big increases in Cuban literacy is dubious. Cuba's supposed educational triumph is better understood as a product of propaganda and statistical chicanery. (https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/bernie-sanders-wrong-cuba-literacy-program/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=flex&utm_term=third)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 08, 2020, 02:40:53 PM
 (Bernie): "At the end of the count in California, where we have won and will win a whole lot of delegates, I think at the end of the day, we may be a little bit ahead of Biden."

But here's the math why the remaining California delegates won't push Sanders into the lead. (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/democratic-primary-can-bernie-sanders-overtake-joe-biden-delegate-lead/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=flex&utm_term=first)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 08, 2020, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 08, 2020, 01:37:10 PM
Are you saying we on the left are wrong about this and Biden is hiding nothing? Are you saying he doesn't have cognitive decline?

     It's a sensible strategy for any campaign to hide a glaring weakness.

Quote from: 71 dB on March 08, 2020, 12:43:39 PM
OOPS: Joe Biden's Campaign LEAKS His Vice President On ACCIDENT!
(Amy Klobuchar).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce7sjbqfBQY

     Funny, I've been thinking for days that it could be Amy K. Reason: No obvious negatives. Unlike Hillary, who is better liked by people who are close to her, K. is better liked by people who aren't.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 08, 2020, 03:37:27 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 08, 2020, 01:47:18 PM
What's all this "we on the left" stuff? Plenty on the left disagree with Sander and everyone on the left on this forum disagrees with you, myself included. You don't speak for them and neither does Kyle or Basement Guy, whatever his name is.

You" don't have a clue why"? Oh yes you do. You're being utterly dishonest by saying you don't because its been explained to you hundreds of times. And I never said Sanders would be a bad president, I just don't believe for a second he can deliver the icecreams and ponies he's promising.

I almost said in my previous post that you were like someone who gets all their news exclusively from Stephen Colbert, but then had to stop myself because you'd in all honesty be vastly better informed if that's what you did.

I thought you are a centrist. What is your left wing visio for the US? Incrementalism? That's centrism and it led to Trump. Not good.

How come other countries can do  "icecreams and ponies"? The sole superpower in the world can't. Weird...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 08, 2020, 03:44:18 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 08, 2020, 01:59:44 PM
You demonstrate constantly that you fail to think for yourself.  You are the laziest excuse for an "intelllectual" that I have ever encountered.  And since I know some Trump voters, that is saying something.

I thought we are on the path of more friendly times now... ...for some reason you want to continue this negativity...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 08, 2020, 04:11:10 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 08, 2020, 03:37:27 PM
I thought you are a centrist. What is your left wing visio for the US? Incrementalism? That's centrism and it led to Trump. Not good.

How come other countries can do  "icecreams and ponies"? The sole superpower in the world can't. Weird...

I have never once referred to myself as a "centrist"(a term which at any rate I find to be so elastic as to be meaningless), you only think so because of your personal Overton Window, as I tried to point out a few pages back.

The idea of my having a "vision for the US" is laughable. Or at least beyond "that buffoon is a global menace". I could say which candidates I like from this distance, but unless they too turn out to be a global menace then I'm just a spectator and many of my needs wont be the needs they're addressing. I'm most certainly not, for example, going to tell any American what kind of healthcare they should vote for.

But its still fascinating to watch and discuss.


in other news, someone at The Hill needs to put down the crack pipe:

A Biden-Bernie ticket can defeat Trump and defend democracy (https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/486494-a-biden-bernie-ticket-can-defeat-trump-and-defend-democracy)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 08, 2020, 05:15:01 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 08, 2020, 02:38:18 PM
For anyone wondering how "frightened" Republicans are about running against Bernie the All-Awesome:

Bernie Sanders Is Wrong about Cuba's Literacy Program
By FREDERICK M. HESS
& BRENDAN BELL
March 6, 2020 3:40 PM

[snip]
Sanders's defense of Castro was roundly condemned. New Jersey Democratic senator Robert Menendez thundered, "I'm sure all of those who died at Castro's hands and were shot at firing squads, all those who were tortured, those who live in my state and suffered enormously under the regime, the more than a million people who fled, I'm sure they all think that the literacy program was worth all of that."

But the responses were so focused on Sanders's moral obtuseness that they often left his point about the purported merits of the literacy program unchallenged. This is a mistake. For the evidence that Castro's program, launched in 1961, drove big increases in Cuban literacy is dubious. Cuba's supposed educational triumph is better understood as a product of propaganda and statistical chicanery. (https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/bernie-sanders-wrong-cuba-literacy-program/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=flex&utm_term=third)

Sanders's inability to not give praise to authoritarian leftists is reminiscent of Trump's inability to not give praise to authoritarian rightwingers, and shows a cognitive deficiency worse than anything Biden demonstrates.  And since it has been going on for about as long as Bernie's been in politics, it can't be called a decline.  He should at least be alert to the need to not say it publicly, and thereby alienate considerable groups of voters in states like Florida.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 08, 2020, 11:11:56 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 08, 2020, 04:11:10 PM
I have never once referred to myself as a "centrist"(a term which at any rate I find to be so elastic as to be meaningless), you only think so because of your personal Overton Window, as I tried to point out a few pages back.

The idea of my having a "vision for the US" is laughable. Or at least beyond "that buffoon is a global menace". I could say which candidates I like from this distance, but unless they too turn out to be a global menace then I'm just a spectator and many of my needs wont be the needs they're addressing. I'm most certainly not, for example, going to tell any American what kind of healthcare they should vote for.

But its still fascinating to watch and discuss.

So you don't have a vision for the US, but you seem to have one for me. You are opinionated about my support of Bernie Sanders and my sources of information. Where is your Overton Window? Where mine is is clear. Kyle Kulinski, TYT, Status Coup etc. ARE the left and I agree with them most of the time. We on the left are for medicare for all. We don't wonder about what kind of system the US should have. We know the answer based on studies and empirical evidence. We know how other kind of healthcare systems than single payer systems are to protect profit of private insurance companies. To us on the left the purpose of healthcare is to provide affordable care for everyone, not make profit. That's why the choice is clear for us. If you are not for medicare for all you are not for affordable care for everyone. You are for profits meaning you are a centrist or a right-winger who think money is more important than people.

Sure, you have never called yourself a centrist, but your doubts about (my) lefty sources of information give me an impression of a moderate, centrist person. Your opinions about Trump show me you are definitely not a right-winger.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 08, 2020, 11:21:48 PM
Quote from: drogulus on March 08, 2020, 02:44:34 PM
     Funny, I've been thinking for days that it could be Amy K. Reason: No obvious negatives. Unlike Hillary, who is better liked by people who are close to her, K. is better liked by people who aren't.

Why anyone outside the top 1 % "likes" Amy Klobuchar is beyond me and others on the left. What's the appeal? What did she offer to people? Normalcy and decorum after Trump? Nice, but Americans are struggling and need much more than that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 08, 2020, 11:31:20 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 08, 2020, 01:59:44 PM
You demonstrate constantly that you fail to think for yourself.  You are the laziest excuse for an "intelllectual" that I have ever encountered.  And since I know some Trump voters, that is saying something.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I am who I am and I have the opinions I have. I believe I am able to think for myself and I even think questioning things is one of my rare strengths. I don't know what I should do or say to make you have a more positive opinion about me.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 08, 2020, 11:43:02 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 08, 2020, 01:47:18 PM
What's all this "we on the left" stuff? Plenty on the left disagree with Sander and everyone on the left on this forum disagrees with you, myself included. You don't speak for them and neither does Kyle or Basement Guy, whatever his name is.

I almost said in my previous post that you were like someone who gets all their news exclusively from Stephen Colbert, but then had to stop myself because you'd in all honesty be vastly better informed if that's what you did.

Well, if I am not a member of the left, what am I? Who on the left disagrees with Bernie Sanders? Maybe YOU aren't as left as you think. Are you on the left on social or on economic issues? Both?

What are YOUR better sources of information? You are eager to tell how my sources suck (they don't), but you don't give hints of better ones. That's why I am clueless about what you are doing. Are you just trying to be a besserwisser or what?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on March 08, 2020, 11:50:58 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 08, 2020, 11:43:02 PM
Well, if I am not a member of the left, what am I?

You've completely missed the logic of the post you're responding to. It did not say you weren't a member of the left. It said you shouldn't act as if everyone on the left thinks exactly the same way that you do.

And your response is basically to suggest that if someone doesn't agree with you, THEY can't be on the left. Good grief.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 09, 2020, 12:30:58 AM
Bernie Sanders is actually winning, they're just rigging it for Joe Biden. The exit polls don't match (within normal margin of error) with the reported vote counts and this inconsistency surprise surprise benefits Biden.

For example: In Massachusetts exit polls give Biden 28.9 % and Sanders 30.4 %, but the reported vote counts were 33.4 % for Biden and 26.7 % for Sanders. Elizabeth Warren also suffered this way (exit polls 25.2 %, reported 21.6 %). Funny, it's the two most progressive candidates!

This is oligarchy at work: The rich protect their rigged system by rigging the elections so that only "no real change" candidates can win. For example Bernie should have won Texas, but he didn't. I see stories about voter supression in areas strong for Bernie. Voting placing closing early. One guy spend 7 hours voting. Ridiculous! The US is so pathetic even for a banana republic when it comes to having democratic elections and that's why American won't have the nice things other countries have from clean tap water to single payer healthcare to paid sick leave by law to tuition free education to...

Source: TDMS RESEARCH (http://tdmsresearch.com)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 09, 2020, 12:46:12 AM
Quote from: Madiel on March 08, 2020, 11:50:58 PM
You've completely missed the logic of the post you're responding to. It did not say you weren't a member of the left. It said you shouldn't act as if everyone on the left thinks exactly the same way that you do.

And your response is basically to suggest that if someone doesn't agree with you, THEY can't be on the left. Good grief.

Well, there are of course some disagreement on the left just as there are on the right. For example Kyle Kulinski agrees with Bernie Sanders 95 % of the time. However, that's much more than what he agrees with many other politicians. Some ideas such as medicare for all are accepted by pretty much everyone on the left and I already explained why. There may be disagreement on the left about how much student loans should be canceled. 50 %? 75%? 100%? Or maybe how to increase taxes on the rich. Things like that. The fact that there are disagreement isn't my fault. That's just how it is. Do you disagree with me about everything? How could that even be possible. We both dislike Trump, right? That means we must share some values and ideas. What exactly are our disagreements? Are you AGAINST everything Bernie proposes? Why?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 09, 2020, 12:52:54 AM
I think the Republican Party is more democratic than the Democratic Party. The reason for this is pretty self-evident: Republican candidates are NEVER progressive, so there is no need to rig anything.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 09, 2020, 01:01:32 AM
Do you like Biden but hate Trump? Why? They are quite similar.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on March 09, 2020, 01:10:53 AM
Noting that you're not in America... all that stuff about voting for whoever is the Democratic nominee would clearly be totally lost on you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 09, 2020, 01:15:18 AM
Election integrity.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 09, 2020, 01:22:19 AM
Quote from: Madiel on March 09, 2020, 01:10:53 AM
Noting that you're not in America... all that stuff about voting for whoever is the Democratic nominee would clearly be totally lost on you.

I hope everyone here sees I try to be polite. I don't like to be called "totally lost".

As far as I know most Bernie supporters will vote for Biden if he is the nominee, because he is the lesser evil of the two by far. If I was American I had the right to vote I'd do the same. I believe only Bloomberg was a candidate "as bad as Trump" Bernie supporters wouldn't have voted for in the general.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on March 09, 2020, 01:49:01 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 09, 2020, 01:22:19 AM
I don't like to be called "totally lost".

You weren't.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 09, 2020, 01:50:32 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 09, 2020, 01:22:19 AM
I hope everyone here sees I try to be polite.

You weren't.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on March 09, 2020, 01:53:31 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 09, 2020, 01:01:32 AM
Do you like Biden but hate Trump? Why? They are quite similar.

Quote from: 71 dB on March 09, 2020, 01:22:19 AM
As far as I know most Bernie supporters will vote for Biden if he is the nominee, because he is the lesser evil of the two by far. If I was American I had the right to vote I'd do the same.

Make up your mind.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 09, 2020, 02:04:11 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 09, 2020, 01:50:32 AM
You weren't.

I have tried to be respectful after my latest meltdown and I am sorry if I have offended you. Sure, I have been critical to your posts, but in a polite manner I think.

Quote from: Madiel on March 09, 2020, 01:53:31 AM
Make up your mind.


Quite similar doesn't mean identical. $110 is more money than $100. Both look quite similar amount of money compared to say $1.42, but still if given the choice to have either amount money I'd choose $110.

Biden and Trump may have very similar stand on many political issues, but they can be also different on other issues like how much they respect democracy, freedom of press or what kind of judges they pick.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on March 09, 2020, 05:42:05 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 09, 2020, 12:30:58 AM
Bernie Sanders is actually winning, they're just rigging it for Joe Biden. The exit polls don't match (within normal margin of error) with the reported vote counts and this inconsistency surprise surprise benefits Biden.

For example: In Massachusetts exit polls give Biden 28.9 % and Sanders 30.4 %, but the reported vote counts were 33.4 % for Biden and 26.7 % for Sanders. Elizabeth Warren also suffered this way (exit polls 25.2 %, reported 21.6 %). Funny, it's the two most progressive candidates!

This is oligarchy at work: The rich protect their rigged system by rigging the elections so that only "no real change" candidates can win. For example Bernie should have won Texas, but he didn't. I see stories about voter supression in areas strong for Bernie. Voting placing closing early. One guy spend 7 hours voting. Ridiculous! The US is so pathetic even for a banana republic when it comes to having democratic elections and that's why American won't have the nice things other countries have from clean tap water to single payer healthcare to paid sick leave by law to tuition free education to...

Source: TDMS RESEARCH (http://tdmsresearch.com)

You should stop reading polls. Do you have any idea what exit polls really are? Chech the wiki article, it even has a paragraph about why they can't be reliable - the 'discrepancies' you mention. It's complotists like you who are dangerous to democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_poll#Problems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_poll#Problems).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on March 09, 2020, 06:23:01 AM
Hot from the presses !


https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/03/09/polls-joe-biden-holds-lead-over-bernie-sanders-michigan-primaries/4994142002/ (https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/03/09/polls-joe-biden-holds-lead-over-bernie-sanders-michigan-primaries/4994142002/)

Here's why polls are poor indicators of election results. Read the article to the end. The real story starts a few paragraphs down, after the first figure/graph.

Like someone said, « it's not over 'till it's over ».

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 09, 2020, 06:37:20 AM
Quote from: André on March 09, 2020, 06:23:01 AM
Hot from the presses !


https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/03/09/polls-joe-biden-holds-lead-over-bernie-sanders-michigan-primaries/4994142002/ (https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/03/09/polls-joe-biden-holds-lead-over-bernie-sanders-michigan-primaries/4994142002/)

Here's why polls are poor indicators of election results. Read the article to the end. The real story starts a few paragraphs down, after the first figure/graph.

Like someone said, « it's not over 'till it's over ».

There's no graph showing, at least not on my laptop. Anyway, you gotta love the name of this guy, Bernie Porn.  :D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 09, 2020, 06:37:50 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 08, 2020, 11:31:20 PM
... I have the opinions I have.

The fact that your opinions are other than mine is not in the least a problem.

Quote from: 71 dBI believe I am able to think for myself and I even think questioning things is one of my rare strengths.
Perhaps you are mistaken.



Quote from: 71 dBI don't know what I should do or say to make you have a more positive opinion about me.



If you understood that a meme by "educatebootlickers.com" is wildly biased agitprop for which you appear to mistake equable reason (an act which is at odds ewith your belief, above), and if you stopped spamming this thread with the agitprop (which shows respect for others), it might be a start.

Then there is, if you came to see the sense of what JBS has ben patient to explain to you . . . .
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 09, 2020, 06:39:34 AM
Quote from: André on March 09, 2020, 05:42:05 AM
You should stop reading polls. Do you have any idea what exit polls really are? Chech the wiki article, it even has a paragraph about why they can't be reliable - the 'discrepancies' you mention. It's complotists like you who are dangerous to democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_poll#Problems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_poll#Problems).

Actual voters voting is not "rigging an election"  It is the election.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 09, 2020, 06:58:29 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 08, 2020, 11:21:48 PM
Why anyone outside the top 1 % "likes" Amy Klobuchar is beyond me and others on the left. What's the appeal? What did she offer to people? Normalcy and decorum after Trump? Nice, but Americans are struggling and need much more than that.

     In the U.S. there are peculiarities that are not obvious unless you live here. To be in the center here means more about how you are willing to identify than what policies you favor. Many people are like me in that they don't judge policies the same way as they do political alignments.

     The centrist appeal is based not only on protective coloration but on a judgment that desired policy is more likely to get enacted by someone more likely to get elected. That's part, and the other part is an appreciation of the difference between attaching identities to people and to programs.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 09, 2020, 07:36:52 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 09, 2020, 12:30:58 AM
Bernie Sanders is actually winning, they're just rigging it for Joe Biden. The exit polls don't match (within normal margin of error) with the reported vote counts and this inconsistency surprise surprise benefits Biden.

For example: In Massachusetts exit polls give Biden 28.9 % and Sanders 30.4 %, but the reported vote counts were 33.4 % for Biden and 26.7 % for Sanders. Elizabeth Warren also suffered this way (exit polls 25.2 %, reported 21.6 %). Funny, it's the two most progressive candidates!

This is oligarchy at work: The rich protect their rigged system by rigging the elections so that only "no real change" candidates can win. For example Bernie should have won Texas, but he didn't. I see stories about voter supression in areas strong for Bernie. Voting placing closing early. One guy spend 7 hours voting. Ridiculous! The US is so pathetic even for a banana republic when it comes to having democratic elections and that's why American won't have the nice things other countries have from clean tap water to single payer healthcare to paid sick leave by law to tuition free education to...

Source: TDMS RESEARCH (http://tdmsresearch.com)

If you actually paid attention to the news, you would have learned that the voter suppression in Texas is being done by the GOP, which dominates the legislature and holds the governorship there, for the sake of suppressing Democratic votes--specifically Latino and black voters.  Maybe this benefits Biden, but the suppression is not done by the DNC and not meant to help him.  It's being done to hurt whoever the Democratic nominee might be come November.,
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 09, 2020, 07:42:33 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 09, 2020, 06:39:34 AM
Actual voters voting is not "rigging an election"  It is the election.

Speaking of voting, Florida's early voting began yesterday.  I voted for Biden just now.   The actual Democrat (as opposed to Sanders, who is a Democrat only for the sake of running for the Democratic nomination).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 09, 2020, 07:49:16 AM
     I do wonder how one separates legitimate choice to prefer someone other than Sanders from the evil cabal to prefer someone other than Sanders. I'm unconvinced by a proposition which deems the former as proof of the latter.

     If I prefer centrist tools to get SomethingCare for All it's not me wanting a centrist program, it's me wanting to elect someone who'll advance the ball. What amounts to advancing the ball is partly settled (everyone will be covered, we no longer accept the proposition that health care provision involves a hunt for the undeserving).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 09, 2020, 07:51:40 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 09, 2020, 07:49:16 AM
     I do wonder how one separates legitimate choice to prefer someone other than Sanders from the evil cabal to prefer someone other than Sanders.

You do like leaving catnip for Poju, though.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 09, 2020, 10:05:06 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 09, 2020, 07:51:40 AM
You do like leaving catnip for Poju, though.

     He's easy to talk to. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 09, 2020, 02:55:16 PM
What the media missed about Joe Biden's electability
Political devotees don't like Joe Biden, but voters do. And there's a reason for that (https://www.vox.com/2020/3/9/21169367/joe-biden-electability-democratic-primary-bernie-sanders-donald-trump)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 09, 2020, 02:57:56 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 09, 2020, 02:55:16 PM
What the media missed about Joe Biden's electability
Political devotees don't like Joe Biden, but voters do. And there's a reason for that (https://www.vox.com/2020/3/9/21169367/joe-biden-electability-democratic-primary-bernie-sanders-donald-trump)

Biden's speech patterns offend the media. Voters don't really care.

Biden has lost a step rhetorically. In debates, his answers have, to put it gently, a meandering quality. He loses his place, says the wrong thing, mixes up words, free associates. Without engaging the question of whether this reflects a lifelong stutter or a more worrying decline, the simple fact is that Biden performs worst on the metric that media professionals judge most harshly, and most confidently: clarity of communication.

Biden has lost a step rhetorically. In debates, his answers have, to put it gently, a meandering quality. He loses his place, says the wrong thing, mixes up words, free associates. Without engaging the question of whether this reflects a lifelong stutter or a more worrying decline, the simple fact is that Biden performs worst on the metric that media professionals judge most harshly, and most confidently: clarity of communication.

But over and over again, we've seen that voters just don't care that much about malapropisms and meandering rhetorical styles. Books — yes, plural! — were published mocking George W. Bush's garbled sentences. And Bush looks like Cicero compared to Donald Trump's word salad.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 09, 2020, 03:18:38 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 09, 2020, 02:57:56 PM
Biden's speech patterns offend the media. Voters don't really care.

Biden has lost a step rhetorically. In debates, his answers have, to put it gently, a meandering quality. He loses his place, says the wrong thing, mixes up words, free associates. Without engaging the question of whether this reflects a lifelong stutter or a more worrying decline, the simple fact is that Biden performs worst on the metric that media professionals judge most harshly, and most confidently: clarity of communication.

Biden has lost a step rhetorically. In debates, his answers have, to put it gently, a meandering quality. He loses his place, says the wrong thing, mixes up words, free associates. Without engaging the question of whether this reflects a lifelong stutter or a more worrying decline, the simple fact is that Biden performs worst on the metric that media professionals judge most harshly, and most confidently: clarity of communication.

But over and over again, we've seen that voters just don't care that much about malapropisms and meandering rhetorical styles. Books — yes, plural! — were published mocking George W. Bush's garbled sentences. And Bush looks like Cicero compared to Donald Trump's word salad.

     I think that's spot on. The political pundits for Dems have a narrow center-left policy preference window and want lots of polish in the presentation. Both the candidates are punished for infractions that mean very little to voters.

     What Bernie Sanders Gets Right About the Media (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/08/business/media/bernie-sanders-media.html)

     If what conservatives say is true about liberal bias in the media, it should follow biased liberals would turn on Sanders. It is, they do.

The distance between Mr. Sanders's supporters and media executives could be felt with particular intensity in the halls of MSNBC last week. After Chris Matthews, the beloved embodiment of MSNBC's establishmentarian centrism, compared Mr. Sanders's campaign to the Nazi invasion of France, Mr. Sanders's supporters began a drumbeat of criticism that helped lead to Mr. Matthews' ouster. When Joe Biden — the Chris Matthews of politics — emerged as the Democratic front-runner on Super Tuesday, the on-air relief at MSNBC was palpable.

    I figure I read Biden's policy vacuity the same as most voters do. Biden will sign bills Dems pass.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 09, 2020, 06:33:22 PM
Quote from: drogulus on March 09, 2020, 03:18:38 PM
     What Bernie Sanders Gets Right About the Media (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/08/business/media/bernie-sanders-media.html)

     If what conservatives say is true about liberal bias in the media, it should follow biased liberals would turn on Sanders. It is, they do.

The distance between Mr. Sanders's supporters and media executives could be felt with particular intensity in the halls of MSNBC last week. After Chris Matthews, the beloved embodiment of MSNBC's establishmentarian centrism, compared Mr. Sanders's campaign to the Nazi invasion of France, Mr. Sanders's supporters began a drumbeat of criticism that helped lead to Mr. Matthews' ouster. When Joe Biden — the Chris Matthews of politics — emerged as the Democratic front-runner on Super Tuesday, the on-air relief at MSNBC was palpable.

    I figure I read Biden's policy vacuity the same as most voters do. Biden will sign bills Dems pass.

Interesting piece!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 10, 2020, 03:13:07 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 09, 2020, 06:39:34 AM
Actual voters voting is not "rigging an election"  It is the election.

If 1040 people vote for candidate A, and 960 people vote for candidate B, but the given result is 980 for A and 1020 for B it is a rigged election.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 10, 2020, 03:28:36 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 10, 2020, 03:13:07 AM
If 1040 people vote for candidate A, and 960 people vote for candidate B, but the given result is 980 for A and 1020 for B it is a rigged election.

So where are the "facts" that this is what happened on Tuesday, 3 March?  Or don't you consider that you are mistaking tendentious speculation for fact?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 10, 2020, 03:37:57 AM
Michigan Might Not Be As Sanders-Friendly This Time (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/michigan-might-not-be-as-sanders-friendly-this-time/)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 10, 2020, 03:40:47 AM
"geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, elections analyst): Sanders has to have a better-than-expected performance today because the rest of March isn't great for him. Not only is March 17 bad, as Nathaniel pointed out, but then Georgia — a state Biden is expected to win handily — is the only state voting on March 24.

sarahf: Yeah, of the states up today, Michigan is just so crucial for Sanders, as it's the biggest delegate haul on the calendar, but things don't look good for him. He now has a 2 percent chance of winning, according to our forecast."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 10, 2020, 04:01:19 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 10, 2020, 03:28:36 AM
So where are the "facts" that this is what happened on Tuesday, 3 March?  Or don't you consider that you are mistaking tendentious speculation for fact?

It's hard to have the facts when the process has been made less transparent using whatever apps etc. instead of paper ballots. Exit polls is one way to monitor the elections, but there are less exit polls now. Mistakes are mistakes, but isn't it curious those mistakes hardly ever benefit Bernie?

Anyway, if you trust American elections that's good. I don't. To me American "democracy" is a joke. I was naive to think Bernie can bring change. The 1 % don't allow that no matter how much 99 % wants it. It looks like Trump gets his second term. I am turning my back on American politics now and instead concentrate on things closer to me. This has been an insanely frustrating process to watch and in the future I better choose doing things less frustrating. Ignorance is bliss. I wish I could go back in time 4 years to the times when I thought only Republicans are bad and the US had democracy. I was happier and more balanced person back then. Knowledge is destroying me.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 10, 2020, 04:36:05 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 09, 2020, 02:55:16 PM
What the media missed about Joe Biden's electability
Political devotees don't like Joe Biden, but voters do. And there's a reason for that (https://www.vox.com/2020/3/9/21169367/joe-biden-electability-democratic-primary-bernie-sanders-donald-trump)

From the above:

Democrats are not, in my view, playing it safe. The field has winnowed down to a 77-year-old icon of the Democratic establishment who has trouble expressing himself and a 78-year-old democratic socialist who just had a heart attack. And both of them are crisscrossing the country holding public events amid the outbreak of a virus that's particularly dangerous for older Americans.

Hah! Just imagine the unthinkable.  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 10, 2020, 04:47:10 AM
I will follow this election to the end, but I don't care about the outcome. I have to stop caring.  I wish all Americans had healthcare and for some time it has been almost possible as the popularity of medicare for all has rised thanks to people getting information elsewhere, not only on MSM. However, seeing what happened in Super Tuesday. How the establishment came together against Bernie it's clear Americans will never have the things people have in other countries. It's possible every president from now on will be a Republican, because the right is united while the Dems have a civil war between the moderates and the progressives. The establishment won't allow a real progressive canditate so the candidates will be moderate and that means the turnout will be low and Republicans win. Soon the supreme court will have only conservative judges and the US can become a fundamental Christian country. Bye bye freedom...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 10, 2020, 06:39:34 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 10, 2020, 04:01:19 AM
It's hard to have the facts when the process has been made less transparent using whatever apps etc. instead of paper ballots.

So, you're letting your feelings (and frustration) serve you instead of facts.  Did you read the piece which André provided, on the unreliability of exit polls?
Quote from: 71dBI was naive to think Bernie can bring change.

In brief, I agree, though not for your Kulinski-pickled reasons.

Quote from: 71dBI am turning my back on American politics now and instead concentrate on things closer to me.

This is one of the most ensible things I have ever read you to post.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 10, 2020, 06:56:47 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 10, 2020, 06:39:34 AM
This is one of the most ensible things I have ever read you to post.

Don't hold your breath, though.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 10, 2020, 09:13:50 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 10, 2020, 06:39:34 AM
So, you're letting your feelings (and frustration) serve you instead of facts.  Did you read the piece which André provided, on the unreliability of exit polls?

Yes. It's a tiresome article. It talks about polls, not exit polls. Polls are polls and they are what they are because turnout matters. Exit polls are more reliable, because it's about people who did show up and vote. Exit polls should match well with the results. The typical margin of error is about 4 %. Now we have errors of 8 % which is suspicious.

Also, whether Bernie is weaker of stronger candidate than in 2016 is irrelevant in this.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 10, 2020, 09:38:51 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 10, 2020, 04:47:10 AM
I will follow this election to the end, but I don't care about the outcome. I have to stop caring.  I wish all Americans had healthcare and for some time it has been almost possible as the popularity of medicare for all has rised thanks to people getting information elsewhere, not only on MSM.

    The popularity of MFA and variants of it is largely despite liberal/conservative efforts to portray it as radical in a way that's independent of who thinks it would be a good idea, like people who have no disposition to see themselves as radical at all. Many people are aware that universal care backstopped by the government some way or another must happen. At what point does the dollar cost of a rotting private system begin to exceed the cost of an expansion program to replace it?

     Creeping socialism isn't killing off the private health care lottery system. The "winners" hate it almost as much as the losers.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 10, 2020, 10:20:05 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 10, 2020, 09:13:50 AM
Yes. It's a tiresome article. It talks about polls, not exit polls. Polls are polls and they are what they are because turnout matters. Exit polls are more reliable, because it's about people who did show up and vote. Exit polls should match well with the results. The typical margin of error is about 4 %. Now we have errors of 8 % which is suspicious.

Also, whether Bernie is weaker of stronger candidate than in 2016 is irrelevant in this.

Polls are not reliable because they take a very small size and try to extrapolate from that to the general population.  That's why people aggregate polls. A series of polls taken over time enlarges the sample size. And even then its reliability is limited to how the pollsters weight the samples to account for demographics.

Exit polls by their nature can't be aggregated. Nor can they be checked to see if they are properly weighted. In fact, if the error was greater than expected, that shows the pollsters' assumptions about demographics were wrong.  It's not the official vote total that is suspect, it's the polls.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 10, 2020, 10:55:48 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 10, 2020, 09:13:50 AM
Also, whether Bernie is weaker of stronger candidate than in 2016 is irrelevant in this.

You are mistaken, so this quip is irrelevant.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 10, 2020, 10:57:26 AM
Quote from: JBS on March 10, 2020, 10:20:05 AM
Polls are not reliable because they take a very small size and try to extrapolate from that to the general population.  That's why people aggregate polls. A series of polls taken over time enlarges the sample size. And even then its reliability is limited to how the pollsters weight the samples to account for demographics.

Exit polls by their nature can't be aggregated. Nor can they be checked to see if they are properly weighted. In fact, if the error was greater than expected, that shows the pollsters' assumptions about demographics were wrong.  It's not the official vote total that is suspect, it's the polls.

Of course. Exit polls are notoriously less reliable than polls.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 10, 2020, 10:59:58 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 10, 2020, 06:56:47 AM
Don't hold your breath, though.

Right, at irregular intervals he says the right thing, but doesn't pay any attention, himself.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 10, 2020, 11:01:29 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 10, 2020, 10:57:26 AM
Of course. Exit polls are notoriously less reliable than polls.

Seems it's no use getting that through the concrete.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on March 10, 2020, 12:51:56 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 10, 2020, 09:13:50 AM
Yes. It's a tiresome article. It talks about polls, not exit polls. Polls are polls and they are what they are because turnout matters. Exit polls are more reliable, because it's about people who did show up and vote. Exit polls should match well with the results. The typical margin of error is about 4 %. Now we have errors of 8 % which is suspicious.

Also, whether Bernie is weaker of stronger candidate than in 2016 is irrelevant in this.

So tiresome that you didn't bother reading it past the first sentence. It IS about exit polls. But you have better things to do than reading longish articles, I guess.

An exit poll is unreliable by definition. News networks rush to the polls for the first 30 minutes only and it's back to the studio for first reports. Once real results trickle in they become useless. Forget about late voters or mail in voting - too boring. But they count too...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 10, 2020, 01:43:47 PM
Quote from: André on March 10, 2020, 12:51:56 PM
So tiresome that you didn't bother reading it past the first sentence. It IS about exit polls. But you have better things to do than reading longish articles, I guess.

An exit poll is unreliable by definition. News networks rush to the polls for the first 30 minutes only and it's back to the studio for first reports. Once real results trickle in they become useless. Forget about late voters or mail in voting - too boring. But they count too...

And any article which doesn't tell Poju what he wants to hear, is tiresome by definition.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 10, 2020, 02:14:17 PM
Quote from: André on March 10, 2020, 12:51:56 PM
An exit poll is unreliable by definition. News networks rush to the polls for the first 30 minutes only and it's back to the studio for first reports. Once real results trickle in they become useless. Forget about late voters or mail in voting - too boring. But they count too...

That's plain common sense and real life experience. Both conspicuously missing in a specific case.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 10, 2020, 02:16:14 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 10, 2020, 01:43:47 PM
And any article which doesn't tell Poju what he wants to hear, is tiresome by definition.

The TYT, the whole TYT and nothing but the TYT...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Christabel on March 10, 2020, 02:46:08 PM
Trump Derangement Syndrome = more Trump.  And his daughter in 2024.  Bets?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 10, 2020, 03:42:43 PM
He's more likely to get the rules changed to allow him a third term (or unlimited terms).

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 10, 2020, 03:50:18 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 10, 2020, 03:42:43 PM
He's more likely to get the rules changed to allow him a third term (or unlimited terms).


The Quisling Senate will affirm that the change can be made by Executive Order, without need of any Constitutional Amendment.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 10, 2020, 04:27:26 PM
Mississippi & Missouri appear to have been called for Biden; neither of them any surprise.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 10, 2020, 04:33:28 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 10, 2020, 04:27:26 PM
Mississippi & Missouri appear to have been called for Biden; neither of them any surprise.

Indeed, rather a blowout in both states.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 10, 2020, 05:00:37 PM
Early exit polling in MS has Biden at 96% (!!!) among 60+ black voters.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 10, 2020, 05:23:55 PM
Biden is projected to win Michigan; if so, that is probably it for Bernie:  He probably does not have a realistic path to the nomination.

The Sanders campaign, in idealistic denial, says they think they'll do better as the night wears on.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 10, 2020, 06:39:04 PM
Alas for Bernie, the "rock star"

"allies couldn't possibly be more indicative of vote preference than polls. In a 2012 survey from Pew Research, 10 percent of Americans reported having attended a political rally or speech. Compare that to 58.6 percent of eligible Americans who voted in that year's presidential election. Way more people will vote than attend rallies."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 10, 2020, 06:53:31 PM
Did the source of that quote say anything about people who attend rallies but don't vote? Who may like the theater and tribalism but care little beyond that?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 10, 2020, 06:58:31 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 10, 2020, 06:53:31 PM
Did the source of that quote say anything about people who attend rallies but don't vote? Who may like the theater and tribalism but care little beyond that?

Not that I read . . .

'Attending a rally is very different from voting - John Sides: "The benefits you might get from a rally — a chance to express your passion for a candidate, be inspired or entertained by their speech, enjoy the company of other supporters — depend on going to the rally. If you don't go, at best you'll hear a few soundbites from the speech on the news. You won't feel the excitement. You won't get to see the show, as it were. You'll lose out. But voting is entirely different. Perhaps the key benefit you'll get from an election — seeing your preferred candidate win — doesn't really depend on whether you vote. Obviously your one vote is very unlikely to determine the outcome of the election. You won't necessarily lose anything if you stay home on Election Day. You could stay at home and still be cheering after the returns come in. In other words, the free rider problem looms large when it comes to voting, but much less so when it comes to attending a rally." [WashPost]'
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 10, 2020, 07:04:42 PM
"South Carolina Rep. James E. Clyburn, whose endorsement was instrumental in launching Biden to victory in his home state — a win that changed the course of the race over night — said on NPR that it was time to "shut this primary down," starting with the cancellation of a debate scheduled for Sunday in Phoenix.

"Guy Cecil, the head of Priorities USA, a major Democratic political action committee, said "the math is now clear" and announced the organization would throw its considerable weight behind Biden.

"On the left, Ilya Sheyman, former head of the progressive political group MoveOn, sent "love and care" to Sanders and his campaign even as he signaled his belief the Democratic race was over.

""We need unity in Nov. to stop Trump, win Senate & build future," he wrote on Twitter."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on March 11, 2020, 12:35:57 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 10, 2020, 03:50:18 PM
The Quisling Senate will affirm that the change can be made by Executive Order, without need of any Constitutional Amendment.

Sidenote: I was astonished when I first discovered that "quisling" was actually somebody's name.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on March 11, 2020, 12:46:54 AM
Quote from: Madiel on March 11, 2020, 12:35:57 AM
Sidenote: I was astonished when I first discovered that "quisling" was actually somebody's name.

(Another sidenote: 'Quisling' has been used as a nickname for 'traitor', even in the Netherlands, for at least a few decades after the war.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidkun_Quisling
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on March 11, 2020, 01:29:12 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 10, 2020, 03:42:43 PM
He's more likely to get the rules changed to allow him a third term (or unlimited terms).

Trump is from 1946. He would be 78 at the 2024 elections and I doubt he could keep up the pace. At some point the pharmaceuticals necessary to keep going will take their toll. It's pretty much the question if he just doesn't dissolve into incoherence.

Also, let's hope Biden defeats Trump in this election.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 11, 2020, 05:28:37 AM
Looks like the progressives are defeated again. Congratulations to the top 1 %. Oligarchy is working nicely. Congratulation to JBS, you can keep your privite insurance, no evil communist will come and take it away. Now that the DNC is getting rid of Bernie, they can even take their time to think about who they really want against Trump. Biden's cognitive decline is a convenient excuse to switch the candidate. Brilliantly played by the DNC I must admit!

Bernie's mistake: Being Mr Nice Guy. People, especially older people get their "information" MSM which is pure propaganda for the top 1 %. Progressives need to be aggressive and HAMMER away things that the SMS isn't saying or lies about. Bernie should have NEVER called Biden his friend. No, instead he should have HAMMERED how Biden is not for working people, how Biden takes money from the rich and does their bidding. Ideologically people are on the side of Bernie. It's about getting people to vote for you. In every State and exit polls show medicare for all is above water, yet people have been voting for anti-medicare for all candidates.

Quote from: Herman on March 11, 2020, 01:29:12 AM
Also, let's hope Biden defeats Trump in this election.

A miracle is needed for that. We'll see if the DNC changes the candidate they send agaisnt Trump, but things look really miserable as they are. Bernie was nice to "friend" Biden. Trump won't be. He's already attacking Biden. Even if by a miracle Biden beats Trump it means the US has a "nothing will change" president suffering from cognitive decline (God knows how bad it's in a couple of years).

I am completely depressed about all of this and therefore I am "checking" out of American politics. There is no othe option for me anymore than total ignorance of the problems of the World. People like me just can't take this, it's too much. I'm back to Elgar avatar and American's can fuck up everything. That's apparently all they can do. Poor planet Earth.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on March 11, 2020, 05:36:49 AM
Quote from: Herman on March 11, 2020, 01:29:12 AM
[...]
Also, let's hope Biden defeats Trump in this election.

Yep. Let's hope.

Quote from: 71 dB on March 11, 2020, 05:28:37 AM
[...]
I am completely depressed about all of this and therefore I am "checking" out of American politics. There is no othe option for me anymore than total ignorance of the problems of the World. People like me just can't take this, it's too much. I'm back to Elgar avatar and American's can fuck up everything. That's apparently all they can do. Poor planet Earth.

Also, let's hope that true Bernie supporters from the US of A have a straighter spine.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on March 11, 2020, 05:38:55 AM
Poju, all you seem to be capable of is blame, blame, blame. When things don't go your way you act like a 3 year old. Very trumpian.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 11, 2020, 06:15:01 AM
Quote from: André on March 11, 2020, 05:38:55 AM
Poju, all you seem to be capable of is blame, blame, blame. When things don't go your way you act like a 3 year old. Very trumpian.

Bernie supporters worked hard for change. Knocking millions of doors. Donated money ($46 million in February). Tried to get their parents/uncles/friends/dog/cat to vote for Bernie. I don't blame these people. They are the best of America. People of compassion, justice and hope. If their hard work had been enough I would be dancing here. Looking at the election results it doesn't look that way, does it?

What do you expect me to be capable of doing exactly? I'm just evaluating the facts and it ain't pretty...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 11, 2020, 07:26:26 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 11, 2020, 05:28:37 AM
Looks like the progressives are defeated again. Congratulations to the top 1 %. Oligarchy is working nicely. Congratulation to JBS, you can keep your privite insurance, no evil communist will come and take it away. Now that the DNC is getting rid of Bernie, they can even take their time to think about who they really want against Trump. Biden's cognitive decline is a convenient excuse to switch the candidate. Brilliantly played by the DNC I must admit!

Bernie's mistake: Being Mr Nice Guy. People, especially older people get their "information" MSM which is pure propaganda for the top 1 %. Progressives need to be aggressive and HAMMER away things that the SMS isn't saying or lies about. Bernie should have NEVER called Biden his friend. No, instead he should have HAMMERED how Biden is not for working people, how Biden takes money from the rich and does their bidding. Ideologically people are on the side of Bernie. It's about getting people to vote for you. In every State and exit polls show medicare for all is above water, yet people have been voting for anti-medicare for all candidates.

A miracle is needed for that. We'll see if the DNC changes the candidate they send agaisnt Trump, but things look really miserable as they are. Bernie was nice to "friend" Biden. Trump won't be. He's already attacking Biden. Even if by a miracle Biden beats Trump it means the US has a "nothing will change" president suffering from cognitive decline (God knows how bad it's in a couple of years).

I am completely depressed about all of this and therefore I am "checking" out of American politics. There is no othe option for me anymore than total ignorance of the problems of the World. People like me just can't take this, it's too much. I'm back to Elgar avatar and American's can fuck up everything. That's apparently all they can do. Poor planet Earth.

You have two premises that most Americans don't share
--that rich people are bad people.  You seem to be disgusted that rich people even exist.
--that every problem can be solved by government control (either a direct program or by strict regulation)

You also falsely believe that Bernie's plans have any realistic chance of getting through Congress.

And of course you continue to mistake progressive propaganda for an accurate presentation of the facts.


I want everyone to get good health care.  I think Medicare for All will get everyone poor to mediocre health care.  That's why I don't like it.  If getting rid of the biillionaires was necessary for everyone getting good health care, I would be for getting rid of them.  But if it's not necessary, then I don't care.  I'm not offended by the existence of rich people, or by people having profitable businesses.  And I don't see why Bernie's preferred end result, bureaucrats controlling broad sectors of American life, would be better than having the "one percent" in control.   That's why I see progressivism as just another form of elitism.  If you were against elitism, you should have been against both progressivism and the "one percent".  They are two sides of the same coin. 

There are also other programs Bernie proposes, beyond health care.  All of them are based on the idea of substantial government control.  He only has one tool in his tool box.  That's why he would be a bad President, and that's what's wrong with the Progressive agenda. 

You also ignore the fact that Biden's policy goals largely agree with Sanders, even if his actual plans differ.  You also ignore the fact that any Democratic administration would be staffed by people who share those same goals.  A Biden administration would be a progressive leaning administration. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 11, 2020, 08:27:57 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 11, 2020, 05:28:37 AM
Looks like the progressives are defeated again.

You can stop whingeing anytime.
Quote from: 71dB

A miracle is needed for that [defeating Trump].

No miracle, just voter turnout, which, not coincidentally, is exactly where Bernie and progressives choked.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 11, 2020, 08:29:06 AM
Quote from: André on March 11, 2020, 05:38:55 AM
Poju, all you seem to be capable of is blame, blame, blame. When things don't go your way you act like a 3 year old. Very trumpian.

True, but I doubt he'll ever see it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 11, 2020, 08:50:07 AM

     Sanders has campaigned as though he had a hidden majority of prospective voters, then when confirmation arrived that his support was too narrow to form a majority coalition he decided to double down on the only strategy he has ever had. I wouldn't claim an effort to widen his appeal would have succeeded, only that not trying doomed his campaign.

     Biden has shown that he, not Sanders, can unite everyone opposed to Trump all across the spectrum. Spectrum wide appeal elects Presidents on the Dem side, as Carter, Clinton and Obama have shown.

    I voted for Warren knowing she was fading. I did it partly because of an archaic belief that voting for who you think best is not only to make her the winner but to make her more powerful later. She and Sanders can help Biden get Dem proposals enacted, something ordinary Dems have a hard time doing if they are not pushed. I voted for the push.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 11, 2020, 08:59:41 AM
Your vote for Warren was principled and just.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 11, 2020, 09:01:14 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 11, 2020, 08:50:07 AM
     Sanders has campaigned as though he had a hidden majority of prospective voters, then when confirmation arrived that his support was too narrow to form a majority coalition he decided to double down on the only strategy he has ever had. I wouldn't claim an effort to widen his appeal would have succeeded, only that not trying doomed his campaign.

     Biden has shown that he, not Sanders, can unite everyone opposed to Trump all across the spectrum. Spectrum wide appeal elects Presidents on the Dem side, as Carter, Clinton and Obama have shown.

Good, sober sense. (Something rather lacking among the Sandersistas)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 11, 2020, 09:42:48 AM
Quote from: JBS on March 11, 2020, 07:26:26 AM
You have two premises that most Americans don't share
--that rich people are bad people.  You seem to be disgusted that rich people even exist.
--that every problem can be solved by government control (either a direct program or by strict regulation)

Sorry, but you are strawmanning me. Let me clarify my premises for you:

-- I am NOT disgusted that rich people even exist. I am disgusted that they can buy elections and politicians so that the system is rigged for them and against everyone else. That's undermining democracy. I am totally fine with rich people existing as long as they pay their fair share of taxes, pay living wage to their workers and so on. So is Bernie and everyone else in the "social democracy" camp. You need to go to groups further left of us social democrats to find millionaire/billionaire haters. These people does exist, but they are to my knowledge a tiny "fringe" minority among the whole left of not much concern.

-- I DON'T think every problem can be solved by government control. Some of them can be, such as healthcare insurance. Note, that I have not advocated for public healthcare services. The US doesn't have to go full UK style NHS. France/Canada style public funding of private services is totally fine. Medicare for all is a government control of funding, insurance. Removal of the unnecessory "blood sucking" middle man between you and your doctor. That's it. Some regulations are good, so are bad. It's always about what the regulation is about. For example I'm sure you agree it's good if the government regulates the allowed amount of lead in tap water or how much industries can dump toxic waste to the nature. On the other hand regulation can for example stiffle innovation when it's a negative thing. The idea that regulation is always bad or good is extremely simplistic and dogmatic.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 11, 2020, 09:52:42 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 11, 2020, 08:27:57 AM
1. You can stop whingeing anytime.

2. No miracle, just voter turnout, which, not coincidentally, is exactly where Bernie and progressives choked.

1. Sure, and you can stop reading my post anytime...

2. Turnout in the general is different from turnout in the primaries. Also, Biden has been benefitting from limited exposure to hide his cognitive decline. GOP/Trump make it so that this is not the case in the general. A lot of Biden supporters might be clueless now (because they don't follow politics and what they hear is corporate media propaganda), but by November they perhaps better educated about the problems of Biden from cognitive decline to his politicies which are NOT even close to as good as people seem to think. Black people support him because he was Obama's VP without realizing Obama picked him to get WHITE VOTE!! So ironic!  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: j winter on March 11, 2020, 10:00:29 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 11, 2020, 08:50:07 AM
     Sanders has campaigned as though he had a hidden majority of prospective voters, then when confirmation arrived that his support was too narrow to form a majority coalition he decided to double down on the only strategy he has ever had. I wouldn't claim an effort to widen his appeal would have succeeded, only that not trying doomed his campaign.

     Biden has shown that he, not Sanders, can unite everyone opposed to Trump all across the spectrum. Spectrum wide appeal elects Presidents on the Dem side, as Carter, Clinton and Obama have shown.

    I voted for Warren knowing she was fading. I did it partly because of an archaic belief that voting for who you think best is not only to make her the winner but to make her more powerful later. She and Sanders can help Biden get Dem proposals enacted, something ordinary Dems have a hard time doing if they are not pushed. I voted for the push.

Good post.

Another observation I've read, and that makes sense to me, is that this primary cycle is truly laying bare what a flawed candidate Hillary was in 2016.  A non-trivial portion of Bernie's support in 2016 can plausibly be explained by reasoning such as: "1) Trump is clearly a joke and can't possibly be elected, plus 2) Hillary has this thing wrapped up, but I don't personally like her, so I'm voting for Sanders as a "safe" protest vote."  The same  reasoning goes a long way to explaining the low turnout in the general election -- many voters just didn't take Trump seriously, and had a visceral dislike for Clinton, which together prompted them to stay on the couch on election day.

The fact that none of this reasoning applies in 2020 is a great cause for hope -- perhaps I'm nuts, but I am cautiously optimistic on the political front, for the first time in a long while.  All signs indicate that turn out relative to 2016 will be high -- no Democratic voter in 2020 is going to underestimate the profound threat of another Trump term, and any baggage Trump can dig up around Biden's past votes or Hunter's business dealings is trivial compared to all of the crap that's been spread about the Clintons over the years.  Realistically, the Democrats don't need to move the bar that far... Clinton beat Trump in the popular vote last time -- if they can just get a bit more unity and turnout in a few key states, I'd say their chances are excellent in the fall.  Trump certainly has done nothing to expand his appeal beyond his previous base.

And that base may start shrinking if the Coronavirus stays around for months.  If the US experience mirrors what we're seeing in Italy and other places, it may even be possible to see a legit electoral college landslide... crises like this provide a very clear test of leadership, and a public health crisis is much less amendable to Fox News-style distortion than most other political stories.  The current administration response is clearly failing that test --  and I take no pleasure in saying that, for obvious humanitarian reasons -- but as a political matter, over the past month or so I think Trump's chances of re-election have been getting measurably smaller every single day...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 11, 2020, 10:02:00 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 11, 2020, 08:50:07 AM
She and Sanders can help Biden get Dem proposals enacted, something ordinary Dems have a hard time doing if they are not pushed.

Which Dem proposals? Those range from good to bad. More war? Tax cuts for the rich? Wall Street bailouts? New Green Deal? Medicare for All? It depends on the proposal whether I wish to have it enacted or not.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 11, 2020, 10:15:13 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 11, 2020, 09:52:42 AM
1. Sure, and you can stop reading my post anytime...

2. Turnout in the general is different from turnout in the primaries. Also, Biden has been benefitting from limited exposure to hide his cognitive decline. GOP/Trump make it so that this is not the case in the general. A lot of Biden supporters might be clueless now (because they don't follow politics and what they hear is corporate media propaganda), but by November they perhaps better educated about the problems of Biden from cognitive decline to his politicies which are NOT even close to as good as people seem to think. Black people support him because he was Obama's VP without realizing Obama picked him to get WHITE VOTE!! So ironic!  ::)

You understand nothing, and I doubt you are capable of learning. So ironic!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 11, 2020, 10:17:15 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 11, 2020, 10:02:00 AM
Which Dem proposals? Those range from good to bad. More war? Tax cuts for the rich? Wall Street bailouts? New Green Deal? Medicare for All? It depends on the proposal whether I wish to have it enacted or not.

"More war" is a "Dem proposal"? Why are you so determined to be cartoonish?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 11, 2020, 10:17:19 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 11, 2020, 10:15:13 AM
You understand nothing, and I doubt you are capable of learning. So ironic!

If you think I understand nothing then DON'T expect me to understand anything. Are you like this to all people with lower IQ?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 11, 2020, 10:18:31 AM
Quote from: j winter on March 11, 2020, 10:00:29 AM
Good post.

Another observation I've read, and that makes sense to me, is that this primary cycle is truly laying bare what a flawed candidate Hillary was in 2016.  A non-trivial portion of Bernie's support in 2016 can plausibly be explained by reasoning such as: "1) Trump is clearly a joke and can't possibly be elected, plus 2) Hillary has this thing wrapped up, but I don't personally like her, so I'm voting for Sanders as a "safe" protest vote."  The same  reasoning goes a long way to explaining the low turnout in the general election -- many voters just didn't take Trump seriously, and had a visceral dislike for Clinton, which together prompted them to stay on the couch on election day.

The fact that none of this reasoning applies in 2020 is a great cause for hope -- perhaps I'm nuts, but I am cautiously optimistic on the political front, for the first time in a long while.  All signs indicate that turn out relative to 2016 will be high -- no Democratic voter in 2020 is going to underestimate the profound threat of another Trump term, and any baggage Trump can dig up around Biden's past votes or Hunter's business dealings is trivial compared to all of the crap that's been spread about the Clintons over the years.  Realistically, the Democrats don't need to move the bar that far... Clinton beat Trump in the popular vote last time -- if they can just get a bit more unity and turnout in a few key states, I'd say their chances are excellent in the fall.  Trump certainly has done nothing to expand his appeal beyond his previous base.

And that base may start shrinking if the Coronavirus stays around for months.  If the US experience mirrors what we're seeing in Italy and other places, it may even be possible to see a legit electoral college landslide... crises like this provide a very clear test of leadership, and a public health crisis is much less amendable to Fox News-style distortion than most other political stories.  The current administration response is clearly failing that test --  and I take no pleasure in saying that, for obvious humanitarian reasons -- but as a political matter, over the past month or so I think Trump's chances of re-election have been getting measurably smaller every single day...

Yes, cautious optimism is rational here!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 11, 2020, 10:19:33 AM
Quote from: j winter on March 11, 2020, 10:00:29 AM
Good post.

Another observation I've read, and that makes sense to me, is that this primary cycle is truly laying bare what a flawed candidate Hillary was in 2016.  A non-trivial portion of Bernie's support in 2016 can plausibly be explained by reasoning such as: "1) Trump is clearly a joke and can't possibly be elected, plus 2) Hillary has this thing wrapped up, but I don't personally like her, so I'm voting for Sanders as a "safe" protest vote."  The same  reasoning goes a long way to explaining the low turnout in the general election -- many voters just didn't take Trump seriously, and had a visceral dislike for Clinton, which together prompted them to stay on the couch on election day.

The fact that none of this reasoning applies in 2020 is a great cause for hope -- perhaps I'm nuts, but I am cautiously optimistic on the political front, for the first time in a long while.  All signs indicate that turn out relative to 2016 will be high -- no Democratic voter in 2020 is going to underestimate the profound threat of another Trump term, and any baggage Trump can dig up around Biden's past votes or Hunter's business dealings is trivial compared to all of the crap that's been spread about the Clintons over the years.  Realistically, the Democrats don't need to move the bar that far... Clinton beat Trump in the popular vote last time -- if they can just get a bit more unity and turnout in a few key states, I'd say their chances are excellent in the fall.  Trump certainly has done nothing to expand his appeal beyond his previous base.

And that base may start shrinking if the Coronavirus stays around for months.  If the US experience mirrors what we're seeing in Italy and other places, it may even be possible to see a legit electoral college landslide... crises like this provide a very clear test of leadership, and a public health crisis is much less amendable to Fox News-style distortion than most other political stories.  The current administration response is clearly failing that test --  and I take no pleasure in saying that, for obvious humanitarian reasons -- but as a political matter, over the past month or so I think Trump's chances of re-election have been getting measurably smaller every single day...

As long as the effects of the coronavirus don't last so long that Trump can use it as an excuse to "delay" the election.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 11, 2020, 10:23:31 AM
Don't you people see anything good about Bernie? All his policies are crap? He wants less war, you want more war? Tax money used to kill people instead of used to healthcare? I can understand if you have some issues with Bernie, but you seem to hate him and everybody who supports him.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: j winter on March 11, 2020, 10:34:47 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 11, 2020, 10:19:33 AM
As long as the effects of the coronavirus don't last so long that Trump can use it as an excuse to "delay" the election.


Stop that!  I was in my happy place!   >:(




;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 11, 2020, 10:41:55 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 11, 2020, 10:23:31 AM
Don't you people see anything good about Bernie? All his policies are crap? He wants less war, you want more war? Tax money used to kill people instead of used to healthcare? I can understand if you have some issues with Bernie, but you seem to hate him and everybody who supports him.



Nobody here hates Bernie, for mercy's sake.  Don't be a baby!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 11, 2020, 10:52:31 AM
Are Democrats now hopelessly polarized between Biden supporters and Sanders supporters? Not exactly.  When asked, "Would you be satisfied if Biden wins the Democratic nomination?" 71 percent of Michigan Democratic voters said "Yes." When asked, "Would you be satisfied if Sanders wins the Democratic nomination?" 65 percent said "Yes."

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 11, 2020, 04:00:23 PM
Do candidates ever announce their potential running mate/VP before the conventions?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on March 11, 2020, 04:10:04 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 11, 2020, 04:00:23 PM
Do candidates ever announce their potential running mate/VP before the conventions?

John McCain announced his choice of Sarah Palin shortly before the Republican convention began, before he was officially nominated. By then he had enough delegates to guarantee an uncontested nomination. I can't think of anyone having announced a planned running mate before their nomination was effectively guaranteed.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 11, 2020, 05:20:25 PM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 11, 2020, 04:10:04 PM
John McCain announced his choice of Sarah Palin shortly before the Republican convention began, before he was officially nominated. By then he had enough delegates to guarantee an uncontested nomination. I can't think of anyone having announced a planned running mate before their nomination was effectively guaranteed.



Interesting. I was wondering if its a more relevant factor that should be addressed sooner rather than later as both septugenarians have issues in addition to age - Sanders heart attack and Bidens perceived by some mental decline - that give a higher than usual chance that the running mate will take over as president. But I haven't read anyone pushing to know, and to make that a factor in their decision.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 11, 2020, 05:44:36 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 11, 2020, 05:20:25 PM
Sanders heart attack.

According to Bernie's doctor Bernie is unlike to have any heart problems for years thanks to the operation last fall.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on March 11, 2020, 05:46:23 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 11, 2020, 05:20:25 PM
Interesting. I was wondering if its a more relevant factor that should be addressed sooner rather than later as both septugenarians have issues in addition to age - Sanders heart attack and Bidens perceived by some mental decline - that give a higher than usual chance that the running mate will take over as president. But I haven't read anyone pushing to know, and to make that a factor in their decision.

As far as I know there is no rule that says the presidential nominee picks the running mate. The delegates get to decide, in principle, but customarily defer to the nominee. Usually the main motivation is electability, helping demographically. That's how Trump gets Pence, and why Kennedy choose Johnson.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 11, 2020, 05:48:49 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 11, 2020, 05:44:36 PM
According to Bernie's doctor Bernie is unlike to have any heart problems for years thanks to the operation last fall.

Firstly: link?

Secondly: that doesn't sound like something a doctor can claim is "unlikely", especially for someone his age in a high-stress environment.

Thirdly: You don't have to feel obliged to chime in whenever someone says "Sanders". This isn't some Pavlovian experiment.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 11, 2020, 05:55:36 PM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 11, 2020, 05:46:23 PM
As far as I know there is no rule that says the presidential nominee picks the running mate. The delegates get to decide, in principle, but customarily defer to the nominee. Usually the main motivation is electability, helping demographically. That's how Trump gets Pence, and why Kennedy choose Johnson.

If you were playing the game who would you pick as running mates for both Sanders and Biden, both for electoral math and as potential successors?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on March 11, 2020, 06:01:08 PM
Biden should pick Warren to generate enthusiasm in progressives and those who value diversity. Sanders, that's moot since he won't be nominated.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 11, 2020, 06:32:58 PM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 11, 2020, 04:10:04 PM
John McCain announced his choice of Sarah Palin shortly before the Republican convention began, before he was officially nominated. By then he had enough delegates to guarantee an uncontested nomination. I can't think of anyone having announced a planned running mate before their nomination was effectively guaranteed.

Cruz announced he would pick Carly Fiorina, but that was a desperate gambit to keep his candicacy alive. And it failed.

But among actual nominees, I think you are correct.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 11, 2020, 07:44:24 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 11, 2020, 05:48:49 PM
Firstly: link?

Kyle Kulinski said it if I remember correctly, but here is link:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/30/bernie-sanders-doctors-president-heart-attack
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on March 11, 2020, 09:13:43 PM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 11, 2020, 06:01:08 PM
Biden should pick Warren to generate enthusiasm in progressives and those who value diversity. Sanders, that's moot since he won't be nominated.

I've been thinking about this too. Warren does seem like an option. Is Kamala Harris viable?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 11, 2020, 09:47:23 PM
I guess that leads to another question: how often does a running mate pick come from one of the other contenders in the primaries? Much as I like both Warren and Harris (from this distance, etc) I assume its hard to extend an olive branch after the traded bodyblows of the debates. I'd imagine their criticisms of each other would be played on endless repeat by the other side during the general.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on March 11, 2020, 10:02:17 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 11, 2020, 09:47:23 PM
I guess that leads to another question: how often does a running mate pick come from one of the other contenders in the primaries? Much as I like both Warren and Harris (from this distance, etc) I assume its hard to extend an olive branch after the traded bodyblows of the debates. I'd imagine their criticisms of each other would be played on endless repeat by the other side during the general.

The vice presidential nominee is often, but not always, one of the contenders for the nomination. Those that were, Obama/Biden, Clinton/Gore, Reagan/Bush. Those that weren't, Trump/Pence, McCain/Palin, Bush/Cheney, Dukakis/Bentson, Bush/Quale.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on March 12, 2020, 01:20:08 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 11, 2020, 05:44:36 PM
According to Bernie's doctor Bernie is unlike to have any heart problems for years thanks to the operation last fall.

Doctors shouldn't not lend themselves for this stuff.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 12, 2020, 04:27:26 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 11, 2020, 07:44:24 PM
Kyle Kulinski said it if I remember correctly

And Kyle is my sole news source
Kyle Bernie Kyle Bernie Kyle Bernie Kyle Bernie Kyle Bernie I'm entitled to parrot Kyle Blah Blah Kyle Bernie Kyle Bernie
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 12, 2020, 04:28:02 AM
Quote from: Herman on March 12, 2020, 01:20:08 AM
Doctors shouldn't not lend themselves for this stuff.

Maybe Bernie and Trump have the same PCP
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 12, 2020, 04:43:23 AM
Quote from: Herman on March 12, 2020, 01:20:08 AM
Doctors shouldn't not lend themselves for this stuff.

Whatever you mean by that, this is the information Bernie released about his state of health. It's important for the voters to know he is physically fit to become the president.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 12, 2020, 04:48:12 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 12, 2020, 04:27:26 AM
And Kyle is my sole news source
Kyle Bernie Kyle Bernie Kyle Bernie Kyle Bernie Kyle Bernie I'm entitled to parrot Kyle Blah Blah Kyle Bernie Kyle Bernie

You tell me who should be my news source. Rachel Maddow? Jake Tapper? Sean Hannity? Ben Shapiro? Who?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 12, 2020, 05:11:30 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 11, 2020, 10:02:00 AM
Which Dem proposals? Those range from good to bad. More war? Tax cuts for the rich? Wall Street bailouts? New Green Deal? Medicare for All? It depends on the proposal whether I wish to have it enacted or not.

     The Dem ones, as I see it, are those Dems say they want to enact.

     Before the virus crisis, I had this idea that what the country needed was an expansion plan that encompassed fixing and building things. History says your biggest problems tell you where the biggest effort should be. For cost/benefits, the costs are part of the benefit. Money is spent on doing useful work. What would a "free lunch" be worth?

     So I thought a comprehensive health care plan, infrastructure and new energy construction had to be where expansion was best directed. Big bucks in, big bucks out, biggest net wins.

     Now we have the virus crisis and that changes......what? Now we need a comprehensive health care plan, infrastructure and new energy construction. The need for expansion is more immediate, but it follows from well, everything, that the elements will in most respects be the same.

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 12, 2020, 05:30:23 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 12, 2020, 04:48:12 AM
You tell me who should be my news source. Rachel Maddow? Jake Tapper? Sean Hannity? Ben Shapiro? Who?

     I do the hard news first usually, though I often will put on a show in the evening and see a topic discussed then go up the chain to a primary news outlet. A little trick people learn is that "primary news source" is defined by factors of reliability over time, not the absence of bias. It's the "it's even in the NYTimes!" factor demonstrated again and again. A Fox news viewer can check a primary source to see if the bilge on Fox is kind of, you know, true. A primary news reader won't check Fox for the same reason. The bias factor washes out quickly when what you want is knowledge.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 12, 2020, 05:40:07 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 12, 2020, 04:48:12 AM
You tell me who should be my news source. Rachel Maddow? Jake Tapper? Sean Hannity? Ben Shapiro? Who?

Try Al Jazeera or BBC World. For a start.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 12, 2020, 05:53:07 AM

     As the crash deepens, Trumpists are trying to figure out how to reflate the stock market without doing any useful work in the real economy. You can practically see the gears in their little minds clanking away. How about a payroll tax cut to help cut entitlements down the road? We're running out of dollars more!!

     What a bind Repubs are in.... they desperately need something that works, while what works is occupied territory. Just about everything they need to do is either in a Dem plan or is more ambitious than Dems are willing to offer, things that not only work but work well.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 12, 2020, 08:11:41 AM
From the Department of Guarded Optimism

Biden has all but won the nomination – and Trump is looking vulnerable (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/10/joe-biden-donald-trump-coronavirus)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 12, 2020, 08:32:51 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 12, 2020, 05:40:07 AM
Try Al Jazeera or BBC World. For a start.

I do check BBC World from time to time.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 12, 2020, 09:04:23 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 12, 2020, 08:11:41 AM
From the Department of Guarded Optimism

Biden has all but won the nomination – and Trump is looking vulnerable (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/10/joe-biden-donald-trump-coronavirus)

"Nowadays leftist Democrats are joining forces with the Trump campaign to spread disinformation about Biden's health."

Or maybe just maybe the left is genuinely worried about Biden's ability to beat Trump? Sure, the left doesn't like Biden's "nothing will fundamentally change" politics, but the left wants rid of Trump just as much as moderate Dems. Everyone who thinks Biden has the mental capacity he had just a few years ago is in denial of ignorant. The signs are clear as day. The left is worried for a good reason. The left was right in 2016 warning about Trump. Kyle Kulinski warned about Trump early 2016 before Trump became the nominee. He was right in his warnings because he saw how Trump's fake populism can beat Hillary Clinton's corporate centrism. Well, Trump won. Meanwhile delusional out of touch DNC was sure about Hillary Clinton and robbed the nomination from Bernie.

"Democrats aren't just looking for electability – they want competence."

Competence? Biden voted for the Iraq war believing the military industry lies of weapons of mass destruction. Bernie didn't believe these lies (he doesn't have to believe lies because he is not bought by corporations to do so) and voted against the disastrous war. Which one had more competence in retrospective? Do you want Biden in the White House to possibly do the favour to the military industry complex and start war with Iran, or do you want Bernie there who we know would stay as far as possible from unnecessory wars in Iran or anywhere else?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 12, 2020, 10:23:34 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 12, 2020, 08:32:51 AM
I do check BBC World from time to time.

In future try giving them the time you'd previously wasted on TYT.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 12, 2020, 10:53:48 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 12, 2020, 10:23:34 AM
In future try giving them the time you'd previously wasted on TYT.

Sorry if I sound arrogant, but I don't "adjust" my news media usage based on some guy on the other side of the Globe. You can avoid TYT if you want. That's your choice. Please allow me to have my choices.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 12, 2020, 11:09:55 AM
You're the one who asked what news source they should be giving their time. I answered.

Was that just a rhetorical question as the answer is obviously TYT?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on March 12, 2020, 11:27:47 AM
Those news sources are probably the best for starters but only relying on them would be a mistake. If anyone, literally anyone can prove something that a major news source won't mention, then they can be a supplemental news source.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 12, 2020, 11:49:22 AM
I say " for a start" in my post. And specifically as a recommendation to 71 to get him off TUT and more exposed to real reporting. If you or anyone don't care  to watch them I'm not going to insist you must.

I never said to only rely on them.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: BasilValentine on March 12, 2020, 11:54:17 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 12, 2020, 09:04:23 AM

Competence? Biden voted for the Iraq war believing the military industry lies of weapons of mass destruction. Bernie didn't believe these lies (he doesn't have to believe lies because he is not bought by corporations to do so) and voted against the disastrous war. Which one had more competence in retrospective? Do you want Biden in the White House to possibly do the favour to the military industry complex and start war with Iran, or do you want Bernie there who we know would stay as far as possible from unnecessory wars in Iran or anywhere else?

You don't know recent history. The liars in this case were members of the Bush administration and factions within the intelligence community. Yes Sanders voted against the war. What is your basis for saying he did so because he didn't believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction rather than that he did so despite thinking they did?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 12, 2020, 12:06:20 PM
Quote from: BasilValentine on March 12, 2020, 11:54:17 AM
You don't know recent history. The liars in this case were members of the Bush administration and factions within the intelligence community.

And...?? The Bush administration lied on behalf of the military industry complex. That's how corruption works. The military industry complex bought the administration and the corporate media (to mislead Americans to think war in Iraq is needed) and got what it wanted in return. If I don't know recent history, you don't seem to know the basic aspects of US politics.

Quote from: BasilValentine on March 12, 2020, 11:54:17 AMYes Sanders voted against the war. What is your basis for saying he did so because he didn't believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction rather than that he did so despite thinking they did?

Why would have Bernie voted against war in Iraq if he thought they had weapons of mass destruction? Anyway, doesn't matter, because he has said he didn't believe the lie. Again, not being bought allows you to reject unbelievable claims.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 12, 2020, 12:11:50 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 12, 2020, 11:49:22 AM
I say " for a start" in my post. And specifically as a recommendation to 71 to get him off TUT and more exposed to real reporting. If you or anyone don't care  to watch them I'm not going to insist you must.

I never said to only rely on them.

How do you define real reporting? What makes TYT less real? TYT doesn't take money from Big Pharma. Corporate media takes. Now, explain me the logic of TYT being less real Big Pharma reporting that what you have on corporate media. Do you think you are more likely to expose Big Pharma price gouging when you take their money (showing their adds)?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 12, 2020, 02:47:35 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 12, 2020, 12:11:50 PM
How do you define real reporting? What makes TYT less real?

Kyle isn't a reporter, he's a bloviator.  And no, nobody expects you to alter your investigations to actual news sources, rather than the self-styled "experts" who give you your confirmation bias.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 12, 2020, 04:03:18 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 12, 2020, 02:47:35 PM
Kyle isn't a reporter, he's a bloviator.  And no, nobody expects you to alter your investigations to actual news sources, rather than the self-styled "experts" who give you your confirmation bias.

Kyle Kulinski is not part of The Young Turks. Kyle Kulinski co-founded The Justice Democrats with TYT's Cenk Uygur.
Kyle Kulinski is a political commentator with university degree in political sciences and 821.000 Youtube subsbribers and half billion views rivaling the viewership of corporate media outlets such as MSNBC and he is one guy with a microphone earning his living having enough Patrions (Youtube demonetizes left-wing channels like crazy these days).  ;D
TYT is the largest progressive/left-wing outlet in the Youtube with nearly 5 million subscribers.

Maybe you prefer corporate media with it's confirmation bias of Biden's superior electability.  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 12, 2020, 04:09:37 PM
If it wouldn't mean losing 8 months of my life, I'd very much like it to be November 2020 next week, so that the whole kerfuffle end one way or another.  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: BasilValentine on March 12, 2020, 04:26:08 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 12, 2020, 12:06:20 PM
Why would have Bernie voted against war in Iraq if he thought they had weapons of mass destruction? Anyway, doesn't matter, because he has said he didn't believe the lie. Again, not being bought allows you to reject unbelievable claims.

To avoid a pointless foreign entanglement. Because he understood that the Iraqi's had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack and that the alleged WMDs were just a pretext, whether or not they existed. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 12, 2020, 04:42:54 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 12, 2020, 04:03:18 PM
Kyle Kulinski is not part of The Young Turks. Kyle Kulinski co-founded The Justice Democrats with TYT's Cenk Uygur.
Kyle Kulinski is a political commentator with university degree in political sciences and 821.000 Youtube subsbribers and half billion views rivaling the viewership of corporate media outlets such as MSNBC and he is one guy with a microphone earning his living having enough Patrions (Youtube demonetizes left-wing channels like crazy these days).  ;D
TYT is the largest progressive/left-wing outlet in the Youtube with nearly 5 million subscribers.

Maybe you prefer corporate media with it's confirmation bias of Biden's superior electability.  ;D

I prefer actual news sources. I thought you had more intelligence then to assert that "821.000 Youtube subsbribers (sic) can't be wrong"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 12, 2020, 04:48:05 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 12, 2020, 04:42:54 PM
I thought you had more intelligence

You were obviously wrong. Actually, you should have known better long time ago.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 12, 2020, 04:49:03 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 12, 2020, 04:42:54 PM
I prefer actual news sources. I thought you had more intelligence then to assert that "821.000 Youtube subsbribers (sic) can't be wrong"

Reminds me of that running gag in So I Married An Ax Murderer about the Weekly World News being the "news" and the claim that it had the fourth highest circulation.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 12, 2020, 04:53:39 PM
Quote from: Florestan on March 12, 2020, 04:48:05 PM
You were obviously wrong. Actually, you should have known better long time ago.

Fair enough! In my defense, it was an empty rhetorical flourish.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 12, 2020, 04:55:13 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 12, 2020, 04:03:18 PM
Kyle Kulinski is not part of The Young Turks. Kyle Kulinski co-founded The Justice Democrats with TYT's Cenk Uygur.
Kyle Kulinski is a political commentator with university degree in political sciences and 821.000 Youtube subsbribers and half billion views rivaling the viewership of corporate media outlets such as MSNBC and he is one guy with a microphone earning his living having enough Patrions (Youtube demonetizes left-wing channels like crazy these days).  ;D
TYT is the largest progressive/left-wing outlet in the Youtube with nearly 5 million subscribers.

Maybe you prefer corporate media with it's confirmation bias of Biden's superior electability.  ;D

So, with his university degree in poli sci, and his 821.000 Youtube subscribers: was he right about Super Tuesday?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 12, 2020, 04:56:10 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 12, 2020, 04:49:03 PM
Reminds me of that running gag in So I Married An Ax Murderer about the Weekly World News being the "news" and the claim that it had the fourth highest circulation.

Yes! Fun movie!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 12, 2020, 04:58:58 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 12, 2020, 04:53:39 PM
empty rhetorical flourish.

I've been myself guilty of that so many times, and not solely with regard to Poju!

Politics is the most damned, cursed and unworthy matter of them all! A plague on whoever came with the idea that the majority should rule. Rousseau, you despicable rascal, who pretended to know how children shoudl be raised all the whule you confined your own children to the orphanage! Fuck you and your memory for ever and ever amen! :o
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 12, 2020, 05:03:23 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 12, 2020, 04:42:54 PM
I prefer actual news sources. I thought you had more intelligence then to assert that "821.000 Youtube subsbribers (sic) can't be wrong"

What makes an "actual news source"? 821.000 Youtube subsbribers doesn't mean anything as such. Ben Shapiro has 1 million and I consider his stuff complete nonsense. However, Kyle Kulinski in one of the most respected people on the left and a major player so you can't be surprised if left-leaning people watch his videos.

These are opinions. I think Kulinski is great. You don't. Opinions.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 12, 2020, 05:12:30 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 12, 2020, 12:11:50 PM
How do you define real reporting? What makes TYT less real? TYT doesn't take money from Big Pharma. Corporate media takes. Now, explain me the logic of TYT being less real Big Pharma reporting that what you have on corporate media. Do you think you are more likely to expose Big Pharma price gouging when you take their money (showing their adds)?

Kyle and TYT lie, distort, and manipulate facts just as much as the corporate media. Your mistake is not mistrusting the corporate media. Your mistake is trusting TYT and Kyle. They are propagandists. I've given you examples before of how they mistate facts. You just shrug off the facts.

Start assuming everyone is lying, including the ones you sympathize with.  You'll be much better informed ince you do.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 12, 2020, 05:14:24 PM
Quote from: Florestan on March 12, 2020, 04:09:37 PM
If it wouldn't mean losing 8 months of my life, I'd very much like it to be November 2020 next week, so that the whole kerfuffle end one way or another.  ;D

It might be the best way of missing the corona virus.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 12, 2020, 05:16:39 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 12, 2020, 05:14:24 PM
It might be the best way of missing the corona virus.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 12, 2020, 05:27:21 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 12, 2020, 05:03:23 PM
What makes an "actual news source"? 821.000 Youtube subsbribers doesn't mean anything as such. Ben Shapiro has 1 million and I consider his stuff complete nonsense. However, Kyle Kulinski in one of the most respected people on the left and a major player so you can't be surprised if left-leaning people watch his videos.

These are opinions. I think Kulinski is great. You don't. Opinions.

I've never heard his name mentioned by anyone outside your posts.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 12, 2020, 05:30:37 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 12, 2020, 05:12:30 PM
Start assuming everyone is lying, including the ones you sympathize with.

I do know everyone is lying, especially the ones I sympathize with. Just today (or yesterday, depending on the time zone) the omes I sympathize with did a big blunder which might result in a boost for the social-democrats. A plague on both their houses!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 12, 2020, 05:33:25 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 12, 2020, 05:27:21 PM
I've never heard his name mentioned by anyone outside your posts.

Well, much as I would like to agree with you, we both must concede that the GMG is not the whole world.  :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 12, 2020, 05:40:03 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 12, 2020, 05:27:21 PM
I've never heard his name mentioned by anyone outside your posts.

I asked about him on a political forum when he was first mentioned here. The people there knew of him. But outside of that, I have also never seen him mentioned. The Young Turks are of course better known.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 12, 2020, 05:49:00 PM
Quote from: Florestan on March 12, 2020, 05:33:25 PM
Well, much as I would like to agree with you, we both must concede that the GMG is not the whole world.  :)

I meant if Kyle was so respected id see him quoted or referred to in all sorts of places outside of this forum. Which is not the case.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 12, 2020, 05:51:03 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 12, 2020, 05:40:03 PM
I asked about him on a political forum when he was first mentioned here. The people there knew of him. But outside of that, I have also never seen him mentioned. The Young Turks are of course better known.

Actually I'd don't see them mentioned anywhere either.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 12, 2020, 05:51:58 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 12, 2020, 05:03:23 PM
These are opinions. I think Kulinski is great. You don't. Opinions.

Super Tuesday wasn't an opinion, and you didn't answer. Surprise, surprise!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 12, 2020, 05:56:07 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 12, 2020, 05:49:00 PM
I meant if Kyle was so respected id see him quoted or referred to in all sorts of places outside of this forum. Which is not the case.

Of course. This forum is negligible. We might --- and probably will --- quarrel till kingdom come, while the world would spin around til kingdom come.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 12, 2020, 06:05:23 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 12, 2020, 05:51:03 PM
Actually I'd don't see them mentioned anywhere either.

I have from time to time.
Of course, if Kyle is never mentioned, that means even with only a few mentions TYT is better known.

Of course, if 71db watched CNN and MSNBC, he'd find that while TYT does not appear among their pundits, a number of the regular commentators/analysts are just as leftist as TYT, and sometimes more.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 12, 2020, 06:09:26 PM
Bernie Sanders finally wins California (https://www.vox.com/2020/3/12/21156258/california-primary-winner-bernie-sanders)


"In the national delegate race, Biden had pulled ahead with 801 delegates to Sanders's 657 before California numbers came in. While we don't yet know how the delegates from California will be divided, those margins are set to tighten slightly but not by much, since Biden will see gains from the state, too."

"By coming in first in California, Sanders may recapture some of the momentum he previously had. The landscape, however, gets a lot tougher for him moving forward."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on March 13, 2020, 02:16:00 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 12, 2020, 04:43:23 AM
Whatever you mean by that,

Making superman predictions about the future health of septuagenarians.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 02:24:12 AM
Quote from: JBS on March 12, 2020, 05:12:30 PM
Kyle and TYT lie, distort, and manipulate facts just as much as the corporate media. Your mistake is not mistrusting the corporate media. Your mistake is trusting TYT and Kyle. They are propagandists. I've given you examples before of how they mistate facts. You just shrug off the facts.

Start assuming everyone is lying, including the ones you sympathize with.  You'll be much better informed ince you do.

Your examples are meaningless because patent laws can be changed and patent laws don't mean you have to price gouge. That  comes because the system and corruption. The government allows Big Pharma of exploit things. TYT even might lie sometimes (I trust them less), but Kyle Kulinski is known as the guy who doesn't lie. Yes, he is a propagandists of progressive ideas and OPENLY admits it. You can't improve the World if you don't do propaganda for the good things that helps people.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 02:32:59 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 12, 2020, 05:27:21 PM
I've never heard his name mentioned by anyone outside your posts.

Well, you have been fortunate to finally bump into someone who knows about Kyle Kulinski. Yes, he is unknown outside the lefty bubble because the corporate media behaves like the progressives don't exist.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 02:49:38 AM
Quote from: JBS on March 12, 2020, 05:40:03 PM
The Young Turks are of course better known.

TYT started 18 years ago I believe so they have been around for so long TYT can vote.  ;D Before starting to follow US politics I had never heard of TYT myself or anyone else of these progressives, but when I started to follow US politics I discovered them fast. It just shows hows clueless you are if you don't follow something.

Personally I trust TYT perhaps least of these progressives. They have somewhat entertaining touch to everything and sometimes I feel they twist things a little bit. They are a somewhat big business and that affects integrity. Money talks. The smaller channels are better and Kyle Kulinski's Secular Talk is perhaps the best. TYT is fun to watch and I enjoy the rants of Cenk and Ana, but one has to be careful with them, because at it's worst TYT might show a video of Trump and say "his lip movement clearly shows he has a malfunction in his brain", but then again at it's best TYT is damn good. Compared to the corporate media, even TYT is a superior source, because corporate media is full on lies and smears to protect the oligarcy.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 03:02:15 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 12, 2020, 05:49:00 PM
I meant if Kyle was so respected id see him quoted or referred to in all sorts of places outside of this forum. Which is not the case.

He is not respected by the corporates. He is an enemy of the corporates, because he makes propaganda for progressive ideas and corporates don't  like that. Kyle Kulinski is highly respected within the progressive circles and apparently you don't visit those circles. That's why you don't see him quoted or referred. However, his name pops out here and there. Look at the Product description of this book. Among the reviewers quoted is Kyle Kulinski:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Populists-Guide-2020-Right-Rising/dp/1947492454/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2EP3VYX1G0NZA&keywords=krystal+ball&qid=1584096964&s=books&sprefix=krystal+%2Caps%2C178&sr=1-1

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 13, 2020, 05:00:38 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 12, 2020, 10:23:34 AM
In future try giving them the time you'd previously wasted on TYT.

He checks the Beeb, but doesn't read ....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 13, 2020, 05:05:12 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 03:02:15 AM
Blah-blah "corporates" "Kyle is the greatest blah-blah



Someone opposing you does not, among adults, absolutely rule out respect.

And sure, we all suspected that Kyle is a big fish in a small stagnant pond.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 05:15:26 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 13, 2020, 05:00:38 AM
He checks the Beeb, but doesn't read ....

We live in information/disinformation cornucopia. One has to filter a lot, because we can't read 1000 hours a day. When I recognize a corporate hit piece I filter it. The ability to filter and apply source criticism is an important part of litaracy these days.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 13, 2020, 05:41:29 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 05:15:26 AM
We live in information/disinformation cornucopia. One has to filter a lot, because we can't read 1000 hours a day. As soon as I find that an article doesn't tell me what I already want to hear, I disregard it. The ability to filter and apply source criticism is an important part of litaracy these days.


FTFY. Now, back to your bubble.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 08:50:10 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 13, 2020, 05:41:29 AM

FTFY. Now, back to your bubble.

You just have this obsession to prove how I am the worth person in history who understands and knows nothing. Yes, you can twist pretty much everything I say against me. How much do you read/listen to information that is against your own beliefs? If I am guilty of living in my bubble so are you. I am willing to admit that. Are you? I have my reasons to for my bubble. I am a humanist. I don't like suffering. I put people before money and profit. That's why I am a lefty. Deal with it!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 09:32:27 AM
Jordan Chariton of Status Coup:

IRONY: Same Boomers Who Benefited From Bernie-Like Policies Have Been Brainwashed to Support Biden

https://www.youtube.com/v/BTQGCrkNh34
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 13, 2020, 09:56:32 AM
     The overlap between what Biden will do and what Sanders will do is considerable. I start there. The non-overlap is portrayed as ideological, not least by Bernie, who is fond of the rhetoric of revolution for policy measures that have been part of the social democratic playbook for many decades as enacted and at the level of proposals for a century or more depending. I refuse to imbibe "socialist theater" as though it was a thing, notwithstanding what AOC calls herself.

     I get the Jiu Jitsu element. The right is going to attack the left as socialist no matter what, so an inoculation strategy might work for younger people who think the boomer labels have long passed their sell-by date.

     It's not all hokum. There's a core of sense to left/right distinctions which is useful, because politics is an intrinsically beliefy business and with human behavior beliefs are important as forces in their own right.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 13, 2020, 10:17:41 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 05:15:26 AM
We live in information/disinformation cornucopia. One has to filter a lot, because we can't read 1000 hours a day. When I recognize a corporate hit piece I filter it. The ability to filter and apply source criticism is an important part of litaracy these days.

Did you find that BBC World made "corporate hit pieces"?

I'm reminded of an author who wrote an eight page cover story on Sanders for Time magazine. The article included a range of criticisms but the response they got back from the Sanders team was that they liked it and thought the author genuinely understood the subject. The response from Sanders supporters however was an immediate attack swarm of abuse and charges of bias and smear. I'll have to find it again.

edit:

https://time.com/longform/bernie-sanders-2020/

to reiterate: the Sanders team liked it

is it a "corporate hit piece" because its critical of him in places? (assuming you'll read something as long as eight pages...)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on March 13, 2020, 10:25:57 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 05:15:26 AM
We live in information/disinformation cornucopia. One has to filter a lot, because we can't read 1000 hours a day. When I recognize a corporate hit piece I filter it. The ability to filter and apply source criticism is an important part of litaracy these days.

Have you even considered the possibility that you are filtering the actual information. There is such a thing as "journalism school" and journalists have professional standards and a code of conduct. Reputable media outlets have opinion pieces, but they also have reporting which is fact based and verified. From your posting here I get the impression you read only opinion pieces.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on March 13, 2020, 10:28:40 AM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 13, 2020, 10:25:57 AMFrom your posting here I get the impression you read only opinion pieces.

A lot of people do this nowadays.

Op pieces are often juicier and more relatable.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 13, 2020, 10:28:58 AM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 13, 2020, 10:25:57 AM
From your posting here I get the impression you read only opinion pieces.

"watch"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 13, 2020, 11:21:25 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 08:50:10 AM
You just have this obsession to prove how I am the worth person in history who understands and knows nothing.

I have no obsession with you, and as I do not believe you are a bad person, I have no agenda to prove you the "worst." You don't do yourself any favors by swallowing Kyle's biased bilge, just because you like it.

Quote from:
"71dB"
How much do you read/listen to information that is against your own beliefs?

I read some of both "The Opposition" and of the much-more-activist-Left daily

Quote from:
"71dB"
If I am guilty of living in my bubble so are you.

It is not merely that you are uninformed and mistaken, but that you sound like a 4-year-old: "YOU ARE, TOO!"

And a humanist should be ashamed to plead that as am excuse for habitual intellectual laziness.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 13, 2020, 11:23:06 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 09:32:27 AM

More spamming your "brainwashed" bullshit which niffs of projection, O Kyle-besotted one.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 13, 2020, 11:24:40 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 13, 2020, 10:17:41 AM

(assuming you'll read something as long as eight pages...)

I'd never assume that;  I hesitate to assume that he can read . . . .
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 11:35:54 AM
I don't answer to your accusations. I don't have to. I am entitled to my opinions. Coronavirus... :P

Trump does not. Handle. imcompetence. Bernie is competent!!!
Good luck Americans. 1 MILLION Americana can die because of corona. That's your beloved PRIVATE healthcare.
Maybe now single payer sounds good? :-\

I am wrong? I hope I am...

Quote from: SimonNZ on March 13, 2020, 10:17:41 AM
Did you find that BBC World made "corporate hit pieces"?

No. It's British. "corporate hit pieces" are more of an American thing.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on March 13, 2020, 12:14:01 PM
We now fall to the level of Schadenfreude...good grief!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 12:15:10 PM
I have tried to be nice and respectful here recently.
People have keep attacking me in ways that make me feel not welcome here.
All I want is better life for Americans and this is what I get for it.
Ok, deal with your problems then. Elect Biden or Trump and deal with the consequencies.
I listen to Elgar. UK fucked up with Brexit, but at least it's not a total oligarchy and
has one of the best healthcare systems in the World.

I am truly shocked about what kind of people classical music fans are. I am beginning to understand I AM NOT A "NORMY" CLASSICAL MUSIC FAN!! I am not such elitist "corporate" hack. I am someone who just happens to enjoy a lot of classical music, but otherwise I am a lefty, a humanist and what I have experienced on this forum has really shaken my beliefs about the classical music community.

I don't know where I belong to. Who am I and what is my place? I am so confused. Elgar's music helps. That's a paradise where want to be, not on this planet of 2020 when everything is so wrong...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 13, 2020, 12:18:01 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 11:35:54 AM

No. It's British. "corporate hit pieces" are more of an American thing.

That's simply not true.  And you'd know that if you were more aware of the variety in the media landscape outside of your few YT favorites, and their assurance that it is they alone who can give you the straight dope.

Did you at least read that Time piece on Sanders? I'm very interested to know if you agree with the Sanders people who liked it or the Bernie Bros who hated it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 13, 2020, 12:21:32 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 12:15:10 PM
I have tried to be nice and respectful here recently.
People have keep attacking me in ways that make me feel not welcome here.
All I want is better life for Americans and this is what I get for it.
Ok, deal with your problems then. Elect Biden or Trump and deal with the consequencies.
I listen to Elgar. UK fucked up with Brexit, but at least it's not a total oligarchy and
has one of the best healthcare systems in the World.

I am truly shocked about what kind of people classical music fans are. I am beginning to understand I AM NOT A "NORMY" CLASSICAL MUSIC FAN!! I am not such elitist "corporate" hack. I am someone who just happens to enjoy a lot of classical music, but otherwise I am a lefty, a humanist and what I have experienced on this forum has really shaken my beliefs about the classical music community.

I don't know where I belong to. Who am I and what is my place? I am so confused. Elgar's music helps. That's a paradise where want to be, not on this planet of 2020 when everything is so wrong...

(https://pics.me.me/lighten-up-francis-22862786.png)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 12:21:38 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 13, 2020, 12:18:01 PM
Did you at least read that Time piece on Sanders? I'm very interested to know if you agree with the Sanders people who liked it or the Bernie Bros who hated it.

I don't recollect reading any Time piece on Sanders.

It's possible the "better" stuff is behind paywalls and I never see it, but I can't spend money on this. I have to pay rent and food to stay alive!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 13, 2020, 12:26:46 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 12:21:38 PM
I don't recollect reading any Time piece on Sanders.

It's possible the "better" stuff is behind paywalls and I never see it, but I can't spend money on this. I have to pay rent and food to stay alive!

I meant: now that I've put a link to it in my post could you please read it and see if your preconceived notion about "corporate hit pieces" is challenged. Or if you consider it a fair portrait of the man, as those close to him did, even though the article is often critical.

Considering your obsession with him you should have no reason not to.

So here it is again:

https://time.com/longform/bernie-sanders-2020/
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 13, 2020, 12:44:33 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 02:24:12 AM
Your examples are meaningless because patent laws can be changed and patent laws don't mean you have to price gouge.

I hate to say this, but that is rank imbecility. It has no correspondence to anything in the real world.

Patent laws give Big Pharma its ability to price gouge. They need to be changed, Bernie's plan has nothing about changing patent laws. Biden's plan is rather vague but at least correctly identifies the problem and what needs to be done. In fact, Biden is a lot harder on Big Pharma then Bernie.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 13, 2020, 12:49:13 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 12:15:10 PM
I have tried to be nice and respectful here recently.
People have keep attacking me in ways that make me feel not welcome here.
All I want is better life for Americans and this is what I get for it.
Ok, deal with your problems then. Elect Biden or Trump and deal with the consequencies.
I listen to Elgar. UK fucked up with Brexit, but at least it's not a total oligarchy and
has one of the best healthcare systems in the World.

I am truly shocked about what kind of people classical music fans are. I am beginning to understand I AM NOT A "NORMY" CLASSICAL MUSIC FAN!! I am not such elitist "corporate" hack. I am someone who just happens to enjoy a lot of classical music, but otherwise I am a lefty, a humanist and what I have experienced on this forum has really shaken my beliefs about the classical music community.

I don't know where I belong to. Who am I and what is my place? I am so confused. Elgar's music helps. That's a paradise where want to be, not on this planet of 2020 when everything is so wrong...

This may shock you, but most of the people who express political opinions here are on the leftist side of the political spectrum.  I am center-left, for heaven's sake, and yet most of them are to my left.
You are not nearly as unique as you think you are.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 13, 2020, 12:52:40 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 11:35:54 AM
I don't answer to your accusations. I don't have to. I am entitled to my opinions. Coronavirus... :P

Trump does not. Handle. imcompetence. Bernie is competent!!!
Good luck Americans. 1 MILLION Americana can die because of corona. That's your beloved PRIVATE healthcare.
Maybe now single payer sounds good? :-\

I am wrong? I hope I am...

No. It's British. "corporate hit pieces" are more of an American thing.

Actually, the big problem so far is government caused: not planning far enough ahead to make sure anything near the necessary number of test kits are available.  And it doesn't matter who pays for a test if the test is not available. So don't blame private healthcare for something the federal bureaucracy caused.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 13, 2020, 01:02:04 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 11:35:54 AM
I am wrong? I hope I am...

Here, your hope is well founded:
Quote from: JBS on March 13, 2020, 12:52:40 PM
Actually, the big problem so far is government caused: not planning far enough ahead to make sure anything near the necessary number of test kits are available.  And it doesn't matter who pays for a test if the test is not available. So don't blame private healthcare for something the federal bureaucracy caused.


Which also emulates why we are shy of more govt interference per Bernie's Big Plans.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 01:11:58 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 13, 2020, 12:26:46 PM
I meant: now that I've put a link to it in my post could you please read it and see if your preconceived notion about "corporate hit pieces" is challenged. Or if you consider it a fair portrait of the man, as those close to him did, even though the article is often critical.

Considering your obsession with him you should have no reason not to.

So here it is again:

https://time.com/longform/bernie-sanders-2020/

Thanks! I read some of it (sorry, I can't consentrate reading right now). Not ALL is "corporate hit pieces" , Writen is better, but people watch tv. That's the problem. Not all. 20 % good. How many read TIME? Don't know?
"corporate hit pieces" washington post. I am so tired SORRY!! Sleep! Maybe later tomorrow. The article takes time (pun intented) to get to the point! Long! So Bernie is right, but need to change? Yes! Need to get OLD VOTE!! AGREED!!!!!! Kulinski agrees! Everybody agrees. Most people want medicare FOR All (polls are those facts) They want it but they vote for Biden because of ELECTABILITY LIE/narrative ON TV and people watch tv after long day at work. Few people read long TIME articles or watch progressive channels for pro-Bernie stuff Understand? Bernie tries to win this election. There is time. Half of States have not voted.

Corporate hot pieces-claim of mine is oversimplification. OF course corporate media has also good stuff and I have ADMITTED it MANY times. However, the TONE of corporate media is to hate Bernie because he is against the rigged system

Sorry, so nervous and tired. Pointless...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 01:17:56 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 13, 2020, 12:49:13 PM
This may shock you, but most of the people who express political opinions here are on the leftist side of the political spectrum.  I am center-left, for heaven's sake, and yet most of them are to my left.
You are not nearly as unique as you think you are.

So why disagreements?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 13, 2020, 01:31:21 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 01:17:56 PM
So why disagreements?

The disagreement is on three interrelated things
1] You think Kulinski gives a reliable presentation of the facts, and that the corporate media does not. Both of those ideas are wrong, especially the reliance on Kulinski.  Assume Kulinski lies, distorts, manipulates,  as much as anyone else. The very fact that you like his policy proposals should be a reason to distrust him, because you need to battle confirmation bias.
2] You think Bernie's plans to impose massive regulation on major sectors of the economy are more popular than they are. They aren't, and they involve a lot more than health care. If Bernie was to limit himself to health care, I wouldn't mind him. But he wants to do it to a lot more.
3] Bernie and Progressivism base themselves on giving bureaucrats control of major areas of life. That is merely another form of elitism. Oligarchs running things and bureaucrats running things are just two sides of the same coin.  Under Bernie, the system would remain rigged.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 01:42:27 PM
This tread is too active for me to react to everything. I don't have the energy. Sorry.

Bernie wants to improve peoples LIVES!! It's that simple! Who the fuck cares about bureaucrats? Hospitals are FULL of bureaucrats right now Because of the INSANE profit system! One doctor moved to UK, because in the US he spent 40 hours a week to fight with insurance companies to get paid on top of working 50 hours a week with patients. Crazy! Single payer DOES NOT HAVE THAT!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on March 13, 2020, 02:09:57 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 01:42:27 PM
This tread is too active for me to react to everything. I don't have the energy. Sorry.

Bernie wants to improve peoples LIVES!! It's that simple! Who the fuck cares about bureaucrats? Hospitals are FULL of bureaucrats right now Because of the INSANE profit system! One doctor moved to UK, because in the US he spent 40 hours a week to fight with insurance companies to get paid on top of working 50 hours a week with patients. Crazy! Single payer DOES NOT HAVE THAT!

Single payer is not the panacaea you think it is. We have that in Canada. Yes, expensive drugs  or fancy surgeries are free. But there's a bottleneck to get there. No matter how urgent your condition, you cannot visit or be treated by a specialist right away. You must first visit your GP (that's quite fast, the delays are short) who will give you a prescription to see a specialist. Depending on the specialty, waiting time varies from 2 months if you're lucky to over a year. A hip or knee replacement takes 6-12 months in most cases. The main reason for that is that the Health Ministry gets a budgetary envelope every year, and the whole system must function within this allocated envelope. No matter how rich you are, money will not buy you a place in the fast lane. BUT: because the system cannot accommodate both the basket of services AND reasonable waiting time, many people with money go to the private sector and pay for faster service. Single payer is for the bottom tier, private care is for the well off. Long delays is what you have to pay to get treated free).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 13, 2020, 02:23:44 PM
Quote from: André on March 13, 2020, 02:09:57 PM
Single payer is not the panacaea you think it is. We have that in Canada. Yes, expensive drugs  or fancy surgeries are free. But there's a bottleneck to get there. No matter how urgent your condition, you cannot visit or be treated by a specialist right away. You must first visit your GP (that's quite fast, the delays are short) who will give you a prescription to see a specialist. Depending on the specialty, waiting time varies from 2 months if you're lucky to over a year. A hip or knee replacement takes 6-12 months in most cases. The main reason for that is that the Health Ministry gets a budgetary envelope every year, and the whole system must function within this allocated envelope. No matter how rich you are, money will not buy you a place in the fast lane. BUT: because the system cannot accommodate both the basket of services AND reasonable waiting time, many people with money go to the private sector and pay for faster service. Single payer is for the bottom tier, private care is for the well off. Long delays is what you have to pay to get treated free).

Pretty much true for New Zealand, too.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 13, 2020, 02:46:35 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 13, 2020, 12:52:40 PM
Actually, the big problem so far is government caused: not planning far enough ahead to make sure anything near the necessary number of test kits are available.  And it doesn't matter who pays for a test if the test is not available. So don't blame private healthcare for something the federal bureaucracy caused.

      Not causing the government to do the right thing can be construed as "government caused". My concern is how ideology is used to cause "government caused" bad outcomes.

      If you want the government to cause better things you'll need the federal bureaucracy to function the way you want. The ideology of impairing it, then blaming it for its impairment is unsafe in a crisis when you finally see that it's a life and death matter, possibly even for you.

     I never thought it was a good idea to make it policy to defund the undeserving, or even to imagine we need an undeserving class of people to make our lives better. I figured things would work better for everyone if we didn't do that. There's even a moral component, though I rely more on efficiency as the base argument.  A poor class, no matter how expertly chosen, is a drag on economic performance.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 02:57:24 PM
CNN's Coverage of Sanders Was 3X More Negative Than Biden Following Their Big Primary Wins

https://inthesetimes.com/article/22354/cnn-bernie-sanders-joe-biden-media-spin-candidates-negative-mentions

Quote from: André on March 13, 2020, 02:09:57 PM
Single payer is not the panacaea you think it is. We have that in Canada. Yes, expensive drugs  or fancy surgeries are free. But there's a bottleneck to get there. No matter how urgent your condition, you cannot visit or be treated by a specialist right away. You must first visit your GP (that's quite fast, the delays are short) who will give you a prescription to see a specialist. Depending on the specialty, waiting time varies from 2 months if you're lucky to over a year. A hip or knee replacement takes 6-12 months in most cases. The main reason for that is that the Health Ministry gets a budgetary envelope every year, and the whole system must function within this allocated envelope. No matter how rich you are, money will not buy you a place in the fast lane. BUT: because the system cannot accommodate both the basket of services AND reasonable waiting time, many people with money go to the private sector and pay for faster service. Single payer is for the bottom tier, private care is for the well off. Long delays is what you have to pay to get treated free).

Unfortunately care has to be rationed some way or another. There is no way around it. Long delays are nasty, but at least there is care at some point, and urgent cases are treaded fast, prioritized.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on March 13, 2020, 03:05:08 PM
Yes, urgent care is always provided for, fast and free. So is everything related to maternity. OTOH only an attempted suicide will get you the service of a psychologist, for a short time (less than 2 days in most cases, after that it's off on the street). Mental health conditions are the worst cases, by far. Successful suicides, homelessness and domestic violence are often the consequence of the system not taking care of these persons.

Another reality is that the system functions not just with doctors, but with nurses, technicians, secretaries, maintenance people - a whole army of people. Because the budget is stretched to its limit, any unforeseen event becomes an obstacle for getting tests (even for urgent cancer conditions), elective surgeries (cataracts, knee replacement). For example if the anesthetist is sick, or a couple of nurses leave on mat leave, or a busload of injured people floods the ER, or the cleaning crew is behind in the preparation work, operating rooms are impacted. The rule for an elective surgery is 2 or 3 deferrals, sometimes more. The number of people on deck cannot be increased, only reduced. Operating rooms are often empty because a shortage of key people shut them down even if the surgeon is available.

None of that happens in the private sector. They are for profit, and charge enough $ to get everything shipshape and everyone ready to greet you with a smile. Private insurance often pays a portion of the costs, and all medical bills are tax deductible, so people with upfront money can afford to wait for a partial refund. That's not the case with the majority of people, who live from one paycheck to another.

I am 100% for single payer in principle, but the reality is what it is, not what we'd like it to be.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 13, 2020, 03:11:20 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 02:57:24 PM
CNN's Coverage of Sanders Was 3X More Negative Than Biden Following Their Big Primary Wins

https://inthesetimes.com/article/22354/cnn-bernie-sanders-joe-biden-media-spin-candidates-negative-mentions

Unfortunately care has to be rationed some way or another. There is no way around it. Long delays are nasty, but at least there is care at some point, and urgent cases are treaded fast, prioritized.

     I think single payer will always involve the same tradeoffs, free primary care and superior outcomes and longer waits for specialist care. It makes sense to me.

     We are not in the panacea business, we are in the best choices for public policy business.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 13, 2020, 03:25:43 PM
Quote from: André on March 13, 2020, 03:05:08 PM
Yes, urgent care is always provided for, fast and free. So is everything related to maternity. OTOH only an attempted suicide will get you the service of a psychologist, for a short time (less than 2 days in most cases, after that it's off on the street). Mental health conditions are the worst cases, by far. Successful suicides, homelessness and domestic violence are often the consequence of the system not taking care of these persons.

Another reality is that the system functions not just with doctors, but with nurses, technicians, secretaries, maintenance people - a whole army of people. Because the budget is stretched to its limit, any unforeseen event becomes an obstacle for getting tests (even for urgent cancer conditions), elective surgeries (cataracts, knee replacement). For example if the anesthetist is sick, or a couple of nurses leave on mat leave, or a busload of injured people floods the ER, or the cleaning crew is behind in the preparation work, operating rooms are impacted. The rule for an elective surgery is 2 or 3 deferrals, sometimes more. The number of people on deck cannot be increased, only reduced. Operating rooms are often empty because a shortage of key people shut them down even if the surgeon is available.

None of that happens in the private sector. They are for profit, and charge enough $ to get everything shipshape and everyone ready to greet you with a smile. Private insurance often pays a portion of the costs, and all medical bills are tax deductible, so people with upfront money can afford to wait for a partial refund. That's not the case with the majority of people, who live from one paycheck to another.

I am 100% for single payer in principle, but the reality is what it is, not what we'd like it to be.

     This squares with what I've read about how single payer systems function. But it's good to keep in mind that governments have long operated under the assumption that there is something very wrong in devoting the largest portion of government spending to the welfare state. Almost without exception no guidance is given on what the largest share should be instead. We don't build Pyramids any more, and unless a divine being shows up, necessitating a vast increase in the military budget, it's hard to imagine how the money the economy needs gets in there.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 13, 2020, 04:38:23 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 01:42:27 PM
This tread is too active for me to react to everything. I don't have the energy. Sorry.

Bernie wants to improve peoples LIVES!! It's that simple! Who the fuck cares about bureaucrats? Hospitals are FULL of bureaucrats right now Because of the INSANE profit system! One doctor moved to UK, because in the US he spent 40 hours a week to fight with insurance companies to get paid on top of working 50 hours a week with patients. Crazy! Single payer DOES NOT HAVE THAT!

Bernie may want to improve people's lives, but some of us think his ideas won't improve people's lives, and will probably make some problems worse.

Since single-payer is run by bureaucrats, the number of bureaucrats under Berniecare would increase, not decrease.

Single payer depends on government budgets, which will cause the same problems the for profit system has.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 13, 2020, 04:42:25 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 02:57:24 PM
CNN's Coverage of Sanders Was 3X More Negative Than Biden Following Their Big Primary Wins

Fine, but that doesn't faze those of us who do not consider CNN a very reliable source: I know I don't watch CNN.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 13, 2020, 04:45:22 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 01:42:27 PM
This tread is too active for me to react to everything. I don't have the energy. Sorry.


Nobody expects you to ride this thread, but when you're refreshed, go back and consider JBS's post, it's straight talk, and he's more patient with you (frankly) than I am inclined to be.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 13, 2020, 05:07:51 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 13, 2020, 04:42:25 PM
Fine, but that doesn't faze those of us who do not consider CNN a very reliable source: I know I don't watch CNN.

Good for you Karl not considering CNN a very reliable source, but you are not the only person voting. Millions of people not as informed/smart as you watch CNN and many of those people take the channel seriously.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 14, 2020, 05:19:16 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 13, 2020, 03:11:20 PM
     I think single payer will always involve the same tradeoffs, free primary care and superior outcomes and longer waits for specialist care. It makes sense to me.

     We are not in the panacea business, we are in the best choices for public policy business.

Totally agree. For profit healthcare system doesn't allow "best choices for public policy", because private businesses don't care about the public. They care about profit. JBS thinks this is about whether bureaucrats run healthcare or not, but that's pretty irrelevant. The real problem is incentives. You just can't get even close to optimal healthcare results for the money spent when profit is the ultimate incentive. Common sense says it. Evidence says it. Sadly in the US these two things don't matter because of oligarchy.

Americans need to learn that when there is no oligarchy and instead there is real democracy, the government with all the bureaucrats can do wonderful things, but these wonderful things don't happen if you don't end the oligarchy first. Biden won't end oligarchy. He IS oligarchy. To fight oligarchy you need someone like Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard in the White House. That's just how it is.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 14, 2020, 08:01:45 AM
Given the high toxicity and extreme uselessnes of these bloody damned fucking political threads, in which I sooner or later get to post things I regret the next day, I've resolved to never ever again post in any of them. This time it's for real and for good, so help me God!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 14, 2020, 11:14:51 AM
"Scorched earth" Bernie Bros

Bernie Bros warn of 'massive exodus' if Democrats nominate Joe Biden (https://nypost.com/2020/03/14/bernie-bros-warn-of-massive-exodus-if-democrats-nominate-joe-biden/)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: TMHeimer on March 14, 2020, 11:28:16 AM
When I was still an American I guess I hardly noticed it. But you know, 1  1/2  to 2 years of campaigning is really ludicrous. I believe in Canada the campaigns are limited to 30 or 60 days, like in the U.K. and probably other countries. How do you guys stand it? Don't you just want to throw up your hands and say "who cares, I've had enough"?  And we only see it when watching U.S. TV with U.S. commercials.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 14, 2020, 11:32:31 AM
Quote from: TMHeimer on March 14, 2020, 11:28:16 AM
When I was still an American I guess I hardly noticed it. But you know, 1  1/2  to 2 years of campaigning is really ludicrous. I believe in Canada the campaigns are limited to 30 or 60 days, like in the U.K. and probably other countries. How do you guys stand it? Don't you just want to throw up your hands and say "who cares, I've had enough"?  And we only see it when watching U.S. TV with U.S. commercials.

Exhausting, indeed.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 14, 2020, 12:59:54 PM
Quote from: TMHeimer on March 14, 2020, 11:28:16 AM
When I was still an American I guess I hardly noticed it. But you know, 1  1/2  to 2 years of campaigning is really ludicrous. I believe in Canada the campaigns are limited to 30 or 60 days, like in the U.K. and probably other countries. How do you guys stand it? Don't you just want to throw up your hands and say "who cares, I've had enough"?  And we only see it when watching U.S. TV with U.S. commercials.

I read that as "throw up in your hands" with the first pass.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 14, 2020, 01:28:19 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 14, 2020, 11:14:51 AM
"Scorched earth" Bernie Bros

Bernie Bros warn of 'massive exodus' if Democrats nominate Joe Biden (https://nypost.com/2020/03/14/bernie-bros-warn-of-massive-exodus-if-democrats-nominate-joe-biden/)

Kyle Kulinski just posted a new video about how Biden would veto medicare for all EVEN IF it passes congress. Kyle says: "If I know you'll fight for a couple of issues important for me I'll vote for you, but when you give me the middle finger on EVERY issue important to me what am I supposed to do? Vote for you? Why?"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on March 14, 2020, 01:31:59 PM
Quote from: TMHeimer on March 14, 2020, 11:28:16 AM
When I was still an American I guess I hardly noticed it. But you know, 1  1/2  to 2 years of campaigning is really ludicrous. I believe in Canada the campaigns are limited to 30 or 60 days, like in the U.K. and probably other countries. How do you guys stand it? Don't you just want to throw up your hands and say "who cares, I've had enough"?  And we only see it when watching U.S. TV with U.S. commercials.

And it's gotten even worse the last 3 years, now that almost every speech, announcement or press conference of the POTUS has become a campaign rally, too.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 14, 2020, 01:43:44 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 14, 2020, 01:28:19 PM
Kyle Kulinski just posted a new video about how Biden would veto medicare for all EVEN IF it passes congress. Kyle says: "If I know you'll fight for a couple of issues important for me I'll vote for you, but when you give me the middle finger on EVERY issue important to me what am I supposed to do? Vote for you? Why?"

Absolutely nobody here cares what Kyle thinks,

The only reason you could have to keep going on about him is to troll. Please stop. Find a different source if you want to persuade anyone of anything. Ideally in print.

Really: there is no need to ever mention Kyle again. Its been made endlessly clear to you that nobody here respects him or trusts him or is going to follow another link to him.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 14, 2020, 02:52:31 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 14, 2020, 01:43:44 PM
Absolutely nobody here cares what Kyle thinks,

The only reason you could have to keep going on about him is to troll. Please stop. Find a different source if you want to persuade anyone of anything. Ideally in print.

Really: there is no need to ever mention Kyle again. Its been made endlessly clear to you that nobody here respects him or trusts him or is going to follow another link to him.

Jesus you are triggered by Kyle. Unbelievable. ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 14, 2020, 02:58:19 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 14, 2020, 02:52:31 PM
Jesus you are triggered by Kyle. Unbelievable. ::)

No. Just frustrated at the pointlessness of it.

You want to persuade people, right. It should be clear by now that posting Kyle's thoughts is persuading noone. So try something else. Try a print source that both you and others might agree is worth their time and consideration.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 14, 2020, 03:24:03 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 14, 2020, 02:52:31 PM
Jesus you are triggered by Kyle. Unbelievable. ::)

He's right, you're trolling.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 14, 2020, 03:30:03 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 14, 2020, 02:58:19 PM
No. Just frustrated at the pointlessness of it.

You want to persuade people, right. It should be clear by now that posting Kyle's thoughts is persuading noone. So try something else. Try a print source that both you and others might agree is worth their time and consideration.



Poju, think back to a time before your preoccupation with Trump, and so, even berfore your unhealthy obsession that Bernie is the sole possible savior from Trump:

Remember how you tried to convince all of GMG that Elgar is the greatest composer in the world?  And near the start of that crusade, IIRC, you carpet-bombed the Mahler thread.

You remember how several GMG'ers were, for a long while ready to not listen to any Elgar, thanks to your fanboy hectoring?

Take a lesson from your own past mistakes!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 14, 2020, 03:56:19 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 14, 2020, 02:58:19 PM
No. Just frustrated at the pointlessness of it.

You want to persuade people, right. It should be clear by now that posting Kyle's thoughts is persuading noone. So try something else. Try a print source that both you and others might agree is worth their time and consideration.

It doesn't matter whether it's "print source" or a Youtube video. What is written or said matters. That's source critisism. Ben Shapiro's videos suck, because the guy regurtates Koch brother's talking points and tries to make them fit to the reality and facts with comical results. Kyle Kulinski rocks, because he isn't a hack. He has got stunning intellectual honesty and is highly principled. That's why what he says is great stuff even if it isn't "print source." and surely you agree some print sources are bad. There is a reason why Kyle Kulinski is admired on the left. He is damn good at what he does and you can count on his integrity.

I mentioned some time ago Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent." That's a book if you want print source, but the message is the same Kyle Kulinski has, because Noam Chomsky is a major role model for Kyle.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on March 14, 2020, 04:00:09 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 14, 2020, 03:30:03 PM


Poju, think back to a time before your preoccupation with Trump, and so, even berfore your unhealthy obsession that Bernie is the sole possible savior from Trump:

Remember how you tried to convince all of GMG that Elgar is the greatest composer in the world?  And near the start of that crusade, IIRC, you carpet-bombed the Mahler thread.

You remember how several GMG'ers were, for a long while ready to not listen to any Elgar, thanks to your fanboy hectoring?

Take a lesson from your own past mistakes!

Elgar the greatest? 

???

I thought Dittersdorf.

I would never ever allow any GMG member to stop me from listening to any composer btw, not even Dittersdorf. If someone's a drag or a troll in too many threads, no matter whether well-meant advices do or do not work at all...:

(https://images2.imgbox.com/e8/84/fc0Zhvsl_o.jpg)

Let's face it: too many people have been 'threatening' to leave threads, sections and boards already a dozen times, either because they wanted to protect themselves or because they experienced too much verbal aggresion against them. Many of them did return almost immediately. Poju is one of them. He is into this board, he is into his topics, and his behaviour & most of his ideas won't change.

I don't give a [....] about his Kyle and his thoughts anyway.
I'm a free-thinker, therefore I'm free.
:P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 14, 2020, 04:07:38 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 14, 2020, 03:30:03 PM


Poju, think back to a time before your preoccupation with Trump, and so, even berfore your unhealthy obsession that Bernie is the sole possible savior from Trump:

Remember how you tried to convince all of GMG that Elgar is the greatest composer in the world?  And near the start of that crusade, IIRC, you carpet-bombed the Mahler thread.

You remember how several GMG'ers were, for a long while ready to not listen to any Elgar, thanks to your fanboy hectoring?

Take a lesson from your own past mistakes!

I genuinely think Bernie is BY FAR the best option for the next president and I am certainly entitled to such opinion. Now, what am I as a Bernie supporter supposed to say about Bernie and Biden on this tread to do it properly?

What comes to Elgar, I gave up completely promoting him because it doesn't really matter if people like Elgar or not, but it does matter a lot if oligarchy continues. It mean a lot of unnecessory suffering and puts the whole planet in danger when climate change is not properly addressed.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 14, 2020, 04:29:28 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 14, 2020, 03:56:19 PM
It doesn't matter whether it's "print source" or a Youtube video. What is written or said matters. That's source critisism. Ben Shapiro's videos suck, because the guy regurtates Koch brother's talking points and tries to make them fit to the reality and facts with comical results. Kyle Kulinski rocks, because he isn't a hack. He has got stunning intellectual honesty and is highly principled. That's why what he says is great stuff even if it isn't "print source." and surely you agree some print sources are bad. There is a reason why Kyle Kulinski is admired on the left. He is damn good at what he does and you can count on his integrity.

I mentioned some time ago Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent." That's a book if you want print source, but the message is the same Kyle Kulinski has, because Noam Chomsky is a major role model for Kyle.

Eleven. The number of things I disagree with in that post is eleven.

What's more it didn't address my point that as nobody here respects Kyle there is no point using him in an attempt to persuade people.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on March 14, 2020, 05:07:27 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 14, 2020, 04:29:28 PM
Eleven. The number of things I disagree with in that post is eleven.

What's more it didn't address my point that as nobody here respects Kyle there is no point using him in an attempt to persuade people.

As far as I can see, nobody is persuading anyone here (well, there might be a very rare exception here and there... maybe). With or without links or anything.
Some people agree, and some people disagree... if you'd check likewise discussions 5 years ago you might find that most opinions have not changed.

Let's suppose next time Poju will say/claim something without a link and then someone (maybe even you) might ask: source?
And voilà, there's our Kyle again.

Neither you, me or Poju are allowed to vote in the USA. But, from time to time, we show our interest and commitmentin in these threads, because we (apparently) care. We have our opinions, share them and sometimes throw in our (valid or not) sources. Let's just continue with that and accept disagreement. Trust me, you and Poju will disagree until the bitter end. Reactions like "stop posting here" won't help or solve the disagreements or 'problems', as history has proven time after time again. Only ignoring might lighten the frustation a bit. And if someone is truly insulting and continues to do so... just report it to the mods. But I bet that posting links from Kyle and defending his opinions continuously won't be seen as 'insulting'.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 14, 2020, 05:24:16 PM
I posted that patiently and plainly for your benefit, Poju. But, no more than news sources: you didn't read for content, you read to know how you should reply only to rationalize your behavior.
Shan't waste my time thus, again: you are a supreme and incorrigible ass.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 14, 2020, 05:33:56 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 14, 2020, 04:29:28 PM
Eleven. The number of things I disagree with in that post is eleven.

What's more it didn't address my point that as nobody here respects Kyle there is no point using him in an attempt to persuade people.

You are entitled to have your opinion about Kyle just like I am, but you are putting a lot of faith on your assumption that "nobody" here respects Kyle. I am somebody even if nobody ELSE was in my camp. I think a lot of members here do read this treads without participating themselves. Maybe they want to stay silent seeing how toxic these discussions can be. I don't blame them. I am crazy to continue this, but it's difficult to stop (addiction or something...) Maybe some of them agree with me about Kyle? I mean he has got over 800.000 subscribers.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 14, 2020, 06:33:10 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 14, 2020, 01:28:19 PM
Kyle Kulinski just posted a new video about how Biden would veto medicare for all EVEN IF it passes congress. Kyle says: "If I know you'll fight for a couple of issues important for me I'll vote for you, but when you give me the middle finger on EVERY issue important to me what am I supposed to do? Vote for you? Why?"

First off, there is no evidence Biden would veto MfA if it passed Congress,
Of course MfA will never pass Congress even if Bernie were POTUS. Too many Republicans and too many Denocrats elected from states that lean Republican. So it's a meaningless prediction.

What is truly nonsensical about Kulinski's attitude. is the fact that Biden and the Progressives agree on almost everything in terms of policy goals and problems to be solved. They disagree on the methods to reach those policy goals.  Kulinski is rejecting the good because it is not the perfect.   If Kulinski makes you think otherwise, then yet again you have a clear example of how Kulinski is not a reliable source.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 14, 2020, 07:04:30 PM
Kyle Kulinski Speaks, The Bernie Bros Listen (https://credder.com/article/10471/kyle-kulinski-speaks-the-bernie-bros-listen)

That article actually frightens me a little. I had assumed Kyle was the lefts Ben Shapiro, wheres that suggests he's the lefts Rush Limbaugh.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 14, 2020, 08:09:32 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 14, 2020, 06:33:10 PM
First off, there is no evidence Biden would veto MfA if it passed Congress,

What is truly nonsensical about Kulinski's attitude. is the fact that Biden and the Progressives agree on almost everything in terms of policy goals and problems to be solved. They disagree on the methods to reach those policy goals.  Kulinski is rejecting the good because it is not the perfect.   If Kulinski makes you think otherwise, then yet again you have a clear example of how Kulinski is not a reliable source.

What more evidence do you need than JOE BIDEN HIMSELF SAYING IT when asked??  That's how we know it.

Why the fuck should the left vote anyone in any election if there is no hope of anything they want to be implemented? The fact that You Don't want medicare for all doesn't mean the left doesn't want it. TONS of Americans WANT medicare for all!! That's why Bernie is still in the race despite of the establishment trying to take him down. Is there hope or isn't there? Will ALL people have healthcare ever? You are YOUR great healthcare !!! Yeah yeah, but tons of people DON'T have what you have! Think about them! Think about that and stop your stupidity. Kyle Kulinski's father died because of the BRUTAL system and would probably be alive today if the US had universal healthcare and he would have afforded to go to doctor in time and get treatment. Kyle Kulinski HAS THE RIGHT TO speak for MEDICATE FOR ALL so SHUT UP!! We are talking about people dying and you are worried about your taxes and bureacrats!

Biden and progressives agree about nothing. He takes corporate money and serves corporations. Progressives WANT THE OPPOSITE. Biden is a monster, but people don't know it because of corporate media.

I try to be nice, but you get me over the edge.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 14, 2020, 08:15:23 PM
BREAKING: Bernie Sanders WINS Northern Mariana Islands Caucus, DEFEATS Joe Biden!

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on March 15, 2020, 12:09:52 AM
Quote from: Marc on March 14, 2020, 01:31:59 PM
And it's gotten even worse the last 3 years, now that almost every speech, announcement or press conference of the POTUS has become a campaign rally, too.

That's because it's what he does best. In fact it's his only skill.

The next White House incumbent will tone that down.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 15, 2020, 02:51:12 AM
Quote from: Herman on March 15, 2020, 12:09:52 AM
That's because it's what he does best. In fact it's his only skill.

The next White House incumbent will tone that down.

WWE ring president. :-\ Trump should be feuding with the McMahon family instead the World.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 15, 2020, 06:49:38 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 14, 2020, 07:04:30 PM
Kyle Kulinski Speaks, The Bernie Bros Listen (https://credder.com/article/10471/kyle-kulinski-speaks-the-bernie-bros-listen)

That article actually frightens me a little. I had assumed Kyle was the lefts Ben Shapiro, wheres that suggests he's the lefts Rush Limbaugh.

     I have the advantage of knowing nothing about this guy, so I read the article and I'm struggling with the idea that he's a Limbaugh. He appears to be the sort of person who rejects identity politics as much as I do. Programs should be judged regardless of how radical the advocate is.

     As painful as it is for me to even acknowledge disabling gambits of the howyougonna variety, I must point out no reasoning has been supplied that the "gazillion over 10 years" of private sector lateral moves has more expansion in it than a similar gazillion through the public spend/tax circuit. The default should be that the advantages lie with the public option with a net spend kicker. That is, like all means of fiscal expansion, health care spending that is not excessively taxed back grows the entire economy before counter-inflation tax is returned. Of course we could pre-tax ("trust fund") so as to shrink before growth, but we are wiser than that now. The economy as a whole is "spend before tax", so any effort to mimic "tax before spend" will reduce performance.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 15, 2020, 08:20:50 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 15, 2020, 06:49:38 AM
     I have the advantage of knowing nothing about this guy,

He is amazingly unknown outside the lefties. You must have heard of AOC. She is a Justice Democrat. Kyle Kulinski is the co-founder of Justice Democrats with Cenk Uygur of TYT. Corporate media almost never tells about these things, because they ignore the left as much as possible. That's their stragedy to minimize the popularity of the progressive agenda. Among the lefties Kyle Kulinski is a hero.


Quote from: drogulus on March 15, 2020, 06:49:38 AMso I read the article and I'm struggling with the idea that he's a Limbaugh.

Yep. Sometimes the left goes wrong with identity politics and SJW-nonsense, but that's nothing compared to the lunacy of the likes of Limbaugh on the right.


Quote from: drogulus on March 15, 2020, 06:49:38 AMHe appears to be the sort of person who rejects identity politics as much as I do.

That is an accurate observation. I don't write about his intellectual honesty for nothing. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 15, 2020, 08:30:50 AM
The Limbaugh comparison was because of the large numbers who are whipped up into a frenzy by crank-it-to-eleven outrage ranting and the influence those numbers are able to exert or otherwise sane politics.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 15, 2020, 10:23:43 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 15, 2020, 08:30:50 AM
The Limbaugh comparison was because of the large numbers who are whipped up into a frenzy by crank-it-to-eleven outrage ranting and the influence those numbers are able to exert or otherwise sane politics.

      I missed the frenzy element because it wasn't in the article. I might have to go see what it's about.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 15, 2020, 01:57:09 PM
Tonight's debate has been moved from Phoenix to DC.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 15, 2020, 05:25:45 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 14, 2020, 08:09:32 PM
What more evidence do you need than JOE BIDEN HIMSELF SAYING IT when asked??  That's how we know it.

Why the fuck should the left vote anyone in any election if there is no hope of anything they want to be implemented? The fact that You Don't want medicare for all doesn't mean the left doesn't want it. TONS of Americans WANT medicare for all!! That's why Bernie is still in the race despite of the establishment trying to take him down. Is there hope or isn't there? Will ALL people have healthcare ever? You are YOUR great healthcare !!! Yeah yeah, but tons of people DON'T have what you have! Think about them! Think about that and stop your stupidity. Kyle Kulinski's father died because of the BRUTAL system and would probably be alive today if the US had universal healthcare and he would have afforded to go to doctor in time and get treatment. Kyle Kulinski HAS THE RIGHT TO speak for MEDICATE FOR ALL so SHUT UP!! We are talking about people dying and you are worried about your taxes and bureacrats!

Biden and progressives agree about nothing. He takes corporate money and serves corporations. Progressives WANT THE OPPOSITE. Biden is a monster, but people don't know it because of corporate media.

I try to be nice, but you get me over the edge.

People die because of bureaucrats.  People are going to die here in the US because bureaucrats were bureaucrats, and threw bureaucratic obstacles in the way of testing for COVID19.  And you want those same bureaucrats to control everyone's health care!

Medicare for all means a bureaucracy that will supervise poor to mediocre health care for everyone, paid for by taxes, premiums,  copays, deductibles, etc.  Get this into your head; Bernie's plan has no chance of becoming reality. Even in a Democratic controlled Congress, it won't pass.

You are obsessed with the idea of oligarchs and corporations controlling everyone's life.  Well, the Progressive agenda is devoted to the idea of bureaucrats controlling the lives of everyone.  Which means it's elitist, not populist, and just as anti-freedom as any money based oligarchy. If you were truly concerned with defeating the power of the elites, you'd be attacking progressivism, not defending it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 15, 2020, 05:30:58 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 15, 2020, 08:20:50 AM
He is amazingly unknown outside the lefties. You must have heard of AOC. She is a Justice Democrat. Kyle Kulinski is the co-founder of Justice Democrats with Cenk Uygur of TYT. Corporate media almost never tells about these things, because they ignore the left as much as possible. That's their stragedy to minimize the popularity of the progressive agenda. Among the lefties Kyle Kulinski is a hero.


Yep. Sometimes the left goes wrong with identity politics and SJW-nonsense, but that's nothing compared to the lunacy of the likes of Limbaugh on the right.


That is an accurate observation. I don't write about his intellectual honesty for nothing.


Sometimes the Left goes wrong with identity politics?

Make that almost all the time. Kyle Kulinski is rather unique among progressives in rejecting identity politics. (And I think that is one point in his favor.)

And it is the Left's dedication to identity politics that gives immense power to the Right. In fact, it's the main reason Trump won.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 15, 2020, 06:36:24 PM
I'd imagine it's easy to avoid "identity politics" if you're a white guy. I give no points for that.

But then I don't necessarily see the term as pejorative.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 15, 2020, 06:44:02 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 15, 2020, 05:25:45 PM
People die because of bureaucrats.  People are going to die here in the US because bureaucrats were bureaucrats, and threw bureaucratic obstacles in the way of testing for COVID19.  And you want those same bureaucrats to control everyone's health care!



     Yes, that is exactly what we should want. The bureaucrats should be allowed to do the job they are here to do. It's a failure of an ideology that civil servants are obstructed and then blamed for the obstruction for being subject to the ideological wrecking ball of Big Anti-Government. The Trump regime is the ultimate test case.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 15, 2020, 06:50:03 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 15, 2020, 06:36:24 PM
I'd imagine it's easy to avoid "identity politics" if you're a white guy. I give no points for that.

But then I don't necessarily see the term as pejorative.

     Dems have a wide and quarrelsome coalition to manage.  Repubs have a version that burns with (heh!) white hot intensity.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 15, 2020, 07:07:31 PM
Quote from: drogulus on March 15, 2020, 06:44:02 PM
     Yes, that is exactly what we should want. The bureaucrats should be allowed to do the job they are here to do. It's a failure of an ideology that civil servants are obstructed and then blamed for the obstruction for being subject to the ideological wrecking ball of Big Anti-Government. The Trump regime is the ultimate test case.

The job of bureaucracy is to enforce rules. Meaning to obstruct and delay.   Government is always an inefficient operation. Which is why it should be used only when no other alternative can work.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 15, 2020, 07:20:55 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 15, 2020, 06:36:24 PM
I'd imagine it's easy to avoid "identity politics" if you're a white guy. I give no points for that.

But then I don't necessarily see the term as pejorative.

To say it in a less cliched manner, Kulinski wants to focus on economic issues that impact everyone.  Most progressives tend to foreground issues that impact particular communities, and not everyone. Black Lives Matter wants everyone to focus on police abuse of minorities. A non identity politics approach would base itself on the fact that while police abuse minorities more, they abuse everyone, and therefore police abuse must be stopped. [I have no idea of what Kulinski himself has said about BLM.]  That's actually the standard libertarian approach, which is the one I take.

BTW, when I say most progressives, I mean the politicians and advocates  who appear on TV or write op eds.  I'm sure some progressives who are simply ordinary members of the public share Kulinski's approach, but I have no idea of their numbers.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 15, 2020, 07:29:45 PM
I don't see why its a choice or why all these things can't happen simultaneously. You can talk about general police brutality in the very same breath as talking about the disproportionate impact on black communities.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 15, 2020, 07:34:18 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 15, 2020, 07:29:45 PM
I don't see why its a choice or why all these things can't happen simultaneously. You can talk about general police brutality in the very same breath as talking about the disproportionate impact on black communities.
BLM only talks about the impact on minority communities, as if police brutality never occurs on non minorities.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 15, 2020, 07:43:38 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 15, 2020, 07:07:31 PM
The job of bureaucracy is to enforce rules. Meaning to obstruct and delay.   Government is always an inefficient operation. Which is why it should be used only when no other alternative can work.

     It does all that and more. "Always inefficient" is meaningless. What government does is too vital to be measured by how efficiently it would be done by institutions that don't exist, never did, and never will. Efficiency can only be judged on a comparative basis, not by fantasies of non-public public health, defense, or money system governance.

    I do the whys and wherefores without fantasy input. The desire that government improve its function is a necessary if not sufficient condition for it to happen. Solution hatred is not a path to improvement of anything. Wishing for an omnicompetent self generating private sector is a dream. Trying to make it real turns it into a nightmare.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 15, 2020, 07:58:49 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 15, 2020, 07:34:18 PM
BLM only talks about the impact on minority communities, as if police brutality never occurs on non minorities.

Why is talking about the impact on black communities a problem? The other conversations about the police are taking place, some with equally specific focus on other issues, some more general. The all come together or feed into a larger narrative.

And BLM have never suggested or behaved as if police brutality never occurs on non minorities.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 15, 2020, 08:02:15 PM
Quote from: drogulus on March 15, 2020, 07:43:38 PM
     It does all that and more. "Always inefficient" is meaningless. What government does is too vital to be measured by how efficiently it would be done by institutions that don't exist, never did, and never will. Efficiency can only be judged on a comparative basis, not by fantasies of non-public public health, defense, or money system governance.

    I do the whys and wherefores without fantasy input. The desire that government improve its function is a necessary if not sufficient condition for it to happen. Solution hatred is not a path to improvement of anything. Wishing for an omnicompetent self generating private sector is a dream. Trying to make it real turns it into a nightmare.

If you want to critique libertarian ideas, you need to at least understand them.
In short, there are loads of things that government does nowadays that don't qualify as vital, and using government to do them always means an inferior result. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 15, 2020, 08:08:27 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 15, 2020, 07:58:49 PM
Why is talking about the impact on black communities a problem? The other conversations about the police are taking place, some with equally specific focus on other issues, some more general. The all come together or feed into a larger narrative.

And BLM have never suggested or behaved as if police brutality never occurs on non minorities.

My impression from hearing BLM advocates on TV and in print is that your last sentence is incorrect. Or at least, that BLM only cares about its impact on minority communities, and is interested only in a narrative that centers on the results of racism. They treat the "other conversations" as diversions to be shut down because those conversations conflict with their preferred narrative.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 15, 2020, 08:22:28 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 15, 2020, 08:02:15 PM
If you want to critique libertarian ideas, you need to at least understand them.
In short, there are loads of things that government does nowadays that don't qualify as vital, and using government to do them always means an inferior result. 

     That is what everyone understands about libertarian ideas, exactly that. These are vaporware claims no one could test. The programs we want are justified by the results we get without vague suppositions about what's vital or inferior. We'll never know how inferior our public sector is to its fantasy private sector counterpart.

     The only way to measure vital and inferior is to see what happens when sociopaths undermine government to prove how bad it is. I reckon sabotage wouldn't be necessary if people would stop wanting the services they get.

      I think your problem is not the government but the people who vote for it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 15, 2020, 08:30:59 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 15, 2020, 08:08:27 PM
My impression from hearing BLM advocates on TV and in print is that your last sentence is incorrect. Or at least, that BLM only cares about its impact on minority communities, and is interested only in a narrative that centers on the results of racism. They treat the "other conversations" as diversions to be shut down because those conversations conflict with their preferred narrative.

From what I've read I think that's an unfair and false representation of their fight.

Can you give examples of that last sentence?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 16, 2020, 01:34:42 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 15, 2020, 08:30:59 PM
From what I've read I think that's an unfair and false representation of their fight.

Can you give examples of that last sentence?

Sorry, no. I say it based on watching them over the years on TV.
And just to be clear, that means representatives of BLM linked movements and allies on CNN, MSNBC, etc.  Not their opponents on Fox.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 16, 2020, 01:42:45 AM
Quote from: JBS on March 15, 2020, 05:25:45 PM
People die because of bureaucrats.  People are going to die here in the US because bureaucrats were bureaucrats, and threw bureaucratic obstacles in the way of testing for COVID19.  And you want those same bureaucrats to control everyone's health care!

Corona virus situation is special and all countries are struggling to handle it regardless of the healthcare system. Bureaucrats are not the problem. For profit healthcare is a problem. Lack of paid sick leave is a problem. Trump's incompetence is a problem...

Quote from: JBS on March 15, 2020, 05:25:45 PMMedicare for all means a bureaucracy that will supervise poor to mediocre health care for everyone, paid for by taxes, premiums,  copays, deductibles, etc.  Get this into your head; Bernie's plan has no chance of becoming reality. Even in a Democratic controlled Congress, it won't pass.

Let's assume you are right. Current system doesn't cover everybody. Medicare for all is poor care. That's sucks. We need good care for everybody and other countries manage to do it while the US according to you just can't. Getting to Moon? Yeah, Can do! Good healthcare for all? Sorry, impossible...

BTW, Medicare for all would be paid for ONLY by taxes. There would not be premiums,  copays, deductibles, etc. That's why it would SAVE money for most people.

Quote from: JBS on March 15, 2020, 05:25:45 PMYou are obsessed with the idea of oligarchs and corporations controlling everyone's life.  Well, the Progressive agenda is devoted to the idea of bureaucrats controlling the lives of everyone.  Which means it's elitist, not populist, and just as anti-freedom as any money based oligarchy. If you were truly concerned with defeating the power of the elites, you'd be attacking progressivism, not defending it.

Well, oligarchs don't give healthcare to everyone, do they? Healthcare is not something you can live without, is it? So it's pretty important everyone has it. Other countries figured that out decades ago and act accordingly. Progressives are not about bureaucrats controlling the lives of everyone. Progressives are for better life for people, about more fair society. If it takes bureaucrats to get there then bureaucrats it shall be. A bureaucrat telling you you can visit any doctor is hardly controlling you more than an oligarch saying you can only visit doctors of the network or maybe no doctor at all. Bureaucrat saying you can leave a job you hate and still have healthcare is hardly offering less freedom than oligarchs saying you must stay or lose healthcare.  How oppressed are you by the fire department bureaucrats? The fire department is paid for by taxes in a "socialistic" manner, just like medicare for all would be. So it's as bad and bureaucratic, isn't it?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 16, 2020, 01:49:48 AM
Quote from: JBS on March 15, 2020, 08:08:27 PM
My impression from hearing BLM advocates on TV and in print is that your last sentence is incorrect. Or at least, that BLM only cares about its impact on minority communities, and is interested only in a narrative that centers on the results of racism. They treat the "other conversations" as diversions to be shut down because those conversations conflict with their preferred narrative.

This is like saying Tiger Woods only cares about Golf as a sport, because that's the only thing you ever see him play!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 16, 2020, 01:51:52 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 16, 2020, 01:42:45 AM
Corona virus situation is special and all countries are struggling to handle it regardless of the healthcare system. Bureaucrats are not the problem. For profit healthcare is a problem. Lack of paid sick leave is a problem. Trump's incompetence is a problem...

Let's assume you are right. Current system doesn't cover everybody. Medicare for all is poor care. That's sucks. We need good care for everybody and other countries manage to do it while the US according to you just can't. Getting to Moon? Yeah, Can do! Good healthcare for all? Sorry, impossible...

BTW, Medicare for all would be paid for ONLY by taxes. There would not be premiums,  copays, deductibles, etc. That's why it would SAVE money for most people.

Well, oligarchs don't give healthcare to everyone, do they? Healthcare is not something you can live without, is it? So it's pretty important everyone has it. Other countries figured that out decades ago and act accordingly. Progressives are not about bureaucrats controlling the lives of everyone. Progressives are for better life for people, about more fair society. If it takes bureaucrats to get there then bureaucrats it shall be. A bureaucrat telling you you can visit any doctor is hardly controlling you more than an oligarch saying you can only visit doctors of the network or maybe no doctor at all. Bureaucrat saying you can leave a job you hate and still have healthcare is hardly offering less freedom than oligarchs saying you must stay or lose healthcare.  How oppressed are you by the fire department bureaucrats? The fire department is paid for by taxes in a "socialistic" manner, just like medicare for all would be. So it's as bad and bureaucratic, isn't it?

You need to learn to read. Because you obviously failed to understand me when I said Bernie's promises of no premiums, no fees, visit any doctor you want, are fantasy, and anything actually passed into law won't have that? Bernie's bureaucrats will be telling us which doctors we can't go to, which drugs we can't take, and how much we have to pay....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 16, 2020, 03:21:44 AM
Quote from: JBS on March 16, 2020, 01:51:52 AM
You need to learn to read. Because you obviously failed to understand me when I said Bernie's promises of no premiums, no fees, visit any doctor you want, are fantasy, and anything actually passed into law won't have that? Bernie's bureaucrats will be telling us which doctors we can't go to, which drugs we can't take, and how much we have to pay....

You can't tell Bernie his plans. You have some thoughs about what it would be. I hate these discussions because everything means different things to people. There is agreement about nothing.

Bernie: How about we have the same system Canada has?
You: Fantasy
Bernie: Canada did it thou...
You: Bureaucrats!

Well, Bernie has better plan than Canada has. Canada lacks dental. You NEVER recognize the US system is TO make profit. Never. You are a hack what fantasy is it to do the same things other countries do if they do it better? IT*S common sense
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 16, 2020, 04:32:35 AM
In Biden-Sanders debate, solutions win and revolution loses (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/mary-anne-marsh-winners-and-losers-sunday-debate)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 16, 2020, 04:53:55 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 16, 2020, 04:32:35 AM
In Biden-Sanders debate, solutions win and revolution loses (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/mary-anne-marsh-winners-and-losers-sunday-debate)

Bernie Sanders has the solutions. Sometimes solutions need to be revolutionary like in the case of US. Oligarcy must be ended and defintion that's revolution. Jow Biden's healthcare plan leaves 10 million people uninsured. That's not solution. It's "nothing will fundamentally change" politics. Real solutions give everyone healthcare and the man with those plans is Senator Bernard Sanders.

I can't anwer to your question in the "zombie" thread because it's locked so I say this: Americans believe in Biden's electability because they have been brainwashed to think so by the corporate media. It's not based on any facts and the sad thing is it's self-fulfilling itself when people go behind Biden because they believe he is the strongest to beat Trump even when they agree more with Bernie's policies. It's cracy how old people vote against their own good. Biden will struggle against Trump, because Trump is a fake populist and he is a corporate centrists. What does Biden have to offer people in the rust belt? Yep. Nothing. Bernie has a lot to offer and is very strong. Even if Biden miraculously won Trump, the US has a "nothing will fundamentally change" president suffering from cognitive decline who won't address properly the things that need major fixing from healthcare to climate change. Bernie would be so much better, but it seems the oligarchs win again and the rest of the planet loses. Fuck that!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on March 16, 2020, 06:50:09 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 16, 2020, 04:53:55 AM
Americans believe in Biden's electability because they have been brainwashed to think so by the corporate media. It's not based on any facts and the sad thing is it's self-fulfilling itself when people go behind Biden because they believe he is the strongest to beat Trump

There is a lot to this. Except, I don't think Bernie is poised much better to beat Trump.

It's just mind-boggling that a better candidate, younger and stronger, could not be found.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on March 16, 2020, 07:04:12 AM
Looks like Biden is going to get the nomination which all of us saw coming.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 16, 2020, 08:28:14 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 16, 2020, 04:53:55 AM
Bernie Sanders has the solutions. Sometimes solutions need to be revolutionary like in the case of US.

     For all his rhetoric to the contrary, Sanders is not proposing anything that is different from social democratic norms. No matter how you package it, any country that has the means to put the public into public health does so because no alternative exists. All the alternatives are inside the tent, one form or another of "everyone is insured". The form is less important than doing it. Everything else is secondary, and though I have ideas about how it might be done, they are what's called "path dependent", not measures of absolute value on a scale no one has any idea how to use.

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 16, 2020, 08:35:26 AM
One great irony is how our resident brainwashee is so obsessed with saying that anyone who disagrees with him suffers from his pathetic plight.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 16, 2020, 08:36:19 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 16, 2020, 08:28:14 AM
     For all his rhetoric to the contrary, Sanders is not proposing anything that is different from social democratic norms. No matter how you package it, any country that has the means to put the public into public health does so because no alternative exists. All the alternatives are inside the tent, one form or another of "everyone is insured". The form is less important than doing it. Everything else is secondary, and though I have ideas about how it might be done, they are what's called "path dependent", not measures of absolute value on a scale no one has any idea how to use.

     

I see your point, though (as you know) optics matter.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 16, 2020, 09:37:10 AM
Quote from: Herman on March 16, 2020, 06:50:09 AM
There is a lot to this. Except, I don't think Bernie is poised much better to beat Trump.

It's just mind-boggling that a better candidate, younger and stronger, could not be found.

Bernie is strong against Trump, because he is a true populist and therefore can beat a fake populist. Bernie's weakness is the Democratic Party who hate him and do everything to bring him down, because Bernie serves the 99 % instead of the 1 %. That's why DNC rather have 4 more years of Trump than Bernie in the White House. If corporate media gave fair publicity to all candidates, Bernie would have won the 2016 primary with a landslide. DNC needed superdelegates to stop Bernie. This time around they have been using reduced publicity strategy with Biden so that ignorant Americans would not find out how bad candidate he is (horrible policies + cognitive decline). In other words in 2016 people knew they hate Hillary Clinton, but now they don't know they will hate Biden too once they know the truth about him. The question is do they realize the truth in time and turn this for Bernie.

Tulsi Gabbard could have been a great younger candidate, but corporate media totally ignored her so her campaign got nowhere. Her proposition of Yang's UBI to deal with the Corona virus crisis is great.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 16, 2020, 09:39:49 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 16, 2020, 07:04:12 AM
Looks like Biden is going to get the nomination which all of us saw coming.

The establishment is spoon-feeding Biden to people, but many older CNN/MSNBC-brainwashed Americans are too ignorant to even realize it...  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on March 16, 2020, 09:42:38 AM
This thread is possibly the only place I've ever seen the word "populist" not having a pejorative connotation... ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 16, 2020, 09:53:49 AM
Quote from: ritter on March 16, 2020, 09:42:38 AM
This thread is possibly the only place I've ever seen the word "populist" not having a pejorative connotation... ::)

The term "populist" has very strongly context-related connotations. Most of the time it has pejorative connotation (for example far-right populists advocating discriminatory policies), but in the context of US lefty policies it's the other way around: Lefty economical populists are advocating wideny POPULAR and important agendas such as medicare for all, living wage, ending the wars, legalization of marihuana etc. Trump vs Bernie would be far right populism with a touch of fake left wing populism versus real left wing populism. The US has moved to the era of political populism. That's one of the main reasons why Trump won*. Corporate media doesn't tell you this. They are completely clueless or hiding the fact on purpose. That's why they are enforcing Hillary 2.0 against Trump hoping people don't realize Biden IS Hillary with male parts and dementia. When you understand this, it hits you how CRAZY it is to sent Biden against Trump.

* The reason wasn't Bernie/Bernie Bros/Russia as told by the corporate media.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on March 16, 2020, 09:55:38 AM
Quote from: ritter on March 16, 2020, 09:42:38 AM
This thread is possibly the only place I've ever seen the word "populist" not having a pejorative connotation... ::)

Considered to be the first one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Gracchus
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 16, 2020, 10:26:51 AM
Poju, you peddle more propaganda than "the corporate media," partly because you don't filter your own waste product.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 16, 2020, 10:28:38 AM
     
Quote from: 71 dB on March 16, 2020, 09:39:49 AM
The establishment is spoon-feeding Biden to people, but many older CNN/MSNBC-brainwashed Americans are too ignorant to even realize it...  ::)

     I think your model is too simple. Someone who might resemble me could decide for Biden as a bank shot that gets the most the system is able to provide in these times. I get how such a decision has a self-fulfilling element. But consider that Sanders has hardly lifted a finger to broaden his coalition and done himself some damage with his remarks on Castro, etc. What signal is that supposed to send? Does Sanders think that keeping his farthest left supporters happy is worth more than expanding towards the center-left where voters are far more numerous?

     I wish AOC had loaned Sanders some of her brainpower to get him to understand what kind of fight he has got himself into.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 16, 2020, 10:31:20 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 16, 2020, 10:28:38 AM
     
     I think your model is too simple.

Love the economy of your expression here.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on March 16, 2020, 01:27:42 PM
The Poju list of political terms.

- A dozen are enough for an endless string of posts. Reuse, rehash and recycle at will. Unlimited mileage guaranteed.

Bernie
Medicare for all
Kyle
The 1%
Corporate media
Oligarchy
Brainwashed
Corrupt
Big Pharma
Progressives vs Corporates (mortal enemies)
Rat, snake, cognitive decline (check the Kyle Dictionary of Insults for non-Bernie candidates)
Fuck, Fuck it, Fuck them.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 16, 2020, 01:39:00 PM
Quote from: André on March 16, 2020, 01:27:42 PM
The Poju list of political terms.

- A dozen are enough for an endless string of posts. Reuse, rehash and recycle at will. Unlimited mileage guaranteed.

Bernie
Medicare for all
Kyle
The 1%
Corporate media
Oligarchy
Brainwashed
Corrupt
Big Pharma
Progressives vs Corporates (mortal enemies)
Rat, snake, cognitive decline (check the Kyle Dictionary of Insults for non-Bernie candidates)
Fuck, Fuck it, Fuck them.


My parakeet has greater breadth of expression.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 16, 2020, 05:19:59 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 16, 2020, 09:37:10 AM
Bernie is strong against Trump, because he is a true populist and therefore can beat a fake populist. Bernie's weakness is the Democratic Party who hate him and do everything to bring him down, because Bernie serves the 99 % instead of the 1 %. That's why DNC rather have 4 more years of Trump than Bernie in the White House. If corporate media gave fair publicity to all candidates, Bernie would have won the 2016 primary with a landslide. DNC needed superdelegates to stop Bernie. This time around they have been using reduced publicity strategy with Biden so that ignorant Americans would not find out how bad candidate he is (horrible policies + cognitive decline). In other words in 2016 people knew they hate Hillary Clinton, but now they don't know they will hate Biden too once they know the truth about him. The question is do they realize the truth in time and turn this for Bernie.

Tulsi Gabbard could have been a great younger candidate, but corporate media totally ignored her so her campaign got nowhere. Her proposition of Yang's UBI to deal with the Corona virus crisis is great.

Bernie is not, in American terms, a populist. The leftist agenda is (in American terms) elitist, not populist. American populism is not based on the idea that politicians should do things that benefit the people at large.  American populism is based on the idea that political power needs to held by the people to decide things for themselves.

Trump is, I agree a fake populist, using populist rhetoric for elitist goals. But progressives are also fake populists. Their only difference from Trump is that they want a different elite, composed of technocrats and bureaucrats.  But like Trump they want the people at large to be dominated by an elite.

Which is why, if you are truly anti-elitist, you would be against both the progressives and the oligarchs (there is btw some mixture of the two, especially where Silicon Valley is concerned).

BTW, a whole bunch of people, including several corporate centrists, have taken up Yang's idea in the last few days. Tulsi deserves no special credit there.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 16, 2020, 07:12:29 PM

     What If Andrew Yang Was Right? (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/03/coronavirus-romney-yang-money/608134/)

     Yang proposes giving people money directly instead of indirectly through other spending. There is nothing in the space/time continuum that could make it wrong for a money system to do this.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: T. D. on March 16, 2020, 07:32:53 PM
Quote from: drogulus on March 16, 2020, 07:12:29 PM
     What If Andrew Yang Was Right? (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/03/coronavirus-romney-yang-money/608134/)

     Yang proposes giving people money directly instead of indirectly through other spending. There is nothing in the space/time continuum that could make it wrong for a money system to do this.

I believe that this "helicopter money" method (term coined by Milton Friedman in 1969) will actually be applied in the US. But as an emergency measure to kick-start the economy after the COVID crash.
See for instance https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-16/cash-handouts-are-gaining-support-in-congress-as-best-virus-fix?srnd=premium (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-16/cash-handouts-are-gaining-support-in-congress-as-best-virus-fix?srnd=premium)
And the Orange Swindler will push for it in a big way, in order to buy votes.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 16, 2020, 08:07:00 PM
Quote from: T. D. on March 16, 2020, 07:32:53 PM
I believe that this "helicopter money" method (term coined by Milton Friedman in 1969) will actually be applied in the US. But as an emergency measure to kick-start the economy after the COVID crash.

     I think that raises unnecessary confusion. Friedman imagined the central bank could be given spending power or steal it from those actually responsible. Did he foresee present day chimp-onomics by our representatives?

     The right thing to do is to act against a demand crisis with demand. It's what you do when you need it to work, and then when the crisis is over it will be safe to go back to stupid ideas again.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 17, 2020, 06:21:16 PM
As of 10:15 PM EDT tonight, in both Illinois and Florida, Biden is getting approximately 60% of the vote.  In Florida, Bernie is only getting 22% of the vote! In Illinois, he's about 37%. The difference seems due to Bloomberg, who is getting about 8.5% of the vote in Florida.  Perhaps the result of absentee ballots sent in before he dropped out.

Arizonans still have an hour or so of voting to do, so no results from there.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 17, 2020, 07:43:03 PM
Not a good election day for Bernie, but something positive:

BREAKING: Justice Democrat Marie Newman UNSEATS Corporate Democrat Dan Lipinski In IL-03!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on March 18, 2020, 12:33:39 AM
the optics of Bernie keeping on in a lost race and continuing to raise money for himself aren't pretty.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 18, 2020, 07:16:28 AM

     People run for President for many reasons. Some think they have a good chance of becoming the nominee and winning the general election. Others are issue candidates for the most part. Sanders is some of both. His prospects of winning have dropped to zero. Yet Biden needs him very badly in order for Dems to present a united front. Sanders has leverage and right now he must be thinking of how he might best use it. Part of that calculation must be how his more rabid supporters can be encouraged to vote for Biden.

     Sanders is ready to drop out. He'll try to do it consistent with defeating Trump and moving policy in his direction. This is less a matter of intellectual firepower than of raw political feel. He has to intuit how much space there is to combine his goals.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 18, 2020, 09:11:15 AM
I really wonder just how his more rabid supporters can be encouraged to vote for Biden; can even Magic Bernie wave that wand? I wonder how many of them are committed earth-scorchers.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 18, 2020, 09:12:52 AM
Should Biden lose to the Wankmaggot Dotard, America will forever curse the name of Sanders.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 18, 2020, 12:38:21 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 18, 2020, 09:12:52 AM
Should Biden lose to the Wankmaggot Dotard, America will forever curse the name of Sanders.

It's not Sanders' fault Biden is a weak candidate. It's the fault of the corporate media and DNC these election are insanely rigged against progressives so that Dems keep sending corporate candidates against a fake populist to lose.

There is a chance the economy tanks so badly Trump loses to anyone and Biden gets to WH, but a lot of progressives won't vote for him.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 18, 2020, 12:41:41 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 18, 2020, 12:38:21 PM
It's not Sanders' fault Biden is a weak candidate. It's the fault of the corporate media and DNC these election are insanely rigged against progressives so that Dems keep sending corporate candidates against a fake populist to lose.

There is a chance the economy tanks so badly Trump loses to anyone and Biden gets to WH, but a lot of progressives won't vote for him.

The rabid progressives not voting for Biden doesn't mean he's a weak candidate;  can you guess correctly what it does mean?

You drone on and on, but the fact is, the voters have spoken.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 18, 2020, 12:50:21 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 18, 2020, 12:41:41 PM
The rabid progressives not voting for Biden doesn't mean he's a weak candidate;  can you guess correctly what it does mean?

You drone on and on, but the fact is, the voters have spoken.

Losing the progressives means Biden need to get more independents and Trump voters. Good luck with that. As I said, the Corona virus mess may save Biden, but we will see. In the primary a lot of people vote for Biden because the corporate media has generated the electibility myth even when these people agree more with Bernie. However, in the general you don't vote for the more "electable". You vote for the lesser evil, that is if you vote at all...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 18, 2020, 12:58:25 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 18, 2020, 12:50:21 PM
Losing the progressives means Biden need to get more independents and Trump voters.

Which means that unseating Trump is not the priority for the rabid Bernsters; thank you for conceding the moral bankruptcy.

Trump being better for progressives? Good luck with that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 18, 2020, 03:41:06 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 18, 2020, 12:50:21 PM
Losing the progressives means Biden need to get more independents and Trump voters. Good luck with that. As I said, the Corona virus mess may save Biden, but we will see. In the primary a lot of people vote for Biden because the corporate media has generated the electibility myth even when these people agree more with Bernie. However, in the general you don't vote for the more "electable". You vote for the lesser evil, that is if you vote at all...

You keep missing the most important reason why Biden is electable and Sanders is not.

Republicans would be more motivated to vote against Sanders and his extreme leftism than against Biden.  Fewer people will vote for Trump now that Biden is the nominee.

As for the progressives, if they think Biden will continue Trump's crusade against immigrants, Trump's fight against the environment, Trump's attempts to gut voting rights and Obamacare, Trump's conservative judicial appointments, etc etc...then their judgment is seriously impaired.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 18, 2020, 03:54:49 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 18, 2020, 12:38:21 PM
It's not Sanders' fault Biden is a weak candidate. It's the fault of the corporate media and DNC these election are insanely rigged against progressives so that Dems keep sending corporate candidates against a fake populist to lose.

There is a chance the economy tanks so badly Trump loses to anyone and Biden gets to WH, but a lot of progressives won't vote for him.

Progressivism is not nearly as popular here as you think it is.

As of the end of 2019, the Democratic and Republican parties each had about 28% of Americans  as members. The remainder were either independents or members of the small third parties (Libertarians, etc).

In the primaries, the progressive candidates, Sanders and Warren mainly, got  less than half the votes in all but one (Nevada, where they got about 55%). The usual haul was 40% or less.

So that means at their best, progressive candidates got the votes of only 15% of the American public. Only one voter in six actually voted for progressivism.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 19, 2020, 04:36:10 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 18, 2020, 12:58:25 PM
Which means that unseating Trump is not the priority for the rabid Bernsters; thank you for conceding the moral bankruptcy.

Trump being better for progressives? Good luck with that.

It may vary among progressives what is the priority. Removing Trump is very important, but it's not enough. The root problems which led to Trump must also be addressed. Otherwise there's a new Trump after Biden, because American political system in it's mechanisms to protect oligarchy clearly allows fascists (right wing populists), but not progressives (left wing populists) to become presidents. DNC is able to stop Bernie, but RNC wasn't able to stop Trump. Instead they became sycophants of Trump! Can you imagine Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi to become defenders of Bernie? That's what happened with the Republicans because it didn't harm the oligarchy!

Progressives don't know what to do!! The voice of progressives is silenced no matter what. Not voting for corporate Dems is the ONLY leverage progressives have in this system. The US should have more parties and one of them with real power should be for progressives. In the Finland we have 8 parties in the parliament, none of them having more than 25 % of popularity.

On the left we have The Left Party, The Social Democrats and The Green Party. These are three variations of leftism. The Left Party advocates improving the life of the poor, The Social Democrats try to improve things for the workers and The Green Party concentrates of the environmental things as the "future" party whose policies other parties adopt later on. These three parties agree on most things, but have also some disagreements. For example as the workers party The Social Democrats are not as much into environmental protection as The Green Party because environmental regulation can be at odds with jobs, but together these parties can come up with solutions which protect both jobs and environment.

On the center we have The Center Party which represents mostly people living in rural areas (the agriculture party). Also, there is the Swedish People's Party of Finland (6 % of Finns speak Swedish as they first language). The latter are moderate conservatives who are pro business, but also recognise the need to take care of the weak. They are also called cultivated bourgeois, close to The Green Party politically, but a notch more conservative.

On the right we have The National Coalition Party (for entrepreneurs and well educated rich people), Christian Democrats (for religious people) and The True Finns (for xenophobes)

So, in Finland one is likely to find a political party to vote for. A party which advocates at least one or two things important to you. I vote for The Green Party, but I could easily vote for The Left Party and also The Social Democrats and even The Swedish People's Party of Finland. I could NEVER vote for Christian Democrats and True Finns. Especially the latter of these has utterly disgusting agenda in my opinion. In fact True Finns and Green Party disagrees the most of all the parties in Finnish politics. In the US two parties share all the power, both of the parties being extremely right (apart from the progressive wing of the Dems) serving only the top 1 % while showing the middle finger to the 99 %. Progressives are just people who are aware of the situation and are sick and tired of seeing the finger. Biden advocates NONE of the issues important to for example Kyle Kulinski. Even if Biden said he is now suddenly for medicare for all, tuition free education, ending the wars, legalizing marihuana, living wage ($15 or more, not the $12 that Biden has advocated)... how can Kyle believe Biden would keep his promise when the records show us Biden has been lying for decades? If you study Biden's political career you'll see you can't trust him other than being part of the establishment, a member of the oligarchy. So, how does Biden EARN Kyle's vote? He has done NOTHING to earn it. Being a little less shitty than your rival is not enough for many progressives and they will stay home. If it takes another 4 years of Trump for the DNC to start taking the left seriously so be it... ...this is the only leverage the left has in oligarchy and since DNC plays it dirty with Bernie, the left will play it dirty with Biden!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 19, 2020, 04:55:37 AM
Quote from: JBS on March 18, 2020, 03:54:49 PM
Progressivism is not nearly as popular here as you think it is.

As of the end of 2019, the Democratic and Republican parties each had about 28% of Americans  as members. The remainder were either independents or members of the small third parties (Libertarians, etc).

In the primaries, the progressive candidates, Sanders and Warren mainly, got  less than half the votes in all but one (Nevada, where they got about 55%). The usual haul was 40% or less.

So that means at their best, progressive candidates got the votes of only 15% of the American public. Only one voter in six actually voted for progressivism.

Progressives ideas are very popular. Just look at polls. Do you think that only 15 % of Americans are for $15 living wage or medicare for all? No, those are very popular. Majority of Americans support them according to the polls. In exit polls Medicare for all has been 50 % or higher in all primary states yet in many Biden won Bernie despite the former saying he would veto medicare for all and the latter having advocated medicare for all for decades! People are totally misled by the corporate media. They don't know the truth about the candidates and many voted for Biden because the corporate media has been saying Biden is most electable.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 19, 2020, 05:03:06 AM
Quote from: JBS on March 18, 2020, 03:41:06 PM
You keep missing the most important reason why Biden is electable and Sanders is not.

Republicans would be more motivated to vote against Sanders and his extreme leftism than against Biden.  Fewer people will vote for Trump now that Biden is the nominee.

As for the progressives, if they think Biden will continue Trump's crusade against immigrants, Trump's fight against the environment, Trump's attempts to gut voting rights and Obamacare, Trump's conservative judicial appointments, etc etc...then their judgment is seriously impaired.

Voting for Trump and against Bernie doesn't give you two votes. It's still just one vote. In the rust belt many who voted for Trump would have voted for Bernie in 2016, and would have voted for him now. That's because Bernie is against outsourcing which DECIMATED these areas. People tolerate a lot of leftism if it means jobs so you can feed your family. Again, this is about LABELS. Americans have been brainwashed to fear "socialism", but they still LOVE the little social security they have. That's why lefty ideas are popular when asked in polls. The label od "socialism" is not there. Americans don't even know what the labels really mean.

Biden is perhaps a little better with immigrants, but probably far from good. Obama put children in cages just like Trump. Biden would be better, but not even close to what is needed. Status quo sucks! Judicial appointments is about the only reason to vote for Biden. This is not whether Biden is better, he is, but how DNC treads the left. Do you vote for people who do nothing but constantly spit on your face?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 19, 2020, 05:53:18 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 19, 2020, 04:55:37 AM
Progressives ideas are very popular. Just look at polls.

The polls that matter are when people vote.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 19, 2020, 07:12:18 AM
Tulsi Gabbard shutters campaign, endorses Biden.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 19, 2020, 07:15:29 AM
Quote from: JBS on March 18, 2020, 03:41:06 PM
You keep missing the most important reason why Biden is electable and Sanders is not.

Republicans would be more motivated to vote against Sanders and his extreme leftism than against Biden.  Fewer people will vote for Trump now that Biden is the nominee.

As for the progressives, if they think Biden will continue Trump's crusade against immigrants, Trump's fight against the environment, Trump's attempts to gut voting rights and Obamacare, Trump's conservative judicial appointments, etc etc...then their judgment is seriously impaired.


These are the plain facts which any sober American knows. That Poju persists in missing this seems to betoken an ideological barrier to processing fact.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 19, 2020, 08:34:42 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 19, 2020, 07:12:18 AM
Tulsi Gabbard shutters campaign, endorses Biden.

Amazing, anti war candidate endorses for war candidate instead of Bernie who is agaisnt war. I don't get this

the funny thing is of Biden and Trump, Trump might be the anti-war one.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 19, 2020, 08:52:03 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 19, 2020, 05:53:18 AM
The polls that matter are when people vote.

If you are principled you say the same if Trump beats Biden in November...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 19, 2020, 09:40:37 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 19, 2020, 08:52:03 AM
If you are principled you say the same if Trump beats Biden in November...

     Tooshay.....and you're right that many proposals the left supports are more popular than the candidates most closely associated with them. Sanders insists on playing the role of radical outsider for all it's worth, it's in his bloodstream and not subject to much modification.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 19, 2020, 10:22:10 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 19, 2020, 04:55:37 AM
Progressives ideas are very popular. Just look at polls. Do you think that only 15 % of Americans are for $15 living wage or medicare for all? No, those are very popular. Majority of Americans support them according to the polls. In exit polls Medicare for all has been 50 % or higher in all primary states yet in many Biden won Bernie despite the former saying he would veto medicare for all and the latter having advocated medicare for all for decades! People are totally misled by the corporate media. They don't know the truth about the candidates and many voted for Biden because the corporate media has been saying Biden is most electable.

The polls that suggest wide support for MfA are the ones that simply ask if people would like government to pay for all their health care.   The only surprise with such a poll is that more people don't say yes.

But polls which ask if people would accept the stuff that goes along with Medicare, the high bureaucracy. the lower quality of care, the higher taxes, the fact that because of premiums and codeductibles,  the cost to the individual will remain rather high....those polls  show less enthusiasm. 

Stop thinking people vote based on corporate propaganda.  People vote because they see the policies a candidate proposes, and can judge for themselves what the actual consequences are, and how much chance those polices have of making it into law, and the chances of the candidate to get elected. 

Also remember that MfA is just one of the many progressive programs that Bernie wants to implement.  Most of them are even more intrusive, and therefore less popular, than MfA.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 19, 2020, 10:23:53 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 19, 2020, 08:34:42 AM
Amazing, anti war candidate endorses for war candidate instead of Bernie who is agaisnt war. I don't get this

the funny thing is of Biden and Trump, Trump might be the anti-war one.

Maybe Tulsi thinks Biden has a good chance of beating Trump, and Bernie not at all.  Maybe Tulsi realizes that Biden is less beholden to the military industrial complex and the bankers than Kyle tells you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 19, 2020, 10:40:24 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 19, 2020, 08:52:03 AM
If you are principled you say the same if Trump beats Biden in November...

It's a deal.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 19, 2020, 10:43:04 AM
Quote from: JBS on March 19, 2020, 10:22:10 AM
The polls that suggest wide support for MfA are the ones that simply ask if people would like government to pay for all their health care.   The only surprise with such a poll is that more people don't say yes.

But polls which ask if people would accept the stuff that goes along with Medicare, the high bureaucracy. the lower quality of care, the higher taxes, the fact that because of premiums and codeductibles,  the cost to the individual will remain rather high....those polls  show less enthusiasm. 

Stop thinking people vote based on corporate propaganda.  People vote because they see the policies a candidate proposes, and can judge for themselves what the actual consequences are, and how much chance those polices have of making it into law, and the chances of the candidate to get elected. 

Also remember that MfA is just one of the many progressive programs that Bernie wants to implement.  Most of them are even more intrusive, and therefore less popular, than MfA.

Kvetching about "corporate propaganda" is such a mental crutch for him, I doubt he is principled enough to consider that he may be dead wrong.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Daverz on March 19, 2020, 10:50:36 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 19, 2020, 05:53:18 AM
The polls that matter are when people vote.

At least in the US, that doesn't actually matter, either.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 19, 2020, 10:56:26 AM
Quote from: Daverz on March 19, 2020, 10:50:36 AM
At least in the US, that doesn't actually matter, either.

Looks like that. Texas lost 70.000 votes I believe. Some people say that was made to make Biden the winner...  :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Daverz on March 19, 2020, 10:59:50 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 19, 2020, 10:56:26 AM
Looks like that. Texas lost 70.000 votes I believe. Some people say that was made to make Biden the winner...  :P

Sorry, I was alluding to the Electoral College.  But yeah, voter suppression as well.  Not that I think Bernie had a chance stolen from him.  I think the voters are just scared, so they made what seemed like a safe choice.  I also think people are voting for a Biden they remember from 2008, the guy who made Paul Ryan look like the phony dork he was.  But whatever my reservations about the Biden of 2020, a Democratic win in November means much, much more competent governance -- simply non-malevolent governance -- going forward. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 19, 2020, 11:06:22 AM
Quote from: Daverz on March 19, 2020, 10:59:50 AM
Sorry, I was alluding to the Electoral College.  But yeah, voter suppression as well.

It should be pointed out that that bit of voter suppression was engineered by the GOP controlled state government of Texas, with the probable intention of helping Trump in November. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 19, 2020, 11:06:40 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 19, 2020, 10:56:26 AM
Looks like that. Texas lost 70.000 votes I believe. Some people say that was made to make Biden the winner...  :P

You know who else says, "Some people say..." a lot? Yep, Trump, and it's indicative of bullshit.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 19, 2020, 11:09:54 AM
Actual data on the matter

https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-polling-place-closures/
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Daverz on March 19, 2020, 11:12:52 AM
Quote from: JBS on March 19, 2020, 11:09:54 AM
Actual data on the matter

https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-polling-place-closures/

Yup, that's what they do.  Thanks Justice Roberts!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 19, 2020, 11:44:29 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 19, 2020, 11:06:40 AM
You know who else says, "Some people say..." a lot? Yep, Trump, and it's indicative of bullshit.

It also means I don't have hard facts on it so I don't call it a hard fact. That's being principled.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 19, 2020, 02:19:55 PM
There is a way how Biden can earn Kyle Kulinski's vote (and Kyle will even advocate him on his Youtube show):

If Biden picks Nina Turner or Bernie Sanders as his VP Kyle Kulinski will vote for him. I'm sure a lot of currently demoralized lefties will do the same.

https://www.youtube.com/v/bbK4RoEPSzY

Change.org petition: Joe Biden must choose Nina Turner or Bernie Sanders for VP (https://www.change.org/p/democratic-national-committee-joe-biden-must-chose-nina-turner-or-bernie-sanders-for-vp?recruiter=1047197756&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=tap_basic_share)

"The progressive wing of the Democratic Party is sick and tired of being ignored.
We will only unite behind Joe Biden if we are absolutely certain he is willing to work with us.
The only way he can earn that trust is to pick a true progressive for VP. Specifically,
Bernie Sanders or Nina Turner. We will gladly unite behind Joe Biden if he makes this compromise.
If not, we won't vote in November or we will just vote 3rd party."




Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Daverz on March 19, 2020, 02:47:59 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 19, 2020, 02:19:55 PM
There is a way how Biden can earn Kyle Kulinski's vote (and Kyle will even advocate him on his Youtube show):

I've heard this Kulinski guy's name, but never watched one of his videos.  He sounds eminently ignorable.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 19, 2020, 03:26:23 PM
And Nina Turner is ? ? ?
X

[Googles name]
Okay, no wonder I never heard of her.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Turner

That's idiotic.
She's not even up to Sarah Palin's level.

There are a number of black female progressives who could meet Kulinski's requirements.  Ayalla Pressley is a rather obvious one.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 19, 2020, 03:32:52 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 19, 2020, 02:19:55 PM
There is a way how Biden can earn Kyle Kulinski's vote (and Kyle will even advocate him on his Youtube show)

Wow!!! What a coup that would be for the former VPOTUS!!!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 19, 2020, 03:34:09 PM
Quote from: Daverz on March 19, 2020, 02:47:59 PM
I've heard this Kulinski guy's name, but never watched one of his videos.  He sounds eminently ignorable.

You can't fool me! It's Kulinski all the way down!  8)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 19, 2020, 05:19:26 PM
I would assume that whoever his pick is it wont be someone who is going to stubbornly fight him on every policy issue right from the get go and constantly proving the cliche that the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 19, 2020, 05:35:25 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 19, 2020, 05:19:26 PM
I would assume that whoever his pick is it wont be someone who is going to stubbornly fight him on every policy issue right from the get go and constantly proving the cliche that the perfect is the enemy of the good.

And someone who can be thought of as capable of stepping into the shoes of a man who will be 78 on Inauguration Day in 2021.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on March 20, 2020, 12:59:18 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 19, 2020, 02:19:55 PM


If Biden picks Nina Turner or Bernie Sanders as his VP Kyle Kulinski will vote for him. I'm sure a lot of currently demoralized lefties will do the same.


Presidential candidates don't usually pick VP candidates close to eighty years old, so forget Bernie.

Sure you don't mean Tina Turner? She has some name recognition. Nina T doesn't.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on March 20, 2020, 05:48:03 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 19, 2020, 02:19:55 PM
There is a way how Biden can earn Kyle Kulinski's vote (and Kyle will even advocate him on his Youtube show):

The number of people who will care about either of these outcomes is approximately 3.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 20, 2020, 07:19:25 AM
Quote from: Madiel on March 20, 2020, 05:48:03 AM
The number of people who will care about either of these outcomes is approximately 3.

Rubbish. Don't project your views on other people. Kyle Kulinski has got over 800.000 subscribers on Youtube. Even if only 10 % of these cared about these outcomes it's 80.000+ people and if you care to subscribe to a Youtube channel you are likely to take seriously the content of the said channel.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 20, 2020, 07:46:57 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 19, 2020, 05:19:26 PM
I would assume that whoever his pick is it wont be someone who is going to stubbornly fight him on every policy issue right from the get go and constantly proving the cliche that the perfect is the enemy of the good.

     Picking someone who is a little more emphatic about Dem programs than a centrist President won't hurt. We know that Dem voters want Dem programs. A program-centic veep might boost confidence that useful things will be done.

     This is me wishing: I wish people would be a little more careful about what they imagine Dem voters want. I see it as trying to reconcile their preferences with the available means of getting them enacted. When voters act "centrist" it doesn't mean they want centrist programs, if any there are, it means they have adopted a strategy that will get them something at the potential cost of getting something better.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 20, 2020, 10:39:48 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 20, 2020, 07:19:25 AM
Rubbish. Don't project your views on other people. Kyle Kulinski has got over 800.000 subscribers on Youtube. Even if only 10 % of these cared about these outcomes it's 80.000+ people and if you care to subscribe to a Youtube channel you are likely to take seriously the content of the said channel.

Well we all certainly hope that you'll continue to regurgitate Kyle's agitprop rubbish here at GMG.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 20, 2020, 11:05:04 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 20, 2020, 10:39:48 AM
Well we all certainly hope that you'll continue to regurgitate Kyle's agitprop rubbish here at GMG.

How is this rubbish? Kyle Kulinski is a lefty, a progressive. Joe Biden is not. We know this from his campaign rethoric and political history. There's nothing lefty or progressive about it. So, of course Kyle Kulinski wants some assurance of AT LEAST some progressiveness of his presidency and picking a progressive VP would be that. So, this is not rubbish. It is EXTREMELY logical!

Tell me how are lefties suppose to express their democratic will if voting third parties means wasting your vote and the other option is to vote for a corporate centrist because if you don't, Trump/Republicans win? The system is so sick and rigged the lefties have no fucking choice!!

The establishment destroyed the progressives again. It means WAR! A large part of the population has had it. It's WAR!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 20, 2020, 11:41:53 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 20, 2020, 11:05:04 AM
How is this rubbish? Kyle Kulinski is a lefty, a progressive. Joe Biden is not. We know this from his campaign rethoric and political history. There's nothing lefty or progressive about it. So, of course Kyle Kulinski wants some assurance of AT LEAST some progressiveness of his presidency and picking a progressive VP would be that. So, this is not rubbish. It is EXTREMELY logical!

Tell me how are lefties suppose to express their democratic will if voting third parties means wasting your vote and the other option is to vote for a corporate centrist because if you don't, Trump/Republicans win? The system is so sick and rigged the lefties have no fucking choice!!

The establishment destroyed the progressives again. It means WAR! A large part of the population has had it. It's WAR!

The primaries show that progressives, the kind that refuse to support centrism, got less than half the vote among Democrats. IOW, about 15% of voters. That's not a very large part of the population. Twice as many support Trump's ethno-nationalism.

The truth is that progressive ideas depend on using government regulation and control. That isn't popular in the US, even among Democrats. The core of what you sneer at as corporate centrism is a viable social welfare net. 

BTW, have you ever read Biden's platform? Among other things, it would bring down drug prices and hurt Big Pharma more than Bernie's would. Don't such things matter to you?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 20, 2020, 12:03:27 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 20, 2020, 11:41:53 AM
BTW, have you ever read Biden's platform? Among other things, it would bring down drug prices and hurt Big Pharma more than Bernie's would. Don't such things matter to you?

Bernie's plan: nobody pays more than $200 / years for drugs.
Biden's plan: nobody pays more than $199 / years for drugs? Sorry I don't believe.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 20, 2020, 12:10:35 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 20, 2020, 12:03:27 PM
Bernie's plan: nobody pays more than $200 / years for drugs.
Biden's plan: nobody pays more than $199 / years for drugs? Sorry I don't believe.

Biden would reform the patent and regulatory process so Big Pharma would not be able monopolize and charge high prices.
Bernie wouldn't, meaning Big Pharma would retain its profits.

And I've told you before, Bernie's promises about no charge doctor visits, no premiums or deductibles, low cap on drug payments are a fantasy. Stop believing them. If something like Berniecare ever became law, it would have none of that. That's the political reality called the US Congress.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 20, 2020, 12:27:16 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 20, 2020, 12:10:35 PM
Biden would reform the patent and regulatory process so Big Pharma would not be able monopolize and charge high prices.
Bernie wouldn't, meaning Big Pharma would retain its profits.

And I've told you before, Bernie's promises about no charge doctor visits, no premiums or deductibles, low cap on drug payments are a fantasy. Stop believing them. If something like Berniecare ever became law, it would have none of that. That's the political reality called the US Congress.

It is becoming irrelevant what Bernie promises as he is losing the primary. If Biden really can reduce drug prices I give credit to him, but not before he actually does it.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/prescription-pulse/2020/03/10/biden-and-sanders-far-apart-on-drug-pricing-488528

"While Sanders has been one of the most prominent voices in Congress on drug prices, leading key investigations, Biden notably punted on addressing drug pricing in his last signature health project as vice president — his cancer moon shot program. The initial head of the moon shot was an ex-Pfizer employee. Biden also had a record of fighting countries that attempted to break U.S. patents on expensive drugs while he was VP."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 20, 2020, 12:48:58 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 20, 2020, 11:05:04 AM
How is this rubbish? Kyle Kulinski is a lefty, a progressive. Joe Biden is not. We know this from his campaign rethoric and political history. There's nothing lefty or progressive about it. So, of course Kyle Kulinski wants some assurance of AT LEAST some progressiveness of his presidency and picking a progressive VP would be that. So, this is not rubbish. It is EXTREMELY logical!

Tell me how are lefties suppose to express their democratic will if voting third parties means wasting your vote and the other option is to vote for a corporate centrist because if you don't, Trump/Republicans win? The system is so sick and rigged the lefties have no fucking choice!!

The establishment destroyed the progressives again. It means WAR! A large part of the population has had it. It's WAR!

Thanks for conceding that defeating Trump is not the rabid Bernsters' top priority.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on March 20, 2020, 07:42:40 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 20, 2020, 07:19:25 AM
Rubbish. Don't project your views on other people. Kyle Kulinski has got over 800.000 subscribers on Youtube. Even if only 10 % of these cared about these outcomes it's 80.000+ people and if you care to subscribe to a Youtube channel you are likely to take seriously the content of the said channel.

Hopefully you allow a discount for all his non-American subscribers, whose voting intentions are irrelevant.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 21, 2020, 12:02:26 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 20, 2020, 12:48:58 PM
Thanks for conceding that defeating Trump is not the rabid Bernsters' top priority.

Defeating Trump is very important, but if you replace Trump with someone almost as bad you don't gain much, do you? Perhaps to you it's important that the president is "presidential" and doesn't do mean tweets. For someone like Kyle Kulinski mean tweets mean nothing. They are just mean tweets. Medicare for all is important because people are DYING for the lack of it) and Biden said he'd VETO medicare for all! So, Biden and Trump are the same in regards of healthcare. Biden might be marginally better, but the gain replacing Trump with Biden is small for the left and voting for Biden means voting for someone who fights zero things important for the left. In 2016 Kyle Kulinski voted for Jill Stein in safe state, but otherwise he would have voted for Hillary. Making demands to Biden restores political power to the left. It can't be so that you earn votes just being a little better than one of the worst presidents ever.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 21, 2020, 12:27:02 AM
Quote from: Madiel on March 20, 2020, 07:42:40 PM
Hopefully you allow a discount for all his non-American subscribers, whose voting intentions are irrelevant.

Huh?

This is one of the weirdest sentences I have read in my life. Youtube subscribtions are free so there's not much discount to give and even if there was, it's not me who allows them, because I'm not Kyle Kulinski's secretary or accountant.  ;D Anyone can donate money, say $5/month to him on Patrion (https://www.patreon.com/seculartalk) to support lefty independent media, but that has nothing to do one's voting intentions. irrelevant or not... ...so sorry if your post made my head spin.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on March 21, 2020, 12:31:33 AM
Sigh.

A. Discount. On. The. Number. Of. Subscribers!!

Okay? Seriously, it shouldn't be hard to understand. You're one of those subscribers. How you would vote is fucking irrelevant. 800,000 subscribers does not translate to 800,000 prospective voters. Only the subscribers who are registered American votes are relevant. And you, the person who is making a song and dance about how this VP pick would work, aren't even one of them.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 21, 2020, 12:52:48 AM
Quote from: Madiel on March 21, 2020, 12:31:33 AM
Sigh.

A. Discount. On. The. Number. Of. Subscribers!!

Okay? Seriously, it shouldn't be hard to understand. You're one of those subscribers. How you would vote is fucking irrelevant. 800,000 subscribers does not translate to 800,000 prospective voters. Only the subscribers who are registered American votes are relevant. And you, the person who is making a song and dance about how this VP pick would work, aren't even one of them.

Ok, thanks for clearing this up.

Shocker: I am NOT a subscriber of Kyle Kulinski!  ;D
I don't know for sure, but I think most of the 800.000 are Americans and not everyone who watches his videos subscribe. His viewership is about the same size as MSNBC.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 21, 2020, 06:30:54 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 21, 2020, 12:02:26 AM
Defeating Trump is very important, but if you replace Trump with someone almost as bad you don't gain much, do you? Perhaps to you it's important that the president is "presidential" and doesn't do mean tweets. For someone like Kyle Kulinski mean tweets mean nothing. They are just mean tweets. Medicare for all is important because people are DYING for the lack of it) and Biden said he'd VETO medicare for all! So, Biden and Trump are the same in regards of healthcare. Biden might be marginally better, but the gain replacing Trump with Biden is small for the left and voting for Biden means voting for someone who fights zero things important for the left. In 2016 Kyle Kulinski voted for Jill Stein in safe state, but otherwise he would have voted for Hillary. Making demands to Biden restores political power to the left. It can't be so that you earn votes just being a little better than one of the worst presidents ever.

People die because of lack of health care. MfA is not the only way to solve that problem. It is, however, perhaps the worst, by degrading everyone else's health care.

If Kulinski really thinks there are only superficial differences between Trump and Biden, then Kulinski is an idiot.  Have you read Biden's platform?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 21, 2020, 06:57:26 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 21, 2020, 12:52:48 AM
Ok, thanks for clearing this up.

Shocker: I am NOT a subscriber of Kyle Kulinski!  ;D
I don't know for sure, but I think most of the 800.000 are Americans

And you base thus speculation upon what?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 22, 2020, 10:55:07 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 21, 2020, 06:57:26 AM
And you base thus speculation upon what?

It's a guess. So is Madiel's "The number of people who will care about either of these outcomes is approximately 3."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 22, 2020, 11:22:55 AM
Quote from: JBS on March 21, 2020, 06:30:54 AM
If Kulinski really thinks there are only superficial differences between Trump and Biden, then Kulinski is an idiot.  Have you read Biden's platform?

You are naive yourself if you think Biden is more than superficially better than Trump. I have not read Biden's platform, because Biden's history, campaign rethoric and where he got the money tells me enough what kind of politician he is: A centrist corporate. He is interested of serving the 1 %. He is not interested of serving the regular people. He said to his donors "Don't worry, nothing will fundamentally change." to give the peace of mind. Biden's plans to improve the healthcare system leaves 10 million people uninsured. Sure, that is an improvement upon the system as it is, but 10 million people is a lot. People are sick an tired of incrementalism. The US should finally join the rest of the World and quarantee healthcare to everyone. A lot of people voted for him because they want rid of Trump and the corporate media keeps saying he is the most electable (not true). Also, people aren't aware well of Biden's questionable record because the corporate media keeps silent about negative things. People have a rosy mental picture of Biden, the VP of Obama. Whatever positive there is on Biden's platform, it's clear most of it is lies and Biden won't keep those promises.

Had Biden won the primary fair and square, the progressives would have it easier to support him in the general as a part of democratic process, but the way the nomination was again stolen from Bernie makes all of this undemocratic and progressives who are interested of REAL democracy have a hard time to vote for Biden.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 22, 2020, 01:14:46 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 22, 2020, 11:22:55 AM
yada yada

Not going even to try unpacking that deep pile of manure, as you are irredeemably blinkered, and insist on making yourself ridiculous by posing as a Finnish "expert" supposedly laying the truth on us American voters.

Hey, if that's your idea of a large Sunday, knock your pretentious little self out!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 22, 2020, 05:27:43 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 22, 2020, 11:22:55 AM
You are naive yourself if you think Biden is more than superficially better than Trump. I have not read Biden's platform, because Biden's history, campaign rethoric and where he got the money tells me enough what kind of politician he is: A centrist corporate. He is interested of serving the 1 %. He is not interested of serving the regular people. He said to his donors "Don't worry, nothing will fundamentally change." to give the peace of mind. Biden's plans to improve the healthcare system leaves 10 million people uninsured. Sure, that is an improvement upon the system as it is, but 10 million people is a lot. People are sick an tired of incrementalism. The US should finally join the rest of the World and quarantee healthcare to everyone. A lot of people voted for him because they want rid of Trump and the corporate media keeps saying he is the most electable (not true). Also, people aren't aware well of Biden's questionable record because the corporate media keeps silent about negative things. People have a rosy mental picture of Biden, the VP of Obama. Whatever positive there is on Biden's platform, it's clear most of it is lies and Biden won't keep those promises.

Had Biden won the primary fair and square, the progressives would have it easier to support him in the general as a part of democratic process, but the way the nomination was again stolen from Bernie makes all of this undemocratic and progressives who are interested of REAL democracy have a hard time to vote for Biden.

More people voted for Biden than Bernie, and they did so because his ideas are what most Americans think of as sensible, unlike Bernie. So he is inherently more electable.

Also, Biden doesn't have a habit of saying nice things about Communist dictators. Bernie does, and doesn't have enough brains to realize that's not a good thing in the eyes of most Americans.

So stop saying Bernie had the nomination stolen from him. About half the Democrats who voted thought Biden was better, and over a third if the rest thought someone else was better thsn Bernie.

Pretty much everything you think you know about Biden is wrong. Stop thinking you are getting facts from Kulinski. What you are getting from him is propaganda dedicated to promoting an agenda less than 1 in 5 Americans support.  Come to terms with that, and you will be much better off.

As it is, COVID19 will decide this election, not any political agenda. If Trump's administration does a lousy job of handling it, and the economy is not recovering, Trump will lose. If his administration does at least a mediocre job handling the virus, and the economy is recovering, Trump will be re-elected.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 23, 2020, 05:51:07 AM
Quote from: JBS on March 22, 2020, 05:27:43 PM
More people voted for Biden than Bernie, and they did so because his ideas are what most Americans think of as sensible, unlike Bernie. So he is inherently more electable.

Are you sure? Why did Biden do so poorly in the early States? Why was Buttigieg so "electable" in the beginning? Is it pure coinsidence the States where the primaries/caucuses where held before "bloody Monday" happenened to be anti-Biden? No, it's about how a lot of people vote: The narratives of corporate media has it's influence and Biden's big success (+Buttigieg's failure +plus the fact that Bernie was winning in the multi-candidate race) in South Carolina made the establishment make the move of removing other corporate candidates of the race and go behind Biden. That was poison to Bernie, because a lot of supporters of these candidates went to support Biden. Not because they agree with Biden's policies more, but because the corporate media has touted for a year how Biden is the most electable. The establishment had the problem of knowing which corporate candidate can stop Bernie so they kept them in the race until "bloody Monday", but they had to do something because Bernie was in a trajectory to run away and have at least the majority of delegates (at that time the discussion in the media was if Bernie can be granted the nomination with only the majority but not plurality of delegates. I think the establishment was scared the people will get on the streets in rage if they do that so they needed to stop Bernie from getting even the majority of votes and the answer was having only one corporate candidate against Bernie. It works and now Bernie is about 300 delegates behind Biden needing a miracle to win). This was never about stopping Trump for being re-elected. This was about stopping Bernie. The top 1 % is just fine with Trump. All they have to do is to tolerate his mean Tweets and the fact that Trump makes the US a laughing stock internationally. Bernie on the other hand is a treat to them because Bernie would undo the oligarchy so that the top 1 % doesn't have all the power and almost all the money in the society. That's why for the establishment stopping Bernie is much more important than preventing Trump's re-election. Otherwise they wouldn't want to sent Biden who clearly suffers from cognitive decline against Trump. Doesn't matter, as long as Bernie doesn't get to the White House to serve the 99 %.

Quote from: JBS on March 22, 2020, 05:27:43 PMAlso, Biden doesn't have a habit of saying nice things about Communist dictators. Bernie does, and doesn't have enough brains to realize that's not a good thing in the eyes of most Americans.

Biden says other things, but the corporate media keeps silent about them. Bernie didn't say anything different than Obama did about Cuba, but the corporate media want to make it look bad for Bernie. All Bernie said is the truth. Cuba DOES HAVE very good healthcare system and they have very high literacy. Those are facts, not praise of communist dictators. Dictators tend to do also good things when possible to stay in power, but that of course doesn't mean they aren't dictators doing also horrible things. The left agrees with you in that Bernie should be more careful of what he says, because many Americans are so simple-minded politically, but Bernie is a very honest man and says how it is. That's one of the reasons he deserves to be the president.

Quote from: JBS on March 22, 2020, 05:27:43 PMSo stop saying Bernie had the nomination stolen from him. About half the Democrats who voted thought Biden was better, and over a third if the rest thought someone else was better thsn Bernie.

It is "stolen" because:

- there are weird things happening with the vote counts starting from Iowa.
- possible voter suppression to harm Bernie
- the utterly biased corporate media against Bernie

Even with all the negativity, lies and smears in the corporate media and vote counting weirdness Bernie was winning in the beginning. Then the establishment came up with the masterplan to stop Benie and it works. Just imagine if the coverage of Bernie in the corporate media was fair. Bernie would won the nomination with a landslide.

I won't stop saying these things because this is the truth whether you understand it or not.

Quote from: JBS on March 22, 2020, 05:27:43 PMPretty much everything you think you know about Biden is wrong. Stop thinking you are getting facts from Kulinski. What you are getting from him is propaganda dedicated to promoting an agenda less than 1 in 5 Americans support.  Come to terms with that, and you will be much better off.

Bernie's agenda is supported by the majority of Americans and that's with the biased corporate media. That's not surprising, because Bernie's agenda benefits about 99 % the population. In a real democracy a candidate like Bernie would win elections in a landslide, but then again in a democracy there would be less need for a candidate like Bernie, because people already had universal healthcare and other "nice" things.

Quote from: JBS on March 22, 2020, 05:27:43 PMAs it is, COVID19 will decide this election, not any political agenda. If Trump's administration does a lousy job of handling it, and the economy is not recovering, Trump will lose. If his administration does at least a mediocre job handling the virus, and the economy is recovering, Trump will be re-elected.

Have you compared Biden and Bernie in regards of what they are doing for the crises? Bernie is doing daily streams while Biden is "hiding" telling excuses like "my house doesn't have proper lighting".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 23, 2020, 06:21:02 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 22, 2020, 01:14:46 PM
Not going even to try unpacking that deep pile of manure, as you are irredeemably blinkered, and insist on making yourself ridiculous by posing as a Finnish "expert" supposedly laying the truth on us American voters.

Hey, if that's your idea of a large Sunday, knock your pretentious little self out!

You are making it really difficult for me to respect you Karl. Do you think it's respectful to quote someone with "yada yada..."? I was hoping things get better between you and me when you kindly apologized me recently, but this doesn't look like things are improving. I'm not changing my opinions without a good reason, but I can drop out being disrespectful and if you read my recent posts with a neutral mind I'm sure you see I am trying.

Sorry, but you sound more and more like Todd each day. You are apparently joining his "people of other countries know nothing" club. What I say doesn't take an "expert"*. It takes the realization of how the US is a democracy on paper, but an oligarchy in practice and the corporate media is there to maintain the status quo that benefits the top 1 %. As an "outsider" it didn't take long for me to see this when I started to follow US politics more closely and got information from "all sides" to form the big picture. I haven't been "brainwashed" by MSNBC, CNN, FOX NEWS all my life. As someone living in a social democratic Nordic country I know how silly the claims of corporate media are. I also see how screwed Americans are. These are the benefits of being an "outsider." On MSNBC, the so called "lefty" channel you can hear people saying "Bernie makes my skin crawl". In Finland that would be a huge scandal. That's not to say media in Finland isn't biased, of course it is, but not even close to the level of what it's in the US. For me the black and white nature of the US politics is pretty easy to follow when I have followed the shades of gray of Finnish politics for decades, about 35 years.

*However if you want an American expert, how about Noam Chomsky? What he says doesn't differ much from what I say.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 23, 2020, 07:16:04 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 23, 2020, 06:21:02 AM
You are making it really difficult for me to respect you Karl. Do you think it's respectful to quote someone with "yada yada..."? I was hoping things get better between you and me when you kindly apologized me recently, but this doesn't look like things are improving. I'm not changing my opinions without a good reason, but I can drop out being disrespectful and if you read my recent posts with a neutral mind I'm sure you see I am trying.

Sorry, but you sound more and more like Todd each day. You are apparently joining his "people of other countries know nothing" club. What I say doesn't take an "expert"*. It takes the realization of how the US is a democracy on paper, but an oligarchy in practice and the corporate media is there to maintain the status quo that benefits the top 1 %. As an "outsider" it didn't take long for me to see this when I started to follow US politics more closely and got information from "all sides" to form the big picture. I haven't been "brainwashed" by MSNBC, CNN, FOX NEWS all my life. As someone living in a social democratic Nordic country I know how silly the claims of corporate media are. I also see how screwed Americans are. These are the benefits of being an "outsider." On MSNBC, the so called "lefty" channel you can hear people saying "Bernie makes my skin crawl". In Finland that would be a huge scandal. That's not to say media in Finland isn't biased, of course it is, but not even close to the level of what it's in the US. For me the black and white nature of the US politics is pretty easy to follow when I have followed the shades of gray of Finnish politics for decades, about 35 years.

*However if you want an American expert, how about Noam Chomsky? What he says doesn't differ much from what I say.

This, and your answer to me, deserve the term "yada yada."
Your analysis of American politics is almost totally incorrect. Your leftist views have warped your understanding of the US in ways that render it useless. They also keep you from understanding that Bernie's ideas are not the only possible solution to our problems, that often they are not the best solution,   and sometimes end up making things worse.
If you went and looked, there's an elite in Finland that controls things, meaning Finland is just as oligarchic as we are.

The idea that Noam Chomsky is an expert on anything other than linguistics is laughable. (And, given the progress of linguistics since he published anything notable in that field, he probably doesn't rate as an expert in that anymore.) He's just another quasiMarxist loudmouth.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 23, 2020, 07:20:17 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 23, 2020, 05:51:07 AM

Have you compared Biden and Bernie in regards of what they are doing for the crises? Bernie is doing daily streams while Biden is "hiding" telling excuses like "my house doesn't have proper lighting".

Because of COVID19, no one is paying attention to the Democratic race. Bernie is wasting his time and resources.  Biden is not, which shows he's smarter than Bernie.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 23, 2020, 11:41:30 AM
Bernie Sanders wins Democrats Abroad Primary:

Sanders 57.9 % = 9 delegates
Biden 22.7 % = 4 delegates

This doesn't change the race of course, but it's nice nevertheless...  :)


Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 23, 2020, 12:00:28 PM
Could Biden's Weakness With Young Voters Hurt Him In The General Election? (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/could-bidens-weakness-with-young-voters-hurt-him-in-the-general-election/)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on March 23, 2020, 02:11:27 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 23, 2020, 12:00:28 PM
Could Biden's Weakness With Young Voters Hurt Him In The General Election? (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/could-bidens-weakness-with-young-voters-hurt-him-in-the-general-election/)

Behind that article are far larger questions about why the US of A makes voting just a difficult chore. For a country that prides itself on democracy, you sure don't encourage people to participate in it.

I've no doubt that Australia's relatively unusual policy of compulsory voting would be looked upon with horror as some kind of assault on your freedoms...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 23, 2020, 03:13:06 PM
Quote from: Madiel on March 23, 2020, 02:11:27 PM
Behind that article are far larger questions about why the US of A makes voting just a difficult chore. For a country that prides itself on democracy, you sure don't encourage people to participate in it.

I've no doubt that Australia's relatively unusual policy of compulsory voting would be looked upon with horror as some kind of assault on your freedoms...

Nor does it help that the GOP finds it expedient to suppress voters.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Daverz on March 23, 2020, 03:41:48 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 23, 2020, 03:13:06 PM
Nor does it help that the GOP finds it expedient to suppress voters.

Yes, it's an old story.  The most famous admission of this is a 1980 speech by Paul Weyrich:

"I don't want everybody to vote," he said. "Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

Video of that and other examples of similar admissions here:

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/seven-times-conservatives-have-admitted-they-dont-want-people-to-vote/

Now, on the other hand I'm not naive enough to think that non-voters are liberal and everyone voting will lead to a social democratic paradise.  But that's not an excuse for voting not being as easy as we can make it for everyone.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on March 23, 2020, 03:54:48 PM
Quote from: Madiel on March 23, 2020, 02:11:27 PM
Behind that article are far larger questions about why the US of A makes voting just a difficult chore. For a country that prides itself on democracy, you sure don't encourage people to participate in it.

I've no doubt that Australia's relatively unusual policy of compulsory voting would be looked upon with horror as some kind of assault on your freedoms...


Voting is compulsory in Belgium too. Other counties that make it compulsory: Brazil, Austria, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and probably a few others.

Belgium holds elections at the federal and regional levels. Every so and so my wife receives voting instructions and a 10 page ballot with a hundred names on it. She usually calls a friend or family member to sort it out.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 23, 2020, 04:43:15 PM
Quote from: Madiel on March 23, 2020, 02:11:27 PM
Behind that article are far larger questions about why the US of A makes voting just a difficult chore. For a country that prides itself on democracy, you sure don't encourage people to participate in it.

I've no doubt that Australia's relatively unusual policy of compulsory voting would be looked upon with horror as some kind of assault on your freedoms...

Query 1 How is that enforced?
Query 2 If someone has to be dragged, metaphorically or otherwise, to the voting booth, do you really want them to vote, if they are truly a low-information voter?

It's not an assault on the freedom of the individual, but I have to wonder if the presumable result, a voter apathetic about the result and not at all informed on the issues, is really worth it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on March 23, 2020, 05:52:37 PM
It's a very legitimate concern.

My experience of voting is that low-information voters form the majority of those who do vote (not compulsory in Canada or in the provinces). Those who don't are zero-information, unmotivated or incapacitated citizens.

So, why make it compulsory ? From what I've seen, the clueless will look for clues because they are obligated by law. IOW they will make an effort to make a sensible choice. That includes asking people who share the same situation, values - someone they trust - what are the best options. In a sense when you are an informed voter and you're asked for guidance, your vote counts for double...

As for enforcement, there are fines. I don't know if there is any real will from the government to track delinquents though.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on March 23, 2020, 07:48:38 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 23, 2020, 04:43:15 PM
Query 1 How is that enforced?
Query 2 If someone has to be dragged, metaphorically or otherwise, to the voting booth, do you really want them to vote, if they are truly a low-information voter?

It's not an assault on the freedom of the individual, but I have to wonder if the presumable result, a voter apathetic about the result and not at all informed on the issues, is really worth it.

1: It's enforced by crossing names off the electoral roll as people vote, and then following up people who weren't crossed off. Not that many people end up getting fined because there's a range of recognised excuses.

2: It's not actually an obligation to VOTE. Once you've got your ballot paper, the truth is you can scribble a penis on it, stick the ballot paper in the box and no one will know it was you.

But there a variety of benefits. For one thing it encourages people to not be quite so completely apathetic. For another it encourages politicians to be more moderate.

Also, sausage sizzles and cake stalls on Election Day are a huge thing here. One might not look forward to the actual voting, but one still looks forward to a 'democracy sausage'.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 24, 2020, 03:54:46 AM
Apparently the establishment wanted Andew Cuomo to be the Democrat's nominee, but Cuomo didn't run. Changes are the DNC wants to replace Biden with Cuomo in the end...  :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on March 24, 2020, 04:19:10 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 24, 2020, 03:54:46 AM
Apparently the establishment wanted Andew Cuomo to be the Democrat's nominee, but Cuomo didn't run. Changes are the DNC wants to replace Biden with Cuomo in the end...  :P

Source?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 24, 2020, 04:32:29 AM
Quote from: Madiel on March 24, 2020, 04:19:10 AM
Source?

Not one you'd trust I'm afraid. This is pure speculation and can be complitely wrong according to the source.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on March 24, 2020, 05:09:01 AM
Quote from: André on March 23, 2020, 03:54:48 PM

Voting is compulsory in Belgium too. Other counties that make it compulsory: Brazil, Austria, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and probably a few others.


Voting is not compulsory in The Netherlands.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 24, 2020, 05:20:08 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 24, 2020, 04:32:29 AM
Not one you'd trust I'm afraid. This is pure speculation and can be complitely wrong according to the source.

Just another of your masturbatory posts, then.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on March 24, 2020, 05:52:22 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 24, 2020, 04:32:29 AM
Not one you'd trust I'm afraid. This is pure speculation and can be complitely wrong according to the source.

So what exactly was the point? You post something starting with "apparently" and now tell me there's absolutely no basis for it being apparent.

Basically you're being a gossip.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 24, 2020, 05:58:42 AM
Quote from: Madiel on March 24, 2020, 05:52:22 AM
So what exactly was the point? You post something starting with "apparently" and now tell me there's absolutely no basis for it being apparent.
Basically [the guy who makes a chump of himself, telling us Americans how supposedly ill-informed we are] is a gossip.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 24, 2020, 06:37:04 AM

     We are all Modern Monetarists now (https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-pandemic-politicians-economists-ceo-government-mmt-modern-monetary-theory-2020-3)

      This is a horrible title for an article with good stuff in it. To be modern is to not be a monetarist.

      In a money economy what's for sale can be bought. To run out of dollars for an emergency is insane.

How will we pay for it? Well, who ever asked that about funding a war, and — as the president himself has said — this fight against COVID-19 is a war.

However, it is not a reasonable question in the first place. The US, the UK, and Japan print their own currencies and issue their national debt only in their own currencies. Moreover, we don't wait to issue debt or collect taxes to spend money – Congress authorizes spending and the Treasury calls upon the Federal Reserve to provide funding, which the latter does at a keystroke.

The issue of "balancing the books" with taxes or via the issuance of debt is not only an afterthought — it is not even necessary. Our government holds a monopoly to "issue" the currency, it does not merely "use" it like the rest of us.


     I'm offended by the idea that people have to die in large numbers to get it into peoples heads how a money system is not a torture device. Money is what it's used for, not for itself. It can buy what's for sale in a depression just as well as in normal times. This is proved every time we do it. What we do, we can do.

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on March 24, 2020, 07:09:19 AM
Quote from: Herman on March 24, 2020, 05:09:01 AM
Voting is not compulsory in The Netherlands.

My bad. It was repealed in 1970. Italy repealed it in 1993. I just read the list, not the details  :-[.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 24, 2020, 08:36:41 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 24, 2020, 05:20:08 AM
Just another of your masturbatory posts, then.

In my recent listening to Offenbach I encountered a line which describes Poju perfectly.

Que bavard insupportable! Que discours interminable!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 24, 2020, 09:30:20 AM
Vraiment!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on March 24, 2020, 09:34:45 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 24, 2020, 08:36:41 AM
In my recent listening to Offenbach I encountered a line which describes Poju perfectly.

Que bavard insupportable! Que discours interminable!
Indeed. Some time ago I suspected he was taking the mickey out of all of us. Now I'm 100% sure that's the case.

BTW, Andrei, your inbox is full,
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 24, 2020, 09:57:08 AM
Quote from: ritter on March 24, 2020, 09:34:45 AM
Indeed. Some time ago I suspected he was taking the mickey out of all of us. Now I'm 100% sure that's the case.

BTW, Andrei, your inbox is full,

Not anymore.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on March 24, 2020, 11:08:22 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 24, 2020, 05:20:08 AM
Just another of your masturbatory posts, then.

typo. you meant 'masterdebater'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHxz4DyidLA
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 24, 2020, 11:35:39 AM
Quote from: Herman on March 24, 2020, 11:08:22 AM
typo. you meant 'masterdebater'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHxz4DyidLA

(* chortle *)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 25, 2020, 06:00:18 PM
With states moving primaries due to coronavirus, Joe Biden may not be the presumptive Democratic nominee until June
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 27, 2020, 03:21:10 PM
Joe Biden BACKS OUT of debate with Bernie Sanders.

Surely Biden understands he has to debate with Trump in the general and Trump IS NOT as nice as Bernie Sanders has been calling him his "friend" and all...  :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 27, 2020, 03:55:42 PM
No. You understand that, but Biden does not. Dang, ain't you the clever one?!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 27, 2020, 04:04:14 PM
There's no need for another debate because Sanders should bow out. One more debate wont change anyones mind about anything at this stage. Not to mention that they're both needed elsewhere.

But its got to be deja vu all over again as he drags it out and stops the eventual nominee from being able to turn their attention and resources to going after Trump, and with only the most halfhearted and lukewarm ask from Sanders to his Bernie Bros to get behind the nominee and help defeat Trump rather than sulk at home or continue to attack the nominee on social media.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 27, 2020, 04:06:46 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 27, 2020, 04:04:14 PM
There's no need for another debate because Sanders should bow out. One more debate wont change anyones mind about anything at this stage. Not to mention that they're both needed elsewhere.

But its got to be deja vu all over again as he drags it out and stops the eventual nominee from being able to turn their attention and resources to going after Trump, and with only the most halfhearted and lukewarm ask from Sanders to his Bernie Bros to get behind the nominee and help defeat Trump rather than sulk at home or continue to attack the nominee on social media.

"sulk at home and attack the nominee on social media."  Why, that's our Poju! To a T!!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 27, 2020, 04:47:46 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 27, 2020, 03:21:10 PM
Joe Biden BACKS OUT of debate with Bernie Sanders.

Surely Biden understands he has to debate with Trump in the general and Trump IS NOT as nice as Bernie Sanders has been calling him his "friend" and all...  :P

Until COVID19 starts to decline, just about anything Bernie and Biden do is irrelevant. So a debate is now meaningless. So is Sanders's campaign. 
Right now Trump is making sure he gets an hour or more free TV via the White House daily Covid press briefings.  Nothing either Bernie or Biden can do will break through that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 28, 2020, 03:55:42 AM
Why Bernie Sanders MUST Stay in the Race and Fight for the Nomination

https://www.youtube.com/v/0-52w8XsOiI

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on March 28, 2020, 04:02:10 AM
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/210e2541aa686c7423b4307e07b1f351/tenor.gif?itemid=9250817)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on March 28, 2020, 06:53:07 AM
There is a Yiddish phrase that translates as cupping a corpse. Cupping refers to the pre modern medical technique of bloodletting.  So, in modern terms, giving medicine to a dead person.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 28, 2020, 07:09:47 AM

     Sanders is doing his job as he sees it, which is to move Dems in the direction of their goals. He is not hurting Biden. If Biden wants to be anything more than the mediocrity he is on his own, he will need the combined strength of idea factories on the left and the vote harvesters in the middle.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on March 28, 2020, 03:17:56 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 28, 2020, 03:55:42 AM
Why Bernie Sanders MUST Stay in the Race and Fight for the Nomination

You know, if I wanted to watch this stuff on Youtube, I'd actually go to Youtube.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 28, 2020, 03:47:29 PM
I watched the first few minutes of that and as with Kyle he spends his opening reminding his viewers that all other sources critical of Sanders are "hacks" and "quote-unquote-journalists", without quoting or countering their arguments.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 29, 2020, 03:43:02 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 28, 2020, 07:09:47 AM
     Sanders is doing his job as he sees it, which is to move Dems in the direction of their goals. He is not hurting Biden. If Biden wants to be anything more than the mediocrity he is on his own, he will need the combined strength of idea factories on the left and the vote harvesters in the middle.

The corporate media isn't perhaps talking about this, but Bernie has been pretty active in regards of the Corona virus crisis for example raising 2 million dollars for the cause and his campaign is now merely addressing the crisis at hand while Biden is mostly hiding and making lacklustre efforts in comparison and complaining about the lighting in his house. Bernie put some table lamps on the floor of his living room and can do Corona streams just fine. Who cares about professional lighting when people are dying of Corona virus? Biden is not fit for president. Sanders is. Somehow Americans struggle to see this which is mindboggling to say the least.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on March 29, 2020, 06:53:16 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 29, 2020, 03:43:02 AM
Biden is not fit for president. Sanders is. Somehow Americans struggle to see this which is mindboggling to say the least.

     If you accept that very old pols are fit, they are fit. Rather than struggling with the now abstract question of fitness, voters are struggling with the consequences of what prior voters have decided.

     Dems want to defeat Trump and enact Dem programs. Sanders advertises a maximum strength program, Biden is trying to win votes from a Repub party that no longer exists.

     It's difficult to figure out the "maximum win" strategy. Biden will get a good deal of his fitness from the substance wing of the party, Warren/Sanders/AOC as well as others in moderate camouflage. From the outside it looks like some Dems want health care and others just sort of want it. I think its more like "you go first, I'm right behind you".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 29, 2020, 08:59:05 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 29, 2020, 03:43:02 AM
The corporate media isn't perhaps talking about this, but Bernie has been pretty active in regards of the Corona virus crisis for example raising 2 million dollars for the cause and his campaign is now merely addressing the crisis at hand while Biden is mostly hiding and making lacklustre efforts in comparison and complaining about the lighting in his house. Bernie put some table lamps on the floor of his living room and can do Corona streams just fine. Who cares about professional lighting when people are dying of Corona virus? Biden is not fit for president.

Millions of actual U.S voters disagree with you, and you're just a lonely Finn with an unhealthy Bernie obsession. Somehow you fail to see this.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on March 29, 2020, 09:00:24 AM
Que bavard insupportable! Que discours interminable!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on March 29, 2020, 09:06:41 AM
Quote from: Florestan on March 29, 2020, 09:00:24 AM
Que bavard insupportable! Que discours interminable!
O ciel, che noia!  ;)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 29, 2020, 12:16:22 PM
BOMBSHELL: Joe Biden Campaign PAYING Time's Up To IGNORE Tara Reade's Sexual Assault
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 29, 2020, 12:31:59 PM
Nothing you have to say is anything remotely like a bombshell, junior.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 29, 2020, 12:41:39 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 29, 2020, 12:16:22 PM
BOMBSHELL: Joe Biden Campaign PAYING Time's Up To IGNORE Tara Reade's Sexual Assault

Reliable source? Respected source?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 29, 2020, 01:03:59 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 29, 2020, 12:31:59 PM
Nothing you have to say is anything remotely like a bombshell, junior.

I don't know what wrong with you, but unfortunately you are not someone I want to have any communication with. So don't expect me to react to your posts anymore Karl. We live in two completely different realities. Frankly I don't know what's your reality. You are anti Trump, but also anti Bernie. That makes you some kind of centrist establishment/status quo defender. You are a too far gone to me and I guess you think the same about me. It means our mutual communication is totally meaningless. I gave you a change after you apologized me. Clearly It didn't work so here we are. I don't want to waste my time on people like you. So that you know...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on March 29, 2020, 01:05:12 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 29, 2020, 12:41:39 PM
Reliable source? Respected source?
Nespresso, what else?

Some guy in a sweatshirt on YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tPhU8Ovtxo
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 29, 2020, 01:07:43 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 29, 2020, 12:41:39 PM
Reliable source? Respected source?

We don't seem to respect the same sources, but you are welcome to do your own investigation into the matter so you don't need to believe me or my sources. In fact I expect people to fact-check what other people say online. So fact-check me!  0:)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 29, 2020, 01:18:58 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 29, 2020, 01:07:43 PM
We don't seem to respect the same sources, but you are welcome to do your own investigation into the matter so you don't need to believe me or my sources. In fact I expect people to fact-check what other people say online. So fact-check me!  0:)

And I expect you to fact check Basement Guy, not just take Basement Guy's word because it fits your preexisting assumptions.

If you had you'd know that Tara Reade's latest allegations are questioned because her story has changed so much. Previously her story was of Biden touching her hair and neck - which aligns with every other Biden "accuser" - that he hugged them for a beat too long ot that he made them feel uncomfortable when he but his han on their shoulder or back.

Some have chosen to read it as left wing hypocrisy that these allegations are being treated less seriously than those against Trump, but I cant agree. I think the charges are barely charges.

For a detailed list:

All the Women Who Have Spoken Out Against Joe Biden (https://www.thecut.com/2019/04/joe-biden-accuser-accusations-allegations.html)

I don't need to go and fact check your "sources" because I've usually read more than you, or, hell, they, have already.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 29, 2020, 01:22:39 PM
Quote from: ritter on March 29, 2020, 01:05:12 PM
Nespresso, what else?

Some guy in a sweatshirt on YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tPhU8Ovtxo

Your reality is Bernie-activist muckraking. Don't expect any respect for that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on March 29, 2020, 01:26:17 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 29, 2020, 01:22:39 PM
Your reality is Bernie-activist muckraking. Don't expect any respect for that.
You can search me.... ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on March 30, 2020, 11:27:51 PM
Obviously there are increasing calls for Andrew C. to jump in the race.

Even the VP spot would be very hard, since Biden foolishly committed to name a woman.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on March 30, 2020, 11:39:12 PM
Why "foolishly"?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on March 31, 2020, 04:48:04 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 30, 2020, 11:39:12 PM
Why "foolishly"?

Because he's penned himself in now.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on March 31, 2020, 05:09:31 AM
Quote from: Herman on March 30, 2020, 11:27:51 PM
Obviously there are increasing calls for Andrew C. to jump in the race.

Even the VP spot would be very hard, since Biden foolishly committed to name a woman.

I wrote about this here a week ago, but my sources where questioned.  ;D

The DNC can play a totally corporate Cuomo/Klobuchar ticket for example and have a female VP, that is if Cuomo could beat Trump...  :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on March 31, 2020, 06:44:10 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on March 31, 2020, 05:09:31 AM
I wrote about this here a week ago, but my sources where questioned.  ;D

The DNC can play a totally corporate Cuomo/Klobuchar ticket for example and have a female VP, that is if Cuomo could beat Trump...  :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on April 01, 2020, 03:56:48 PM
Biden confirms he's considering Whitmer for VP (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/490570-biden-confirms-hes-considering-whitmer-for-vp)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on April 02, 2020, 02:27:33 AM
Only if it's sure her successor would be D, too.

Otherwise the Michigan electoral procedures would be liable to R manipulation.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on April 02, 2020, 01:36:55 PM
Quote from: Herman on April 02, 2020, 02:27:33 AM
Only if it's sure her successor would be D, too.


I've just woken up so it took me a moment to figure out that you didn't mean by that "a D-cup", or, my next guess, D-rated.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on April 03, 2020, 09:57:31 AM
yeah, I was a little ambiguous, unintentionally.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 06:22:38 AM
BREAKING: Bernie Sanders OFFERED Green Party Nomination To Run In General Election!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on April 04, 2020, 06:25:35 AM
Man, that didn't last long... ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on April 04, 2020, 07:14:09 AM
Quote from: ritter on April 04, 2020, 06:25:35 AM
Man, that didn't last long... ::)

Who expected otherwise, I wonder.  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 04, 2020, 07:53:24 AM
Quote from: ritter on April 04, 2020, 06:25:35 AM
Man, that didn't last long... ::)

Nope; doesn't even know what's good for him.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 04, 2020, 07:53:42 AM
Quote from: Florestan on April 04, 2020, 07:14:09 AM
Who expected otherwise, I wonder.  ;D

Truly
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 08:11:27 AM
Quote from: ritter on April 04, 2020, 06:25:35 AM
Man, that didn't last long... ::)

Somehow that info just hit my eyes...  :P
Youtube keeps recommending me political videos because I have watched them so much. I guess in time it dies away and it's cat videos and what not silly urbex stuff  ;D

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on April 04, 2020, 08:16:17 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 06:22:38 AM
BREAKING: Bernie Sanders OFFERED Green Party Nomination To Run In General Election!

With the coronavirus pandemic amongst us and a global recession ensuing due to this pandemic, it's nice to know that you're still supporting Bernie Sanders.  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 04, 2020, 08:26:45 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 08:11:27 AM
Somehow that info just hit my eyes...  :P

I'll tell you something that most adults already know: Just hearing something does not create an imperative for you to repeat it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 09:18:38 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on April 04, 2020, 08:16:17 AM
With the coronavirus pandemic amongst us and a global recession ensuing due to this pandemic, it's nice to know that you're still supporting Bernie Sanders.  ::)

Why wouldn't I be supporting Bernie Sanders? Coronavirus pandemic only makes his political agenda even more relevant and much needed. Millions of Americans are losing their healthcare with their jobs! If Bernie Sanders isn't relevant I don't know who is!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 09:21:22 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 04, 2020, 08:26:45 AM
I'll tell you something that most adults already know: Just hearing something does not create an imperative for you to repeat it.

Old habits die hard... ..just try yourself not to be condescending toward me and you'll see how difficult it is.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on April 04, 2020, 09:33:29 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 09:18:38 AM
Why wouldn't I be supporting Bernie Sanders? Coronavirus pandemic only makes his political agenda even more relevant and much needed. Millions of Americans are losing their healthcare with their jobs! If Bernie Sanders isn't relevant I don't know who is!
Poju, be steadfast! Remember your resolution of just two days ago... You yourself recognise that nothing good will come from this fixation.

Just a piece of friendly (if unsolicited) advice.

Regards,
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 09:59:08 AM
Quote from: ritter on April 04, 2020, 09:33:29 AM
Poju, be steadfast! Remember your resolution of just two days ago... You yourself recognise that nothing good will come from this fixation.

Just a piece of friendly (if unsolicited) advice.

Regards,

What the hell are you talking about? Who should I support? Nobody? I have been a fan of Bernie Sanders ever since I found out how good of a politician and what a legend he is so you expect me to drop my support just like that? Give me a break. You guys don't give me any FREEDOM!!!

My IGNORANCE means I WON*T write long posts about how good medicare for all is! Americans can keep their SHITTY healthcare and go bankrupt!! I don't care anymore! The US is so Screwed because of corona virus. Americans made their beds and now they learn the hard way!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 04, 2020, 10:07:12 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 09:59:08 AM
What the hell are you talking about? Who should I support? Nobody? I have been a fan of Bernie Sanders ever since I found out how good of a politician and what a legend he is so you expect me to drop my support just like that? Give me a break. You guys don't give me any FREEDOM!!!

My IGNORANCE means I WON*T write long posts about how good medicare for all is! Americans can keep their SHITTY healthcare and go bankrupt!! I don't care anymore! The US is so Screwed because of corona virus. Americans made their beds and now they learn the hard way!


Says the self-styled Finnish Genius of US politics.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on April 04, 2020, 10:08:21 AM
Oh ciel che noia!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 04, 2020, 10:15:49 AM
Quote from: Florestan on April 04, 2020, 10:08:21 AM
Oh ciel che noia!

So few of the Americans on GMG acknowledge his brilliance. So unfair!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on April 04, 2020, 10:36:50 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 09:59:08 AM
What the hell are you talking about? Who should I support? Nobody? I have been a fan of Bernie Sanders ever since I found out how good of a politician and what a legend he is so you expect me to drop my support just like that? Give me a break. You guys don't give me any FREEDOM!!!

My IGNORANCE means I WON*T write long posts about how good medicare for all is! Americans can keep their SHITTY healthcare and go bankrupt!! I don't care anymore! The US is so Screwed because of corona virus. Americans made their beds and now they learn the hard way!
Whatever.... ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on April 04, 2020, 10:39:41 AM
Quote from: ritter on April 04, 2020, 10:36:50 AM
Whatever.... ::)

Pace e gioia sia con voi! :laugh:
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 04, 2020, 10:46:42 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 09:59:08 AM
What the hell are you talking about? Who should I support? Nobody? I have been a fan of Bernie Sanders ever since I found out how good of a politician and what a legend he is so you expect me to drop my support just like that? Give me a break. You guys don't give me any FREEDOM!!!

My IGNORANCE means I WON*T write long posts about how good medicare for all is! Americans can keep their SHITTY healthcare and go bankrupt!! I don't care anymore! The US is so Screwed because of corona virus. Americans made their beds and now they learn the hard way!

Feel free to support Bernie. But remember that there are many other issues involved besides  health care.  Also remember that on most issues Joe Biden is not that far apart from Bernie. When Youtubers try to make it seem otherwise, they are actually being dishonest.

And bear in mind that, thanks to Trump, Americans are getting a real time demonstration of how government involvement can screw up health care on a massive scale. 

I see there are currently 1875 known cases of COVID19 in Finland, and 25 deaths. I respectfully suggest you worry about your father and yourself, and leave us to fix our problems for ourselves.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on April 04, 2020, 10:50:12 AM
Quote from: Florestan on April 04, 2020, 10:39:41 AM
Pace e gioia sia con voi! :laugh:
...per mill'anni!

Buena sera, caro Andrea! :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on April 04, 2020, 10:51:50 AM
Quote from: ritter on April 04, 2020, 10:50:12 AM
...per mill'anni!

Buena sera, caro Andrea! :)

Buona sera, mio signore, buona sera, buona sera!  :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on April 04, 2020, 11:01:00 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 09:59:08 AM
What the hell are you talking about? Who should I support? Nobody? I have been a fan of Bernie Sanders ever since I found out how good of a politician and what a legend he is so you expect me to drop my support just like that? Give me a break. You guys don't give me any FREEDOM!!!

My IGNORANCE means I WON*T write long posts about how good medicare for all is! Americans can keep their SHITTY healthcare and go bankrupt!! I don't care anymore! The US is so Screwed because of corona virus. Americans made their beds and now they learn the hard way!

You're talking as if your own country hasn't been affected by the coronavirus. ::) I'm afraid you're in the same boat we're all in at the moment. This virus doesn't discriminate --- it's everywhere. Yeah, Bernie Sanders is such a legend that he can't even be elected president or even considered by his own party. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 04, 2020, 11:04:05 AM
Quote from: ritter on April 04, 2020, 10:36:50 AM
Whatever.... ::)

No good deed goes unpunished with this putz! jiggered if I know what you said to provoke that bile.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 04, 2020, 11:07:52 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on April 04, 2020, 11:01:00 AM
You're talking as if your own country hasn't been affected by the coronavirus. ::) I'm afraid you're in the same boat we're all in at the moment. This virus doesn't discriminate --- it's everywhere. Yeah, Bernie Sanders is such a legend that he can't even be elected president or even considered by his own party.

Does he have a party? Poju seems absurdly out of joint over the fact that Democratic voters prefer an actual Democrat as a nominee.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on April 04, 2020, 11:32:57 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 04, 2020, 11:04:05 AM
jiggered if I know what you said to provoke that bile.
Nothing at all, but anything one says will provoke the ire of this fellow who seems to be profoundly disturbed, and to be just looking for attention. His insulting ramblings are a disgrace for this forum we all cherish.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 04, 2020, 11:34:13 AM
Biden has informed Sanders that he is beginning the VP vetting process.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 04, 2020, 11:35:31 AM
Quote from: ritter on April 04, 2020, 11:32:57 AM
Nothing at all, but anything one says will provoke the ire of this fellow who seems to be profoundly disturbed, and to be just looking for attention. His insulting ramblings are a disgrace for this forum we all cherish.

And we know him too well, to hope that he repents of using you so ill.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on April 04, 2020, 11:36:12 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 04, 2020, 11:07:52 AM
Does he have a party? Poju seems absurdly out of joint over the fact that Democratic voters prefer an actual Democrat as a nominee.

I'm not sure, but the only party I'm going to have is when 71 dB stops talking about American politics, which, evidently, will never happen. :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 11:38:37 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on April 04, 2020, 11:01:00 AM
You're talking as if your own country hasn't been affected by the coronavirus. ::) I'm afraid you're in the same boat we're all in at the moment. This virus doesn't discriminate --- it's everywhere. Yeah, Bernie Sanders is such a legend that he can't even be elected president or even considered by his own party. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Yes, my own country Finland struggles with corona virus (1882 infection/25 deaths as of now + I haven't visited my dad in 3 weeks thanks to social distancing), but everyone is covered so if I get infected and needed hospitalization I won't get a $30.000 bill for it. The irony in the US is a lot of people have their healthcare tied to their jobs and now millions of people are losing their jobs because of corona virus - just when they need it more than ever! Even Trump proposes "medicare for covid-19" to deal with the dire situation.

Bernie Sanders has to fight against the whole establishment including the corporate media smearing him non-stop because is a danger to their rigged system. The corporate media keeps silent about the Tara Reade sexual harrassment allegations against Biden. Do you think they would keep silent if it was Bernie? Hell no! They would talk about it 24/7. Taking that into account Bernie has done damn well and was even the front-runner briefly before the establisment got the duck's in row behind Biden. Too bad it doesn't seem to be enough and Trump will get his 2nd term or the president is a demented "nothing will change" corporate guy. That is if DNC doesn't change Biden to A. Cuomo in which case it's just a "nothing will change" corporate guy in the White House...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 04, 2020, 11:39:41 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 11:38:37 AM
Yes, my own country Finland struggles with corona virus (1882 infection/25 deaths as of now + I haven't visited my dad in 3 weeks thanks to social distancing), but everyone is covered so if I get infected and needed hospitalization I won't get a $30.000 bill for it. The irony in the US is a lot of people have their healthcare tied to their jobs and now millions of people are losing their jobs because of corona virus - just when they need it more than ever! Even Trump proposes "medicare for covid-19" to deal with the situation.

Bernie Sanders has to fight against the whole establishment including the corporate media smearing him non-stop because is a danger to their rigged system. The corporate media keeps silent about the Tara Reade sexual harrassment allegations against Biden. Do you think they would keep silent if it was Bernie? Hell no! They would talk about it 24/7. Taking that into account Bernie has done damn well and was even the front-runner briefly before the establisment got the duck's in row behind Biden. Too bad it doesn't seem to be enough and Trump will get his 2nd term or the president is a demented "nothing will change" corporate guy. That is if DNC doesn't change Biden to A. Cuomo in which case it's just a "nothing will change" corporate guy in the White House...

No one marks you, you fool.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 11:44:32 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 04, 2020, 11:07:52 AM
Does he have a party? Poju seems absurdly out of joint over the fact that Democratic voters prefer an actual Democrat as a nominee.

What is actual democrat? Letter D next to the name? FDR politics? About 85 % of Democrat voters suppert medicare for all. Besed on that, Bernie is by far the most Democratic candidate while Biden who says he would veto medicare for all is far from a democrat. Biden is a Republican based on his politics.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 04, 2020, 11:50:22 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 11:44:32 AM
What is actual democrat? Letter D next to the name? FDR politics? About 85 % of Democrat voters suppert medicare for all. Besed on that, Bernie is by far the most Democratic candidate while Biden who says he would veto medicare for all is far from a democrat. Biden is a Republican based on his politics.

Ahh, if you seriously believe that last statement, you live in a fantasy world.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on April 04, 2020, 12:04:29 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 11:38:37 AM
Yes, my own country Finland struggles with corona virus (1882 infection/25 deaths as of now + I haven't visited my dad in 3 weeks thanks to social distancing), but everyone is covered so if I get infected and needed hospitalization I won't get a $30.000 bill for it. The irony in the US is a lot of people have their healthcare tied to their jobs and now millions of people are losing their jobs because of corona virus - just when they need it more than ever! Even Trump proposes "medicare for covid-19" to deal with the dire situation.

Bernie Sanders has to fight against the whole establishment including the corporate media smearing him non-stop because is a danger to their rigged system. The corporate media keeps silent about the Tara Reade sexual harrassment allegations against Biden. Do you think they would keep silent if it was Bernie? Hell no! They would talk about it 24/7. Taking that into account Bernie has done damn well and was even the front-runner briefly before the establisment got the duck's in row behind Biden. Too bad it doesn't seem to be enough and Trump will get his 2nd term or the president is a demented "nothing will change" corporate guy. That is if DNC doesn't change Biden to A. Cuomo in which case it's just a "nothing will change" corporate guy in the White House...

I think you need to stick to talking about your own country's politics, because you clearly are out of your element with American politics and, also, you don't know how health insurance is set up in the States, so stop pretending like you do. Stop clicking on YouTube videos about American politics and go back to listening to Tangerine Dream. All will be well with the world. Bernie Sanders is a washed up politician and won't be elected dog catcher. Accept that reality and move on.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 01:00:49 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on April 04, 2020, 12:04:29 PM
I think you need to stick to talking about your own country's politics, because you clearly are out of your element with American politics and, also, you don't know how health insurance is set up in the States, so stop pretending like you do. Stop clicking on YouTube videos about American politics and go back to listening to Tangerine Dream. All will be well with the world. Bernie Sanders is a washed up politician and won't be elected dog catcher. Accept that reality and move on.

Why do people tell me what to do? It's my own business. I don't tell you what to watch or listen to. That's your business. I don't know all the small details of how health insurance is set up in the States, but I think I know the main principles and the main problem with it. I have watched/heard americans telling about their own experiences, for example David Pakman has told his stories and Kyle Kulinski has told how his dad died because of the horrible healthcare system. Are you saying Kulinski's dad didn't avoid going to doctor (in time) fearing the costs? If the healthcare is so good in the US why did it happen to Kulinski's dad and so many others? American's fear the costs and avoid going to the doctor so they go went it's too late and nothing can be done. They die.

Maybe you could move on yourself and let me write here what I want? Accept the reality that people like me exist.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 04, 2020, 01:12:55 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 01:00:49 PM
Why do people tell me what to do? It's my own business. I don't tell you what to watch or listen to. That's your business. I don't know all the small details of how health insurance is set up in the States, but I think I know the main principles and the main problem with it. I have watched/heard americans telling about their own experiences, for example David Pakman has told his stories and Kyle Kulinski has told how his dad died because of the horrible healthcare system. Are you saying Kulinski's dad didn't avoid going to doctor (in time) fearing the costs? If the healthcare is so good in the US why did it happen to Kulinski's dad and so many others? American's fear the costs and avoid going to the doctor so they go went it's too late and nothing can be done. They die.

Maybe you could move on yourself and let me write here what I want? Accept the reality that people like me exist.



People like you who spout rubbish while proclaiming their unique "genius"?

Yeah, we know you exist. I'm still going to call rubbish rubbish.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 03:00:36 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 04, 2020, 01:12:55 PM
People like you who spout rubbish while proclaiming their unique "genius"?

Yeah, we know you exist. I'm still going to call rubbish rubbish.

How is what I say rubbish?? We may disagree about things, but it doesn't make my opinions rubbish. Also, I have never called myself a genius. I think I understand US politics well, because I have followed it closely, but it doesn't make me a genius, of course!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on April 04, 2020, 04:03:48 PM
(https://agilecoffee.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/14-dunning-kruger.jpg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on April 04, 2020, 05:20:00 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 01:00:49 PM
Why do people tell me what to do? It's my own business. I don't tell you what to watch or listen to. That's your business. I don't know all the small details of how health insurance is set up in the States, but I think I know the main principles and the main problem with it. I have watched/heard americans telling about their own experiences, for example David Pakman has told his stories and Kyle Kulinski has told how his dad died because of the horrible healthcare system. Are you saying Kulinski's dad didn't avoid going to doctor (in time) fearing the costs? If the healthcare is so good in the US why did it happen to Kulinski's dad and so many others? American's fear the costs and avoid going to the doctor so they go went it's too late and nothing can be done. They die.

Maybe you could move on yourself and let me write here what I want? Accept the reality that people like me exist.

There's quite a divide in someone who is obsessed by American politics vs. someone who has an interest in them. You, 71 dB, are the former. The problem is you've made your 'opinions' (if you want to call them that) known for many months now and you simply repeat yourself over and over again. If your business is to come here and litter threads with your senseless opinions, then it's my business to call you out on the uselessness of your posts. We get it. You love Bernie Sanders and think he's some kind of god --- trust me, we all understand this and, I think I can speak for many here when I say we're all tired of hearing about it. Also, don't sit there and act like universal healthcare is without fault, because it's not. Again, go listen to some Tangerine Dream and chill out. You may need to get your doctor to up your medication, because, trust me, the dosage your taking isn't enough.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 05:45:52 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on April 04, 2020, 04:03:48 PM
(https://agilecoffee.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/14-dunning-kruger.jpg)

I have known this curve for many many years! I'm not talking about aspects that take doctorate in US politics. I talk about 101 stuff, which to my surprise is not clear for many here because they are so heavily influenced by corporate media and seem to be totally clueless what the role of it is. For an outsider like me it was VERY EASY to see what the corporate media is like, because we don't have such insane smears in Finnish media! Even a child understands why things like medicare for all are important unless you are totally influenced by corporate media.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 05:50:11 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on April 04, 2020, 05:20:00 PM
There's quite a divide in someone who is obsessed by American politics vs. someone who has an interest in them. You, 71 dB, are the former. The problem is you've made your 'opinions' (if you want to call them that) known for many months now and you simply repeat yourself over and over again. If your business is to come here and litter threads with your senseless opinions, then it's my business to call you out on the uselessness of your posts. We get it. You love Bernie Sanders and think he's some kind of god --- trust me, we all understand this and, I think I can speak for many here when I say we're all tired of hearing about it. Also, don't sit there and act like universal healthcare is without fault, because it's not. Again, go listen to some Tangerine Dream and chill out. You may need to get your doctor to up your medication, because, trust me, the dosage your taking isn't enough.

To you Biden is god. Why that is is beyond me unless you are a member of the 1 % elite. Biden serves them, not the 99 % Bernie is for them.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on April 04, 2020, 06:04:49 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 05:45:52 PM
I have known this curve for many many years! I'm not talking about aspects that take doctorate in US politics. I talk about 101 stuff, which to my surprise is not clear for many here because they are so heavily influenced by corporate media and seem to be totally clueless what the role of it is. For an outsider like me it was VERY EASY to see what the corporate media is like, because we don't have such insane smears in Finnish media! Even a child understands why things like medicare for all are important unless you are totally influenced by corporate media.

(https://procrastination.com/publish/dunning-kruger-knowledge-confidence-social-1200x628.png)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 04, 2020, 06:05:29 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 05:45:52 PM
I have known this curve for many many years! I'm not talking about aspects that take doctorate in US politics. I talk about 101 stuff, which to my surprise is not clear for many here because they are so heavily influenced by corporate media and seem to be totally clueless what the role of it is. For an outsider like me it was VERY EASY to see what the corporate media is like, because we don't have such insane smears in Finnish media! Even a child understands why things like medicare for all are important unless you are totally influenced by corporate media.

We understand MfA. But most of us don't have the bias for leftist ideas you have, so we can see MFA's faults. We can also see that Bernie's style of progressivism is simply another form of authoritarian elitism. Kulinski's geeks and nerds are just as bad as Trump's oligarchs.  If you were really against the 1% you would reject progressivism.  All it does is replace the current 1% with a different 1%. And some of the same people are members of both 1%s.

I am not going to vote for a man like Sanders who thinks he has the right to tell me whom I can sell my house to and for how much.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 04, 2020, 06:36:59 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 05:50:11 PM
To you Biden is god.

One of the most idiotic things you've said to date.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 06:58:00 PM
Quote from: JBS on April 04, 2020, 06:05:29 PM
So we can see MFA's faults.

How about seeing the faults of for profit healthcare?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 04, 2020, 07:10:34 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 06:58:00 PM
How about seeing the faults of for profit healthcare?

We see those too. And we understand that MfA would have most of the same faults, plus its own faults.

When an insurance company refuses coverage, I can go look for another company that does.
When a government bureaucrat refuses coverage, I can...do nothing because there's not another government to choose.

And government bureaucrats refuse coverage and all the rest just as quickly as insurance companies. Always remember that Bernie's promises about how MfA would work are at best fantasies. So don't take them seriously.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 07:20:51 PM
Quote from: JBS on April 04, 2020, 07:10:34 PM
We see those too. And we understand that MfA would have most of the same faults, plus its own faults.

When an insurance company refuses coverage, I can go look for another company that does.
When a government bureaucrat refuses coverage, I can...do nothing because there's not another government to choose.

And government bureaucrats refuse coverage and all the rest just as quickly as insurance companies. Always remember that Bernie's promises about how MfA would work are at best fantasies. So don't take them seriously.

I live in a single payer country so I know if it's a fantasy. It's not. Don't take corporate media seriously. They protect the insurance companies and Big Pharma so they can take your money.

Is fire department fantasy? It's tax funded, single payer, "fire-department for all". No, it's not, It works just like in Finland or anywhere else. Healthcare is similar and has similar thing.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 04, 2020, 07:39:24 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 07:20:51 PM
I live in a single payer country so I know if it's a fantasy. It's not. Don't take corporate media seriously. They protect the insurance companies and Big Pharma so they can take your money.

You are assuming that the US version would work similar to Finland's?  Don't. The US version would simply expand the current Medicare system.

You are fixated on the idea of corporate profits.  You seem to think that's the root problem.
It's not. The root problem is millions of Americans not getting affordable high quality health care. Once you understand that corporate profits are not relevant to that problem, you will understand why MfA is one of several possible solutions, and generally the worst.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 07:46:42 PM
Quote from: JBS on April 04, 2020, 07:39:24 PM
You are assuming that the US version would work similar to Finland's?  Don't. The US version would simply expand the current Medicare system.

You are fixated on the idea of corporate profits.  You seem to think that's the root problem.
It's not. The root problem is millions of Americans not getting affordable high quality health care. Once you understand that corporate profits are not relevant to that problem, you will understand why MfA is one of several possible solutions, and generally the worst.

The US is a richer country than Finland so it can have a BETTER single payer system. Medicare becomes better when it is expanded and properly funded (now it's not). Corporate profit is BIG problem in services like healthcare because insane incentive (deny care to make profit). It depends what works. That's why the US is pretty much the only country with for profit healthcare. It works poorly. Leaves people without care, costs more etc. US has it because of utter corruption and brainwashed people. Healtcare is not commodity. It's not coffee. Poor people need it as much as rich people. That's why rich people need to pay more for it so poor people have it too. That's the idea of social democratic single payer healthcare. You are NOT RICH!!! When do you understand that??? YOU ARE NOT RICH!!! So you BENEFIT!!!

Anyway, I should not continue. Waste of TIME!!!!!

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on April 04, 2020, 08:50:53 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 05:50:11 PM
To you Biden is god. Why that is is beyond me unless you are a member of the 1 % elite. Biden serves them, not the 99 % Bernie is for them.

You have it wrong per usual. I'm not a fan of Biden's, but he has a greater chance of becoming president than any of your socialist cronies. I'm more of a moderate that has conservative leanings (in some cases more than just a leaning). Give it up, Bernie's finished. He's a washed up politician with radical ideas that aren't right for the US, which is why he hasn't been considered as a candidate for president. He's a nut job who has been wallowing in the same burrow for the past 40 years. He's a joke and Socialism doesn't work now just like it didn't work in the past. Go listen to some Tangerine Dream and kick back with a cold one. You'll be alright.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on April 04, 2020, 10:26:47 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 09:59:08 AM
What the hell are you talking about? Who should I support? Nobody?

Nobody.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on April 04, 2020, 11:52:59 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 04, 2020, 09:59:08 AM
Who should I support? Nobody?

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/k-JsCja_wSejOevabGJuhEinsNpucl4iUSNXeKRjUSC63B_Yh4AVP0oQS3TTRUcd8bR-klkqTdrZCoL_NO6afZ0RuKEg7cori1EKHKwiM6ZVqu-kmqJu3h8thQ)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 05, 2020, 01:06:09 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on April 04, 2020, 08:50:53 PM
You have it wrong per usual. I'm not a fan of Biden's, but he has a greater chance of becoming president than any of your socialist cronies.

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.


Quote from: Mirror Image on April 04, 2020, 08:50:53 PMI'm more of a moderate that has conservative leanings (in some cases more than just a leaning). Give it up, Bernie's finished. He's a washed up politician with radical ideas that aren't right for the US, which is why he hasn't been considered as a candidate for president. He's a nut job who has been wallowing in the same burrow for the past 40 years. He's a joke and Socialism doesn't work now just like it didn't work in the past. Go listen to some Tangerine Dream and kick back with a cold one. You'll be alright.

It's not my fault your parents made you are conservative. It doesn't mean I am wrong. It means you are. The US needs badly social democratic ideas and it it not my fault you can't see it because of your parent's conservatism. I live in a social democratic country. I KNOW it's not socialism. It's well-regulated capitalism with socialistic ideas where they work. Your country has sosialism too: Fire department for example. Also corporate socialism: Corporations just got $4.5 TRILLION. That's not capitalism. US is corporate socialism for the rich and individual capitalism for the rest. So, if you are against socialism start asking why Exxon Mobile, one of the most profitable companies in the World gets $4 billion every year of tax payer money?

Bernie is not radical. He is the true moderate. He's policies are the moderate ones. He himself is to blame for not calling himself with the correct labels. What he proposes is the normal stuff around the world. Every other developped country has single payer healthcare. That's the Normal position. US has the insane radical system. It is very radical that not everybody are covered or can't afford healthcare, because everybody needs it. So, Bernie is the true moderate and Biden is the radical one wanting to keep up oligarchy that works only for the top 1 %. That is ver radical. If you call Bernie a joke it only tells about how ideologically wrong you are. I am here to tell you that. I don't know much, but you know much much less.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 05, 2020, 01:26:03 AM
Quote from: Florestan on April 04, 2020, 11:52:59 PM
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/k-JsCja_wSejOevabGJuhEinsNpucl4iUSNXeKRjUSC63B_Yh4AVP0oQS3TTRUcd8bR-klkqTdrZCoL_NO6afZ0RuKEg7cori1EKHKwiM6ZVqu-kmqJu3h8thQ)

The turnout in US elections is very low, because people have seen the politicians don't work for them. It doesn't have to be like that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Que on April 05, 2020, 03:05:21 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 05, 2020, 01:26:03 AM
The turnout in US elections is very low, because people have seen the politicians don't work for them. It doesn't have to be like that.

Are you still talking US politics?  ::)

Q 8)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 05, 2020, 03:28:07 AM
Quote from: Que on April 05, 2020, 03:05:21 AM
Are you still talking US politics?  ::)

Q 8)

Unfortunately. This is like trying to stop smoking.  :P
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 05, 2020, 03:50:34 AM
Quote from: Herman on April 04, 2020, 10:26:47 PM
Nobody.

Or, whichever one he could actually vote for.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on April 05, 2020, 04:58:48 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 05, 2020, 03:28:07 AM
Unfortunately. This is like trying to stop smoking.  :P

Which is why your credibility is nil. Broken promises over and over abain... ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 05, 2020, 05:07:12 AM
Quote from: André on April 05, 2020, 04:58:48 AM
Which is why your credibility is nil. Broken promises over and over abain... ::)

I make this kind of promises only to myself. I don't need to promise other people anything. If you think I have promised you something you are mistaken.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 05, 2020, 05:24:48 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 05, 2020, 03:50:34 AM
Or, whichever one he could actually vote for.

Well I do vote in Finnish elections (most of the time the Green Party), but I can also support foreign politicians even if I can't vote in those elections. Bernie is by far the best candidate in this race in my opinion and I support him. Tulsi Gabbard was perhaps the second best followed by Andrew "UBI" Yang and Elizabeth "snake" Warren and then maybe Marianne Williamson/Tom Steyer/Bill deBlasio. These candidates actually had some sort of vision for the country other than just keeping the status quo going. The rest have been corporate sell outs who went full on defending the establishment when they needed cash* for their campaign.  :P

* except Bloomberg who has more money than the donors combined, but he is a Republican hack thinking you can buy election in democracy and pretending to be a Democrat just to run against Trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 05, 2020, 05:34:35 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 05, 2020, 05:14:07 AM
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?

You are topping yourself Karl. You call me an imbecile and an idiot in the same post. Ok, I don't mind because I have stopped taking you seriously. I'm now convinced you have something wrong between your ears. Even if I promise something only for myself, I can still make it known on a forum so other people know what I am promising myself, what I am trying to do! ¿Comprende?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on April 05, 2020, 05:41:09 AM
Guys...just stop paying attention to the bavard insupportable. He's lowering the level of the forum with his ravings. Let his obsessive ramblings (and his insincere calls for pity)  go unanswered.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 05, 2020, 05:42:14 AM
If people here were not so anti-Bernie I would't need to defend him so much. In fact I was stupid enough to think most members here understand why Bernie is the man and support him so I can stay away. Didn't happen. My jaw dropped on the floor when I realized how anti-Bernie this place is. People write here as if this was MSNBC: Anti Trump and anti Bernie at the same time. People here look as clueless as Whoopie Goldberg, except people here are not multimillionaires and members of the top 1 % like Whoopie. So, I can understand why Whoopie is out of touch and clueless. She can afford that. She is fine no matter what. What I don't get is why you are out of touch and clueless. You are NOT fine no matter what. A medical bill can bankrupt you!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 05, 2020, 08:56:10 AM
A small group of Bernie Sanders' top aides and allies - including his campaign manager and his longtime strategist - have encouraged the independent senator from Vermont to consider withdrawing from the presidential race, according to two people with knowledge of the situation.

The group includes campaign manager Faiz Shakir and Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., a top Sanders surrogate and ally, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive private discussions.

Sanders himself has become more open to the prospect of dropping out, according to one of the people with knowledge of the situation and another close ally, especially if he suffers a significant defeat in Tuesday's Wisconsin primary, which polls suggest Joe Biden will win handily.

Beyond Shakir and Jayapal, longtime strategist Jeff Weaver has privately made a case that exiting the race more quickly and on good terms with Biden would give Sanders more leverage in the long run, according to one of the people; the other said Weaver has used a light touch in presenting his case. Weaver and Jayapal did not return calls and messages seeking comment. Shakir declined to comment.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 05, 2020, 11:47:35 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 05, 2020, 05:42:14 AM
If people here were not so anti-Bernie I would't need to defend him so much. In fact I was stupid enough to think most members here understand why Bernie is the man and support him so I can stay away. Didn't happen. My jaw dropped on the floor when I realized how anti-Bernie this place is. People write here as if this was MSNBC: Anti Trump and anti Bernie at the same time. People here look as clueless as Whoopie Goldberg, except people here are not multimillionaires and members of the top 1 % like Whoopie. So, I can understand why Whoopie is out of touch and clueless. She can afford that. She is fine no matter what. What I don't get is why you are out of touch and clueless. You are NOT fine no matter what. A medical bill can bankrupt you!

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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 05, 2020, 01:58:59 PM
Quote from: JBS on April 05, 2020, 11:47:35 AM
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?

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on April 05, 2020, 03:01:12 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 05, 2020, 01:06:09 AM
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?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 05, 2020, 03:16:27 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 05, 2020, 01:58:59 PM

Am I missing something here?

Yes.
All this.
QuoteWhen 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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 06, 2020, 01:40:31 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on April 05, 2020, 03:01:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 06, 2020, 01:46:52 AM
Quote from: JBS on April 05, 2020, 03:16:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on April 06, 2020, 02:50:02 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 05, 2020, 05:14:07 AM
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 >>>
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 06, 2020, 04:23:15 AM
Quote from: Marc on April 06, 2020, 02:50:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 06, 2020, 04:25:32 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 06, 2020, 01:46:52 AMI'm done with you at this point.

Another meaningless "promise to yourself" posted on a public forum to cap a thoroughly infantile post.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 06, 2020, 06:44:41 AM
Quote from: Marc on April 06, 2020, 02:50:02 AM
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?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 06, 2020, 06:52:52 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 06, 2020, 01:46:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 06, 2020, 07:35:02 AM
Quote from: Marc on April 06, 2020, 02:50:02 AM


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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 06, 2020, 07:46:05 AM
Quote from: Marc on April 06, 2020, 02:50:02 AM
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
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on April 06, 2020, 08:01:20 AM
Quote from: JBS on April 06, 2020, 07:35:02 AM
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.  :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 06, 2020, 08:26:29 AM
Quote from: ritter on April 06, 2020, 08:01:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on April 06, 2020, 08:29:39 AM
Quote from: ritter on April 06, 2020, 08:01:20 AM
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...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 06, 2020, 08:39:00 AM
Quote from: André on April 06, 2020, 08:29:39 AM
+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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on April 06, 2020, 08:42:27 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 06, 2020, 06:44:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 06, 2020, 08:48:26 AM
Quote from: Marc on April 06, 2020, 08:42:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on April 06, 2020, 09:36:31 AM
Quote from: ritter on April 06, 2020, 08:01:20 AM
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..  8)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on April 06, 2020, 09:49:20 AM
Quote from: Florestan on April 06, 2020, 09:36:31 AM
Centrism in a nutshell..  8)
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.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on April 06, 2020, 09:56:10 AM
Quote from: ritter on April 06, 2020, 09:49:20 AM
You mean that as a good or as a bad thing, cher ami?

What do you think?

QuoteGregorio 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.

Nice program. Also a good explanation why genuine liberalism is on the wane, not only in Europe but worldwide.

Speaking of Maranon, I greatly enjoyed this essay of his:

Liberalism and Communism: The Background of the Spanish Civil War (https://ia800508.us.archive.org/24/items/liberalismcommun00mara/liberalismcommun00mara.pdf)

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 06, 2020, 10:19:15 AM
Quote from: Marc on April 06, 2020, 08:42:27 AM
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.

I apologize if I made you feel I rejected your advices. I think it was a time when I was really frustrated so I certainly wasn't a very nice guy. I try to "blabber along about music", but most of the time my posts don't get much attention so those posts of mine don't go far. Politics is another beast as you have seen. Now that I am losing my interest of US politics being less active in the politics treads is easier for me. Even now I am talking about my behavior rather than politics!

Quote from: Marc on April 06, 2020, 08:42:27 AMWhat 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.

Well, asking me to change my opinions is rather silly. We all have our opinions and are entitled to have them. I can change behavior if needed, but it's perhaps easier for others to see the problems. I consider myself a normal human being who gets frustrated online and has episodes of meltdown sometimes. I have assumed it's normal 21st century life. I have been trying to not insult others lately. I don't call others idiots and imbeciles. Karl does (doesn't matter because I stopped taking him seriously).

Quote from: Marc on April 06, 2020, 08:42:27 AMI'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.

The problem with ignore is that someone whose posts you may want to ignore in Diner, you may want to see elsewhere. For example Karl has good non-political posts (classical music) which I value, but his political posts are often poison to me.

Thanks for trying to clear things up. All I can say is not all people have mental balance making it possible for them to not behave badly online.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 06, 2020, 10:30:00 AM
Quote from: JBS on April 06, 2020, 08:26:29 AM
71db's idea of how it would work is a fantasy.

Everything is impossible before made possible. A lot of things have been called fantasy before made reality. Corporate media likes to use smears such as "pie in the sky" when they want to made something totally possible look impossible.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 06, 2020, 10:40:23 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 06, 2020, 10:19:15 AM
Well, asking me to change my opinions is rather silly.

Only for people who refuse to consider that they may be mistaken.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 06, 2020, 10:54:54 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 06, 2020, 10:40:23 AM
Only for people who refuse to consider that they may be mistaken.

If you think I am mistaken about something how about presenting me convincing arguments to change my mind? Just asking someone to change their opinion is silly. Giving them a reason to do it is another thing.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 06, 2020, 11:00:09 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 06, 2020, 10:54:54 AM
If you think I am mistaken about something how about presenting me convincing arguments to change my mind? Just asking someone to change their opinion is silly. Giving them a reason to do it is another thing.

We've done that plenty of times. Facts and reasons. You invariably wave them away as corporate propaganda and media smears because they conflict with your preconcieved notions.  We should start calling you brainwashed.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 06, 2020, 11:00:52 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 06, 2020, 10:54:54 AM
If you think I am mistaken about something how about presenting me convincing arguments to change my mind? Just asking someone to change their opinion is silly. Giving them a reason to do it is another thing.

As your non-processing of JBS's posts demonstrates, you do not hear reason.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on April 07, 2020, 02:11:00 AM
Any chance they can dump Biden for Cuomo? Long shot, huh.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 07, 2020, 02:58:16 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 06, 2020, 11:00:52 AM
As your non-processing of JBS's posts demonstrates, you do not hear reason.

My prosessing tells me he fears goverment bureaucracy more than I do. For him Bernie's weakness is his policies increase goverment bureaucracy. I don't care, if the same policies improve people's lives, which I believe they do. Bernie's housing policies may have problems, but at least he is trying to get roof over peoples heads. How about Biden? What's his policy? No bureaucracy nor roof over head?

Anyway, this doesn't matter anymore as Bernie won't be the president. His policies won't be implemented.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Iota on April 07, 2020, 03:32:05 AM
Quote from: milk on April 07, 2020, 02:11:00 AM
Any chance they can dump Biden for Cuomo? Long shot, huh.

Cuomo himself has ruled it out apparently, but from my very peripheral and recent acquaintance with him, he seems so frank and grounded compared to Trump (though perhaps not a remarkably difficult feat) and the contrast so stark, that your query seems very natural.
There are people who shine in adversity and then disappoint when the storm passes, and from what I read I suspect there are a number of things I'd dislike about his politics, but since he has hoved into view internationally, I must admit has struck quite an impressive figure and would seem to me, from the Dems point of view, a pretty good foil for Trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 07, 2020, 04:17:05 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 07, 2020, 02:58:16 AM
My prosessing tells me he fears goverment bureaucracy more than I do.

Your "processing" is failed; you only hear what you want to hear, and regurgitate your tedious boilerplate ad infinitum.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 07, 2020, 04:18:34 AM
Quote from: milk on April 07, 2020, 02:11:00 AM
Any chance they can dump Biden for Cuomo? Long shot, huh.

One problem is, the voters. No one has voted for Cuomo to serve as the nominee.  "long shot" doesn't begin to cover it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 07, 2020, 04:19:55 AM
Quote from: Iota on April 07, 2020, 03:32:05 AM
There are people who shine in adversity and then disappoint when the storm passes....

Giuliani springs to mind.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 07, 2020, 04:37:21 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 07, 2020, 04:17:05 AM
Your "processing" is failed; you only hear what you want to hear, and regurgitate your tedious boilerplate ad infinitum.

At least I am not the only one with failed processing: Millions of people have voted for Bernie and donated money to him. All those people think Bernie is a good candidate that would improve their lives. They only hear what they want to hear.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 07, 2020, 04:59:09 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 07, 2020, 04:18:34 AM
One problem is, the voters. No one has voted for Cuomo to serve as the nominee.

That's not a problem for the oligarchs. People voting for the wrong people like Bernie and Tulsi is a nuisance for them.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on April 07, 2020, 05:22:28 AM
This is a strange discussion, going on and on for several pages.

If you (impersonal you) find a certain poster annoying, stupid or whatever, the thing to do is NOT pay attention any more. Writing censurous replies won't help, as has been amply proven. People have limited learning abilities, certainly on the internet.

Just let it go.

BTW The Diner is not really "a toxic place", compared to other net places.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 07, 2020, 05:33:12 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 07, 2020, 04:59:09 AM
That's not a problem for the oligarchs. People voting for the wrong people like Bernie and Tulsi is a nuisance for them.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on April 07, 2020, 05:48:54 AM
Quote from: Herman on April 07, 2020, 05:22:28 AM
This is a strange discussion, going on and on for several pages.

If you (impersonal you) find a certain poster annoying, stupid or whatever, the thing to do is NOT pay attention any more. Writing censurous replies won't help, as has been amply proven. People have limited learning abilities, certainly on the internet.

Just let it go.

BTW The Diner is not really "a toxic place", compared to other net places.

Full agreement with the first part.

But I prefer not to compare 'our' ;) board with the true antisocial and toxic filth on other parts of the world wide web.
Here, people are mocking each other and loathing other person's thougts and posts. It's just not necessary, imho, because no one seems to be willing to change their position and opinion anyway. The pot calling the kettle black and vice versa.

Let there be... peace. 0:)

:blank:

GO, BERNIE, GO! >:D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: MusicTurner on April 07, 2020, 05:53:25 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 07, 2020, 04:17:05 AM
Your "processing" is failed; you only hear what you want to hear, and regurgitate your tedious boilerplate ad infinitum.

If not yet 'ad infinitum' on the forum, the continued series of solely personal attacks on a poster is probably close to record-breaking. The claimed reason being partly, because the site's 'Ignore Function' is not working to stop one seeing posts ... And then perpetually accusing him, in the lowest wordings possible, of childish behaviour ... it just doesn't add up.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 07, 2020, 06:54:07 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 07, 2020, 05:33:12 AM
(https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29043.0;attach=63646;image)

This is your processing of my posts Karl? Repeated posting of some "animalistic" gifs like a Pavlovian dog reacting to my "Bernie bro" stimulus? Your behavior has become almost entertainment for me in it's silliness and predictable nature. So, you are the adult in the room? I am a toddler in diapers running around wearing a miniature Bernie T-shirt? I think I have established a good reason not to take you seriously (here).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on April 07, 2020, 07:36:46 AM
Quote from: MusicTurner on April 07, 2020, 05:53:25 AM
If not yet 'ad infinitum' on the forum, the continued series of solely personal attacks on a poster is probably close to record-breaking. The claimed reason being partly, because the site's 'Ignore Function' is not working to stop one seeing posts ... And then perpetually accusing him, in the lowest wordings possible, of childish behaviour ... it just doesn't add up.

Both the 'buddy' and 'ignore' buttons are working just fine.
And it's also possible just to ignore annoying posters without using them buttons.

I fear that, now that so many of us are forced to stay inside/home, a few vocal people are going to enjoy/annoy each other even more. Because they are all so darn right, and the other ones are so darn ignorant/childish/stupid/whatever.
So, I'm gonna conclude that they will never stop anyway anyhow anytime, and that they actually do not want their rival(s) to quit either, because, despite their own complaints and agressiveness about/towards each other, it's... so much fun.

Huzzah.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 07, 2020, 08:31:29 AM
Quote from: MusicTurner on April 07, 2020, 05:53:25 AM
If not yet 'ad infinitum' on the forum, the continued series of solely personal attacks on a poster is probably close to record-breaking. The claimed reason being partly, because the site's 'Ignore Function' is not working to stop one seeing posts ... And then perpetually accusing him, in the lowest wordings possible, of childish behaviour ... it just doesn't add up.

Noted, thank you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 07, 2020, 08:37:50 AM
Quote from: Marc on April 07, 2020, 07:36:46 AM
Both the 'buddy' and 'ignore' buttons are working just fine.

I am sure that is generally true.

I've stated simply that it somehow does not work for me in this instance. I do not know how or why. i have just succeeded in adding you to my ignore list, which I shall shortly reverse, so, yes, I know how it's done, and it works in other instances.  Otherwise, thank you.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 07, 2020, 08:39:04 AM
I should like at this time to invite anyone else to remark on my activities/behavior, including imputing motivations to me.

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 07, 2020, 11:09:18 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 07, 2020, 02:58:16 AM
My prosessing tells me he fears goverment bureaucracy more than I do. For him Bernie's weakness is his policies increase goverment bureaucracy. I don't care, if the same policies improve people's lives, which I believe they do. Bernie's housing policies may have problems, but at least he is trying to get roof over peoples heads. How about Biden? What's his policy? No bureaucracy nor roof over head?

Anyway, this doesn't matter anymore as Bernie won't be the president. His policies won't be implemented.

You should fear bureaucracy far more. A government bureaucrat has more opportunity, and more power, to mess up your life than any oligarch. And unlike the oligarch, the bureaucrat doesn't even personally benefit from it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 07, 2020, 11:38:51 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 07, 2020, 08:37:50 AM
I am sure that is generally true.

I've stated simply that it somehow does not work for me in this instance. I do not know how or why. i have just succeeded in adding you to my ignore list, which I shall shortly reverse, so, yes, I know how it's done, and it works in other instances.  Otherwise, thank you.



Thanks to a patient friend, I learn that I was missing a space.

My invitation above stands. Don't sheathe the knives now.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on April 07, 2020, 12:33:27 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 07, 2020, 11:38:51 AM
[...]
My invitation above stands. Don't sheathe the knives now.

See?

You deliberaty will not understand and you deliberately want to carry on.
Pot and kettle.

I did a last (I hope) effort to get rid of the useless weaponery here, but instead I guess it's useless to hope for a debate without the use of weapons here. Apparently it's fun to get someone wounded on GMG. Apologies, Karl, I can do without them knives. You enjoy yourself.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 07, 2020, 12:39:19 PM
Quote from: JBS on April 07, 2020, 11:09:18 AM
You should fear bureaucracy far more. A government bureaucrat has more opportunity, and more power, to mess up your life than any oligarch. And unlike the oligarch, the bureaucrat doesn't even personally benefit from it.

Well, since Finland is a social democracy and according to you social democratic policies cause massive government bureaucracy, in which way(s) have Finnish government bureaucrats messed up my life? I am blind to it as I live in this system, but you as someone who doesn't live in a social democracy may see what I don't see.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 07, 2020, 12:50:05 PM
Quote from: Marc on April 07, 2020, 12:33:27 PM
Apologies, Karl, I can do without them knives. You enjoy yourself.

I'm trying to work out how this is an apology.  Pretend for the time being that I'm a rational adult.  My brain is retraining since my stroke, so I won't object if you speak plainly.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 07, 2020, 12:55:07 PM
Quote from: Marc on April 07, 2020, 07:36:46 AM
Both the 'buddy' and 'ignore' buttons are working just fine.

Perhaps I did you a disservice by misreading you;  just what did you mean here, please?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on April 07, 2020, 12:55:14 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 07, 2020, 12:50:05 PM
I'm trying to work out how this is an apology.  Pretend for the time being that I'm a rational adult.  My brain is retraining since my stroke, so I won't object if you speak plainly.

I apologized for putting my knife in the sheath, despite the fact that you asked for your fellow members to pull it out.
But who knows, maybe others do long for that fight. As I said: have fun.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 07, 2020, 12:59:31 PM
Quote from: Marc on April 07, 2020, 12:55:14 PM
As I said: have fun.

That seems snide to me.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Marc on April 07, 2020, 01:11:58 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 07, 2020, 12:55:07 PM
Perhaps I did you a disservice by misreading you;  just what did you mean here, please?

It means that I checked them and that they both worked fine for me.
Earlier, there were some remarks about forum software i.c. the ignoring function not working properly... but maybe I misunderstood that.
Anyway, since fellow member mentioned it again, I thought I had to inform him/whomever that the software and its buttons worked fine (for me). But maybe it depends on which browser is used.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 07, 2020, 12:59:31 PM
That seems snide to me.

Well, it is not.

We are all individuals.
We are all different.

We all have our own ideas about fun.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 07, 2020, 01:35:36 PM
Quote from: Marc on April 07, 2020, 01:11:58 PM
It means that I checked them and that they both worked fine for me.
Earlier, there were some remarks about forum software i.c. the ignoring function not working properly... but maybe I misunderstood that.
Anyway, since fellow member mentioned it again, I thought I had to inform him/whomever that the software and its buttons worked fine (for me). But maybe it depends on which browser is used.

Well, it is not.

We are all individuals.
We are all different.

We all have our own ideas about fun.

Thanks; I wish you fun, as well.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 08, 2020, 07:31:19 AM
Sen. Bernie Sanders Ends Presidential Bid.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on April 08, 2020, 10:06:51 AM
Indeed.

Is Biden still running?

I haven't heard from him in a long time.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 08, 2020, 10:24:23 AM
Quote from: Herman on April 08, 2020, 10:06:51 AM
Indeed.

Is Biden still running?

I haven't heard from him in a long time.

Biden describes his phone call with Trump about coronavirus response (https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/07/politics/biden-trump-phone-call-coronavirus-cnntv/index.html)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 08, 2020, 10:31:39 AM
What Bernie Sanders proved by running for president (and what he didn't)
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large

Updated 2:24 PM ET, Wed April 8, 2020 (https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/08/politics/sanders-2020-joe-biden-president/index.html)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 08, 2020, 10:36:27 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 08, 2020, 10:31:39 AM
What Bernie Sanders proved by running for president (and what he didn't)
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large

Updated 2:24 PM ET, Wed April 8, 2020 (https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/08/politics/sanders-2020-joe-biden-president/index.html)

As was the case in 2016 -- when Clinton had the majority of non-white voters within the party -- the Sanders coalition was simply not as big as his opponent's. And -- and this is critical -- Sanders was never really able to convince those skeptical of him that he could and would represent their interests as the nominee. Too many Democrats viewed a vote for Sanders as a risk rather than as an opportunity. And it doomed him.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 08, 2020, 10:53:29 AM
Quote from: Herman on April 08, 2020, 10:06:51 AM
Indeed.

Is Biden still running?

I haven't heard from him in a long time.

Officially he is, althou he might not be aware of it at all times due to cognitive decline. The plan is to hide him as much as possible. Beating Trump will be extremely difficult, but this had to be done to stop Bernie. Game over.

I have lost all hope. The world is going to hell and there is NOTHING we can do about it. Money won. Mankind lost.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 08, 2020, 10:54:02 AM
Ah, that sweet Ignore function.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 08, 2020, 12:57:51 PM
Strictly for people with a sense of humor:

Bernie Sanders Drops Out Of Race To Spend More Time With His Many, Many Houses (https://babylonbee.com/news/bernie-sanders-drops-out-of-race-to-spend-more-time-with-his-many-many-houses)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on April 08, 2020, 02:23:38 PM
Because some of you will keep arguing about this anyway. Healthcare.

https://gimletmedia.com/shows/science-vs/o2hx5j
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on April 08, 2020, 03:08:19 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 07, 2020, 12:39:19 PM
Well, since Finland is a social democracy and according to you social democratic policies cause massive government bureaucracy, in which way(s) have Finnish government bureaucrats messed up my life? I am blind to it as I live in this system, but you as someone who doesn't live in a social democracy may see what I don't see.

     You are arguing against a theology. It has nothing to do with government performance of its functions. It's largely about preventing functions from being performed. Size arguments might make sense if efficiency was a goal. It's not. If efficiency was a goal you'd get more bang for bucks. The size-ists want less bang, period.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on April 08, 2020, 04:40:17 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 08, 2020, 10:53:29 AM
Officially he is, althou he might not be aware of it at all times due to cognitive decline. The plan is to hide him as much as possible. Beating Trump will be extremely difficult, but this had to be done to stop Bernie. Game over.

I have lost all hope. The world is going to hell and there is NOTHING we can do about it. Money won. Mankind lost.

Statement From Vice President Biden (https://medium.com/@JoeBiden/statement-from-vice-president-biden-5de128a935ac)

[...]"Senator Sanders and his supporters have changed the dialogue in America. Issues which had been given little attention — or little hope of ever passing — are now at the center of the political debate. Income inequality, universal health care, climate change, free college, relieving students from the crushing debt of student loans. These are just a few of the issues Bernie and his supporters have given life to. And while Bernie and I may not agree on how we might get there, we agree on the ultimate goal for these issues and many more.

But more than any one issue or set of issues, I want to commend Bernie for being a powerful voice for a fairer and more just America. It's voices like Bernie's that refuse to allow us to just accept what is — that refuse to accept we can't change what's wrong in our nation — that refuse to accept the health and well-being of our fellow citizens and our planet isn't our responsibility too. Bernie gets a lot of credit for his passionate advocacy for the issues he cares about. But he doesn't get enough credit for being a voice that forces us all to take a hard look in the mirror and ask if we've done enough.

While the Sanders campaign has been suspended — its impact on this election and on elections to come is far from over. We will address the existential crisis of climate change. We will confront income inequality in our nation. We will make sure healthcare is affordable and accessible to every American. We will make education at our public colleges and universities free. We will ease the burden of student debt. And, most important of all, we will defeat Donald Trump."[...]


evidence of cognitive decline?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 08, 2020, 05:18:10 PM
New York will allow all voters to cast absentee ballots on 23 June primary.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Daverz on April 08, 2020, 05:33:04 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 08, 2020, 05:18:10 PM
New York will allow all voters to cast absentee ballots on 23 June primary.

"But, but, how can they miss this excellent opportunity to kill off voters!"  -- average Republican asshole.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on April 09, 2020, 03:25:49 PM
Leftward ho! Biden pivots to progressives (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/09/biden-progressives-sanders-178073)

"The day after his last opponent dropped out of the presidential race, Joe Biden took the rarest of turns for a Democratic nominee: to the left.

Biden shed any pretense about his need to win over Bernie Sanders voters when he announced a pair of proposals Thursday aimed at assuaging wary progressives: lowering the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 60 years old, and forgiving all student debt for low- and middle-income people who attended public colleges and universities, as well as those who attended private Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other institutions that serve minority students.

While unorthodox for a general election nominee, Biden's decision not to move to the center was both a tacit admission that he has a problem with young and progressive voters, as well as a gamble that he can remain the real centrist in the race against President Donald Trump.

"We don't need to pivot to get independents because he already appeals to independents," said a Biden adviser. "These are ideas that we feel should appeal to Bernie's voters that are well in keeping with Joe's principles."

But progressives were quick to point out that expanding Medicare is not "Medicare for All," and some debt forgiveness is not debt forgiveness for all.

"It's Day 1. We expect to see more. He's got a long way to go," said Waleed Shahid, a spokesman for progressive group Justice Democrats and a former Sanders staffer. On Wednesday, Shahid's group was part of a coalition of progressive outfits that issued a list of far-reaching demands they want Biden to adopt."[...]
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 09, 2020, 03:43:11 PM
Medicare at age 60 is not all that radical.  Most proposals would in fact start at a lower age (50 or 55), and one version of it was seriously discussed c 2009 when Obamacare was being formulated.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on April 09, 2020, 03:47:15 PM
I haven't been following Sanders statements. Has he asked his Bernie Bros to try and form a united front with the Biden people for the sake of defeating Trump  - or at least meet them half way?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 09, 2020, 03:56:37 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on April 09, 2020, 03:47:15 PM
I haven't been following Sanders statements. Has he asked his Bernie Bros to try and form a united front with the Biden people for the sake of defeating Trump  - or at least meet them half way?

I'll have to look for that.  News coverage has been so focused on the virus and its direct impacts that very little campaign news surfaces.

Meanwhile, the full list that Justice Democrats sent to the North Pole can be found here.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/09/joe-biden-earn-our-support-green-new-deal-bernie-sanders

Note that some items aren't even things Biden could do even if he wants to.  No matter how badly they might do in November, the GOP will retain enough strength in Congress to block most of the program, and some things, like automatic voting registration would have to be done at the state level.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on April 09, 2020, 06:16:23 PM
On how following politics is pretty much the same for many people as following a sports team:

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/10/804612601/passion-isnt-enough-the-rise-of-political-hobbyism-in-the-united-states
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 10, 2020, 02:58:40 AM
Looks like Barack Obama is one of the biggest obstacles of progress in the US. People voted for him twice in hopes of change, but he did not deliver so a lot of frustration among voters got Trump elected next and now Obama seems to have been the puppet master behind scenes in this presidential race. Some on the left are speculating (no proof of that) it was Obama who pressured Bernie to drop out of the race.

I used to really look up to Obama before following closely the US politics. It was all based on his charisma because I didn't know better. Not anymore. What an corrupted hack he is!  ::)

Well, I'm pretty much out and now that I am wiser 3-4 years later I consider the US the richest third world country. Just one big banana republic having so huge political, financial and cultural influence in the World that I wasted years on following it's insane oligarchy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on April 10, 2020, 03:13:11 AM
I understand your frustration at seeing your political crusade having failed with Mr. Sanders dropping out of the race, after having invested so much time and futile effort in it. But, 71db, I suggest you also take a broader (and cooler) view of the US before hurling unfounded insults at the country and it's people. The place is not perfect, by any means, but much richer, diverse and prosperous (despite the inequalities) than the diatribes of the likes of Kyle Kulinski (who seems to be your primary source) will make you believe. Perhaps even visiting the country could be an idea, so you get an actual notion of what you're talking about.

And blaming (with no proof whatsoever, by your own admission) Mr. Obama—whatever opinion one may have of him—for the recent turn of events is, to put it mildly, childish.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on April 10, 2020, 03:40:32 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 10, 2020, 02:58:40 AM
Looks like Barack Obama is one of the biggest obstacles of progress in the US. People voted for him twice in hopes of change, but he did not deliver so a lot of frustration among voters got Trump elected next and now Obama seems to have been the puppet master behind scenes in this presidential race. Some on the left are speculating (no proof of that) it was Obama who pressured Bernie to drop out of the race.

I used to really look up to Obama before following closely the US politics. It was all based on his charisma because I didn't know better. Not anymore. What an corrupted hack he is!  ::)

Well that's just ridiculous.

Honestly, you pretend to be an adult, but you're displaying an utterly childish attitude.

EDIT: And I hadn't read ritter's comment before choosing that word.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on April 10, 2020, 04:20:07 AM
The notion that people in 2016 voted for Trump because they were frustrated Obama did not get to put his change agenda in effect is crazy.

There were people who voted for Trump because they were "angry as hell" at having had a black president for eight years.

If you want to ascribe any higher motives to these voters you come dangerously close to validating them.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 10, 2020, 04:52:56 AM
Quote from: ritter on April 10, 2020, 03:13:11 AM
But, 71db, I suggest you also take a broader (and cooler) view of the US before hurling unfounded insults at the country and its people.

Oh! the deaf ears on which that suggestion fell!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: j winter on April 10, 2020, 06:44:02 AM
Honestly, at this point it's very simple. 

Is Biden a perfect candidate?  No.  Is he objectively the best of all possible options that the Democrats might have nominated?  No.

The question is: which man, Biden or Trump, would make a better President of the United States? 

"Neither" is not an option, because like it or not, the US is a two-party system, and we are now presented with a binary choice:  Biden or Trump.  Are you satisfied with Trump's current performance in the office, and wish for another four years of the same?  Or do you think that Biden would perform better in that office?  Regardless of whether Biden is the ideal candidate in your estimation, is he preferable to Trump?   

For myself, I honestly don't plan on expending another brain cell on the US election until November.  Trump has amply demonstrated that he is an untenable choice.  In my view, his continuance in office is an existential threat to American democracy and global stability.  Thus Biden has my enthusiastic vote, because there is simply no possible scenario in which I would support re-electing Donald Trump. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 10, 2020, 06:56:56 AM
Quote from: j winter on April 10, 2020, 06:44:02 AM
Honestly, at this point it's very simple. 

Is Biden a perfect candidate?  No.  Is he objectively the best of all possible options that the Democrats might have nominated?  No.

The question is: which man, Biden or Trump, would make a better President of the United States? 

"Neither" is not an option, because like it or not, the US is a two-party system, and we are now presented with a binary choice:  Biden or Trump.  Are you satisfied with Trump's current performance in the office, and wish for another four years of the same?  Or do you think that Biden would perform better in that office?  Regardless of whether Biden is the ideal candidate in your estimation, is he preferable to Trump?   

For myself, I honestly don't plan on expending another brain cell on the US election until November.  Trump has amply demonstrated that he is an untenable choice.  In my view, his continuance in office is an existential threat to American democracy and global stability.  Thus Biden has my enthusiastic vote, because there is simply no possible scenario in which I would support re-electing Donald Trump. 

Word, brother!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on April 10, 2020, 08:01:08 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 10, 2020, 06:56:56 AM
Word, brother!

+1.

I spoke with my brother and sister-in-law in NC last week and it's their POV as well.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on April 10, 2020, 08:11:25 AM
Quote from: André on April 10, 2020, 08:01:08 AM

I spoke with my brother and sister-in-law in NC last week and it's their POV as well.
But not Kyle's, which is what really matters... ;D

https://www.youtube.com/v/eyhpHd4If4M
Don't waste your time watching this, because it's rubbish from start to finish. This chap achieves the impossible feat of being dogmatic and inconsistent at the same time. I was shocked to know he had 800.000+ subscribers to his channel, but then relieved to learn that ranks him 19.000th in YouTube. If this is what passes for political comment in America (or the world) these days, then we're really doomed. It's like a Fox News on a (very tight) budget, and at an even lower intellectual level (which is saying something)...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 10, 2020, 11:28:17 AM
Try to understand the left. The left has been pushed out of political discourse. The left has no say on anything. The left can't accept that. If you vote for blue no matter who, it means the Dems can be (and are) REALLY shitty, but just marginally better than the Reps. Better than Trump IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!!! That's still REALLY SHITTY!!! The only POWER the left has is not voting!!! That's the only leverage to force the Dems move to the left! Easy for you centrists to vote for Biden. Easy for you if you don't care about lefty policies. For the left BIDEN is REALLY shitty!! He doesn't advocate ANY lefty agendas! Not even one!! So why the fuck does he deserve lefty votes??
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 10, 2020, 12:18:17 PM
Quote from: ritter on April 10, 2020, 08:11:25 AM
But not Kyle's, which is what really matters... ;D

https://www.youtube.com/v/eyhpHd4If4M
Don't waste your time watching this, because it's rubbish from start to finish. This chap achieves the impossible feat of being dogmatic and inconsistent at the same time. I was shocked to know he had 800.000+ subscribers to his channel, but then relieved to learn that ranks him 19.000th in YouTube. If this is what passes for political comment in America (or the world) these days, then we're really doomed. It's like a Fox News on a (very tight) budget, and at an even lower intellectual level (which is saying something)...

When the Fox News talking heads are intellects, in comparison . . .
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 10, 2020, 12:31:56 PM
Quote from: Herman on March 30, 2020, 11:27:51 PM
Obviously there are increasing calls for Andrew C. to jump in the race.

Even the VP spot would be very hard, since Biden foolishly committed to name a woman.

Today is the first that I've seen an actual news item on this theme:  in the New York Post, which is right of center, reporting on the results of a poll conducted 3-6 April by the conservative Club for Growth, "which generally supports Republican candidates."  an endeavor which has all the earmarks of trying to muddy the opposition's waters.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on April 11, 2020, 12:50:31 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 10, 2020, 11:28:17 AM
Try to understand the left. The left has been pushed out of political discourse. The left has no say on anything. The left can't accept that. If you vote for blue no matter who, it means the Dems can be (and are) REALLY shitty, but just marginally better than the Reps. Better than Trump IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!!! That's still REALLY SHITTY!!! The only POWER the left has is not voting!!! That's the only leverage to force the Dems move to the left! Easy for you centrists to vote for Biden. Easy for you if you don't care about lefty policies. For the left BIDEN is REALLY shitty!! He doesn't advocate ANY lefty agendas! Not even one!! So why the fuck does he deserve lefty votes??

It's really beyond that you're now gearing up to tell Americans they should stay home and not vote Trump out of office because your favorite dropped out. You really don't seem to understand USA elections are none of your business.
There is a lot going on in Europe right now that's really affecting your way of life. Why do you never talk about this? There are plenty of European GMG members. (I am one.) Is it perhaps because of the power and mass of the American media, so that it's easier, if one's lazy, to get excited about Trump than about Orban or Merkel or Spain?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: MusicTurner on April 11, 2020, 01:00:24 AM
Quote from: Herman on April 11, 2020, 12:50:31 AM
It's really beyond that you're now gearing up to tell Americans they should stay home and not vote Trump out of office because your favorite dropped out. You really don't seem to understand USA elections are none of your business.
There is a lot going on in Europe right now that's really affecting your way of life. Why do you never talk about this? There are plenty of European GMG members. (I am one.) Is it perhaps because of the power and mass of the American media, so that it's easier, if one's lazy, to get excited about Trump than about Orban or Merkel or Spain?

Nonetheless, a quick glance reveals that 23 of your latest 40 posts are dealing with US elections ...  ;)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on April 11, 2020, 03:08:52 AM
It's a topic. However, I'm not telling people whom to vote for.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 11, 2020, 03:39:46 AM
Quote from: Herman on April 11, 2020, 12:50:31 AM
It's really beyond that you're now gearing up to tell Americans they should stay home and not vote Trump out of office because your favorite dropped out. You really don't seem to understand USA elections are none of your business.
There is a lot going on in Europe right now that's really affecting your way of life. Why do you never talk about this? There are plenty of European GMG members. (I am one.) Is it perhaps because of the power and mass of the American media, so that it's easier, if one's lazy, to get excited about Trump than about Orban or Merkel or Spain?

I'm not telling anyone who to vote. I'm trying to make people here understand WHY some lefties won't vote for Biden. I rather see Biden as the president than Trump, but then again the only thing Biden offers to lefties is he is not as abyssmal as Trump.

If you say people must vote for Biden to get Trump out YOU TELLING THEM WHO TO VOTE!

The US elections aren't my business in the sense that I can't vote on those elections, but of course everyone in the World can comment on the elections. You can comment on Finnish elections if you want. The US elections have a huge impact on the whole Word. The president of Finland doesn't start global trade wars. The president of the USA does. The president of Finland doesn't start wars unless absolutely necessory, instead uses all his powers trying to make the World a safer place. The president of the USA starts wars because oil companies and the military industry complex want it to increase their profits. The US is a superpower with military strenght of almost the next 10 biggest militaries combined. It's quite understandable people in other countries are interested of what happens there.

Most of the time I find European politics boring. Everything is just so much more rational than in the US. Hungary lost it's democracy which is very sad. Maybe they get it back in 100 year. Maybe not. Time tells.

Right now corona virus is affecting my life the most.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 11, 2020, 04:05:19 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 11, 2020, 03:39:46 AM
Most of the time I find European politics boring.

You might consider your blessings.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on April 11, 2020, 04:17:39 AM
The aim of politics is not supposed to be to entertain you.

That podcast link I posted is pertinent.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 11, 2020, 04:38:08 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 11, 2020, 04:05:19 AM
You might consider your blessings.

In Europe there is not much money to be taken from the rich because they are already taxed hard. So, you can't do progressive politics because there's no money to do it! On the other had we already have most of the progressive policies so it doesn't matter much. UBI is something we need, but it's almost impossible to make people understand why UBI is a good idea. Just ask Andrew Yang!  ;D I tried to promote UBI some 10-15 years ago myself online for a while until I realized people are just too stupid to get the idea: People just think UBI is bad because it's "free" money, but so is current social security. UBI is just a smarter and better way to give "free" money and mathematically equivalent to the model of negative income tax if you think you can tolerate the concept of negative taxes better than free money. The reduction of jobs in the future due to automation, robots and artificial intelligence will force countries to adapt UBI, but we could have had it decades earlier (in Finland UBI should have been implemented around 1995) and have a better functioning society. That's the cost of human stupidity and inability to adapt new ideas fast.

In the US the rich pay insanely low taxes because they have rigged the system and pushed the tax burden to the lower income classes, people like you yourself. That's why in the US the rich can be easily taxed more to pay for progressive policies. Also, the progressive policies are lacking compared to Europe. No single payer healthcare. No paid vacation/sick leave by law. No tuition free higher education to mention a few.

In that sense Europe is already doing almost as well as it can. There isn't much rigging to be unrigged. No oligarchy to be replaced by democracy. Of course some countries in Europe can have some problems, but this is the overall picture. Simply put Europe is much closer to it's full potential than the US.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on April 11, 2020, 04:48:59 AM
I depends whether you're interested or not, if you find European politics boring.

In reality there is a lot of epochal stuff going on in Europe. Your neighbour, Russia, for instance, is now making the last steps toward a permanent Putin rule. Poland: lotta stuff going on. Germany: what's going to happen after Merkel. Italy on the brink of collapse. Greece, how is it recovering from its collapse. The list is endless, and it's really more interesting, because it's not imprisoned in a stale unvarying dichotomy such as in the USA.

The only difference is Europe's politics are not being chewed out for you in a pseudo-exciting horse race good vs bad guy format. (Though that was the format chosen during the Brexit years in the UK.) So one might say that for all your complaining about the 'corporate media', you don't seem to see what's happening around you unless it has been mediated by corporate media.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 11, 2020, 05:24:01 AM
Joe Biden's Olive Branch To Progressive Voters

Biden would lower the Medicare eligibility age to 60 (Hillary Clinton proposed 55 in 2016) and forgive federal student debt for low-income and middle-class people who attented public colleges and universities, historically black colleges and universities (HBCU), and underfunded minority-serving institutions (MSI).

Should progressives get excited about this? To be honest, while the medicare propose being better than nothing, it's incrementalism, a tiny start.

Fifty-five to sixty-five year olds have the highest median incomes* and sixty to sixty-five year olds have the highest household wealth. For the medianworker, the period immediately before retiremetn represents the peak of their earings and wealth. Biden unveils this plan in the midst of a pandemic-induced recession that has kicked millions off their health insurance, with a recent poll finding 35 % of those under forty-five have lost health coverage.

This excites older people rather than young people, the ones Biden struggles with the most.

As for the debt forgiveness proposal, it leaves out those who went to for-profit schools or trade schools. For mass appeal Biden needs universal debt forgiveness plan.

As these incremetal steps are only the openings proposal, by the time he has negotiated with the Republicans he will get nothing or an even more watered version of the proposals.

___________________
* Annual median earnings (Bureau of Labour Statistics):
16-19 years: $23,920
20-24 years: $30,628
25-34 years: $43,524
35-44 years: $53,144
45-54 years: $53,300
55-64 years: $57,148





Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 11, 2020, 05:40:44 AM
Quote from: Herman on April 11, 2020, 04:48:59 AM
I depends whether you're interested or not, if you find European politics boring.

Boring compared to the US politics. Of course European politics can be interesting at times.

Quote from: Herman on April 11, 2020, 04:48:59 AMIn reality there is a lot of epochal stuff going on in Europe. Your neighbour, Russia, for instance, is now making the last steps toward a permanent Putin rule.

If you feel there is something to talk about permanent Putin rule by all means create a tread for it.

Quote from: Herman on April 11, 2020, 04:48:59 AMPoland: lotta stuff going on. Germany: what's going to happen after Merkel. Italy on the brink of collapse. Greece, how is it recovering from its collapse. The list is endless, and it's really more interesting, because it's not imprisoned in a stale unvarying dichotomy such as in the USA.

It's not clear what should be done. What should Italy do? I don't know. Ideas?

Quote from: Herman on April 11, 2020, 04:48:59 AMThe only difference is Europe's politics are not being chewed out for you in a pseudo-exciting horse race good vs bad guy format. (Though that was the format chosen during the Brexit years in the UK.) So one might say that for all your complaining about the 'corporate media', you don't seem to see what's happening around you unless it has been mediated by corporate media.

Yeah, yeah I do everything for the wrong reasons I know... ...I never said I am perfect.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on April 12, 2020, 04:16:05 PM
Well? Who would you pick?

Sarcasm and snark aside, that is. Who would you pick?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 12, 2020, 04:37:05 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on April 12, 2020, 04:16:05 PM
Well? Who would you pick?

Sarcasm and snark aside, that is.

Let me know how that goes...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on April 12, 2020, 04:38:00 PM
Quote from: Todd on April 12, 2020, 04:32:53 PM

I'm asking the unmatched experts on US politics that can be found only on this forum.  You know, like people who prattled on about Faithless Electors in 2016.  I simply cannot match such wisdom.

To me, a sensible politician would consider walking back a vacuous promise that the Veep would be a woman.  The world has literally changed in the last month.  See, that is why I seek enlightenment on this forum.

Sarcasm and snark detected. Any chance of a serious, considered reply?

Why shouldn't the VP be a woman? Especially as for the most part the women acquitted themselves better in the primaries and there seem to be strong contenders and some that help with the electoral math.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 12, 2020, 05:04:45 PM
Quote from: Todd on April 12, 2020, 04:32:53 PM

I'm asking the unmatched experts on US politics that can be found only on this forum.  You know, like people who prattled on about Faithless Electors in 2016.  I simply cannot match such wisdom.

To me, a sensible politician would consider walking back a vacuous promise that the Veep would be a woman.  The world has literally changed in the last month.  See, that is why I seek enlightenment on this forum.

There's no reason not to pick a woman for the VP slot. The world is remarkably the same as last month in that respect.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 12, 2020, 05:08:17 PM
Quote from: Todd on April 12, 2020, 05:06:05 PM

Unfortunately, you missed the point as well.

And you certainly haven't changed in the least.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 12, 2020, 05:23:46 PM
Quote from: JBS on April 12, 2020, 05:04:45 PM
There's no reason not to pick a woman for the VP slot. The world is remarkably the same as last month in that respect.

This time I totally agree with you.  ;)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on April 12, 2020, 05:57:34 PM
Quote from: Todd on April 12, 2020, 05:06:05 PM

Unfortunately, you missed the point as well.

You have to make your point before people can miss it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on April 12, 2020, 06:09:36 PM
Quote from: JBS on April 12, 2020, 05:08:17 PM
And you certainly haven't changed in the least.

Still, the break was nice.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on April 12, 2020, 06:11:53 PM
Quote from: Madiel on April 12, 2020, 06:09:36 PM
Still, the break was nice.

just don't feed the troll.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on April 12, 2020, 06:20:20 PM
He did have a point though, oblique and nasty as it was.

He thinks Biden isn't going to make it through a term and that therefore the VP will become President, and for some reason he thinks that a woman becoming President that way is a problem.

Although why coronavirus has anything to do with it, I've no idea. Given that concerns about Biden's health have nothing to do with coronavirus.

Nor, of course, is coronavirus only a month old. That's just when Americans started paying attention.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on April 12, 2020, 06:25:30 PM
Quote from: Todd on April 12, 2020, 06:24:02 PM

This post is all over the place.

Oh I'm sorry. I promise from now on to only write one idea at a time so that you can keep up.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on April 12, 2020, 06:30:00 PM
Quote from: Madiel on April 12, 2020, 06:25:30 PM
Oh I'm sorry. I promise from now on to only write one idea at a time so that you can keep up.

please don't feed the troll
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on April 12, 2020, 06:58:38 PM
Quote from: Herman on April 12, 2020, 06:30:00 PM
please don't feed the troll
But can we offer a giant plate of poo poo with sprinkles on top?  :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on April 12, 2020, 07:10:01 PM
Quote from: Todd on April 12, 2020, 06:31:38 PM

It's quite amusing to watch someone who claims to be a lawyer flail about so.

You know, Todd, as you are a man who constantly delights in the malfunctioning of the US government, no doubt you are absolutely thrilled that your country is set to lose hundreds of thousands of citizens because of the poor preparations for a pandemic.

You claim the world has utterly changed, and yet you're still the same utter arsehole.

Bye.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: MusicTurner on April 12, 2020, 08:22:45 PM
Quote from: Herman on April 12, 2020, 06:30:00 PM
please don't feed the troll

Well said.

A couple of other, very recent posts:
Well said too.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Christo on April 12, 2020, 10:55:21 PM
Quote from: MusicTurner on April 12, 2020, 08:22:45 PM
Well said.

A couple of other, very recent posts:
Well said too.

+1. I wish it were 'sarcasm', it always presents itself as something worse: utter cynicism. Historians will have a hard job to explain how an ideology that stresses the importance of "conserving" things worthwhile in society could turn into something so destructive and negative. The answer probably, that all 'strong' ideologies show a tendency to develop into extremism. 'Cause extremism it is, hopefully in words only.  :-X
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: MusicTurner on April 12, 2020, 11:12:02 PM
One more remark then:
generally, psychology shouldn't be underestimated.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on April 12, 2020, 11:56:29 PM
and, of course, the psychology of online posting.

If you've had a rough day at work, or your spouse isn't smiling the way he / she used to? Take it out on people you don't know on the internet.

For some people (esp. the kind that loves Trump) it is a sign of biglyness if you can be rude and nasty without thinking twice.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 02:15:56 AM
Quote from: Herman on April 12, 2020, 06:30:00 PM
please don't feed the troll

Todd's return instantly cured my anxiety of being the black sheep here...  0:)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on April 13, 2020, 02:24:26 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 02:15:56 AM
Todd's return instantly cured my anxiety of being the black sheep here...  0:)
;D

Good day, 71db.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 03:23:14 AM
Ron Placone made a great tweet: https://twitter.com/RonPlacone/status/1248124647041724416 (https://twitter.com/RonPlacone/status/1248124647041724416)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on April 13, 2020, 04:27:27 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 02:15:56 AM
Todd's return instantly cured my anxiety of being the black sheep here...  0:)

You are never wilfully malicious, just a little insistent...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 13, 2020, 04:40:59 AM
Quote from: Herman on April 13, 2020, 04:27:27 AM
You are never wilfully malicious, just a little insistent...

+ 1
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 04:48:31 AM
Quote from: Herman on April 13, 2020, 04:27:27 AM
You are never wilfully malicious, just a little insistent...

I always mean well. I want better lives for Americans and I think there is so much potential to make that happen. I believe progressive policies are good for 99 % of Americans and if you are among the top 1 % you'll be fine no matter what. So, yes, I am never wilfully malicious, but I am as you say insistent  as hell (  >:D ) and also quite frustrated of the situation (establishment/corporatism always wins).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 13, 2020, 04:52:33 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 04:48:31 AM
(establishment/corporatism always wins).

Progressivism needs to convince those who are not already acolytes.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: steve ridgway on April 13, 2020, 05:49:17 AM
There's nothing I can do about American politics but I'll always be grateful to the American people for the space programme which continues to find out so much, shares it freely with the whole world and expands our horizons beyond the internal conflicts of the human race. That is what I call "great" :).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 13, 2020, 06:03:44 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 03:23:14 AM
Ron Placone made a great tweet: https://twitter.com/RonPlacone/status/1248124647041724416 (https://twitter.com/RonPlacone/status/1248124647041724416)

The folly of progressivism. Not only do they reject the good in favor of an unrealistic  perfect, but they mistake it for an enemy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 06:12:59 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 13, 2020, 04:52:33 AM
Progressivism needs to convince those who are not already acolytes.

Exactly and believe me progressives are trying hard, but it's very difficult when the mainstream media is all corporate and smearing progressives non-stop. Reading the posts of American members here has made me understand how hopeless this task is for the progressives. People like Kyle Kulinski and David Pakman are able to convert even conservatives/Trumpists into supporters of social democracy, but is frustratingly slow process...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 06:20:20 AM
Quote from: JBS on April 13, 2020, 06:03:44 AM
The folly of progressivism. Not only do they reject the good in favor of an unrealistic  perfect, but they mistake it for an enemy.

Unrealistic only in corporate mind, reality elsewhere in the world. Biden is ready to lower the eligibility of medicare to 60 (Hillary Clinton proposed 55, so Biden's propotion is even worse than Hillary's) so for a 30 years old voter healthcare is "only" 30 years away. What if he/she gets cancer in 25 years? Hopefully by that time the US has had it's first progressive president and has single payer healthcare implemented... ...that's why for many Biden is more of an enemy than a friend.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 13, 2020, 06:45:26 AM
Quote from: JBS on April 13, 2020, 06:03:44 AM
The folly of progressivism. Not only do they reject the good in favor of an unrealistic  perfect, but they mistake it for an enemy.

Add to that scorched-earth arrogance, and ....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 09:58:46 AM
CNBC/Change Research poll April 2-3, 2020, error marginal 2.5 % pts.

Presidential head-to-head match-up

Bernie Sanders 46 % - Trump 44 %

Trump 45 % - Joe Biden 43 %

:-\
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 13, 2020, 10:45:39 AM
Bernie Sanders endorses Joe Biden for president: 'We need you in the White House' – live (https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/apr/13/coronavirus-us-live-donald-trump-anthony-fauci-new-york-times-report-social-distancing-deaths-latest-news-updates)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 13, 2020, 10:47:02 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 04:48:31 AM
I always mean well. I want better lives for Americans and I think there is so much potential to make that happen. I believe progressive policies are good for 99 % of Americans and if you are among the top 1 % you'll be fine no matter what. So, yes, I am never wilfully malicious, but I am as you say insistent  as hell (  >:D ) and also quite frustrated of the situation (establishment/corporatism always wins).

Now, if you could simply consider that you might be mistaken . . .
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: T. D. on April 13, 2020, 11:01:34 AM
Sanders just endorsed Biden. (I originally misposted this in the Orange Swindler thread, sorry.)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-13/bernie-sanders-endorses-joe-biden-s-presidential-campaign (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-13/bernie-sanders-endorses-joe-biden-s-presidential-campaign)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 13, 2020, 11:03:55 AM
Quote from: T. D. on April 13, 2020, 11:01:34 AM
Sanders just endorsed Biden. (I originally misposted this in the Orange Swindler thread, sorry.)

(* chortle *)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 13, 2020, 11:58:48 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 06:20:20 AM
Unrealistic only in corporate mind, reality elsewhere in the world. Biden is ready to lower the eligibility of medicare to 60 (Hillary Clinton proposed 55, so Biden's propotion is even worse than Hillary's) so for a 30 years old voter healthcare is "only" 30 years away. What if he/she gets cancer in 25 years? Hopefully by that time the US has had it's first progressive president and has single payer healthcare implemented... ...that's why for many Biden is more of an enemy than a friend.

I meant realistic in terms of politics.

But remember that there is more than health care to Biden's agenda (and to that of progressives, too).  And Biden's plan is actually a better way to get everyone better care, unlike the mediocre care Medicare for All would give them.

A few things on the progressive list require changes to the law on both federal and state level, and those changes can't get done with GOP cooperation. Meaning they won't get done.

There are also some things that are under control of the states and for which the President can be at best cheer from the sidelines.

At least one thing--violates the Constitution, which explicitly bans what we call wealth taxes by the federal government (states can do it). That could be gotten around--maybe--with some creative lawyering and a co-operative Supreme Court. The latter won't exist until a non-conservative majority returns to the Court, which will take at least a couple of years.

The rest is in general stuff that Biden also promises, albeit usually in somewhat different format. His housing program is very similar to Bernie's, but with a crucial difference: almost all of it is programs which the state and local governments would implement, with incentives and help from the federal government. He doesn't concentrate all decision making in DC the way Bernie would.

IOW, Biden is far more progressive than you think.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 12:29:04 PM
Quote from: JBS on April 13, 2020, 11:58:48 AM
I meant realistic in terms of politics.

So you agree the problem isn't the political agenda, but political system? The conclusion is the system must be changed. Bernie Sanders would have given that, but as we know the top 1 % managed to stop him.

Quote from: JBS on April 13, 2020, 11:58:48 AMBut remember that there is more than health care to Biden's agenda (and to that of progressives, too).  And Biden's plan is actually a better way to get everyone better care, unlike the mediocre care Medicare for All would give them.

It's not like medicare for all makes current hospital, nurses and doctors disappear for worse alternatives. Medicare for all care would be provided by the same hospitals, nurses and doctors. The difference is the doctors wouldn't need to fight with insurance companies so they'd have more time doing what they are supposed to do. Potentially that means better quality care if anything. The problems of medicare are due to inadequate funding. Medicare would be properly funded so it would be free of those problems related to underfunding.

I would believe you if the quality of healthcare was lower in single payer countries, but it's not. The US is for example the only developped country where maternal mortality is rising. Elsewhere it's lowering. Weird, if single payer means worse care! Sorry, the facts are on my side.

Quote from: JBS on April 13, 2020, 11:58:48 AMIOW, Biden is far more progressive than you think.

Hard to believe given his political record. Also, how am we expected to think he is progressive when mainly corporate money financed his campaign? He is bought by the rich and we can expect him to serve the rich. Forget progressiveness.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 12:43:51 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 13, 2020, 10:47:02 AM
Now, if you could simply consider that you might be mistaken . . .

Anyone of us might be mistaken . . .
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 13, 2020, 12:47:18 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 12:29:04 PM
So you agree the problem isn't the political agenda, but political system? The conclusion is the system must be changed. Bernie Sanders would have given that, but as we know the top 1 % managed to stop him.

It's not like medicare for all makes current hospital, nurses and doctors disappear for worse alternatives. Medicare for all care would be provided by the same hospitals, nurses and doctors. The difference is the doctors wouldn't need to fight with insurance companies so they'd have more time doing what they are supposed to do. Potentially that means better quality care if anything. The problems of medicare are due to inadequate funding. Medicare would be properly funded so it would be free of those problems related to underfunding.

I would believe you if the quality of healthcare was lower in single payer countries, but it's not. The US is for example the only developped country where maternal mortality is rising. Elsewhere it's lowering. Weird, if single payer means worse care! Sorry, the facts are on my side.

Hard to believe given his political record. Also, how am we expected to think he is progressive when mainly corporate money financed his campaign? He is bought by the rich and we can expect him to serve the rich. Forget progressiveness.

The "problem" is, that we are a democracy, and up to 80% of us aren't progressives. The "problem" is they have as much a say in this as anyone else, and they think you are wrong. (Usually for things that have nothing to with health care.)

You talk about quality of health care.  You don't take into account that we have several parallel systems at work: private insurance, Medicare for Seniors, Medicaid and other government programs for lower incomes. I've never found any comparison which breaks down results among the three.  But the bad results seem most often to come with Medicaid and Medicare, not the private health insurance.

And as I said before, your idea how MfA would work here has no resemblance to what it would actually be like: a heavily bureaucratized, seriously underfunded system just like Medicare for Seniors now is.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 01:03:24 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 13, 2020, 10:45:39 AM
Bernie Sanders endorses Joe Biden for president: 'We need you in the White House' – live (https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/apr/13/coronavirus-us-live-donald-trump-anthony-fauci-new-york-times-report-social-distancing-deaths-latest-news-updates)

Cenk Uygur: Bernie Sanders Endorses Joe Biden! Why?!

https://www.youtube.com/v/lvlyTyAouAI
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: T. D. on April 13, 2020, 01:08:07 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 12:29:04 PM
So you agree the problem isn't the political agenda, but political system? The conclusion is the system must be changed. Bernie Sanders would have given that, but as we know the top 1 % managed to stop him.

....

I'm left-leaning, but politics IMO is about making deals and accomplishing things gradually.
Have you examined what legislation Mr. Sanders has sponsored in his long Washington tenure?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357 (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357) *
Seven bills that wound up enacted, the majority pertaining to innocuous things like renaming Vermont post offices. Rather underwhelming.
What makes you think he could get his transformational pie-in-the-sky proposed legislation passed in the face of likely GOP House opposition?

* Interesting: in the scattergram given on the linked page, Sanders is on the extreme left of "ideology" (OK) but near the bottom of "leadership" (again underwhelming and not inspiring confidence).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 01:39:24 PM
Quote from: JBS on April 13, 2020, 12:47:18 PM
The "problem" is, that we are a democracy, and up to 80% of us aren't progressives. The "problem" is they have as much a say in this as anyone else, and they think you are wrong. (Usually for things that have nothing to with health care.)

80 % of people may not call themselves progressives, but that's because people are bad with labels. About 80 % of Americans support raising the minimum wage. That is a progressive agenda. If only 20 % of Americans call themselves progressives, but 80 % support progressive agenda of raising minimum wage it tells people aren't good at labels. Corporate media of courses uses this confusion to advance their right-wing narratives. Pretty much all progressives policies are very popular (over 50 %) on poles, even when framed in ways to get as low support as possible. As Kyle Kulinski says: "People are not stupid. They are misinformed."

Quote from: JBS on April 13, 2020, 12:47:18 PMYou talk about quality of health care.  You don't take into account that we have several parallel systems at work: private insurance, Medicare for Seniors, Medicaid and other government programs for lower incomes. I've never found any comparison which breaks down results among the three.  But the bad results seem most often to come with Medicaid and Medicare, not the private health insurance.

I am totally aware of the parallel systems. In the medicare for all system all of those would be combined to provide the care. Single payer is not about how care is provided. It's about how it's paid for. That's what it means, the money comes from single payer, the government instead of many sources including insurance companies and the government.

Comparing healthcare results is difficult and often happens with anecdotes which doesn't give good overall picture. I have heard that Medicare and Medicaid are popular programs in the US. That of course doesn't mean they are free of problems. Trump has taken funding away for example. When the US healthcare system is compared to healthcare systems of other countries the results are not flattering. The US spends about twice as much per capita on healthcare than European countries in average and has average results to show for it. Also, the US remains the ONLY developped country in the world not to quarantee healthcare as a right. Now that millions of people have lost their job-tied healthcare because of coronavirus epidemic, the number of Americans not insured or underinsured must be close to 100 million (was 87 million before the epidemic)!

Medicare for all is not only about healthcare, but about personal freedom and financial security. When your healthcare is not tied to your job, you are free to leave it (if you don't like it) for something else, for example starting your own business. Employers don't have healthcare as their leverage to screw you over. Going on strike doesn't meand losing your healthcare. So, medicare for all gives regular people power and that's good in democratic society (and also why the top 1 % now having all the power doesn't like medicare for all). It's about not worrying about healthcare bills and if they drive your family on the street while bank takes your house. 

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 01:43:27 PM
Quote from: T. D. on April 13, 2020, 01:08:07 PM
I'm left-leaning, but politics IMO is about making deals and accomplishing things gradually.

Someone having cancer doesn't have time to wait for 100 years. The Dems have been about incrementalism, but they are losing elections. Why? People are not patient enough.

Quote from: T. D. on April 13, 2020, 01:08:07 PMHave you examined what legislation Mr. Sanders has sponsored in his long Washington tenure?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357 (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357) *
Seven bills that wound up enacted, the majority pertaining to innocuous things like renaming Vermont post offices. Rather underwhelming.
What makes you think he could get his transformational pie-in-the-sky proposed legislation passed in the face of likely GOP House opposition?

* Interesting: in the scattergram given on the linked page, Sanders is on the extreme left of "ideology" (OK) but near the bottom of "leadership" (again underwhelming and not inspiring confidence).

Bernie is amendment king. He has made tons of amendments. Corporate media doesn't talk about that to keep up the narrative of Bernie not getting anything done.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 01:55:46 PM
Damn!
I have been writing too much here.
I was supposed to stay away!
I go to watch music theory videos!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on April 13, 2020, 02:33:02 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 01:43:27 PM

Bernie is amendment king. He has made tons of amendments. Corporate media doesn't talk about that to keep up the narrative of Bernie not getting anything done.

The Daily Beast:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-bernie-sanders-really-got-done-in-his-29-years-in-congress (https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-bernie-sanders-really-got-done-in-his-29-years-in-congress)

[...]"Sanders was so prolific at filing amendments that he was dubbed by some colleagues the "amendment king." Often he'd find someone across the party aisles—usually fellow outsiders like former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)—to try to get those amendments passed. He found success, passing more amendments through roll-call votes in a Republican Congress than any other member. But as a 2005 Rolling Stone story detailed, Sanders' often failed too. Many of his hard-won legislative achievements were usually stripped from the final versions of bills by party leaders who didn't want to see his proposals become law. Between his years in the House and the Senate, Sanders filed over 500 amendments, with roughly one in five of them getting approved in a vote. Though not all of those were ultimately included on bills that became law, some important ones did: In 2001, Sanders got an amendment on a spending bill that prohibited goods made with child labor abroad from being imported to the U.S.

Some look back at Sanders' "amendment king" mantle and see it as a sign of his ineffectiveness, not some mastery of the minutiae of the legislative process.

"The reality is, most of his time was spent offering amendments destined to go nowhere because he refused to try to craft compromises with Republicans, much less his Democratic colleagues," said Jim Manley, a former senior aide to Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), the former Senate Democratic leader. "He marched to the beat of his own drummer. I don't believe he felt he was there to cut deals."  "[...]
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: T. D. on April 13, 2020, 04:11:49 PM
Another thing the Sandernistas seem to ignore:

The UK has been a pretty good leading indicator for US politics. Recall 2016: "Ah, Brexit'll never happen...OMG, they voted Leave!", followed by "Ah, that orange-painted carnival sideshow barker'll never get elected...OMG, he did!".
The UK Labour Party then steadfastly stuck by the oddball Jeremy Corbyn, whose extreme Leftism makes Bernie look like a piker.
How'd that work out? Hint: Labour suffered a historic rout in 2019; parts of England that had never voted Conservative went for the Tories.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/corbyn-labour-uk-leadership-starmer.html (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/corbyn-labour-uk-leadership-starmer.html)

But I'm sure the Sanders faithful will rationalize that away...To exactly what cabal/conspiracy should one attribute the 2019 UK vote?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 13, 2020, 05:10:40 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 01:39:24 PM
80 % of people may not call themselves progressives, but that's because people are bad with labels. About 80 % of Americans support raising the minimum wage. That is a progressive agenda. If only 20 % of Americans call themselves progressives, but 80 % support progressive agenda of raising minimum wage it tells people aren't good at labels. Corporate media of courses uses this confusion to advance their right-wing narratives. Pretty much all progressives policies are very popular (over 50 %) on poles, even when framed in ways to get as low support as possible. As Kyle Kulinski says: "People are not stupid. They are misinformed."

I am totally aware of the parallel systems. In the medicare for all system all of those would be combined to provide the care. Single payer is not about how care is provided. It's about how it's paid for. That's what it means, the money comes from single payer, the government instead of many sources including insurance companies and the government.

Comparing healthcare results is difficult and often happens with anecdotes which doesn't give good overall picture. I have heard that Medicare and Medicaid are popular programs in the US. That of course doesn't mean they are free of problems. Trump has taken funding away for example. When the US healthcare system is compared to healthcare systems of other countries the results are not flattering. The US spends about twice as much per capita on healthcare than European countries in average and has average results to show for it. Also, the US remains the ONLY developped country in the world not to quarantee healthcare as a right. Now that millions of people have lost their job-tied healthcare because of coronavirus epidemic, the number of Americans not insured or underinsured must be close to 100 million (was 87 million before the epidemic)!

Medicare for all is not only about healthcare, but about personal freedom and financial security. When your healthcare is not tied to your job, you are free to leave it (if you don't like it) for something else, for example starting your own business. Employers don't have healthcare as their leverage to screw you over. Going on strike doesn't meand losing your healthcare. So, medicare for all gives regular people power and that's good in democratic society (and also why the top 1 % now having all the power doesn't like medicare for all). It's about not worrying about healthcare bills and if they drive your family on the street while bank takes your house.

Sigh. You simply don't understand simple things. If people actually supported those progressive ideas, they would vote for candidates who push those ideas. Instead they vote for other candidates. Which mesns they don't really support all those progressive ideas.

You also serm to think the idea of raising the minumum wage is unique to progressives. It isn't. You are totally off base in thinking the media is biased in favor of the right. Why do you think the GOP hates the media?

And where did you get that 87 million uninsured figure? The highest pre-virus figure I ever saw was about 30 million. Because of the virus we could now be at about 90 million uninsured (probably 20 million or so directly unemployed, plus assume two dependents, which many don't have, and a spouse with their own job and health care, which at least some do). But that's a false figure, since almost anyone in that category can maintain coverage through COBRA for 18 months as long as they pay the premium.  I guess Kyle never explained COBRA to you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on April 13, 2020, 07:36:46 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 01:55:46 PM
Damn!
I have been writing too much here.
I was supposed to stay away!
I go to watch music theory videos![/size]

correct
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on April 13, 2020, 07:39:27 PM
Quote from: JBS on April 13, 2020, 05:10:40 PM
You are totally off base in thinking the media is biased in favor of the right. Why do you think the GOP hates the media?


unfortunately the game is a little more complicated than this.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 14, 2020, 03:27:23 AM
Quote from: JBS on April 13, 2020, 05:10:40 PM
Sigh. You simply don't understand simple things. If people actually supported those progressive ideas, they would vote for candidates who push those ideas. Instead they vote for other candidates. Which mesns they don't really support all those progressive ideas.

No. They don't vote for the canditate they agree politically the most, because corporate media lies them that candidate can't win and they need to vote for "most electable" candidate. People are misled. That's what YOU don't get.

Quote from: JBS on April 13, 2020, 05:10:40 PMAnd where did you get that 87 million uninsured figure? The highest pre-virus figure I ever saw was about 30 million. Because of the virus we could now be at about 90 million uninsured (probably 20 million or so directly unemployed, plus assume two dependents, which many don't have, and a spouse with their own job and health care, which at least some do). But that's a false figure, since almost anyone in that category can maintain coverage through COBRA for 18 months as long as they pay the premium.  I guess Kyle never explained COBRA to you.

30 million is people without insurance, the rest 57 million is people who are underinsured. They have insurance, but it doesn't cover enough.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 14, 2020, 03:33:17 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 14, 2020, 03:27:23 AM
No. They don't vote for the canditate they agree politically the most, because corporate media lies them that candidate can't win and they need to vote for "most electable" candidate. People are misled. That's what YOU don't get.

30 million is people without insurance, the rest 57 million is people who are underinsured. They have insurance, but it doesn't cover enough.

So, setting aside for debate "but it doesn't cover enough"

Thank you for conceding that "87 million uninsured" is rubbish
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on April 14, 2020, 03:45:02 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 12:43:51 PM
Anyone of us might be mistaken . . .

All animals are mistaken but some are more mistaken than the others.

Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 01:39:24 PM
As Kyle Kulinski says: "People are not stupid. They are misinformed."

He surely can teach a thing or two about misinformation.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 14, 2020, 04:11:44 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 14, 2020, 03:33:17 AM
So, setting aside for debate "but it doesn't cover enough"

Thank you for conceding that "87 million uninsured" is rubbish

Go back and read my post again. I wrote:

"...the number of Americans not insured or underinsured must be close to 100 million (was 87 million before the epidemic)!"

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 14, 2020, 06:43:02 AM
"If I suck on the Kulinski teat, how could I possibly be mistaken?"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 14, 2020, 06:53:57 AM
Obama formally endorses Biden. No surprise, as the latter served as his Veep.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 14, 2020, 07:22:47 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 14, 2020, 03:33:17 AM
So, setting aside for debate "but it doesn't cover enough"

Thank you for conceding that "87 million uninsured" is rubbish

To be fair, he did say "uninsured and underinsured" when he gave that figure.  But of course by Kulinski's standards, since nothing in our system is available on demand for free, there are 330 million uninsured.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 14, 2020, 07:27:34 AM
Quote from: JBS on April 14, 2020, 07:22:47 AM
To be fair, he did say "uninsured and underinsured" when he gave that figure.  But of course by Kulinski's standards, since nothing in our system is available on demand for free, there are 330 million uninsured.

Thx
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 14, 2020, 07:29:18 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 14, 2020, 03:27:23 AM
No. They don't vote for the canditate they agree politically the most, because corporate media lies them that candidate can't win and they need to vote for "most electable" candidate. People are misled. That's what YOU don't get.


A whole bunch of people voted for Warren, Buttigieg, Harris, Bloomberg, even after it was obvious  those candidates had no chance. So, your premise is wrong. They didn't vote for progressive candidates because they know what the progressive candidates propose have multiple flaws.
They also know that Biden is a lot more progressive than you think he is. You in fact are the one who has been seriously misled.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 14, 2020, 07:31:35 AM
Quote from: Herman on April 13, 2020, 07:39:27 PM
unfortunately the game is a little more complicated than this.

It is, of course. But to say the media is biased in favor of the right would be true only if people like Biden, Pelosi, and Al Sharpton are members of the right.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on April 14, 2020, 09:13:31 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2020, 01:55:46 PM
Damn!
I have been writing too much here.
I was supposed to stay away!
I go to watch music theory videos!


I wish you would!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 14, 2020, 10:52:17 AM
He won't do what's good for himself....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on April 14, 2020, 10:55:33 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 14, 2020, 10:52:17 AM
He won't do what's good for himself....

Indeed not.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: MusicTurner on April 14, 2020, 11:06:56 AM
Russians etc. can go home; the Finns have got the Sisu  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 15, 2020, 09:21:33 AM
Warren endorses Biden; my guess is, she waited out of courtesy to Sanders.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on April 15, 2020, 09:42:14 AM
Quote from: JBS on April 14, 2020, 07:31:35 AM
It is, of course. But to say the media is biased in favor of the right would be true only if people like Biden, Pelosi, and Al Sharpton are members of the right.

Well, I wouldn't put Biden anywhere near the Left.

And remember the way the failing New York Times used to slag off Hillary Clinton relentlessly.

Most new media tirelessly keep to the Both Sides Now model which tends to favor the Right.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 15, 2020, 10:41:51 AM
SHOCK: Kyle Kulinski & Krystal Ball TURN ON BERNIE SANDERS & GO OFF On Him!

From "not me, us" to "not us, him."  :-\
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on April 15, 2020, 01:16:34 PM
Sanders warns his loyalists it would be 'irresponsible' not to support Biden
Sanders criticizes his supporters who have so far resisted his vow to do whatever it takes to help Biden win the presidency (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/15/bernie-sanders-joe-biden-irresponsible-not-support)

"Bernie Sanders has warned that it would be "irresponsible" for his loyalists not to support Joe Biden, warning that progressives who "sit on their hands" in the months ahead would simply enable Donald Trump's re-election in November.

Sanders endorsed Biden on Monday and was quickly followed by the crucial endorsement on Tuesday by Barack Obama of his former vice-president.

Meanwhile, Sanders, the 78-year-old Vermont senator confirmed that "it's probably a very fair assumption" that he would not run for president again, after his failed attempts to win the Democratic nomination in 2016 and in this cycle. He added with a laugh, however, in an interview with the Associated Press: "One can't predict the future."

Sanders suspended his presidential campaign last week, setting the stage for a November general election battle between two candidates, Trump and Biden, with radically different visions of presidential leadership and America's role in the world. The contest will unfold in a political landscape transformed beyond all recognition by the coronavirus pandemic that has already claimed at least 14,000 American lives and nearly 10m jobs.

On Tuesday night, Sanders criticized his own supporters who have so far resisted his vow to do whatever it takes to help Biden win the presidency.

He seemed to distance himself from his campaign's former national press secretary, Briahna Joy Gray, when asked about her recent statement on social media refusing to endorse Biden.

"She is my former press secretary – not on the payroll," Sanders noted. A spokesman later clarified that all campaign staffers were no longer on the payroll as of Tuesday, though they will get a severance check in May.

Sanders said his supporters have a simple choice now that Biden has emerged as the presumptive nominee: "Do we be as active as we can in electing Joe Biden and doing everything we can to move Joe and his campaign in a more progressive direction? Or do we choose to sit it out and allow the most dangerous president in modern American history to get re-elected?"

He continued: "I believe that it's irresponsible for anybody to say, 'Well, I disagree with Joe Biden' – I disagree with Joe Biden! – 'and therefore I'm not going to be involved.'"

Sanders said he would not actively campaign or spend money on advertising in the primary contests that are still on the calendar in the coming months. But he still encouraged Democrats in those states to vote for him, hoping to amass as many delegates as possible for leverage to shape the party platform and the direction of Biden's campaign.

He also vowed to continue fighting for progressive priorities such as his signature "Medicare for All" as a senator, even though Biden has refused to embrace the government-backed single-payer healthcare system.

"If people want to vote for me, we'd appreciate it," Sanders said of the roughly 20 primary contests that remain where his name will appear on the ballot. He later added, "I think you're going to see significant movement on the part of the Biden campaign into a more progressive direction on a whole lot of issues."

Upon gaining his endorsement on Monday, Biden said: "You've been the most powerful voice for a fair and more just America. You don't get enough credit, Bernie, for being the voice that forces us to take a hard look in the mirror."

He continued: "If I am the nominee – which it looks like now you just made me – I really need you, not just to win the campaign but to govern." Biden has previously said of Sanders' most fervent supporters "I hear you." But some progressives are concerned that he is paying lip service more than shifting to the left in his platform.

Sanders did not outline any specific plans to begin helping Biden in earnest, though he noted that he held dozens of rallies for former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton four years ago and would be at least as active for Biden.

In the short term, he said he's essentially "incarcerated in his home" because of coronavirus social distancing guidelines and did not know when he would return to the campaign trail.

"I will do everything I can to help elect Joe," Sanders continued. "We had a contentious campaign. We disagree on issues. But my job now is to not only rally my supporters, but to do everything I can to bring the party together to see that [Trump] is not elected president."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 15, 2020, 01:27:43 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on April 15, 2020, 01:16:34 PM
Sanders warns his loyalists it would be 'irresponsible' not to support Biden
Sanders criticizes his supporters who have so far resisted his vow to do whatever it takes to help Biden win the presidency (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/15/bernie-sanders-joe-biden-irresponsible-not-support)

"Bernie Sanders has warned that it would be "irresponsible" for his loyalists not to support Joe Biden, warning that progressives who "sit on their hands" in the months ahead would simply enable Donald Trump's re-election in November.

Sanders endorsed Biden on Monday and was quickly followed by the crucial endorsement on Tuesday by Barack Obama of his former vice-president.

Meanwhile, Sanders, the 78-year-old Vermont senator confirmed that "it's probably a very fair assumption" that he would not run for president again, after his failed attempts to win the Democratic nomination in 2016 and in this cycle. He added with a laugh, however, in an interview with the Associated Press: "One can't predict the future."

Sanders suspended his presidential campaign last week, setting the stage for a November general election battle between two candidates, Trump and Biden, with radically different visions of presidential leadership and America's role in the world. The contest will unfold in a political landscape transformed beyond all recognition by the coronavirus pandemic that has already claimed at least 14,000 American lives and nearly 10m jobs.

On Tuesday night, Sanders criticized his own supporters who have so far resisted his vow to do whatever it takes to help Biden win the presidency.

He seemed to distance himself from his campaign's former national press secretary, Briahna Joy Gray, when asked about her recent statement on social media refusing to endorse Biden.

"She is my former press secretary – not on the payroll," Sanders noted. A spokesman later clarified that all campaign staffers were no longer on the payroll as of Tuesday, though they will get a severance check in May.

Sanders said his supporters have a simple choice now that Biden has emerged as the presumptive nominee: "Do we be as active as we can in electing Joe Biden and doing everything we can to move Joe and his campaign in a more progressive direction? Or do we choose to sit it out and allow the most dangerous president in modern American history to get re-elected?"

He continued: "I believe that it's irresponsible for anybody to say, 'Well, I disagree with Joe Biden' – I disagree with Joe Biden! – 'and therefore I'm not going to be involved.'"

Sanders said he would not actively campaign or spend money on advertising in the primary contests that are still on the calendar in the coming months. But he still encouraged Democrats in those states to vote for him, hoping to amass as many delegates as possible for leverage to shape the party platform and the direction of Biden's campaign.

He also vowed to continue fighting for progressive priorities such as his signature "Medicare for All" as a senator, even though Biden has refused to embrace the government-backed single-payer healthcare system.

"If people want to vote for me, we'd appreciate it," Sanders said of the roughly 20 primary contests that remain where his name will appear on the ballot. He later added, "I think you're going to see significant movement on the part of the Biden campaign into a more progressive direction on a whole lot of issues."

Upon gaining his endorsement on Monday, Biden said: "You've been the most powerful voice for a fair and more just America. You don't get enough credit, Bernie, for being the voice that forces us to take a hard look in the mirror."

He continued: "If I am the nominee – which it looks like now you just made me – I really need you, not just to win the campaign but to govern." Biden has previously said of Sanders' most fervent supporters "I hear you." But some progressives are concerned that he is paying lip service more than shifting to the left in his platform.

Sanders did not outline any specific plans to begin helping Biden in earnest, though he noted that he held dozens of rallies for former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton four years ago and would be at least as active for Biden.

In the short term, he said he's essentially "incarcerated in his home" because of coronavirus social distancing guidelines and did not know when he would return to the campaign trail.

"I will do everything I can to help elect Joe," Sanders continued. "We had a contentious campaign. We disagree on issues. But my job now is to not only rally my supporters, but to do everything I can to bring the party together to see that [Trump] is not elected president."

Well done. The question now, is the degree of deafness in the über-zealots' ears.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on April 17, 2020, 06:30:58 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 15, 2020, 01:27:43 PM
Well done. The question now, is the degree of deafness in the über-zealots' ears.
I know some Uber-zealots and they barely think Sanders is left enough. He's got a lot of supporters like that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 17, 2020, 08:13:02 AM
Quote from: milk on April 17, 2020, 06:30:58 AM
I know some Uber-zealots and they barely think Sanders is left enough. He's got a lot of supporters like that.

I can well believe it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 17, 2020, 08:19:46 AM
Perspective matters. If you are far enough over to one side, the distance between the center and the opposite side seems much smaller than it is.

Thus the Left can claim there's nothing to choose between Biden and Trump, and the Right can claim Biden is just a Socialist who is afraid to acknowledge the obvious truth.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on April 17, 2020, 11:53:06 PM
the Trump plan now seems to be to wreck the USPS and kills hundreds of thousands of gvt jobs in order to prevent people from voting by mail, and the thinking seems to be there are more D votes lost that way than R.

Any way to shrink the vote seems to be a Republican strategy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 28, 2020, 02:55:22 PM
This is why Trump rage tweets

The USA Today/Suffolk University poll released Monday explains, in part, why President Trump has been rage tweeting over the last 24 hours: "[Former vice president Joe Biden is] leading Trump nationwide by 6 percentage points, 44%-38%, a shift from Trump's 3-point lead in the survey as he was being impeached by the House in December. In a contest without a third-party contender, Biden's margin jumps to 10 points, 50%-40%." Perhaps not surprising, Biden clobbers Trump in qualities such as "cares about people like me," "stands up for U.S. interests," is "honest and trustworthy" and "can work with foreign leaders." On knowing "how to get things done," Trump has a positive score (51 percent to 45 percent) as does Biden (although not an outright at 48 percent to 39 percent).

Biden plainly has made progress more quickly than Hillary Clinton, the 2016 nominee, did in nailing down Democratic support. "Biden has made progress in consolidating support among Democrats; 87% of Democratic voters now back him, and he has been endorsed by his primary rivals, former president Barack Obama and others," the poll shows. "He has gained ground among voters under 35, a group that had been more likely in the primaries to support Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Now Biden is backed over Trump among younger voters by 50%-25%."

While Trump gets more than 90 percent of Republicans, Trump's habit of doubling down with his hard-line base has come at the expense of support among everyone else. Trump is in trouble with independents (only 27 percent support) and among women (he trails Biden 53 percent to 30 percent). One can imagine that, as Trump fails to show much empathy for the sick and dying and throws out dangerous health suggestions, he is going to do even more damage to his standing with women, who are more likely to care more about health care than male voters and who dislike his bombast and bullying.

There is a small downward movement in support among African Americans for Biden, but it is unclear whether it is statistically significant. It may, however, strengthen the case for him to name an African American woman such as Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.) or Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) as his running mate.

Several aspects of the poll are worth stressing. First, we are six months out — a lifetime in politics — but it is not at all clear that things are going to get any better for Trump. The opposite is almost surely true. More coronavirus deaths will be recorded, frightful unemployment numbers will persist and lives will continue to be disrupted. Second, nonwhite voters are, as they do in most crises and economic downturns, suffering disproportionately. Many are first responders or in essential jobs, thereby exposing them to greater dangers. Their health status and access to health care may be worse than that of white Americans. If Biden keeps the focus on this aspect of the crisis, nonwhite voters will keep in mind precisely what they "have to lose" in a Trump presidency. Third, the bad polling tends to make Trump grouchier and more frantic. His on-again, off-again news conference on Monday is indicative of his dilemma: He cannot handle the lack of attention, but the attention now provides a powerful boost — to his opponent.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on April 30, 2020, 07:48:58 AM
Frustration mounts as Biden remains silent on sexual assault allegation
By Lisa Lererand Sydney Ember New York Times ,April 29, 2020, 9:01 p.m.

NEW YORK — For more than three weeks, progressive activists and women's rights advocates debated how to handle an allegation of sexual assault against Joe Biden. The conversations weren't easy, nor were the politics: Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, faced one allegation; his opponent, President Trump, at least a dozen.

Finally, several of the women's groups prepared a public letter that praised Biden's work as an "outspoken champion for survivors of sexual violence" but also pushed him to address the allegation from Tara Reade, a former aide who worked in his Senate office in the early 1990s.

"Vice President Biden has the opportunity, right now, to model how to take serious allegations seriously," the draft letter said. "The weight of our expectations matches the magnitude of the office he seeks."

Then Biden's team heard about the advocates' effort. According to people involved in the discussions, the group put the letter on hold as it began pressuring Biden advisers to push the candidate to make a statement himself before the end of April, which is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Along with liberal organizers, they urged him to acknowledge the importance of survivors and the need for systemic change around issues of sexism and assault.

Nearly two weeks later, Biden and his campaign have yet to make that statement, and the advocates have not released their letter. The Biden campaign has said little publicly beyond saying that women deserve to be heard and insisting that the allegation is not true; privately, Biden advisers have circulated talking points urging supporters to deny that the incident occurred.

As two more women have come forward to corroborate part of Reade's allegation, the Biden campaign is facing attacks from the right and increasing pressure from the left to address the issue. And liberal activists find themselves in a tense standoff with a candidate they want to support but who they say has made little attempt to show leadership on an issue that resonates deeply with their party's base.

"It's difficult for survivors to see that a woman who has more corroborating sources than most survivors have in similar situations is being tossed aside and actively being weaponized by cynical political actors," said Shaunna Thomas, a founder of UltraViolet, a women's rights advocacy group that is involved in the effort to push the campaign. "It would be an incredible moment of leadership for Joe Biden to show up."

Since Reade spoke out in March with her allegation — that Biden penetrated her with his fingers in a Senate building in 1993 — his aides and advisers have denied it, saying it is "untrue." They have remained unconcerned about any significant political blowback from Reade's accusation, according to people who have spoken with the campaign, who insisted on anonymity to discuss private conversations.

Top Biden aides are telling allies that they do not see the allegation resonating with voters in a measurable way, these people say. They're confident that the allegation will not shake voters' perceptions of Biden's character as a devoted father and husband, with family ties forged through deep tragedies. They also believe that voters will view the allegation with great skepticism.

A Biden campaign spokesman declined to comment for this article Wednesday. A Biden adviser said that the campaign was talking to activists and that Biden considered their views important.

The Biden campaign talking points, which were first reported by BuzzFeed News, instruct supporters to describe the candidate as a "fierce advocate for women" who has never faced any "complaint, allegation, hint or rumor of any impropriety or inappropriate conduct." The talking points also inaccurately suggested that an investigation by The New York Times this month found that "this incident did not happen."

In a statement issued Wednesday, The Times noted that the investigation "made no conclusion either way."

One person who received a version of these talking points said it was pulled back by the campaign several hours later because it was revising its strategy.

Biden has yet to be asked about the allegation in an interview.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on April 30, 2020, 08:56:59 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 10, 2020, 02:58:40 AM
Looks like Barack Obama is one of the biggest obstacles of progress in the US. People voted for him twice in hopes of change, but he did not deliver so a lot of frustration among voters got Trump elected next and now Obama seems to have been the puppet master behind scenes in this presidential race. Some on the left are speculating (no proof of that) it was Obama who pressured Bernie to drop out of the race.

I used to really look up to Obama before following closely the US politics. It was all based on his charisma because I didn't know better. Not anymore. What an corrupted hack he is!  ::)

Well, I'm pretty much out and now that I am wiser 3-4 years later I consider the US the richest third world country. Just one big banana republic having so huge political, financial and cultural influence in the World that I wasted years on following it's insane oligarchy.

You are wiser? It seems to me, month by month, you swallow more and more absurd conspiracy theories hook, line and sinker.

Barack Obama was a progressive and a pragmatist. He moved the needle on health insurance as much as he thought it could be moved in the political climate he inherited.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on April 30, 2020, 12:30:12 PM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on April 30, 2020, 08:56:59 AM
You are wiser? It seems to me, month by month, you swallow more and more absurd conspiracy theories hook, line and sinker.

Barack Obama was a progressive and a pragmatist. He moved the needle on health insurance as much as he thought it could be moved in the political climate he inherited.

A pragmatist perhaps, but not a progressive. He had supermajority for 18 months I believe and what did he do? Republican healthcare plan from the 80's. Not even public option! The left was quite disappointed in Obama. That's why many two time Obama voters voted for Trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on April 30, 2020, 05:22:17 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on April 30, 2020, 12:30:12 PM
A pragmatist perhaps, but not a progressive. He had supermajority for 18 months I believe and what did he do? Republican healthcare plan from the 80's. Not even public option! The left was quite disappointed in Obama. That's why many two time Obama voters voted for Trump.

Whatever you call him, Obama was the most leftward president in US history.  Given political reality, meaning the GOP ability to filibuster in Senate, Obamacare was the best he could do.  He also pushed things in a more leftward direction in other matters that obviously don't register on your radar.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 01, 2020, 05:27:53 AM
Pelosi says she remains 'satisfied' with Biden's response to sexual assault allegation, praises his 'integrity' (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-says-she-remains-satisfied-with-bidens-response-to-sexual-assault-allegation-praises-his-integrity/2020/04/30/e3f3c49c-8ae6-11ea-ac8a-fe9b8088e101_story.html)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 01, 2020, 05:49:41 AM
Quote from: JBS on April 30, 2020, 05:22:17 PM
Whatever you call him, Obama was the most leftward president in US history.  Given political reality, meaning the GOP ability to filibuster in Senate, Obamacare was the best he could do.  He also pushed things in a more leftward direction in other matters that obviously don't register on your radar.

Obama wasn't the most leftward president in US history. Was a mixed bag. Some things where good, some things where not. He was a lefty on social issue, but on economic issues he was a typical corporate. More wars. Banks protected. Insurance componies and Big Pharma protected with ObamaCare (yes, that's it's purpose).

The Dems don't know how to fight. Maybe they don't even want to fight?

If Obama was a true lefty he would have endorsed Bernie on day one. Instead he sabotaged Bernie's campaign. That's nota lefty. That's a corrupt corporate hack.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 01, 2020, 05:51:33 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 01, 2020, 05:49:41 AMObama wasn't the most leftward president in US history.


Who was?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Brian on May 01, 2020, 06:00:12 AM
Quote from: Todd on May 01, 2020, 05:51:33 AM

Who was?
Hmm, fun question!

Hard to get a read on Thomas Jefferson because he was a hardcore lefty in many ways, but an unquestioned elitist-aristocrat in others. Arguably, Theodore Roosevelt was to the left of Obama on some narrow issues (trust-busting particularly...would TR have broken up Silicon Valley?). I'd guess that 71dB is thinking of FDR or LBJ.

One could argue that, if Obama is equally leftist to LBJ and FDR on policy, he loses on overall leftiness due to his belief that change should come incrementally in baby steps, rather than in huge dramatic sweeping legislation that alters society for generations.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 01, 2020, 06:08:38 AM
Quote from: Todd on May 01, 2020, 05:51:33 AM

Who was?

FDR I think.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 01, 2020, 06:19:31 AM
I think it is fair to say that a slaveowner could never be considered a leftist.  TR was a progressive in the Progressive era, which means that among other things, that he supported Eugenics.  He was an ultra-elite Progressive.  Also, his trustbusting is overrated.  Taft, a diehard conservative, was more effective at that.  The foundation of anti-trust law is the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, as in John Sherman.  It is hard to call anti-trust law particularly left-wing.  Economic interpretation and changes in enforcement since TR and Taft are subject to political winds.

FDR was not much of a leftist; he was another elitist who utilized every tool at his disposal, with widely varying degrees of success, to kick-start the US economy and ward off actually dangerous domestic politicians, all while steering the country to war.  He was effective.  (He was also the greatest president in terms of assessing geopolitical reality and taking advantage of it to the benefit of the US.  Only Ike and 41 are in the same league.)  LBJ is probably the closest to Obama, but accompanying his anti-poverty and civil rights policies, he was cozy with big business, especially oil, and engaged in shady dealings.  And I think he was also an incrementalist, having laid the path forward for civil rights legislation in 1957.  There is a thread among Democrats, Wilson to FDR to LBJ to Obama, each expanding the reach of the state into new areas of economic and personal life.  I agree with JBS' assessment that Obama was the most leftward president in history, but only because LBJ had done what he did, and with the caveat that Obama was not especially to the left.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Brian on May 01, 2020, 06:46:48 AM
One potentially convincing argument could be that the political chart just goes further left now than it used to. (I'm leaving out overt Communism since it's never made it to the presidential office.) The argument would go on to say, if one made it, that Obama being the leftest president ever isn't really saying much at all.

So I guess I'd be okay with that one  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 01, 2020, 07:03:50 AM
It has been, up through 2020, impossible for too extreme a candidate to take the presidential nomination.  When I use the word extreme in this context, I mean in terms of policies advocated.  Trump, for all his bluster, however interpreted, doesn't advocate ideas not advocated by some or many in his own party - or on occasion in the opposition party.  Much has been made in academic circles and political author circles about the shift in the nomination process since the McGovern disaster, and how it has resulted in more extreme primaries and more extreme party platforms, and so forth, but aside from Trump, every presidential nominee has been an establishment nominee, and it is hard to see a billionaire who has pushed for tax cuts, deregulation, and tighter immigration controls as being far outside the establishment, his not as effective as one could hope for attempts to dismantle the international system peaceably notwithstanding. 

Bernie had too many serious enemies, and others like him in the future will, as well.  If AOC remains a hot commodity and attempts to run in 2028, she will have to temper her positions.  She will have to do that to gain more meaningful influence, anyway.  Other Democrats will have to be ever mindful of what can actually be done within the political and economic constraints of the federal political system, which even post-Trump will not be materially altered. 

Governor Pete 2032!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on May 01, 2020, 07:16:59 AM
LBJ?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Brian on May 01, 2020, 07:27:51 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 01, 2020, 07:16:59 AM
LBJ?
Todd's answer to LBJ above is that he was cozy with big business, especially oil. Of course, a similar accusation could be made for Obama and finance/consulting. Ditto for both as foreign adventurers in forever wars. For me personally, LBJ still wins the prize.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 01, 2020, 07:53:23 AM
Quote from: Brian on May 01, 2020, 06:46:48 AM
One potentially convincing argument could be that the political chart just goes further left now than it used to. (I'm leaving out overt Communism since it's never made it to the presidential office.) The argument would go on to say, if one made it, that Obama being the leftest president ever isn't really saying much at all.

So I guess I'd be okay with that one  ;D

Not really. It just looks that way because the Overton Window has been moving to the right for the last 45 years or so... ...althou for the last 5 years now the left has been moving the Overton Window back a little bit and also Covid-19 is demonstrating Americans how progressive ideas are not fringe at all, but very much needed.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on May 01, 2020, 08:14:33 AM
Quote from: Todd on May 01, 2020, 06:19:31 AM
TR was a progressive in the Progressive era, which means that among other things, that he supported Eugenics. 

The Swedish Social-Democratic Party, which ruled virtually unopposed from mid-1930s until mid-1980s, not only supported, but actively practiced Eugenics until 1976. Ain't that sweet?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 01, 2020, 08:49:58 AM
Quote from: Brian on May 01, 2020, 07:27:51 AMOf course, a similar accusation could be made for Obama and finance/consulting.


Similar accusations can be, have been, and will continue to be made against every president.  Correctly.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 01, 2020, 08:52:20 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 01, 2020, 08:14:33 AM
The Swedish Social-Democratic Party, which ruled virtually unopposed from mid-1930s until mid-1980s, not only supported, but actively practiced Eugenics until 1976. Ain't that sweet?


There are certain elements of society fixated on the notion that they know better than everyone else what is good for everyone, and what is good for society.  To be sure, some left-wing and right-wing types fall into this category.  The difference is that leftists have elevated it to an art form and actually believe it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 01, 2020, 09:01:06 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 01, 2020, 07:53:23 AM
Not really. It just looks that way because the Overton Window has been moving to the right for the last 45 years or so... ...althou for the last 5 years now the left has been moving the Overton Window back a little bit and also Covid-19 is demonstrating Americans how progressive ideas are not fringe at all, but very much needed.

Quite the reverse. Trump's complete mismanagement in this crisis is a good example of why government involvement in health care can be a bad thing.  The various financial subsidies and stimuli are another demonstration that, while everyone is equal, some people are more equal than others, and government help is given not according to need but according to who shouts the loudest. (Which happens in all political systems. It's not a result of oligarchy. It's a result of governments not being omniscient and therefore dependent on people bringing problems to the attention of governments.)
Quote from: 71 dB on May 01, 2020, 05:49:41 AM

If Obama was a true lefty he would have endorsed Bernie on day one. Instead he sabotaged Bernie's campaign. That's nota lefty. That's a corrupt corporate hack.

No, Obama is a pragmatic politician who wants his party's nominee to win in November.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on May 01, 2020, 09:05:45 AM
Quote from: Todd on May 01, 2020, 08:52:20 AM

There are certain elements of society fixated on the notion that they know better than everyone else what is good for everyone, and what is good for society.  To be sure, some left-wing and right-wing types fall into this category.  The difference is that leftists have elevated it to an art form and actually believe it.

;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 01, 2020, 09:10:41 AM
Then there's the whackadoodle Right who have debased it to a parody of religion, and who actually believe it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on May 01, 2020, 09:19:25 AM
By all means throw in some misogynism, too.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 01, 2020, 09:23:18 AM
The DNC will prop up Biden.  Unless he croaks. 

2020 is an intriguing year.  The US faces a possibility, even if remote, that no matter who wins in November, there is a chance that the victor dies before the Electoral College meets.  That would be a hoot.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on May 01, 2020, 09:23:43 AM
Quote from: JBS on May 01, 2020, 09:01:06 AM
Obama is a pragmatic politician who wants his party's nominee to win in November.

Just as I said: the goal of every party and politician, right or left or center, is to get into power and stay there as much as possible.  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on May 01, 2020, 09:26:00 AM
Quote from: Todd on May 01, 2020, 09:23:18 AM
2020 is an intriguing year.  The US faces a possibility, even if remote, that no matter who wins in November, there is a chance that the victor dies before the Electoral College meets.  That would be a hoot.

The USA is already a gerontocracy. Its turning into a necrocracy, though, it's a frightening thought!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 01, 2020, 09:39:35 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 01, 2020, 09:26:00 AM
The USA is already a gerontocracy. Its turning into a necrocracy, though, it's a frightening thought!


It would be interesting to see how the votes would be tallied and what the outcome would be.  I don't know the laws in place for all 50 states as it pertains to what Electors may do.  (No one else on GMG does, either, so be wary of "informed" opinions on the matter.)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on May 01, 2020, 09:44:01 AM
Quote from: Todd on May 01, 2020, 09:23:18 AM
The DNC will prop up Biden.  Unless he croaks. 

2020 is an intriguing year.  The US faces a possibility, even if remote, that no matter who wins in November, there is a chance that the victor dies before the Electoral College meets.  That would be a hoot.

That possibilities has alway existed. You don't have to be an old geezer to die unexpectedly. Wasn't I reading various conspiracy-minded commentary that Hilary had some incurable neurological condition and it wouldn't even matter if they should fail to lock her up, since she would be dead before she could take office anyway?

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 01, 2020, 09:47:59 AM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on May 01, 2020, 09:44:01 AMThat possibilities has alway existed.


Correct, but with two men in their 70s, one of them pushing 80, running for president, this is a higher probability outcome now than ever before.  Could be fun.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 01, 2020, 09:56:28 AM
Quote from: Todd on May 01, 2020, 09:47:59 AM

Correct, but with two men in their 70s, one of them pushing 80, running for president, this is a higher probability outcome now than ever before.  Could be fun.

All the more reason to vote for Justin Amash.  He's only 40.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 01, 2020, 09:59:30 AM
Quote from: JBS on May 01, 2020, 09:56:28 AM
All the more reason to vote for Justin Amash.  He's only 40.


My vote does not matter.  Oregon will go to the Democrat nominee.  Oregon would go to the Democrat nominee even if it was a soggy mop.  See 2016.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Brian on May 01, 2020, 10:17:49 AM
Quote from: JBS on May 01, 2020, 09:56:28 AM
All the more reason to vote for Justin Amash.  He's only 40.
One of just two reasons to vote for Amash, the other being he hasn't sexually assaulted anyone.

I'd rather Biden chooses a good VP.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 01, 2020, 10:21:16 AM
Looks like the veep candidate could be Warren:

Elizabeth Warren is the favored VP pick among Democrats, poll shows (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/5/1/21243143/elizabeth-warren-vice-president-joe-biden-2020-poll)

Or not:

Big money donors are pressuring Joe Biden against picking Elizabeth Warren for VP: 'He would lose the election' (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/30/donors-pressure-joe-biden-to-not-pick-elizabeth-warren-as-vp.html)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on May 01, 2020, 10:39:50 AM
Who's Justin Amash? I'm too lazy to google him.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 01, 2020, 11:06:33 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 01, 2020, 10:39:50 AM
Who's Justin Amash?


An irrelevance.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 01, 2020, 12:27:28 PM
That means there could conceivably be two WrestleMania veterans in presidential debates!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 01, 2020, 12:36:54 PM
Quote from: JBS on May 01, 2020, 09:01:06 AM
Quite the reverse. Trump's complete mismanagement in this crisis is a good example of why government involvement in health care can be a bad thing.  The various financial subsidies and stimuli are another demonstration that, while everyone is equal, some people are more equal than others, and government help is given not according to need but according to who shouts the loudest. (Which happens in all political systems. It's not a result of oligarchy. It's a result of governments not being omniscient and therefore dependent on people bringing problems to the attention of governments.)

No, Obama is a pragmatic politician who wants his party's nominee to win in November.
What involvement? The lack of involvement is the problem. When Amwerican's lose their healthcare due to losing their jobs there is NO  goverment involvement. It's all corporate involvement and that's the problem because corporate for-profit model DOES NOT work with healthcare. Never has, never will, because incentives are insane. I said this 100 times even before Covid-19 and now my message is even clearer. However, you haven't changed your opinions at all. That is telling. Is there ever any evidence that can change your mind about anything?


Newsweek:

newly released poll shows that 69 percent of registered voters support Medicare for All, a plan which would create a national health insurance plan available for all Americans.

The poll also showed 46 percent of Republican voters supporting Medicare for All alongside 88 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of Independents.

https://www.newsweek.com/69-percent-americans-want-medicare-all-including-46-percent-republicans-new-poll-says-1500187 (https://www.newsweek.com/69-percent-americans-want-medicare-all-including-46-percent-republicans-new-poll-says-1500187)

So, good luck with a candidate who doesn't appeal to voters under 45, suffers from sexual harrashment accusations and can barely speak full sentencies due to cognitive decline. Name recognition, corporate myth of electability, nostalgia of Obama years and massive establishment support gives him the nomination, but those things won't help much in November and now his hopes of winning are in the Covid-19 crisis brutally exposing Trump's incompetence.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 01, 2020, 12:46:30 PM
Quote from: Brian on May 01, 2020, 10:17:49 AM
One of just two reasons to vote for Amash, the other being he hasn't sexually assaulted anyone.

I'd rather Biden chooses a good VP.

Actually Todd should be more enthusiastic about Amash. A President who is from neither major party would screw up the system even more,  and that's Todd's preferred outcome, after all.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 01, 2020, 12:49:28 PM
Quote from: JBS on May 01, 2020, 12:46:30 PM
Actually Todd should be more enthusiastic about Amash. A President who is from neither major party would screw up the system even more,  and that's Todd's preferred outcome, after all.


Amash cannot match Trump in damaging the international system, and he cannot match Biden for ineffectual management of Democrat infighting.  He's an irrelevance.  The US can't have a "good" president until after Biden.


Quote from: Dowder on May 01, 2020, 12:48:14 PM
Is Todd an anarchist?


No.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 01, 2020, 01:00:12 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 01, 2020, 12:36:54 PM
What involvement? The lack of involvement is the problem. When Amwerican's lose their healthcare due to losing their jobs there is NO  goverment involvement. It's all corporate involvement and that's the problem because corporate for-profit model DOES NOT work with healthcare. Never has, never will, because incentives are insane. I said this 100 times even before Covid-19 and now my message is even clearer. However, you haven't changed your opinions at all. That is telling. Is there ever any evidence that can change your mind about anything?


Newsweek:

newly released poll shows that 69 percent of registered voters support Medicare for All, a plan which would create a national health insurance plan available for all Americans.

The poll also showed 46 percent of Republican voters supporting Medicare for All alongside 88 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of Independents.

https://www.newsweek.com/69-percent-americans-want-medicare-all-including-46-percent-republicans-new-poll-says-1500187 (https://www.newsweek.com/69-percent-americans-want-medicare-all-including-46-percent-republicans-new-poll-says-1500187)

So, good luck with a candidate who doesn't appeal to voters under 45, suffers from sexual harrashment accusations and can barely speak full sentencies due to cognitive decline. Name recognition, corporate myth of electability, nostalgia of Obama years and massive establishment support gives him the nomination, but those things won't help much in November and now his hopes of winning are in the Covid-19 crisis brutally exposing Trump's incompetence.

You leave me speechless at times.
It's got nothing to do with insurance. The people who lost insurance because they lost their jobs either can maintain their current insurance through COBRA, or get on Medicaid, or find other insurance through the ACA exchanges.  But the problems we have with the virus are directly tied to government not doing what it's supposed to.

Trump's administration screwed up testing and PPE inventories.  That's why the US is so far behind in dealing with coronavirus, and having such trouble getting out of lockdown phase.   And the problem was not so much with Trump as with the bureaucracies in place at the FDA and CDC, the two agencies most relevant to health care. That's not an argument for increasing government's role in health care. It's a demonstration of why you should be wary of increasing government's role.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: arpeggio on May 01, 2020, 01:02:36 PM
Biden and the alleged assault.

Republicans are the biggest phonies on the face of the earth.  I really do not care if you are offended.

If Trump can be President with his background and Kavanaugh can be a Justice than Biden can be president.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Que on May 02, 2020, 02:19:06 AM
Quote from: arpeggio on May 01, 2020, 01:02:36 PM

If Trump can be President with his background and Kavanaugh can be a Justice than Biden can be president.

That's a worrying track record for a "civilised" country....

Aren't you guys able to elect or appoint remotely decent people into high office?  ::)
I mean, handsy septuagenarians?  ???

Not that this is a uniquely American problem... As Plato already pointed out, high office attracts the wrong (immoral) kind of people.

More women in high office would definitely be a step in the right direction.
Generally speaking, of course.... Recently watched a long documentary on Hillary Clinton, to which she participated.
Her demonisation seemed to me totally uncalled for, but I wasn't terribly impresed by her personality either.

Q
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 02, 2020, 04:30:34 AM
Bernie Sanders facing increased pressure to unsuspend his campaign
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 02, 2020, 04:39:53 AM
Quote from: JBS on May 01, 2020, 01:00:12 PM
You leave me speechless at times.
It's got nothing to do with insurance. The people who lost insurance because they lost their jobs either can maintain their current insurance through COBRA, or get on Medicaid, or find other insurance through the ACA exchanges.  But the problems we have with the virus are directly tied to government not doing what it's supposed to.

So WHY are MILLIONS of Americans lacking healthcare if they can maintain their current insurance through COBRA, or get on Medicaid, or find other insurance through the ACA exchanges. Maybe it's because they can't?

Quote from: JBS on May 01, 2020, 01:00:12 PMTrump's administration screwed up testing and PPE inventories.  That's why the US is so far behind in dealing with coronavirus, and having such trouble getting out of lockdown phase.   And the problem was not so much with Trump as with the bureaucracies in place at the FDA and CDC, the two agencies most relevant to health care. That's not an argument for increasing government's role in health care. It's a demonstration of why you should be wary of increasing government's role.

Americans elected a clown as their president and are now paying the price. Had they elected Bernie Sanders in 2016 they would be now in a MUCH MUCH better place. They could have done that voting for Bernie overhelmingly in the primary and the general, but in their stupidity they allowed the establishment had it's way. Even with Hillary Clinton things would be better.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on May 02, 2020, 05:35:04 AM
Quote from: JBS on May 01, 2020, 01:00:12 PM
Trump's administration screwed up testing and PPE inventories.  That's why the US is so far behind in dealing with coronavirus, and having such trouble getting out of lockdown phase.   And the problem was not so much with Trump as with the bureaucracies in place at the FDA and CDC, the two agencies most relevant to health care. That's not an argument for increasing government's role in health care. It's a demonstration of why you should be wary of increasing government's role.

Agreed as to what got screwed up. But more specifically it's a demonstration of a particular government being bad at its job. Given that plenty of other governments managed this job a hell of a lot better.

It can't be extrapolated to 'government' in the abstract. However, whether it should make you wary of increasing the US government's role rather depends on what can be done to make the US government more functional.  Various forces have been happily diminishing its ability to function for a number of decades, and then they say "See? "Government" doesn't work!"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 02, 2020, 05:36:47 AM
Quote from: Madiel on May 02, 2020, 05:35:04 AMGiven that plenty of other governments managed this job a hell of a lot better.


Which ones?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on May 02, 2020, 05:38:45 AM
Quote from: Todd on May 02, 2020, 05:36:47 AM

Which ones?

I live in a country with a far higher testing rate (despite Trump's ridiculous claims to the contrary), and fewer than 100 deaths. So I'm pretty happy with how things have gone here. A couple of international studies have said Australia has had the best rate of detecting infections in the whole world.

South Korea slammed the breaks on the infection, hard. New Zealand. Taiwan.  None of these countries just left it to the private sector!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on May 02, 2020, 05:45:39 AM
I mean, if you want to see just how countries are doing with dealing this, one of the simplest metrics is to look at cases per million people and deaths per million people.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

One can also look at curves to see how this is progressing in different countries. Sorry to say but the USA has a long way to go to flatten its curve. And the big delay in testing is a huge factor in that.  Something that has been widely acknowledged.

EDIT: This site is probably the easiest one to look at curves and progress. https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus?fbclid=IwAR30O0E9rdodEqRJbnSkkomdTSjPZeg5g4hsDHeLTX1s78gUvIgBG6IBnfM
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 02, 2020, 05:46:35 AM
Quote from: Madiel on May 02, 2020, 05:35:04 AM
Agreed as to what got screwed up. But more specifically it's a demonstration of a particular government being bad at its job. Given that plenty of other governments managed this job a hell of a lot better.

Yes. Also, who else can do the job of this kind other than the government? Aetna closing the schools and restricting people's freedom? I don't think so...

Quote from: Madiel on May 02, 2020, 05:35:04 AMIt can't be extrapolated to 'government' in the abstract. However, whether it should make you wary of increasing the US government's role rather depends on what can be done to make the US government more functional.  Various forces have been happily diminishing its ability to function for a number of decades, and then they say "See? "Government" doesn't work!"

Yep. Take away funding of public schools and then turn around and say public schools suck. Of course they suck because you took the funding away! Same with Medicare. Of course it has problems when it's underfunded!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 02, 2020, 06:08:43 AM
Quote from: Madiel on May 02, 2020, 05:38:45 AM
I live in a country with a far higher testing rate (despite Trump's ridiculous claims to the contrary), and fewer than 100 deaths. So I'm pretty happy with how things have gone here.

South Korea slammed the breaks on the infection, hard. New Zealand. Taiwan.  None of these countries just left it to the private sector!


New Zealand is not a particularly relevant example given some unique characteristics of the nation, but it is true, using objective measurements, that Pacific Rim countries have so far done a much better job than the US and even more so than most of Europe in dealing with Covid.  Public health officials at the federal and, more importantly, the state level should study the responses in Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore, Germany, and even China to see what worked and what didn't.  It will be possible to apply some of what was done in those countries to the US, but some things just will not fly.  Some things would violate the Constitution - only important if you believe in the rule of law - and it is important, crucial even, that people recognize that the US must and does follow a different response model.  US states are much more important in dealing with situations like this; the federal government acts primarily as a source of financial and physical resources and public health guidance.  It cannot simply impose rules on states, as Trump has found out.  It does not have the authority.  It can use extortionate appropriations to force desired state level behaviors (eg, National Minimum Drinking Age Act), but that's a long term solution with many problems.

Since PPE, testing, and medical treatments are now a focus, the US will do one thing it does better than any other country on earth: throw ridiculous amounts of money at the problem.  Production of and availability of these resources will ramp up for the rest of the year, into next year, and if Biden wins and the Dems take the House and Senate, then longer-term programs with funding in the tens of billions will be established.  (Smart/crafty/evil, take your pick, Republicans will sneak in sunset clauses, ensuring that these issues will linger for years.)  Low margin businesses have become and will continue to be lucrative, so the private sector will play its part, which of course it must in a pandemic; governments only consume, they do not produce.

On an anecdotal level, one of my employees has a child who works for the OHA.  As such, I was hearing, second hand naturally, about Covid regularly before the first case was diagnosed in the US.  While I do use federal sites and other national/world sites for information, the OHA's daily update emails have more pertinent information for me and directly translate into what I should consider doing every single day.  Again, state level resources are of more value than federal level resources on a real-world basis.  That's how it always is.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 02, 2020, 06:17:47 AM
Quote from: Que on May 02, 2020, 02:19:06 AM
Not that this is a uniquely American problem... As Plato already pointed out, high office attracts the wrong (immoral) kind of people.


Q

And, power corrupts ....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on May 02, 2020, 03:12:37 PM
Australia is a federation. Do your homework. All of our shutdowns are being done by States.

To a considerable extent our governance model and constitution was BASED ON yours.

The difference is, we have a national coordinating cabinet that's come together, instead of a federal leader tweeting about liberating Michigan.

So maybe reread all those excuses about how you can't possibly operate in the same way and realise how pathetic they are.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 02, 2020, 03:22:48 PM
Quote from: Madiel on May 02, 2020, 03:12:37 PM
Australia is a federation. Do your homework. All of our shutdowns are being done by States.

To a considerable extent our governance model and constitution was BASED ON yours.

The difference is, we have a national coordinating cabinet that's come together, instead of a federal leader tweeting about liberating Michigan.

So maybe reread all those excuses about how you can't possibly operate in the same way and realise how pathetic they are.


How many times are you going to edit your post?  It was originally only one line.

Anyway, you obviously missed the sentence where I stated that Pacific Rim countries have done a much better job than the US, and the one where I wrote that officials should study the responses of countries including Australia.  Reading is hard.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on May 02, 2020, 03:25:24 PM
I did read all of that. I did also read not just your post but the one after it, about how being federal made you terribly special.

Reading is indeed hard, because apparently you only know some of what's been written and can't recognise when I'm responding to the other bits.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on May 02, 2020, 03:27:35 PM
I mean, there's not a lot of point undertaking to look at the responses of other countries when you're immediately offering WRONG reasons why you couldn't possibly apply the lessons.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on May 02, 2020, 03:34:28 PM
The USA was our biggest source of infection by the way. Everyone was looking at China, but then we got more cases arriving from the USA because the testing over there was so poor.

Our authorities were probably aware of the inadequate response in the USA before many Americans were.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 02, 2020, 03:42:28 PM
Quote from: Madiel on May 02, 2020, 03:25:24 PM
I did read all of that. I did also read not just your post but the one after it, about how being federal made you terribly special.

Reading is indeed hard, because apparently you only know some of what's been written and can't recognise when I'm responding to the other bits.

Quote from: Madiel on May 02, 2020, 03:27:35 PM
I mean, there's not a lot of point undertaking to look at the responses of other countries when you're immediately offering WRONG reasons why you couldn't possibly apply the lessons.

Quote from: Madiel on May 02, 2020, 03:34:28 PM
The USA was our biggest source of infection by the way. Everyone was looking at China, but then we got more cases arriving from the USA because the testing over there was so poor.

Our authorities were probably aware of the inadequate response in the USA before many Americans were.



Three quick rejoinders.  Impressive.  The "terribly special" bit indicates your motivation and your misunderstanding.  Oh well.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 02, 2020, 04:54:30 PM
Quote from: Todd on May 02, 2020, 06:08:43 AM
  (Smart/crafty/evil, take your pick, Republicans will sneak in sunset clauses, ensuring that these issues will linger for years.) 

We're talking about public health and human lives and you still think "smart" and "crafty" are ways of interpreting such a move?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 02, 2020, 05:02:40 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 02, 2020, 04:54:30 PM
We're talking about public health and human lives and you still think "smart" and "crafty" are ways of interpreting such a move?


No, not really.  They should be mandatory; all emergency programs should have sunset clauses.  If the programs are needed at the expiration date, then the programs can be renewed.  Under no circumstances should emergency programs start out as permanent.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on May 02, 2020, 05:16:51 PM
Quote from: Todd on May 02, 2020, 03:42:28 PM
Three quick rejoinders.  Impressive.

Sorry, but do you want me to edit posts, or not? Or will I get criticised either way? That seems to be your usual modus operandi so maybe I'll just assume that you're going to ignore the substance in search of a snide remark on all occasions.

The USA being a federation does not make it different. You and another poster both tried to make that claim. I'm telling you that it's a wrong claim. You can either take that on board are you can continue your normal habit of being a pain to deal with.

EDIT: And Germany is a federation as well, though I don't know the details of who has responsibility for what in that country.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 02, 2020, 05:31:00 PM
Quote from: Madiel on May 02, 2020, 05:16:51 PMSorry, but do you want me to edit posts, or not?


An odd question.  Do what you like.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Madiel on May 02, 2020, 05:32:28 PM
Quote from: Todd on May 02, 2020, 05:31:00 PM

An odd question.  Do what you like.

The point being that what YOU like is to comment on whatever I do. Fuck that for a game.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 02, 2020, 05:33:13 PM
Quote from: Madiel on May 02, 2020, 05:32:28 PM
The point being that what YOU like is to comment on whatever I do. Fuck that for a game.


Um, OK.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 02, 2020, 06:40:56 PM
Someone at The Hill needs to put down the crack pipe:

A Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama ticket to replace Joe Biden? Is it even possible? (https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/495580-a-hillary-clinton-barack-obama-ticket-to-replace-joe-biden)


At the start of his last podcast episode Preet Bharara answered a question about whether Obama is hypothetically allowed to run as Biden's running mate and wether he could become president again if something happened to Biden. And apparently its one of those The Letter Of The Law (kind of yes he could) vs. The Spirit Of The Law (kind of no he shouldn't) things.

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/stay-tuned-with-preet/e/69246965?autoplay=true
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 02, 2020, 06:54:55 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 02, 2020, 06:40:56 PM
Someone at The Hill needs to put down the crack pipe:

A Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama ticket to replace Joe Biden? Is it even possible? (https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/495580-a-hillary-clinton-barack-obama-ticket-to-replace-joe-biden)


At the start of his last podcast episode Preet Bharara answered a question about whether Obama is hypothetically allowed to run as Biden's running mate and wether he could become president again if something happened to Biden. And apparently its one of those The Letter Of The Law (kind of yes he could) vs. The Spirit Of The Law (kind of no he shouldn't) things.

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/stay-tuned-with-preet/e/69246965?autoplay=true

When Hillary was running in 2016,  Billy Jeff mentioned in a TV interview that they had considered the idea of him running as her VP, but decided the 22nd Amendment barred him from serving as VP (that's the one that term limits the President.)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 02, 2020, 06:59:22 PM
Quote from: Madiel on May 02, 2020, 03:34:28 PM
The USA was our biggest source of infection by the way. Everyone was looking at China, but then we got more cases arriving from the USA because the testing over there was so poor.

And is still.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 02, 2020, 07:08:18 PM
Quote from: JBS on May 02, 2020, 06:54:55 PM
When Hillary was running in 2016,  Billy Jeff mentioned in a TV interview that they had considered the idea of him running as her VP, but decided the 22nd Amendment barred him from serving as VP (that's the one that term limits the President.)

Not a lot of "electoral math" in that scenario is there? Or is there? And if they were worried about firing up the right and getting them to the polls then that House Of Cards plagiarism would have done it. And she would have been seen as a puppet, forget that glass ceiling stuff.

But, yeah, apparently you have to parse the word "elected" in the most cynical way, and be willing to ride out the reaction.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on May 02, 2020, 07:26:04 PM
Quote from: Madiel on May 02, 2020, 05:16:51 PM
Sorry, but do you want me to edit posts, or not? Or will I get criticised either way? [...] you can continue your normal habit of being a pain to deal with.

it's not terribly useful to talk with him.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on May 02, 2020, 07:38:01 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 02, 2020, 06:40:56 PMAt the start of his last podcast episode Preet Bharara answered a question about whether Obama is hypothetically allowed to run as Biden's running mate and wether he could become president again if something happened to Biden. And apparently its one of those The Letter Of The Law (kind of yes he could) vs. The Spirit Of The Law (kind of no he shouldn't) things.

And no one considers whether Obama would go along with such an scheme?

The candidate the democrats need is Andrew Cuomo, except he is busy saving New York.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 02, 2020, 07:51:11 PM
It was presented as a question about con law, not about the likelihood or desire for that outcome.

I would imagine its pretty much the last thing he would want.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on May 03, 2020, 12:18:03 AM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on May 02, 2020, 07:38:01 PM
And no one considers whether Obama would go along with such an scheme?

The candidate the democrats need is Andrew Cuomo, except he is busy saving New York.

Also, before Corona, Cuomo was not terribly popular in New York.

I don't think his current popularity would be sustainable without this crisis.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 03, 2020, 05:20:04 AM
A Clinton-Obama fantasy is a bizarre combination of navel gazing and desperation.  But scribblers gotta scribble, and non-American American political junkies gotta post.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 03, 2020, 06:17:57 AM
Quote from: Que on May 02, 2020, 02:19:06 AM
That's a worrying track record for a "civilised" country....

Aren't you guys able to elect or appoint remotely decent people into high office?  ::)
I mean, handsy septuagenarians?  ???

My dear chap, while I am alive to the merit of your rhetorical q. In this, as in many things, it is worth distinguishing between Biden and President Predator:

(Submitted for your approval)

What Joe Biden did right in rebutting Tara Reade's claims

By
Jennifer Rubin
Opinion writer
May 1, 2020 at 10:06 a.m. EDT

Political pundits will "grade" former vice president Joe Biden's response to Tara Reade's allegation that he digitally penetrated her more than 25 years ago. The campaign's written statement was empathetic and respectful but definitive. Biden sat for a tough interview Friday without losing his cool. He was not angry or accusatory; he did not claim a conspiracy nor insult the accuser. He volunteered to open Senate papers (which he said are at the National Archives, not at the University of Delaware). In short, he did what an innocent person would do and say.

The lines "If you believe Christine Blasey Ford, you have to believe Reade" or "You didn't believe President Trump, so you cannot believe Biden" (or other variations) are the worst examples of mindless "balance" and faux objectivity. It takes a minute to identify fundamental differences between situations that bear little resemblance to one another.

Trump never sat for a grueling interview to go through the facts of more than a dozen claims against him. Biden sat for an interrogation of a single claim of sexual assault. (And no, his penchant to ignore personal space and excessive hugginess were not sexual, although they were inappropriate.)

Unlike Republicans and now-Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who refused to allow a full investigation of charges, Biden has put no restrictions on media inquiries and has offered up relevant documents. (Republicans also refused to open up all documents relevant to Kavanaugh's past White House work having nothing to do with Ford's allegation.)

And let's get real: Reade and Ford are not similar accusers. Ford's story was consistent for years. Reade's has not been. Ford did not claim to have complained contemporaneously; Reade did and was rebutted by Biden staff to whom she would have complained. In Kavanaugh's case, there was another witness to an alleged, separate incident of sexual misconduct at Yale University involving Kavanaugh. In Reade's case, no one else has accused Biden of anything like Reade's claim.

Biden's statements in writing and in the interview are hard to dispute: Women should be heard and believed, but facts and the truth matter like in every other crime. (In his written statement enumerating the fundamental concerns in these cases, Biden said, "One is that women deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and when they step forward they should be heard, not silenced. The second is that their stories should be subject to appropriate inquiry and scrutiny.") If a witness changes her story ("Responsible news organizations should examine and evaluate the full and growing record of inconsistencies in her story, which has changed repeatedly in both small and big ways"), her credibility is seriously compromised.

Several points deserve emphasis.

First, the media do not question Trump about the serial allegations against him at his endless daily appearances. They've shrugged their shoulders and given up trying to pin him down on the numerous complaints of harassment and/or assault. They should continue to scrutinize his claims and ask questions whether he answers or not.

Second, people are entitled to believe Reade despite her inconsistencies, the denials from Biden and his staff and the (so far) dearth of written evidence of her complaint. The question is whether the American people decide the evidence is credible. Unless more evidence surfaces, I would wager they do not.

Third, Democrats perpetually worried that the Biden team is "blowing it" (Biden is hidden away! Not in the news!) might want to chill. This was a textbook example of effective campaign communication. The candidate is leading in the polls, and Trump is melting down (in the latest ABC/Ipsos poll, "his disapproval rating among Americans reached a numeric high of 57%, with only 42% approving.") Maybe these people do know what they are doing.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 03, 2020, 07:21:41 AM
'Believe all women'? Now that Reade has accused Joe Biden of sexual assault, never mind. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/04/29/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-allegation-me-too-column/3040158001/)

From the article, not that it will matter:

Quote from: Catherine Cherkasky
As a criminal defense attorney specializing in sexual assault defense — and a former federal special victims' prosecutor of these same cases — I can assure you that corroboration is key to any claim of sexual assault, particularly one in which there is a delayed report. On the topic of corroboration, then, Reade's allegation is far and away from the stronger of the two. She presents a plausible narrative of sexual assault compared with Christine Blasey Ford's more fantastical allegation against Kavanaugh.

2018 - Believe Women!

2020 - Believe women, but vet their claims.

The old adage is true: if it weren't for double standards, Democrats would have no standards at all.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 03, 2020, 08:03:26 AM
Ah: Valley of the Trolls!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 03, 2020, 10:58:49 AM
From the failing New York Times: The Allegation Is Against Joe Biden, but the Burden Is on Women (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/02/us/politics/tara-reade-joe-biden-metoo.html)

Quote from: Jessica Bennett and Lisa Lerer
"My chief concern is watching all of these powerful, important women leaders staking their credibility to Biden when the fact is there's been no real investigation," said Michele Dauber, a law professor at Stanford and Democratic fund-raiser, who helped write the sexual misconduct policies for the California Democratic Party. (She also led the charge to remove the judge who presided over the Brock Turner sexual assault case, the first judge to be recalled in more than 80 years.)

The political action committee Professor Dauber chairs, the Enough is Enough Voter Project, has called for an independent investigation into the claims.

"If this is true, and there is no investigation, his candidacy or his presidency could implode over it" — and, she noted, could take #MeToo down with it.

Believe women, but vet their claims.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 03, 2020, 05:14:51 PM
Quote from: Vice President of the United States Gretchen Whitmer, CNN, May 3, 2020We need to give people an opportunity to tell their story, but then we have a duty to vet it
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 03, 2020, 05:28:56 PM
Quote from: Todd on May 03, 2020, 05:14:51 PM


If you can put the sarcasm and snark aside for just a second...how do you personally weigh the Reade charges?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 04, 2020, 01:31:01 AM
In oligarchy the bankers have a lot say over who's going to be the VP. Assuming the VP pick being a woman they want the VP to be Kamala Harris, Gretchen Whitmer or Amy Klobuchar and they definitely DON'T want Elizabeth Warren.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 04, 2020, 01:41:49 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 04, 2020, 01:31:01 AM
In oligarchy the bankers have a lot say over who's going to be the VP. Assuming the VP pick being a woman they want the VP to be Kamala Harris, Gretchen Whitmer or Amy Klobuchar and they definitely DON'T want Elizabeth Warren.

??

Are you saying you like Elizabeth Warren now? Previously Reddit had told you that "snake" was the meme you were to use, and you dutifully used it here like the ***brainwashed*** parrot you are.

(I mean.., I think Elizabeth Warren is okay - but not because Reddit tells me I can or cant think that)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 04, 2020, 01:49:37 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 04, 2020, 01:41:49 AM
??

Are you saying you like Elizabeth Warren now? Previously Reddit had told you that "snake" was the meme you were to use, and you dutifully used it here like the *brainwashed* parrot you are.

What does it matter who I like? My post was about who bankers like. Reddit? When have I mentioned Reddit? I don't know who exactly came up with the "snake", but it is a brilliant descriptor of how Warren behaved during the latter part of the primary so the WHOLE LEFT adopted it including me.

I don't especially like Elizabeth Warren the snake she is, but she'd be in my opinion superior VP pick compared to Harris, Whitmer and Klobuchar.

If you ark me the VP pick should be Bernie Sanders or Nina Turner, but that will never happen because of oligarchy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on May 04, 2020, 05:56:12 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 03, 2020, 12:18:03 AM
Also, before Corona, Cuomo was not terribly popular in New York.

I don't think his current popularity would be sustainable without this crisis.

How did he win the election by 15 percentage points if we was not terribly popular?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 04, 2020, 08:02:57 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 04, 2020, 07:50:34 AM
If she dropped out sooner Bernie may have won a few more states but that wouldn't have changed the outcome. The Dem base clearly wanted the moderate establishment liberal so making a far left progressive VP doesn't make any sense at all unless they want to scare the bulk of their party away in November.

The Bernie-ites need a scapegoat so they don't have to face the truth thst they are a lot less popular than they think they are.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 04, 2020, 08:12:38 AM
Quote from: JBS on May 04, 2020, 08:02:57 AM
The Bernie-ites need a scapegoat so they don't have to face the truth thst they are a lot less popular than they think they are.

But, dude, all those people at the rallies!  8)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on May 04, 2020, 10:07:56 AM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on May 04, 2020, 05:56:12 AM
How did Cuomo win the election by 15 percentage points if we was not terribly popular?

Well, dang, maybe I did not get this right.

I ain't no New Yorker.

Maybe it's just the NY media that used to dislike him.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 04, 2020, 12:28:08 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 04, 2020, 07:50:34 AM
The Dem base clearly wanted the moderate establishment liberal so making a far left progressive VP doesn't make any sense at all unless they want to scare the bulk of their party away in November.

The corporate media is VERY hostile to Bernie, but loves corporate candidates. Americans are brainwashed to think Biden is most electable so to get rid of Trump old people went for Biden even when they agree with Bernie's policies more (overhelming majority of Democrat voters support medicare for all. Biden is against medicare for all. People are voting against their good. That's corporate brainwashing. Good luck to Biden to get the votes of voters under 45. The left will stay home or vote for third party. Biden can still win if old people vote a lot and Trumps support dies because of covid-19 mess.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 04, 2020, 12:33:22 PM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on May 04, 2020, 05:56:12 AM
How did he win the election by 15 percentage points if we was not terribly popular?

In oligarchy the candidate with most money often wins. In the US it's something like 9 out of 10 cases I believe. I don't know if Cuomo had most money. I have to say it's astonishing how Americans vote for the bad candidates so much. The bad ones are loved by the oligarchs and are handled nicely in the corporate media while the good candidates are ignored or smeared in the corporate media so that people don't vote for them even when they should.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 04, 2020, 02:02:03 PM
Surely somebody just won a game of 71db keyword bingo from those two posts?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 04, 2020, 02:48:25 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 04, 2020, 02:02:03 PM
Surely somebody just won a game of 71db keyword bingo from those two posts?

(* chortle *)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 05, 2020, 07:51:29 AM
Warren calls Biden's denial of sexual assault credible, stands by her endorsement (https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/05/04/nation/warren-calls-bidens-denial-sexual-assault-credible-stands-by-her-endorsement/)

Quote from: United States Secretary of Health and Human Services Elizabeth WarrenThe vice president's answers were credible and convincing


You know who I feel sorry for in all this, Kirsten Gillibrand.  Here she stuck a knife in Al Franken's gut to advance her career, to make gender issues a cornerstone of her campaign, just to be reduced to this:

Gillibrand, a #MeToo Leader, to Headline Biden for Women Event (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-04/gillibrand-a-metoo-leader-to-headline-biden-for-women-event)

Democrats sure are a principled bunch.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 05, 2020, 01:07:46 PM
New (4/28/20) Emerson poll finds that 51 % if Bernie Sanders supporters are "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to consider voting third party or independent.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 05, 2020, 01:20:57 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 05, 2020, 01:07:46 PM
New (4/28/20) Emerson poll finds that 51 % if Bernie Sanders supporters are "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to consider voting third party or independent.

IOW about 10% of the overall electorate, if that much.

Remember, all Progressive candidates together in the presidential primaries got about 40% of the votes. That translates to between 15 and 20 percent of the general electorate. That in turn means that for every Progressive voter, there are two Trump supporters.

Which is why progressives lose so many times.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 05, 2020, 01:30:48 PM
Quote from: JBS on May 05, 2020, 01:20:57 PM
Which is why progressives lose so many times.

Progressives lose because the system is rigged against them. In a fair democratic system Bernie Sanders would be the president, not Trump. The nomination was stolen from Bernie Sanders by the top 1 % in 2016 and again this year and Bernie would have beat Trump. That is the fact. Deal with it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 05, 2020, 02:36:39 PM
"Consider" is a term vague enough to mean whatever you want it to in this context.

On the one hand it could mean "meh, I'll watch an ad or read a pamphlet if its right in front of me", or it could mean"Progressives lose because the system is rigged against them. In a fair democratic system Bernie Sanders would be the president, not Trump. The nomination was stolen from Bernie Sanders by the top 1 % in 2016 and again this year and Bernie would have beat Trump. That is the fact. Deal with it."

I suspect more of the former.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on May 05, 2020, 06:39:34 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 05, 2020, 06:19:25 PM


If Trump wins re-election I will personally thank you, 71 db.  :)

Because you want entire states exterminated?

Like the death cult much?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 06, 2020, 02:20:08 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 05, 2020, 06:19:25 PM
I'm all for Bernie running third party. Stir up the kids, get those Bernie Bros to pressure Sanders to keep up the good fight for democratic socialism.

If Trump wins re-election I will personally thank you, 71 db.  :)

The logical thing to do is thank those who actually voted for Trump. Corporate Dems only serve the rich and corporations. Crumbs at BEST to regular people. That's why regular people are struggling and are desperate. Trump said he is an outsider and that appealed to Trumpists. If these people still support Trump it's because Trumps genius of appealing to his base and the fact the corporate media sucks. It's possible Covid-19 makes MAGA-people realize how incompetent Trump is. We'll see.

Bernie Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist, but is actually a social democrat. Had (older) Americans listened to me and supported Bernie in the primary the way he deserves Trump would not have a change of re-election.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 06, 2020, 05:04:21 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 05, 2020, 07:17:18 PMLike hyperbole much?


Herman is a fiction author.  He is detached from reality.


Quote from: 71 dB on May 06, 2020, 02:20:08 AMHad (older) Americans listened to me


So is 71dB.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on May 06, 2020, 05:36:16 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 04, 2020, 10:07:56 AM
Well, dang, maybe I did not get this right.

I ain't no New Yorker.

Maybe it's just the NY media that used to dislike him.

Hating politicians is a sport in the United States. Possibly most people dislike him, but dislike him less than the other politicians. That, and a small group of diehard loyalists, is the closest a politician gets to being popular.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on May 06, 2020, 05:40:20 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 06, 2020, 02:20:08 AM
Had (older) Americans listened to me and supported Bernie in the primary the way he deserves Trump would not have a change of re-election.
This statement deserves to be framed and hung on as many walls as possible.... :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 06, 2020, 06:18:06 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 05, 2020, 07:17:18 PM
Like hyperbole much?

The hardest hit states are pretty much ran by the Dems, btw. Don't tell me they don't bear responsibility for their response. Your blame of Trump is a dishonest attempt to absolve them of any and all mistakes.

The lack of testing and PPE is all on Trump. 

The hardest hit states are more urbanized,  therefore have heavier concentrations of minorities.  The GOP is generally indifferent, if not hostile, to things that concern minorities.  So naturally those minorities vote for the Democrats. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 06, 2020, 06:19:14 AM
Quote from: JBS on May 06, 2020, 06:18:06 AM
The lack of testing and PPE is all on Trump. 


Incorrect.  States are also on the hook. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 06, 2020, 06:30:48 AM
Quote from: Todd on May 06, 2020, 06:19:14 AM

Incorrect.  States are also on the hook.

I see, Gov Coumo sent the national stockpile to China to hep them out back in January. Gov. Coumo took no steps to replenish it after doing so.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 06, 2020, 06:39:07 AM
Quote from: JBS on May 06, 2020, 06:30:48 AM
I see, Gov Coumo sent the national stockpile to China to hep them out back in January. Gov. Coumo took no steps to replenish it after doing so.


States, counties, and cities have public health departments.  They are directly responsible for assuring adequate supplies of medical equipment for the geographic regions they have responsibility for, and they are directly responsible for formulating response plans.  They coordinate these with FEMA, as well as other federal agencies, and other state and local governments.  The Covid crisis has exposed emergency response failings at all levels.  Expect DR consultants to make a mint in the next few years.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 06, 2020, 07:35:04 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 06, 2020, 07:31:13 AM
You said you were a conservative libertarian so I assume you'd realize it's not always about indifference or hostility but ideology  and principle. What should the GOP do? Advocate for a larger and more redistributive welfare state? Compensation? The crime reform bill from a few years ago was an attempt at rectifying past mistakes but are more protections for civil liberties needed?

Well, how about one step that should be well within bounds for actual conservatives; recognize BLM was about police abusing their authority and had nothing to with protecting criminals or insurrectionists? And that protesting during the national anthem is the reverse of being unpatriotic?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 06, 2020, 08:11:27 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 06, 2020, 07:43:50 AM
No, it's the federal government's responsibility to protect everyone at all times everywhere. Who the hell knows anything or cares about federalism? it's an 18th century bunk idea from a rural agrarian society. I don't vote in state and local elections because decentralized government won't save me from bad stuff like Covid-19. Thus no blame for mayors and governors and board of supervisors, city councils, too. That's why we elect president and congress. Trump and Republicans bad, do bad job. Vote Democrat next time and next time no one die.


I forgot all this.  Thank you.  This has convinced me of the superiority of the Democrat approach.  You should run for office.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 06, 2020, 03:41:08 PM
ooh-wee, lookit that boy toe the Trump line!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 06, 2020, 04:32:34 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 06, 2020, 07:52:24 AM
Police abusing their authority in general is scary and needs to be addressed. Isolating one group above others for redress won't solve the bigger issue.


Solving that issue on its own would be a massive achievement, regardless of what other issues need to be addressed next.

Someone else here was making this argument recently: that institutionalized racism shouldn't be addressed separate to all other law enforcement problems. I didn't understand it then and I don't understand it now.

Or is knowing that the perfect will never be achieved a way of avoiding the good and tacitly approving and continuing the racism?

Do you also think that institutionalized racism in teaching shouldn't be addressed unless all other pedagogical issues are resolved at the same time?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 06, 2020, 05:25:43 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 06, 2020, 04:57:26 PM
I don't believe in utopias so maybe I'll just say that if we are still experiencing inequality, racism and injustice in general we probably always will until people naturally evolve away from that behavior. Past top down approaches such as legislative laws and governmental policies haven't fixed it and in some ways made it worse. Don't forget it was originally government laws and policies (eg, slavery and Jim Crow) that made a tragically but naturally occurring phenomenon a lot worse for black people, gays, etc. 


And I don't believe that at all, and furthermore believe its an attitude that legitimizes and perpetuates the problem.

Re the second part: it was the states that decided on the practice of slavery wasn't it? And the government with its "laws and policies" that ended it as well as giving black men - and eventually women - the vote? Because "bottom up" efforts were met with violence?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 06, 2020, 06:04:13 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 06, 2020, 05:25:43 PM
And I don't believe that at all, and furthermore believe its an attitude that legitimizes and perpetuates the problem.

Re the second part: it was the states that decided on the practice of slavery wasn't it? And the government with its "laws and policies" that ended it as well as giving black men - and eventually women - the vote? Because "bottom up" efforts were met with violence?

Without the bottom up efforts, the Federal Government would have done nothing.  Brown vs Board of Education was nit brought by the Justice Department
QuoteThe case originated in 1951, when the public school district in Topeka, Kansas, refused to enroll the daughter of local black resident Oliver Brown at the school closest to their home, instead requiring her to ride a bus to a segregated black elementary school farther away. The Browns and twelve other local black families in similar situations then filed a class action lawsuit in U.S. federal court against the Topeka Board of Education, alleging that its segregation policy was unconstitutional. A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas rendered a verdict against the Browns, relying on the precedent of the Supreme Court's 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, in which the Court had ruled that racial segregation was not in itself a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause if the facilities in question were otherwise equal, a doctrine that had come to be known as "separate but equal." The Browns, then represented by NAACP chief counsel Thurgood Marshall, appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
[Wikipedia]

The civil rights workers were able to capitalize on a sympathetic Northern press to some degree, on a SCOTUS that was willing to end segregation, and used publicity to get the Federal government gradually involved.  The "top down" came into play but only after the "bottom" started acting up.

Similar to Emancipation in 1863-65. The Union acted to free slaves, but a large portion of slaves freed themselves by running away to take shelter behind Union lines, and black men enlisted in the Union army and proved they could fight as well as, sometimes better than, their white peers.

So efforts from both directions are really needed.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 06, 2020, 06:20:04 PM
Yes, I'd agree with it expressed that way.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 06, 2020, 07:23:48 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 06, 2020, 06:53:05 PM
It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. You emotive perspective of truth is certainly not grounded upon observable reality or historical fact and is more like a religious faith, which is certainly a characteristic of modern liberalism. 
The problem was originally giving the government a power it never should have been allowed in the first place. Hence the terrible injustice and the later needs to address and readdress and keep addressing the problems that arose from it.

That would be true only if you ignore the degree to which racism was embedded in American culture and the general society in the 19th century and into the 20th century.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on May 06, 2020, 10:40:53 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 06, 2020, 04:57:26 PM
I don't believe in utopias so maybe I'll just say that if we are still experiencing inequality, racism and injustice in general we probably always will until people naturally evolve away from that behavior.

By all means let's get back to segregation and wait till everybody has "evolved".

Just occasionally beat up or shoot blacks because they get uppity.

Love the way you use seventies language to support an ancient pov.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 07, 2020, 04:56:15 AM
The one positive effect of Dowder's presence is he makes me feel JDS is on my side politically, and that is saying a lot.  ;D  ???

Quote from: Dowder on May 06, 2020, 06:53:05 PM
The problem was originally giving the government a power it never should have been allowed in the first place. Hence the terrible injustice and the later needs to address and readdress and keep addressing the problems that arose from it.

The real problem is the (US) government is owned by large corporations and the rich. The power is power of the top 1 %, oligarchy so that regular people like yourself don't have the power they should have in democracy. So, you are correct in pointing out you lack the power you should have, but you are wrong in thinking government power is by default a bad thing. No, in functioning democracies government power can be a wonderful thing.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 07, 2020, 05:03:40 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 07, 2020, 04:56:15 AM
The one positive effect of Dowder's presence is he makes me feel JBS is on my side politically, and that is saying a lot.  ;D  ???

I rejoice in your silver lining.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 07, 2020, 06:20:28 AM
Left bucks Biden over Reade allegations

Despite Biden's vehement denials, some progressive candidates — mostly millennials — are siding with his accuser. (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/06/biden-reade-allegations-241451)


Quote from: Holly OtterbeinForty percent of Democratic voters under the age of 45 — the core of Sanders' base — said the party should pick a different nominee after watching a video of Biden's denial, according to a Morning Consult poll, whereas only 15 percent of Democrats 45 and up said the same thing. Another survey by Monmouth found that 45 percent of all voters between the ages of 18 and 34 said Reade's allegation is likely true — a larger portion than any other age group.

Our next president sure is a sweetheart.  (Yeah, but, you know, TRUMP!!!)

Republicans have an opening for divide and conquer style politics after Biden wins, and they can foment intraparty fighting among the Dems.  They need to do so as ruthlessly as they can. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 07, 2020, 07:06:24 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 07, 2020, 06:48:36 AM
We will, preferably before Biden "wins."


The Economist's thorough analysis - which points out with cold precision why most young and minority voters don't matter a whole lot in the 2020 race - shows that while Trump still leads among White Trash voters, Biden is up five points from HRC.  Biden wins.  And that's not factoring in the approaching economic instability.

But, as always, it never pays to dismiss the incompetence of Dems.  If any party can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, it is the Democrat party.  See 2016.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 07, 2020, 08:36:32 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 07, 2020, 06:45:03 AM
As long as you give government monopoly power there will be those who attempt to use it to their advantage for good and bad. Your dreaded 1% always finds a way. You give people liberty and it will upset any intended patterns for equality.

Those who abuse their political power should be voted OUT in the next election. Somehow Americans are really bad at that. They keep re-electing the same corrupt criminals. It would be so easy to replace Nancy Pelosi with Shahid Buttar for example, but because Americans are so ignorant and brainwashed and the corporate media sucks, only those who follow politics closely outside the corporate media have even heard about Shahid Buttar. Nancy Pelosi has enough money to eat the best ice-cream in the World for the rest of her life. There is no reason she has to keep screwing over Americans. Let Shahid Buttar serve regular people.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 07, 2020, 08:50:23 AM
Quote from: Todd on May 07, 2020, 07:06:24 AM

Biden is up five points...

Maybe, but it's popular vote and doesn't matter. Can he win the electorate vote? Can he win the rust belt? Why should people vote for him in the rust belt? Did he promise to bring the outsourced well paying industrial jobs back? I didn't think so. At least Trump understands to LIE about that to get the votes of desperate people. Biden just show his middle finger and shouts "vote for someone else." It's pretty amazing he won the Democratic primary. Well, I take that back. It's not surprising. That kind of things happen in oligarchy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 07, 2020, 09:04:16 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 07, 2020, 08:50:23 AMMaybe, but it's popular vote and doesn't matter. Can he win the electorate vote? Can he win the rust belt? Why should people vote for him in the rust belt? Did he promise to bring the outsourced well paying industrial jobs back? I didn't think so. At least Trump understands to LIE about that to get the votes of desperate people. Biden just show his middle finger and shouts "vote for someone else." It's pretty amazing he won the Democratic primary. Well, I take that back. It's not surprising. That kind of things happen in oligarchy.


You are clueless.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on May 07, 2020, 12:39:59 PM
Quote from: Herman on May 06, 2020, 10:40:53 PM
By all means let's get back to segregation and wait till everybody has "evolved".

Just occasionally beat up or shoot blacks because they get uppity.

Love the way you use seventies language to support an ancient pov.
Seeing this type of response to what was quoted is exactly what makes me want to stop having any sort of discussions with anyone on the internet any more.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 07, 2020, 05:47:10 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 07, 2020, 12:47:40 PM
Joe Crowley was a powerful dude in the HOR but got dethroned by AOC in NY. It happens when enough people turn out, which in the aforementioned case only took 15,000 or so people. The grass roots effort hinged on her identity politics. It worked so don't be too hard on Americans.

AOC is one of the rare success stories. She had 10 times less money than Crowley, but she also had a political message that resonated with people and a strong platform (originally written by Kyle Kulinski). AOC also kept knocking on people's doors to tell about her agenda and it worked. However, it doesn't work always. We'll see if Shahid Buttar is able to beat Nancy Pelosi.

Quote from: Dowder on May 07, 2020, 12:47:40 PMI would say voter apathy is common but perhaps that is a good thing? It demonstrates that the people probably perceive the government is being efficiently ran and thus they can worry less about politics and more on living their lives. Typically a crisis or downturn gets the electorate worked up.

The apathy isn't so much because people think the government is being efficiently ran. It's because people feel politicians don't serve them. The congress has a approval rate of about 20 %!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 07, 2020, 06:05:33 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 07, 2020, 05:47:10 PM
AOC is one of the rare success stories. She had 10 times less money than Crowley, but she also had a political message that resonated with people and a strong platform (originally written by Kyle Kulinski). AOC also kept knocking on people's doors to tell about her agenda and it worked. However, it doesn't work always. We'll see if Shahid Buttar is able to beat Nancy Pelosi.

The apathy isn't so much because people think the government is being efficiently ran. It's because people feel politicians don't serve them. The congress has a approval rate of about 20 %!

AOC is a Hispanic who represents a district that has been turning heavily Hispanic over the years. And, as you note, she campaigned hard. Those two factors were what gave her the win.

Shahid Buttar may beat Pelosi. In which case Steny Hoyer will become Speaker of the House and Shahid Buttar will be as influential as Sala Burton was in her day.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 09, 2020, 05:49:43 AM
Good news for creepy, hair-sniffing, dementia-addled Uncle Joe:

Biden raises $2.7 million in first virtual fundraiser with DNC (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-raises-2-7-million-in-first-virtual-fundraiser-with-democratic-national-committee/)

Biden opens 9-point lead over Trump in Senate battlegrounds: poll (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/496793-biden-opens-nine-point-lead-over-trump-in-senate-battlegrounds-poll)

New polling data show Trump faltering in key swing states—here's why (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/05/08/new-polling-data-show-trump-faltering-in-key-swing-states-heres-why/)


Quote from: William A. GalstonSome portions of this coalition—white evangelical Protestants and white men with less than a college education—are rock-solid. But there is evidence that other groups are beginning to waver. For example, President Trump defeated Hillary Clinton among voters 65 and older by 7 points, 52-45 percent, in 2016. In the latest NBC/WSJ poll, by contrast, Biden led Trump by 9 points, 52-43. Because seniors vote at a higher rate than any other age cohort, the shift in this group alone could be enough to sink the president's prospects in closely contested states.


Biden only needs to stay alive for a few more months for Dems' dreams to come true.  You go, Joe!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 07:39:42 AM
Quote from: JBS on May 07, 2020, 06:05:33 PM
AOC is a Hispanic who represents a district that has been turning heavily Hispanic over the years. And, as you note, she campaigned hard. Those two factors were what gave her the win.

Are Rashida Tlaib's and Ilhan Omar's districts heavily Muslim? Surely they  campaigned hard, but I wouldn't count out the fact that they advocate political agendas very popular among regular people such as living wage, affordable housing, universal healthcare and student loan debt forgiveness.

Quote from: JBS on May 07, 2020, 06:05:33 PMShahid Buttar may beat Pelosi. In which case Steny Hoyer will become Speaker of the House and Shahid Buttar will be as influential as Sala Burton was in her day.

Yes, but still better what we have now. Every left-leaning/progressive Democract is a new force to push the Dems to the left.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 09, 2020, 07:56:09 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 07:39:42 AM
Are Rashida Tlaib's and Ilhan Omar's districts heavily Muslim? Surely they  campaigned hard, but I wouldn't count out the fact that they advocate political agendas very popular among regular people such as living wage, affordable housing, universal healthcare and student loan debt forgiveness.

Yes, but still better what we have now. Every left-leaning/progressive Democract is a new force to push the Dems to the left.

Omar is a Somali-American, representing the area of the country with what seems to be the highest concentration of Somali-Americans.
Tlaib is from Michigan, which has a high proportion of Arab-Ameticans (Justin Amash is from there), but her district is predominately black. One site I just checked suggested she would win if the black vote were split among four candidates then running. (The column dates from before her election.)

And just a reminder: since progressive programs are not in fact as popular as you think they are,  the further left the Democrats go, the easier it is for Republicans to win nationally. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 09, 2020, 08:17:51 AM
Could you at least spell Ms Reade's name correctly?

Those divorce papers only say she complained of sexual harrassment and left Biden's staff because of it. But do not give the identity of the culprit(s).  And her exhusband has now said he's not saying anything and wants nothing to do with this circus.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 08:23:32 AM
Quote from: JBS on May 09, 2020, 07:56:09 AM
And just a reminder: since progressive programs are not in fact as popular as you think they are,  the further left the Democrats go, the easier it is for Republicans to win nationally.

Why are polls lying? Why Did the Dems lose over 1000 seat under Obama while they moved more and more to the right on economic issues? Sorry, but you are totally brainwashed by corporate media. Maybe your social circles are rich and comfortable, but half of American (now even more thanks to Covid-19) are struggling and in desperate need of social democratic policies.

Nancy Pelosi tells Americans who just lost they jobs to buy healthcare insurances. With WHAT MONEY??? They lost their damn JOB! They can't fucking pay their rents and this Nancy Pelosi with two $12.000 refrigerators has the nerve to tell Americans to buy healthcare! THEY DON'T HAVE MONEY!!! That's the FUCKING PROBLEM!!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 09, 2020, 08:33:21 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 08:23:32 AM
Why are polls lying? Why Did the Dems lose over 1000 seat under Obama while they moved more and more to the right? Sorry, but you are totally brainwashed by corporate media. Maybe your social circles are rich and comfortable, but half of American (now even more thanks to Covid-19) are struggling and in desperate need of social democratic policies.

Nancy Pelosi tells Americans who just lost they jobs to buy healthcare insurances. With WHAT MONEY??? They lost their damn JOB! They can't fucking pay their rents and this Nancy Pelosi with two $12.000 refrigerators has the nerve to tell Americans to buy healthcare! THEY DON'T HAVE MONEY!!! That's the FUCKING PROBLEM!!

Democrats did not move to the right under Obama. If anything, they moved to the Left. Democrats did significantly better under Clinton, under whom they did in fact move to the right.

And a whole lot of American disagree with you about the need for leftist policies.  And unlike you,  they live here and are not dependent on Youtube for their information. Also, unlike you, they get to vote. Why can't you accept the fact that people don't agree with you on rational grounds?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 09, 2020, 08:38:34 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 09, 2020, 08:21:23 AM
Continue to ignore it, BS. So much for your principles.  :(

Ms Reade told a tale that was substantially different last year, but was quite believable in light of Biden's past public behavior with women.
So she needs to explain why she changed the story.

It is also relevant to note that no other woman has come forward to allege Biden assaulted her, unlike Trump.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 09, 2020, 09:07:47 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 09, 2020, 08:53:51 AM
Clinton tried to move to the Left in his first two years with the attempt at universal health care, tax increases, the Brady Bill, the appointments of RBG and Breyer to the SC, etc. but the midterm losses in 1994 made forced him to move to the Right.

Regarding Obama people remember the Tea Party for opposing his Leftist agenda but forget about the Occupy Wall Street crowd, who reflect the politics of someone like 71 db.  They see Barack as a moderately liberal Republican a la someone like Nelson Rockefeller.

Given the changes in the GOP,  Rockefeller would now likely be categorized as a moderate Democrat.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 09, 2020, 09:11:17 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 09, 2020, 08:59:30 AM
Perhaps she wasn't comfortable at first detailing all that happened? I dunno. He penetrated her with his fingers and maybe telling the world Joe Biden used her like that was too embarrassing? Who are we to judge and dismiss a victim?

At the time, plenty of people were looking for a moderate alternative to Biden, there were several female candidates who could easily have supported her, and MeToo was in full swing. She would have gotten a much more sympathetic reception back then.

So the change in story is something that needs explanation.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 09, 2020, 09:40:09 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 09, 2020, 09:20:45 AMChristine Blasey Ford waited for a suspiciously opportune moment for Justice Kavanaugh to accuse him...


Fixed that for you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 10:26:51 AM
Quote from: JBS on May 09, 2020, 08:33:21 AM
Democrats did not move to the right under Obama. If anything, they moved to the Left. Democrats did significantly better under Clinton, under whom they did in fact move to the right.

Obama bailed out banks. Started wars. outsourced jobs. NOT LEFT!!!

No, the Dems did not move to the left and under Clinton the whole country was in a totally different political era when Clinton's "triangulation" worked. You tell me why regular American want to support Dems who serve the top 1 %. If they do (and many of them do) is becuase they are totally brainwashed and ignored, but then again many of them don't vote

Quote from: JBS on May 09, 2020, 08:33:21 AMIf the US has the best healthcare in the world then why the fuck are people complaining? Do you think we have people in Finland on the streets demending for profit heathcare because single payer sucks? NO! Because we have a good healtcare system. But you have LOTS of americans demanding medicare for All. YOU CAN't deny that!

And a whole lot of American disagree with you about the need for leftist policies.  And unlike you,  they live here and are not dependent on Youtube for their information. Also, unlike you, they get to vote. Why can't you accept the fact that people don't agree with you on rational grounds?

Americans are ignorant and brainwashed they don't travel and don't know better. Once the do they realize how much their own country sucks. Bernie was number 2 in this race, stopped by the whole establishment. That shows A LOT OF PEOPLE DO SUPPORT HIS policies, in fact MORE so than binden's but they voted for Biden because corporate media brainwashed them with "electability nonsense"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 10:35:09 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on May 09, 2020, 10:31:36 AM
You really should be worrying about your own country right now and forget American politics, which you have continuously shown you know very little about.

A case in point:

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/study_finns_worried_about_economy_loneliness_childcare/11344433 (https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/study_finns_worried_about_economy_loneliness_childcare/11344433)

I do and of course Finland is suffering from Covid-19 mess like ALL OTHER COUNTRIES!! In fact Finland is doing pretty well compared to many other countries because we have strong safety nets and relatively competent government (a few mistakes have been made, but overall things have been going pretty well considering what a epic mess Covid-19 is to the World).

Btw, I encourage you to read more YLE news in English, because maybe that helps you to see what news look like when there is not total corporate propaganda involved.  ;)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 10:42:02 AM
Sorry about the typos in my posts. I write as fast as I can because this forum is so active. I can't keep up!  ???
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on May 09, 2020, 11:21:32 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 09, 2020, 08:53:51 AM


Regarding Obama people remember the Tea Party for opposing his Leftist agenda

Obama had no leftist agenda. He was a moderate D.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 11:26:12 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 09, 2020, 10:55:09 AM
I think it would seem obvious that a nation of five million people should have an easier time dealing with their problems as opposed to a country of 330 million people.

Why? Aren't these problems scalable? Are you saying the US will struggle in everything compared to smaller countries because it has more people? The US has 60 times more people than Finland, but doesn't that mean also 60 times more reasources to deal with them? For every doctor working on Covid-19 vaccine in Finland the US should have 60 doctors. Finland is quite far in developing it's own vaccine (https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/finnish-developed_open-source_coronavirus_vaccine_nearly_ready_for_testing/11342151). How about US?

This population argument is silly. I guess Vatican City does really well! Finland is the size of a medium size State (e.g. Oregon). The US can do things State by State. Just as European countries operate mosty country by country even when the whole Europe has a population of 747,568,849 as of Thursday, May 7, 2020.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on May 09, 2020, 11:33:19 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 11:26:12 AM
Why? Aren't these problems scalable? Are you saying the US will struggle in everything compared to smaller countries because it has more people? The US has 60 times more people than Finland, but doesn't that mean also 60 times more reasources to deal with them? For every doctor working on Covid-19 vaccine in Finland the US should have 60 doctors. Finland is quite far in developing it's own vaccine (https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/finnish-developed_open-source_coronavirus_vaccine_nearly_ready_for_testing/11342151). How about US?

This population argument is silly. I guess Vatican City does really well! Finland is the size of a medium size State (e.g. Oregon). The US can do things State by State. Just as European countries operate mosty country by country even when the whole Europe has a population of 747,568,849 as of Thursday, May 7, 2020.
Pretty sure population density has something to do with this. Most of the US is actually fine, it's mostly NYC suffering the most because of population density. Even some big cities, like here in San Antonio it seems to be doing okay. The population density is nothing here compared to there.

And if you wanna bring up highly dense east asian cities, I'm starting to think that perhaps regular usage of face masks helped way more than people are thinking...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 11:40:56 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 09, 2020, 11:13:40 AM
You are a moron, a cretin and an idiot, all in one!

I don't know why someone in Romania gets angry when someone calls Americans ignorant and brainwashed. It is a fact. The ignorance of Americans is a well-known thing. Of course not all American are. Lots of Americans are the opposite. Learned, intellectually curious and able to think for themselves. I respect those Americans. They are great people. These people for example knocked countless of doors to campaign for Bernie Sanders to get him elected, to improve the country. Make it better for the regular people. I am not a hater of the US. There is a lot I admire about the US. The state of democracy (the lack of it) is not one of them. Mainstream media in the US is horrible, pure corporate propaganda and unfortunately it means a lot of Americans are ignorant and brainwashed to vote agaisnt their own good. I wish it wasn't this way, but it is, unfortunately and the fact that I bring this fact up doesn't make me a moron, a cretin and an idiot, all in one. It makes me someone who says it like it is. We Finns are like that. We say it like it is. It may hurt you, but it's honest.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on May 09, 2020, 11:52:28 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 11:40:56 AM
I don't know why someone in Romania gets angry when someone calls Americans ignorant and brainwashed. It is a fact.

It is not.

QuoteOf course not all American are.

Bingo, Helsinki!

QuoteI am not a hater of the US.

Really???  All your posts show you to be a rabid anti-American.

QuoteThere is a lot I admire about the US.

Liar, liar!

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on May 09, 2020, 11:57:06 AM
It's not only people in Romania who get annoyed by your constant ramblings insulting Americans, 71 dB. Your absurd notion that anyone who does / did not support Mr. Sanders (as you imply in your above post) is brainwashed and uncultured is simply idiotic, and reflects nothing more than an insane obsession with a failed politician, and an absolute ignorance of the basics about the US (and about democracy in general), fueled by your outlandish, fringe and intellectually void news sources (which, yes, I have checked out of curiosity).

Your posts are a disgrace to this forum, and are annoying in the US, Romania, Spain and probably even in Finland.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 09, 2020, 11:59:37 AM
Quote from: JBS on May 09, 2020, 08:33:21 AM
Why can't you accept the fact that people don't agree with you on rational grounds?

Why can he not, indeed?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 09, 2020, 12:00:33 PM
Quote from: JBS on May 09, 2020, 08:38:34 AM
Ms Reade told a tale that was substantially different last year, but was quite believable in light of Biden's past public behavior with women.
So she needs to explain why she changed the story.

It is also relevant to note that no other woman has come forward to allege Biden assaulted her, unlike Trump.

Someone else who somehow has no investment in listening to reason.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 09, 2020, 12:12:30 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 11:40:56 AM
I don't know why someone in Romania gets angry when someone calls Americans ignorant and brainwashed. It is a fact. The ignorance of Americans is a well-known thing. Of course not all American are. Lots of Americans are the opposite. Learned, intellectually curious and able to think for themselves. I respect those Americans. They are great people. These people for example knocked countless of doors to campaign for Bernie Sanders to get him elected, to improve the country. Make it better for the regular people. I am not a hater of the US. There is a lot I admire about the US. The state of democracy (the lack of it) is not one of them. Mainstream media in the US is horrible, pure corporate propaganda and unfortunately it means a lot of Americans are ignorant and brainwashed to vote agaisnt their own good. I wish it wasn't this way, but it is, unfortunately and the fact that I bring this fact up doesn't make me a moron, a cretin and an idiot, all in one. It makes me someone who says it like it is. We Finns are like that. We say it like it is. It may hurt you, but it's honest.

Sigh.

There are millions of learned, intellectually curious, able to think for themselves Americans who have reached very different conclusions than you. Some of them support Biden. Some of them feel progressive ideas are so bad that it's justified to support Trump.  There are also millions of Americans who are dumb and ignorant and who support Sanders. It runs both ways.

So don't blame things on how dumb and educated we Americans are. A conservative would say that you are dumb, intellectually limited, and brainwashed into supporting progressivism.

You seem to have a severe difficulty in understanding that people can disagree with you because they are using their own minds. Social policy, economics, and politics are not like math problems. There's no one limited set of data that can be examined, verified, and result in one conclusion that everyone agrees on.   So don't sneer at people who disagree with you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 09, 2020, 12:16:55 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 10:26:51 AM
Americans are ignorant and brainwashed

You, young man are  ignorant, brainwashed and a horse's ass.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 09, 2020, 12:20:40 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 11:40:56 AM
I don't know why someone in Romania gets angry when someone calls Americans ignorant and brainwashed. It is a fact.

Another data point demonstrating that you don't know what a fact is.

And Andrel wasn't upset, he was simply pointing out that you are a cretin and a moron, which is a fact.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 09, 2020, 12:28:52 PM
Quote from: Florestan on May 09, 2020, 12:27:41 PM
I say that alright, and I'm not even a conservative, all tests and quizzes I took put me firmly in the center.

He's a hopeless  idiot --- we're wasting too much time on him.





I know I hold no hope for him.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 12:35:36 PM
Quote from: greg on May 09, 2020, 11:33:19 AM
Pretty sure population density has something to do with this. Most of the US is actually fine, it's mostly NYC suffering the most because of population density. Even some big cities, like here in San Antonio it seems to be doing okay. The population density is nothing here compared to there.

And if you wanna bring up highly dense east asian cities, I'm starting to think that perhaps regular usage of face masks helped way more than people are thinking...

Yes, population density is very crucial, but population tells very little about density when we don't know the area the population takes. Belgium for example has been hit HARD by Covid-19 because it's a very densely populated country. Naturally Helsinki area in Finland has most Corona cases/deaths while the sparsely populated areas have hardly any.

Finland: 39 people per mi2
The US: 94 people per mi2
Belgium: 976 people per mi2

It's fair to point out that in NYC where the population density is extremely high (26,403 people per mi2) handling an epidemic is very challenging, but there is not 330 million people in NYC! There is about 8.4 million people!

Wearing masks is perhaps commonplace in the East Asian countries as the air quality can be quite bad. Finland has VERY clean air and people hardly ever use masks here. Now some people here use because of Covid-19.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 12:42:37 PM
Quote from: Florestan on May 09, 2020, 11:52:28 AM
It is not.

Bingo, Helsinki!

Really???  All your posts show you to be a rabid anti-American.

Liar, liar!

I admire Kyle Kulinski. He is American... ...you don't so do you have something against Americans?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 09, 2020, 12:47:50 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 11:26:12 AM
Why? Aren't these problems scalable? Are you saying the US will struggle in everything compared to smaller countries because it has more people? The US has 60 times more people than Finland, but doesn't that mean also 60 times more reasources to deal with them? For every doctor working on Covid-19 vaccine in Finland the US should have 60 doctors. Finland is quite far in developing it's own vaccine (https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/finnish-developed_open-source_coronavirus_vaccine_nearly_ready_for_testing/11342151). How about US?

This population argument is silly. I guess Vatican City does really well! Finland is the size of a medium size State (e.g. Oregon). The US can do things State by State. Just as European countries operate mosty country by country even when the whole Europe has a population of 747,568,849 as of Thursday, May 7, 2020.


Comparative politics profs can use GMG as an example of how not to analyze politics.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 12:50:24 PM
Quote from: ritter on May 09, 2020, 11:57:06 AM
It's not only people in Romania who get annoyed by your constant ramblings insulting Americans, 71 dB. Your absurd notion that anyone who does / did not support Mr. Sanders (as you imply in your above post) is brainwashed and uncultured is simply idiotic, and reflects nothing more than an insane obsession with a failed politician, and an absolute ignorance of the basics about the US (and about democracy in general), fueled by your outlandish, fringe and intellectually void news sources (which, yes, I have checked out of curiosity).

Your posts are a disgrace to this forum, and are annoying in the US, Romania, Spain and probably even in Finland.

Bernie Sanders is hardly a failed politician even if he lost the nomination. He has made lots of amendment is laws and has made social democratic ideas popular. To me it's INSANE to say Bernie Sanders is a bad politician. He is awesome! Amazing. Too bad crony capitalism destroyed a lot of his potential.

Romania, Spain and Finland have single payer healthcare. If you lost it and had to go to US system you'd see my point.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 12:52:35 PM
Quote from: Florestan on May 09, 2020, 12:46:27 PM
Your logic is impeccable --- in that fantasy world of yours. In the real world, you're an idiot.

Call me whatever you want. I have the right to post my opinions. Don't blame me for calling other people brainwashes when you call me an idiot.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on May 09, 2020, 01:03:03 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 12:52:35 PM
I have the right to post my opinions.

Yes, you do, and I will always uphold your right to do it!

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 01:16:37 PM
Quote from: Florestan on May 09, 2020, 01:03:03 PM
Yes, you do, and I will always uphold your right to do it!

You are an idiot.

I will always uphold your right to do it too, but I don't call you an idiot. Maybe you as an Romanian think the US is some sort to capitalistic heaven. It is not. It's an oligarchy where regular people have very little say on things while big corporations and billionaires have their say because they can buy the politicians. I don't know much about Romania, but I am sure you as a Romanian enjoy many of the progressive policies I advocate or have you lost your house becuase of illness? Do you have paid sick leave? Paid vacation by law? I don't really know why you disagree with me so much. A lot of European are appalled by the oligarchy in the US. I am not the only one. I think my opinions are pretty normal in European context.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on May 09, 2020, 01:27:31 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 01:16:37 PM. I think my opinions are pretty normal in European context.
No, they're not....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 01:38:48 PM
Quote from: ritter on May 09, 2020, 01:27:31 PM
No, they're not....

Are you sure? Of course not every European agrees with me, but many do and Social democracy is what Nordic countries are about.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on May 09, 2020, 01:47:46 PM
One can be for universal public healthcare, and not necessarily be appalled by the "US oligarchy" as you perceive it. But, since in every one of your posts, everything revolves around healthcare and is inextricably linked to it, and anyone who doesn't agree with you is a corporate brainwashed ignoramus, your opinion seems to be one and indivisible. Well, I got news for you: the vast majority of Europeans don't think in those "all or nothing" terms. And thank God for that!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on May 09, 2020, 01:49:45 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 01:38:48 PM
Are you sure? Of course not every European agrees with me, but many do and Social democracy is what Nordic countries are about.

And what you're about is insulting others who disagree with your political views and if they're an American who disagrees, you say they're brainwashed and ignorant. You want to come to this thread and give an opinion? Well, that's fine, but your way of doing it is not winning you any brownie points with anyone, especially those who are American, but it looks like you're pissing off other Europeans now. So what does that tell you?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 02:10:45 PM
Quote from: ritter on May 09, 2020, 01:47:46 PM
One can be for universal public healthcare, and not necessarily be appalled by the "US oligarchy" as you perceive it. But, since in every one of your posts, everything revolves around healthcare and is inextricably linked to it, and anyone who doesn't agree with you is a corporate brainwashed ignoramus, your opinion seems to be one and indivisible. Well, I got news for you: the vast majority of Europeans don't think in those "all or nothing" terms. And thank God for that!

Perhaps I am not as "all or nothing" as you think. If you don't want to talk about healthcare we can talk about something else, say living wage. Obama didn't raise minimum wage one cent.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 02:13:13 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on May 09, 2020, 01:49:45 PM
And what you're about is insulting others who disagree with your political views and if they're an American who disagrees, you say they're brainwashed and ignorant. You want to come to this thread and give an opinion? Well, that's fine, but your way of doing it is not winning you any brownie points with anyone, especially those who are American, but it looks like you're pissing off other Europeans now. So what does that tell you?

I'm bad at winning brownie points. I just don't have that talent.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on May 09, 2020, 02:28:22 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 02:13:13 PM
I'm bad at winning brownie points. I just don't have that talent.

No, you're bad at admitting you're wrong and the way you're going about doing things is completely wrong-headed. Your hatred for Americans is sickening.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on May 09, 2020, 02:28:48 PM
Not all progressives are fanatics.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 02:36:48 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on May 09, 2020, 02:28:22 PM
No, you're bad at admitting you're wrong and the way you're going about doing things is completely wrong-headed. Your hatred for Americans is sickening.

I don't have hatred for Americans. If I did I would hope for the oligarchy to continue. Instead I am speaking against the oligarchy and how to end it by electing progressive left-leaning politicians.

Trillions of dollars have been given in the Covid-19 stimulus packages by Congress. How much of it went to regular people and how much to big corporations? Does it look like the politicians are working for the regular people or the oligarchs?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 09, 2020, 03:20:12 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 01:38:48 PM
Are you sure? Of course not every European agrees with me, but many do and Social democracy is what Nordic countries are about.

Here's how you test that: Go to political meetings of your favorite political party in Finland and/or become one of the door-knockers you admire. At meetings or gatherings of these supposedly like-minded people tell them your sweeping theories you're posting here and show them where you get your news about the world.

I think they'll be horrified. Every single one of them.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 09, 2020, 03:22:04 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 09, 2020, 02:25:17 PM
71 db uses the language and methods of fanaticism. No wonder he's a progressive.

Said the Trumpist.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Mirror Image on May 09, 2020, 03:44:25 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 02:36:48 PM
I don't have hatred for Americans. If I did I would hope for the oligarchy to continue. Instead I am speaking against the oligarchy and how to end it by electing progressive left-leaning politicians.

Trillions of dollars have been given in the Covid-19 stimulus packages by Congress. How much of it went to regular people and how much to big corporations? Does it look like the politicians are working for the regular people or the oligarchs?

I think you need to forget about American politics and focus on something that gives you fulfillment, because you sound far too bitter to be arguing your opinions with anyone.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on May 09, 2020, 04:58:12 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 02:36:48 PM
I don't have hatred for Americans.
This is true, however, the off-putting thing that everyone is seeing is the attitude that you know better for other people. Saying that Americans are brainwashed might be interpreted as a mild form of contempt, even if you actually wish the best for them.

It reminds me of the ending of Game of Thrones, where:
spoilers


Besides the burning down of the city, the basic attitude Daenerys had painted her as the villain in the end. She says that "people don't get to have a choice," which is the same attitude as thinking she knew what's best for others.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 09, 2020, 05:45:06 PM
Quote from: ritter on May 09, 2020, 01:47:46 PM
One can be for universal public healthcare, and not necessarily be appalled by the "US oligarchy" as you perceive it. But, since in every one of your posts, everything revolves around healthcare and is inextricably linked to it, and anyone who doesn't agree with you is a corporate brainwashed ignoramus, your opinion seems to be one and indivisible. Well, I got news for you: the vast majority of Europeans don't think in those "all or nothing" terms. And thank God for that!

Amen, brother!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 09, 2020, 05:45:49 PM
Quote from: ritter on May 09, 2020, 02:28:48 PM
Not all progressives are fanatics.

Of course.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on May 09, 2020, 11:43:35 PM
It's totally okay to be 'a progressive'. It's part of the spectrum of political views and the world would be much poorer if that part wasn't there.

Progressives aren't telling people to essentially go out and kill themselves as Trump is doing ("we have to be warriors"), so I think the term "radical" would rather more fitly be applied to people right of the center.

Also, people have been dumping on 71B with great gusto for at least one GMG page now, left, right and center. Let's not. He can be a little monotonous at times, but surely he's not the only one. We also know he someties is desperately unhappy, so let's go a little easy on him. We don't have to read his stuff, and we certainly don't have to fight everything he says.

And finally, indeed, a lot of people in Europe look at the USA health care system with puzzlement. I believe they're puzzled, too, in Canada. It's the world's most expensive system and yet a vast part of the population is left out.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on May 10, 2020, 01:22:13 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 01:16:37 PM
I will always uphold your right to do it too, but I don't call you an idiot.

Well, I apologize and I have removed my offensive posts.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on May 10, 2020, 01:31:56 AM
"From the point of view of branding, the Democratic Party is a mess. Republicans, by contrast, understand the importance of party branding."

About the strange thing that the GOP is still, against all evidence, considered the safe option if it's about foreign policy or being fiscally / economically sound.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2020/05/28/brand-new-democrats/
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: AlberichUndHagen on May 10, 2020, 04:13:57 AM
Poju, your obsession with American politics shows traits of bad OCD. I myself have OCD as well, it was very bad a couple of years ago but eventually I conquered it. It is often found with Aspergers (such as myself). You can conquer this obsession, it may take time and patience. Luckily, there are countless ways to get rid of it or diminish its features so that they won't affect your life. You just have to find the best way.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 10, 2020, 04:23:52 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 09, 2020, 01:16:37 PM
I will always uphold your right to do it too, but I don't call you an idiot.

So virtuous of someone who habitually calls those who reasonably disagree with him "brainwashed and ignorant."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on May 10, 2020, 04:32:37 AM
Let it go.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 10, 2020, 05:25:03 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 10, 2020, 04:32:37 AM
Let it go.

I know sound advice when I read it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 10, 2020, 07:10:13 AM
Biden sexual assault claim divides Democrats as Republicans pounce (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/10/biden-sexual-assault-claim-divides-democrats-as-republicans-pounce)


Quote from: Daniel StraussRepublicans have been eager to confront as many rank-and-file Democratic politicians as possible with the allegations. The National Republican Congressional Committee has been blasting out emails targeting specific Democratic House candidates over Reade's claims.


Biden's touchy-feely past is indeed useful.  Republicans are happily using his caught on camera creepiness against him and in targeted campaigns, like the very vigorous effort in California's 25th District. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 10, 2020, 07:40:44 AM
Quote from: Todd on May 10, 2020, 07:10:13 AM
Biden sexual assault claim divides Democrats as Republicans pounce (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/10/biden-sexual-assault-claim-divides-democrats-as-republicans-pounce)



Biden's touchy-feely past is indeed useful.  Republicans are happily using his caught on camera creepiness against him and in targeted campaigns, like the very vigorous effort in California's 25th District.

The Access Hollywood tape ("grab them by....") will be used to counter that. Yes, it is whataboutery.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 10, 2020, 07:47:54 AM
Quote from: JBS on May 10, 2020, 07:40:44 AM
The Access Hollywood tape ("grab them by....") will be used to counter that. Yes, it is whataboutery.


That was used last time.  It did not work.

Dems have positioned themselves as moral foils to the president since 2015.  Yet they nominated a creep.  The creep will be the next president, to be sure, but Biden is useful in other ways, primarily for electoral loss mitigation and post-election divide and conquer tactics.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on May 10, 2020, 09:27:31 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 10, 2020, 09:15:45 AM
The Dems ran on moral outrage last time, which worked for HRC being a woman, if not a murderer.

just listen to yourself, with your "if not a murderer".

QuoteSo if you wanna play that card you need a squeaky clean candidate, like Obama, who appears asexual.

so where did those two daughters come from.

the reason why he always took pains to be dispassionate is because one spark of passion or anger would have brought out all the GOP racists.

They came out just the same, of course.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 10, 2020, 10:27:04 AM
Laura McGann in Vox:

I started reporting on Tara Reade's story a year ago. Here's what I found, and where I'm stuck. (https://www.vox.com/2020/5/7/21248713/tara-reade-joe-biden-sexual-assault-accusation)

its longish, but well written
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 10, 2020, 11:11:34 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 10, 2020, 04:23:52 AM
So virtuous of someone who habitually calls those who reasonably disagree with him "brainwashed and ignorant."

Defending your right to express yourself is about defending the principle of free speech, not about respecting everything you say. Also, if I think your political opinions are ignorant doesn't mean I think all your opinions are ignorant. You have your areas of expertise. I'd never call you ignorant about composing for example.  ;)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 10, 2020, 11:16:47 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 10, 2020, 09:27:31 AM
the reason why he always took pains to be dispassionate is because one spark of passion or anger would have brought out all the GOP racists.

They came out just the same, of course.

Indeed, they were all coiled, in wait.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 10, 2020, 11:18:39 AM
Quote from: AlberichUndHagen on May 10, 2020, 04:13:57 AM
Poju, your obsession with American politics shows traits of bad OCD. I myself have OCD as well, it was very bad a couple of years ago but eventually I conquered it. It is often found with Aspergers (such as myself). You can conquer this obsession, it may take time and patience. Luckily, there are countless ways to get rid of it or diminish its features so that they won't affect your life. You just have to find the best way.

Yes, I have been working it lately. What makes things difficult is US politics is constant drama. Every day something crazy happens. This is the elections year! This is the year of Covid-19! So much going on! How can anyone just ignore all of that?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on May 10, 2020, 11:38:51 AM
It's not as if what Americans post on the topic in a classical music forum is a game changer either....  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 10, 2020, 11:56:53 AM
I have my opinions about American politics whether it matters or not. Very rarely do I feel my opinions matter so this is nothing new to me. That's why I am so bitter and frustrated. How am I supposed to have a fulfilling life if nothing I do or say matters? What kind of life is that?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 10, 2020, 11:58:12 AM
Quote from: Todd on May 10, 2020, 11:47:38 AM

Absolutely correct.  But the difference is Americans get to vote in US elections, including in local elections, which can have a minor impact.  That is orders of magnitude more significant than what ignorant non-Americans can do.  Plus American posters can give money to various political causes and candidates, and they can, if they choose, run for office.  Ignorant non-Americans cannot do that.  They can do nothing.

The fact is that the pile of dogshit I saw on my walk through the park this morning is more important to the future of the United States than all of the posts and ideas of all non-American posters on this forum - combined.  You see, that pile of dogshit can spawn a phone call to animal control, to the police, to parks and recreation.  It can cause someone to have to go clean it up, putting them in a bad mood (or maybe a good mood), which in turn means that it could influence their interactions with other people, which in turn could influence the mood of those people when they vote.  Right now it happens to be primary time in Oregon.  That pile of dogshit could conceivably change a vote.  Nothing that non-Americans do on GMG can do even that. 

I, for one, have never thought I was changing votes. I doubt anyone else does either - with one exception. That's not the only reason to examine and discuss global politics.

I occasionally wonder if the members of your own family think you're an insufferable dick who answers their every comment with smug smirking sarcasm. I'm wondering it again now.




Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 10, 2020, 12:00:41 PM
Quote from: FelixSkodi on May 10, 2020, 11:59:21 AM
Todd's a goddamn teddy bear.

The one from Toy Story 3?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 10, 2020, 12:05:30 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 10, 2020, 11:58:12 AM
I, for one, have never thought I was changing votes. I doubt anyone else does either - with one exception.

I do hope to have an impact because human beings need to feel having an impact on things. I was hoping maybe someone American would discover lefty Youtubers such as Kyle Kulinski and start listening to them and eventually realize how much corporate media sucks.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on May 10, 2020, 12:24:28 PM
Quote from: Todd on May 10, 2020, 11:47:38 AM

Absolutely correct.  But the difference is Americans get to vote in US elections, including in local elections, which can have a minor impact.  That is orders of magnitude more significant than what ignorant non-Americans can do.  Plus American posters can give money to various political causes and candidates, and they can, if they choose, run for office.  Ignorant non-Americans cannot do that.  They can do nothing.

The fact is that the pile of dogshit I saw on my walk through the park this morning is more important to the future of the United States than all of the posts and ideas of all non-American posters on this forum - combined.  You see, that pile of dogshit can spawn a phone call to animal control, to the police, to parks and recreation.  It can cause someone to have to go clean it up, putting them in a bad mood (or maybe a good mood), which in turn means that it could influence their interactions with other people, which in turn could influence the mood of those people when they vote.  Right now it happens to be primary time in Oregon.  That pile of dogshit could conceivably change a vote.  Nothing that non-Americans do on GMG can do even that.
Quite so. So you can vote in your elections, and run for office if you're so inclined. But here, on a classical music forum, Americans are just expressing their views (some of them informed, some possibly less so), just as non-Americans (ignorant or not) do. So that's settled, then.

Perhaps, though, you could keep that in mind when posting, from the Pacific Northwest, about the European Union.

Best regards,
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on May 10, 2020, 01:14:05 PM
you know what would be geopolitically advantageous to the US?

A sane and responsible person in the White House, rather than the bumbling head of a flimflam semicriminal organisation.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 10, 2020, 01:16:47 PM
Quote from: Todd on May 10, 2020, 11:47:38 AM

Absolutely correct.  But the difference is Americans get to vote in US elections, including in local elections, which can have a minor impact.  That is orders of magnitude more significant than what ignorant non-Americans can do.  Plus American posters can give money to various political causes and candidates, and they can, if they choose, run for office.  Ignorant non-Americans cannot do that.  They can do nothing.

The fact is that the pile of dogshit I saw on my walk through the park this morning is more important to the future of the United States than all of the posts and ideas of all non-American posters on this forum - combined.  You see, that pile of dogshit can spawn a phone call to animal control, to the police, to parks and recreation.  It can cause someone to have to go clean it up, putting them in a bad mood (or maybe a good mood), which in turn means that it could influence their interactions with other people, which in turn could influence the mood of those people when they vote.  Right now it happens to be primary time in Oregon.  That pile of dogshit could conceivably change a vote.  Nothing that non-Americans do on GMG can do even that.

You underestimate your persuasive abilities, sir.

I was going to virtue signal in November and vote for the Libertarian candidate.  But every post you and Dowder make on politics helps convince me I should vote for Biden.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 10, 2020, 01:26:06 PM
Quote from: JBS on May 10, 2020, 01:16:47 PM
You underestimate your persuasive abilities, sir.

I was going to virtue signal in November and vote for the Libertarian candidate.  But every post you and Dowder make on politics helps convince me I should vote for Biden.


Cool.  You get to vote for a winner this time.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 10, 2020, 05:24:37 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 10, 2020, 04:18:44 PM
This from a conservative libertarian. Ok, BS.

We have the choice of a corrupt xenophobic incompetent authoritarian statist with a demonstrated disdain for the Constitution, rule of law, and morality and whose narcissism approaches sociopathic levels on the one hand, or an authoritarian statist who is not nearly as corrupt, not nearly as incompetent, not nearly as narcissistic,  and at least pays lip service to morality, the Constitution, and the rule of law, and doesn't hate his fellow humans.

As I said before, if you were an actual conservative, you would be opposed to Trump. As it is, you are just a standard right winger spouting the standard right wing memes.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 10, 2020, 05:40:08 PM
Quote from: JBS on May 10, 2020, 05:24:37 PMAs I said before, if you were an actual conservative, you would be opposed to Trump. As it is, you are just a standard right winger spouting the standard right wing memes.


One of the things I enjoy about the internet more broadly - and it certainly extends beyond this forum - is how various people have convinced themselves that they know what an actual conservative is, just like they know what a true Scotsman would do.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: FelixSkodi on May 10, 2020, 05:48:32 PM
Quote from: Todd on May 10, 2020, 05:40:08 PM

One of the things I enjoy about the internet more broadly - and it certainly extends beyond this forum - is how various people have convinced themselves that they know what an actual conservative is, just like they know what a true Scotsman would do.

I would say this was most evident in the approaches of the different subreddits of the two leading Democratic candidates. The air of expectation from the Sanders camp was palpable and unmeasured. Biden's camp has been much more steady, even under rather rabid attack from the so-called progressives. I think Biden has handled himself as admirable as can be expected, and I am fairly excited to see Trump v Biden on the debate stage.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 10, 2020, 05:58:14 PM
Quote from: Todd on May 10, 2020, 05:40:08 PM

One of the things I enjoy about the internet more broadly - and it certainly extends beyond this forum - is how various people have convinced themselves that they know what an actual conservative is, just like they know what a true Scotsman would do.

Well, I may not be an actual conservative but I am certainly one of the most conservative members here at GMG.

But I think there are two strains to the American conservative movement.  Thanks to Trumpism, they have split.  There is a socially conservative nationalist version, now dominant in the GOP,  which is best called the Right, and libertarian style conservatism, which actually believes in all the stuff the Tea Party said it was for.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 10, 2020, 06:01:53 PM
Quote from: JBS on May 10, 2020, 05:58:14 PM
Well, I may not be an actual conservative but I am certainly one of the most conservative members here at GMG.

But I think there are two strains to the American conservative movement.  Thanks to Trumpism, they have split.  There is a socially conservative nationalist version, now dominant in the GOP,  which is best called the Right, and libertarian style conservatism, which actually believes in all the stuff the Tea Party said it was for.


There are more than two variants of US conservatism.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 10, 2020, 06:08:36 PM
Quote from: Todd on May 10, 2020, 06:01:53 PM

There are more than two variants of US conservatism.
If you will, describe them please. (That's a serious request.)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on May 10, 2020, 08:34:17 PM
Quote from: FelixSkodi on May 10, 2020, 05:48:32 PM
I I am fairly excited to see Trump v Biden on the debate stage.

what makes you think such a debate will occur?

even the election happening Nov 3 is a question.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: steve ridgway on May 10, 2020, 08:37:40 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 10, 2020, 11:56:53 AM
I have my opinions about American politics whether it matters or not. Very rarely do I feel my opinions matter so this is nothing new to me. That's why I am so bitter and frustrated. How am I supposed to have a fulfilling life if nothing I do or say matters? What kind of life is that?

It is a very good question. I think an important lesson for me may be in learning what to ignore.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: FelixSkodi on May 10, 2020, 09:28:50 PM
Quote from: Herman on May 10, 2020, 08:34:17 PM
what makes you think such a debate will occur?

even the election happening Nov 3 is a question.

The debate I surmise, as to the other I point to the US Electoral Commission.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on May 11, 2020, 12:22:56 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 10, 2020, 11:56:53 AM
How am I supposed to have a fulfilling life if nothing I do or say matters? What kind of life is that?

Thw keyword here is life and the question is, matter to whom? I'm sure there are lots of things you say and do that really matter, for people like your family or your co-workers, ie people you interact with in person and who are known to you by name and face.

You've been told this multiple times but it's well worth repeating: you should concentrate on doing only what truly gives you pleasure and a sense of self-esteem. Posting on GMG political threads does obviously not qualify and you should avoid it like the plague.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 11, 2020, 03:09:19 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 11, 2020, 12:22:56 AM
Thw keyword here is life and the question is, matter to whom? I'm sure there are lots of things you say and do that really matter, for people like your family or your co-workers, ie people you interact with in person and who are known to you by name and face.

You've been told this multiple times but it's well worth repeating: you should concentrate on doing only what truly gives you pleasure and a sense of self-esteem. Posting on GMG political threads does obviously not qualify and you should avoid it like the plague.

Well, I hope what I say or do matters to someone. Hard to tell to what extent that's true. I have always felt I have my unique wavelength and it's really difficult to connect with other people. I'm not into sports. My taste in music and movies is eclectic. I am amused how TYR escaped from his cage in Fort Lauderdale while my sister is disgusted by the fact that some people keep foxes as pets. My experiences concerning headphone crossfeed in head-fi forum were bitter and frustrating beyond comprehension, 100 times worse than what it is here with politics! Sound engineers telling me excessive stereo separation doesn't matter! WTF? That forum made me insanely angry and I don't even go there anymore!  ??? It was an epic mistake to register there. When I had job it was surprisingly hard to connect with co-workers (they didn't even know what fractals are when for me knowing the Mandelbrot set is common knowledge!) and I felt like being left out. That's how it is when you are born a weirdo instead of a normy. Don't tell me it's all my own fault. Normies don't know how hard it is for us weirdos when most people are like aliens who don't understand you!

I can understand minor political disagreements, but this is crazy: My political opinions are not that outlandish! It's not outlandish to ask everyone has healthcare in the richest country in the world! It's not outlandish to ask you can pay your bills if you work full time (living wage). It's not outlandish to ask for "free" education in a time when almost any well paying job requires higher education! These are normal stuff that other countries do and I am called a crazy socialist? WTF? DENMARK IS NOT SOCIALIST!!!!!! So check your own opinions! Think about why you have them? Is it because they make sense or is it because you have listened to corporate media all your life telling you it's all pie in the sky when you try to improve things for regular people. How people here don't see the corporate propaganda is beyond me. It's amazing!

Maybe it's people like Todd who should avoid politics? Why is it me who should shut up? It's unfair!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 11, 2020, 03:20:38 AM
Quote from: Todd on May 10, 2020, 01:06:38 PMI do not post about internal European politics, nor do I post about the machinations of MEPs or Eurocrats.  I do post about how the EU should be destroyed - or at least weakened to the point where it is even more worthless than the UN - because that would be geopolitically advantageous to the US in the medium term and long run.

What is your logic behind this? Doesn't weak Europe mean Russia has more geopolitical power which hardly is good for the US? In fact Russia tries to weaken Europe all the time. The US made Europe it's strong ally after WWII and I'd say it's good for both the US and Europe to keep it that way.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: steve ridgway on May 11, 2020, 03:26:47 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 11, 2020, 03:09:19 AM
Well, I hope what I say or do matters to someone.

It matters to me, your suffering is helping me clarify my own ideas.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 11, 2020, 03:41:36 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 11, 2020, 03:09:19 AM
Well, I hope what I say or do matters to someone.

I am sure it does.

To focus a bit more, I am afraid that, because of your inability to listen to reason on this topic, what you say about U.S. politics does not matter to anyone, and that is why Andrei has soundly you advised you that participating in American political threads is de rigueur toxic for you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 11, 2020, 04:00:22 AM
Quote from: Todd on May 10, 2020, 05:40:08 PM

One of the things I enjoy about the internet more broadly - and it certainly extends beyond this forum - is how various people have convinced themselves that they know what an actual conservative is, just like they know what a true Scotsman would do.

I don't claim to know what conservatives are. These people make so little sense it's hard to grasp what goes on in their heads. I think many conservatives know deep inside they have been indoctrinated into a silly crappy ideology, but they are afraid to let go their dumb beliefs and try hard to convince themselves their ideology is great.

I'm not saying there's nothing good about conservatism. Paleoconservatism has some positive aspects to it for example and appreciating classical music is some sort of good conservatism itself, but when you or Ben Shapiro open your mouths it's not great.  ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on May 11, 2020, 04:06:07 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 11, 2020, 03:09:19 AM
Why is it me who should shut up?

Because you are the only one whose participation here is obviously a source of stress, frustration, anger and resentment, and you should immediately discontinue whatever behaviour causes, or enhances, your stress, frustration, anger and resentment.

And it's not a question of shutting up at all, rather of knowing your own interest and acting for your own good.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 11, 2020, 04:30:37 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 11, 2020, 03:41:36 AM
I am sure it does.

To focus a bit more, I am afraid that, because of your inability to listen to reason on this topic, what you say about U.S. politics does not matter to anyone, and that is why Andrei has soundly you advised you that participating in American political threads is de rigueur toxic for you.

What is this reason I am not listening to? I am quite reasonable person even if I behave like a crazy person. In fact I feel other people here are those not listening to reason. For example: As the richest country in the world the US can easily implement the progressive ideas Bernie Sanders and other on the left are proposing, but the reason they are not implemented is because the US is an oligarchy and the status quo rigged system benefits the top 1 % while screwing up regular people. These left wing ideas would benefit almost all Americans and the only reason why these ideas are not supported by almost all Americans (however, they are usually supported by the majority of Americans) is because the corporate media smears and lies about them: They keep telling fearmongering how medicare for all would cost 32 trillion over ten years, but never adding that the current system will cost much more, perhaps 50 trillion over ten year. They keep asking how are we going to pay for medicare for all when the correct question is how are American's going to pay for the current system. They fearmonger how medicare for all takes away people's private insurances, when people don't like their insurances. People like their doctors. They keep fearmongering how medicare for all takes away choice, when the choice has been the choice of the mafia that robs your money while medicare for all would extend your choice of care providers (doctors) by eliminating networks: You can go to ANY doctor. Thet fearmonger about how medicare for all increases your taxes, but conveniently keep silent about how most Americans would save money, because their public taxes would go up less than what they'd save not paying private taxes (premiums, co-pays and deductibles).

Haven't you Karl seen how corporate media NEVER asks how are we going to pay for it when it's about increasing military budget, subsidies for big corporations or tax cuts for the rich? Haven't you seen how this questions appear instantly when it is about helping REGULAR people? Maybe people really become blind to this bias when they are exposed to it for decades, but I come from a country were this doesn't happen, at least nearly in this scale and I see it from a mile away! That's why I am so surprised you don't see it.

I don't know if I am myself blind to something, but if that's the case you need to explain it to my VERY thoroughy so I get it. All I say it if reason is not listened to here, I am not the only one not listening...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 11, 2020, 04:51:13 AM
Quote from: Todd on May 11, 2020, 04:24:41 AM
What does Kyle Kulinski say about foreign policy?  He will say, you will obey.

Well Kyle Kulinski is not for weakening Europe and he (like all lefties) wants to end wars because spending billions of tax payer money to bomb brown people in the middle east isn't wise when you should for example use money to fix the crumbling infrastructure in the US including fixing the water crisis in Flint, Michigan. Kyle Kulinski is against American exceptionalism. He thinks the US has the same rights every other country has.

I don't "obey" Kyle Kulinski. Most of the time I agree with him. Example of something I disagree with Kyle Kulinski: He does not see the value of modern abstract art. I do. However he recognises that some people do see the value of modern art and is fine with that.

Are you obeying someone? John Bolton?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on May 11, 2020, 04:53:56 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 11, 2020, 04:30:37 AM
I am quite reasonable person even if I behave like a crazy person.

[...]]

if reason is not listened to here, I am not the only one not listening...

Lord, have mercy on us!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on May 11, 2020, 04:57:36 AM
"Erbarmen! Erbarmen! Du Allerbarmer! Ach, Erbarmen!"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 11, 2020, 05:53:18 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 11, 2020, 04:53:56 AM
Lord, have mercy on us!

Quote from: ritter on May 11, 2020, 04:57:36 AM
"Erbarmen! Erbarmen! Du Allerbarmer! Ach, Erbarmen!"

Having eyes, he does not see.
Having ears, he does not hear.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on May 11, 2020, 07:24:37 AM
it'd been obvious for some time that Trump is wondering whether he could cancel the nov 3d elections. Before he's invited and accepted the assistance of Russia in the 2016 election. He's has found there are no consequences for this, thanks to the GOP senate majority. The GOP has been working for decades to try and limit the participation of non-GOP voters in the elections.
If Trump can find a plausible reason to postpone the elections  -  say, a national security issue caused by the pandemic  -  the GOP will rubber stamp it and so will the SCOTUS. What we have seen during the impeachment trial is that Trump's "absolute authority" as he puts it, is basically unchallenged. If he'll get the opportunity, he'll do it. He's got nothing to lose.
The funny thing is, he's clearly not enjoying his current job at all, and yet he's very very scared he'll lose it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 11, 2020, 07:54:31 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 11, 2020, 07:24:37 AM
it'd been obvious for some time that Trump is wondering whether he could cancel the nov 3d elections. Before he's invited and accepted the assistance of Russia in the 2016 election. He's has found there are no consequences for this, thanks to the GOP senate majority. The GOP has been working for decades to try and limit the participation of non-GOP voters in the elections.
If Trump can find a plausible reason to postpone the elections  -  say, a national security issue caused by the pandemic  -  the GOP will rubber stamp it and so will the SCOTUS. What we have seen during the impeachment trial is that Trump's "absolute authority" as he puts it, is basically unchallenged. If he'll get the opportunity, he'll do it. He's got nothing to lose.
The funny thing is, he's clearly not enjoying his current job at all, and yet he's very very scared he'll lose it.

Because once he's out of the White House, it's into the slammer.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on May 11, 2020, 08:04:46 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 11, 2020, 07:54:31 AM
Because once he's out of the White House, it's into the slammer.

Not even sure whether it's that. I think it's just his stultifying vanity.

He just doesn't want to go back NY, where everybody hates him.

He hates the White House and the work (which is why he doesn't do it), but somehow the idea of having the top job turns him on, and he doesn't want to let go.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on May 11, 2020, 08:09:17 AM
TDS is real. By Jove, it is, and the strange thing is that non-Americans develop it in a much more aggravated form than Americans.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 11, 2020, 08:31:14 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 11, 2020, 08:04:46 AM
Not even sure whether it's that. I think it's just his stultifying vanity.

He just doesn't want to go back NY, where everybody hates him.

He hates the White House and the work (which is why he doesn't do it), but somehow the idea of having the top job turns him on, and he doesn't want to let go.

His emotional neediness will be his downfall. It's just too bad that so many American lives are "collateral damage."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 11, 2020, 09:55:48 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 11, 2020, 08:18:18 AM
You're about as rational as 71bB.

db, DB, Db, bB,...  ::)

My nickname is the most difficult ever! People just don't get it right.

71 dB

The decibel (dB) is a unit corresponding to one tenth ("deci") of bel which is seldom used and named to honor Alexander Graham Bell and that's why the "B" in dB is capital letter.

Hertz (Hz) is another unit people keep getting wrong. Capital "H", because it's named after Heinrich Rudolf Hertz.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on May 11, 2020, 10:00:33 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 11, 2020, 09:55:48 AM
db, DB, Db, bB,...  ::)

My nickname is the most difficult ever! People just don't get it right.

You don't get it right yourself, actually.  ;D

Quote71 dB

The desibel (dB) is a unit corresponding to one tenth ("desi") of bel

It's deci, not desi --- and it's Bell, not bel.  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 11, 2020, 11:01:01 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 11, 2020, 10:00:33 AM
You don't get it right yourself, actually.  ;D

It's deci, not desi --- and it's Bell, not bel.  ;D

Where's my brain today!  ;D

However, the unit is called bel, even when the name is Bell: Decibel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on May 11, 2020, 11:10:42 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 11, 2020, 11:01:01 AM
Where's my brain today!  ;D

Where's your brain usually?   >:D

Quote
However, the unit is called bel, even when the name is Bell: Decibel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel

It's capital B, from Alexander Graham Bell. Wikipedia is as wrong as it gets on this one.  ;)

Just as you correctly pointed out it's Hz with capital H.  8)

Now, how do you write it correctly, Torr or torr?  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 11, 2020, 12:38:12 PM
This is a long video, 34 minutes, but illustrates well the nature of this race and the dilemma the left has with Biden.

Kyle Kulinski Responds To Being Called "Irresponsible" & "Delusional" For Not Voting Biden

https://www.youtube.com/v/PDnH_twgzC4
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 11, 2020, 12:44:12 PM
Quote from: Florestan on May 11, 2020, 11:10:42 AM
Now, how do you write it correctly, Torr or torr?  ;D

Unit name is torr, symbol is Torr.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 11, 2020, 02:19:34 PM
Quote from: FelixSkodi on May 11, 2020, 12:48:34 PM
Why are you recommending tosh?

I'm interested: What exactly makes it tosh for you?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 11, 2020, 03:16:32 PM
Quote from: FelixSkodi on May 11, 2020, 12:48:34 PM
Why are you recommending tosh?

But, you see, that's what he does.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 11, 2020, 03:22:34 PM


No one, Poju, especially gives the slightest sliver of the weakest shadow of a damn when you post a Kulinski video.

Which, by the way, however bonkers your opinion may be, does not fall under the heading of "Poju expressing his opinion." It's regurgitation.

So, if you're determined to be irrelevant, and to be thought a numbskull, this is the course of action for you.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: FelixSkodi on May 11, 2020, 04:35:10 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 11, 2020, 03:16:32 PM
But, you see, that's what he does.

Lol. I suppose I'm just surprised at the irony of a self-proclaimed free thinker linking to one of the lowest forms of rabble rousing punditry.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 11, 2020, 04:37:55 PM
Quote from: FelixSkodi on May 11, 2020, 04:35:10 PM
Lol. I suppose I'm just surprised at the irony of a self-proclaimed free thinker linking to one of the lowest forms of rabble rousing punditry.

Cannot fault you....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 12, 2020, 04:08:51 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 11, 2020, 03:22:34 PM

No one, Poju, especially gives the slightest sliver of the weakest shadow of a damn when you post a Kulinski video.

Which, by the way, however bonkers your opinion may be, does not fall under the heading of "Poju expressing his opinion." It's regurgitation.

So, if you're determined to be irrelevant, and to be thought a numbskull, this is the course of action for you.

You make a couple of posts when I post a Kulinski Video. Tells me you DO give a damn. That's why you make all this effort to make sure NOBODY watches Kulinski or take me seriously. Kyle Kulinski is one to the most important voices on the left. It is your loss to ignore him. The US is supposed to be the country of freedom. People are supposed to have the freedom of having for example lefty opinions. What is your problem? Do you think you corporate Dem ideology is successful? HAH? It's a FAILURE!!! Obama DID NOT cover everybody with healthcare! He had supermajority. HE IS FAILURE!! Your political ideology sucks and causes deaths among Americans! My political ideology rules and saves lives. That's why your criticism of my is INSANE!! Obama did not raise minimum wage. FAILURE!! Obama started unnecessory wars, from 2 wars to 7 wars. FAILURE!! If you don't see how lefty ideas would help most people you are a brainwashed cheap yourself serving the top 1 %.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: MusicTurner on May 12, 2020, 04:15:47 AM
Has the ignore button stopped working for some?

It does work very well for me, and it's nice as a last option, if choosing to stay on the site (but our Finnish member is not on that function for me).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on May 12, 2020, 04:19:02 AM
apart from the Ignore Button you can just skip a post if it looks like you've heard it before.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 12, 2020, 04:20:25 AM
Quote from: FelixSkodi on May 11, 2020, 04:35:10 PM
Lol. I suppose I'm just surprised at the irony of a self-proclaimed free thinker linking to one of the lowest forms of rabble rousing punditry.

A freethinker is allowed to share thoughts of OTHER people too! I never said these are MY opinions. I said they are Kyle Kulinski's opinions. The video illustrates well the situation the left is in regarding this election. watch it and think about what is said of say nothing.

I can't vote in this election because I am not american so I don't need to have an opinion whether to vote for Biden as the lesser evil, vote for third party or stay home. I don't know what I would do if I was american. Kyle Kulinski won't vote for Biden, because Biden is too bad candidate for him. He explanes it in this lengthy video. David Pakman is voting for Biden. Everyone on the left needs to make the decision. So, what is lowest forms of rabble rousing punditry HERE? You can't just say things like this without explainig!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 12, 2020, 04:25:50 AM
It's as if "Biden is the greatest candidate ever" is the only allowed opinion here. What is wrong with you? He is in cognitive decline. He is a war criminal. He is against regular people and for oligarchs. What is so good about him? Sorry, I don't GET IT!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: FelixSkodi on May 12, 2020, 05:18:33 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 12, 2020, 04:19:02 AM
apart from the Ignore Button you can just skip a post if it looks like you've heard it before.

Spot on. I don't think ignoring serves anyone. Plus, 71 makes good posts elsewhere.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 12, 2020, 06:17:55 AM
Quote from: FelixSkodi on May 12, 2020, 05:18:33 AM
Spot on. I don't think ignoring serves anyone. Plus, 71 makes good posts elsewhere.

Nice to hear my posts are valued elsewhere.  :)

I can't understand how my political posts are considered problematic. Sure, I'm not always nice (but then again people aren' that nice to me always), but I do make political posts without calling anyone anything and still I get treated like an ignorant madman.  :P

I understand if you are a right-winger and think healthcare IS NOT a human right and poor people can die away, but IF you are not a monster and think healthcare IS a human right you should be a supporter of single payer healthcare. There is no way around it. Other systems and models do not cover everyone. That's just a cold fact and that's why other countries have single payer systems. The US would also have if it wasn't an oligarchy were only the rich matter and poor people don't matter at all.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: FelixSkodi on May 12, 2020, 06:19:49 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 12, 2020, 06:17:55 AM
I understand if you are a right-winger and think healthcare IS NOT a human right and poor people can die away, but IF you are not a monster and think heathcare IS a human right you should be a supporter of single payer healthcare. There is no way around it. Other systems and models do not cover everyone. That's just a cold fact and that's why other countries have single payer systems. The US would also have if it wasn't an oligarchy were only the rich matter and poor people don't matter at all.

This extreme style of argumentation is exactly why many in this thread don't take you all that seriously.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on May 12, 2020, 06:24:46 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 12, 2020, 04:25:50 AM
It's as if "Biden is the greatest candidate ever" is the only allowed opinion here. What is wrong with you? He is in cognitive decline. He is a war criminal. He is against regular people and for oligarchs. What is so good about him? Sorry, I don't GET IT!

One of the rare statements you have made that I think most people would agree with. :)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: MusicTurner on May 12, 2020, 06:35:13 AM
Quote from: FelixSkodi on May 12, 2020, 05:18:33 AM
Spot on. I don't think ignoring serves anyone. Plus, 71 makes good posts elsewhere.

People have been specifically and openly asking for the ignore function in this discussion not so long ago, and then expressed relief when it was found. Hence my post, besides mentioning that, as a last option, it can be useful, if one finds a poster just generally too extreme, unpleasant, or whatever.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on May 12, 2020, 06:37:36 AM
Quote from: MusicTurner on May 12, 2020, 06:35:13 AM
People have been specifically asking for the ignore function on this thread not so long ago, and then expressed relief when it was found.
Hence my post, besides mentioning that, as a last option, it can be useful, if one finds a poster just generally too extreme, unpleasant, or the like.

I find the ignore function to be of no use, since it just shows me a message that a poster I ignore has posted something, click here to view it, and then I have to resist the temptation to click. Scrolling past is a more efficient means of ignoring, in my experience.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: MusicTurner on May 12, 2020, 06:41:24 AM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on May 12, 2020, 06:37:36 AM
I find the ignore function to be of no use, since it just shows me a message that a poster I ignore has posted something, click here to view it, and then I have to resist the temptation to click. Scrolling past is a more efficient means of ignoring, in my experience.

Agree to some extent, but have grown away from any such "temptation".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: FelixSkodi on May 12, 2020, 06:48:13 AM
Quote from: MusicTurner on May 12, 2020, 06:41:24 AM
Agree to some extent, but have grown away from any such "temptation".

Plus 71 is harmless. He reminds of The Pink Harp.

Also, some of the best posters, in my opinion, were sobs - like Iago.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 12, 2020, 06:54:50 AM
Quote from: FelixSkodi on May 12, 2020, 06:19:49 AM
This extreme style of argumentation is exactly why many in this thread don't take you all that seriously.

Considering 10 % of Americans lacked healthcare coverage BEFORE Covid-19 crisis (it's much worse now) and much more are undercovered not to forget tens of thousands of American die yearly because they lack access to healthcare and even those who are covered are in danger of going bankrupt due to an illness I'd say my style is not too extreme compared to the extreme problems with the US healthcare system. On the contrary, it's the corporate media downplaying these problems as if this kind of reality made sense in a rich developped country*

* During the last few years I have come to the realization than the US isn't in fact a developped country, but a very rich and powerful third world country pretending to be a first world country. The greatest banana republic on Earth. So, mr. Trump is actually quite fitting President for such a country elected by uneducated, ignorant, economically crushed/desperate and mislead people. If my style is extreme it's because I want Americans to wake up, open their eyes to the reality.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 12, 2020, 06:55:55 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 12, 2020, 04:25:50 AMIt's as if "Biden is the greatest candidate ever" is the only allowed opinion here.


No one on earth has said that.  Probably not even Biden himself.  He can, however, win.  That is what is important. 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 12, 2020, 07:18:43 AM
Quote from: Todd on May 12, 2020, 06:55:55 AM

No one on earth has said that.  Probably not even Biden himself.  He can, however, win.  That is what is important.

Of course he can win, especially now that Covid-19 is exposing Trump's incompetence and ruining the economy for many.
Biden struggles with voters under 45 and does well with voters over 45 so it's up to how active the older voters will be. In the important rust belt Biden is expected to be as weak as Hillary Clinton was. For the left and young voters this primary was so frustrating that a lot of people will probably check out of politics meaning problems for the Democrats unless they start to listen to the left.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 12, 2020, 07:24:07 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 12, 2020, 07:18:43 AMIn the important rust belt Biden is expected to be as weak as Hillary Clinton was.


Incorrect.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on May 12, 2020, 07:43:24 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 12, 2020, 07:18:43 AM
Of course he can win, especially now that Covid-19 is exposing Trump's incompetence and ruining the economy for many.
Biden struggles with voters under 45 and does well with voters over 45 so it's up to how active the older voters will be. In the important rust belt Biden is expected to be as weak as Hillary Clinton was. For the left and young voters this primary was so frustrating that a lot of people will probably check out of politics meaning problems for the Democrats unless they start to listen to the left.

I've got an idea, if you type something and realize you have already typed the exact same sentence ten thousand times, maybe give it a rest.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: FelixSkodi on May 12, 2020, 07:49:49 AM
Quote from: Todd on May 12, 2020, 07:24:07 AM

Incorrect.

I think this applies to nearly every post by 71 in this thread. It's almost awe-inspiring how consistently he gets so much wrong.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 12, 2020, 08:08:21 AM
Quote from: FelixSkodi on May 12, 2020, 07:49:49 AM
I think this applies to nearly every post by 71 in this thread. It's almost awe-inspiring how consistently he gets so much wrong.

What is it I get wrong? What I say is well documented. Corporate media smears these facts, but it's because they serve the oligarchs. If see the studies you see I am right.

For example here is BBC arcticle of the US being an oligarchy. If I am wrong so is BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on May 12, 2020, 08:52:25 AM
It's safe to say that most people posting on political topics have no compuctions about reiterating their pov multiple times.

And that includes moi.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 12, 2020, 09:08:26 AM
"Meanwhile, Biden has held an extraordinarily steady lead of about 6 points. ("Biden's advantage is the steadiest in a race with an incumbent running since at least 1944.") Although he is squirreled away at home, his ads expertly reinforce the public's negative image of Trump's performance...."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 12, 2020, 12:15:30 PM
2020 campaign issue: Pro-Trump group releasing new ad using audio of Tara Reade (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/497246-pro-trump-group-releasing-new-ad-using-audio-of-tara-reade)

2022 campaign issue: Biden Warns Against Coronavirus Stimulus Corruption (https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2020-05-12/biden-warns-against-coronavirus-stimulus-corruption)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 12, 2020, 01:41:47 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 12, 2020, 08:08:21 AM
What is it I get wrong? What I say is well documented. Corporate media smears these facts, but it's because they serve the oligarchs. If see the studies you see I am right.

For example here is BBC arcticle of the US being an oligarchy. If I am wrong so is BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

That study is way too simplistic because it confines itself to analysis by income level. The NRA is a "mass interest group", and so is the AARP, yet they have significant input on  policy.

And I would be very surprised if a comparable survey in most democratic countries did not yield comparable results  .
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 12, 2020, 02:05:04 PM
Oligarchy Oligarchy Oligarchy Oligarch Oligarch Oligarch Oligarchy Oligarchy Oligarchy Oligarch Oligarch Oligarch Oligarchy Oligarchy Oligarchy Oligarch Oligarch Oligarch Oligarchy Oligarchy Oligarchy Oligarch Oligarch Oligarch
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 12, 2020, 02:40:30 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 12, 2020, 02:05:04 PM
Oligarchy Oligarchy Oligarchy Oligarch Oligarch Oligarch Oligarchy Oligarchy Oligarchy Oligarch Oligarch Oligarch Oligarchy Oligarchy Oligarchy Oligarch Oligarch Oligarch Oligarchy Oligarchy Oligarchy Oligarch Oligarch Oligarch

Socialism Socialism Socialism Socialism Socialism Socialism Socialism Socialism Socialism Socialism Socialism Socialism Socialism Socialism Socialism Socialism Socialism Socialism Socialism Socialism Socialism Socialism

(Oligarchy = Socialism for the rich: Privatize the gains, socialize the losses for the tax payers. )
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 13, 2020, 04:31:51 AM
Republicans poised to take California's 25th District:

Republican takes lead in California special election; The GOP also retained an open House seat in upstate Wisconsin (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/12/gop-seeks-victory-in-california-special-election-253346)


It is always unwise to conclude too much from special elections, but the Cali one especially indicates that organized, targeted messaging, boots-on-ground and on the phones campaigns can limit the damage in the House.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 14, 2020, 05:05:57 AM
Nearly 3 million U.S. workers filed unemployment claims last week (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/unemployment-claims-3-million-jobless-report/)

More good news for creepy, hair-sniffing, dementia-addled Uncle Joe.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on May 14, 2020, 05:23:47 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 14, 2020, 05:21:46 AM
No...youre not funny. You're just a dick.

And I'm not going to be "respectful" about that.

3 million unemployed. Make a cheap joke.

You're taking the bait.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 14, 2020, 05:29:41 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 14, 2020, 05:21:46 AM
No...youre not funny. You're just a dick.

And I'm not going to be "respectful" about that.

3 million unemployed. Make a cheap joke. Dick.


A thoughtful and poised response.


Quote from: Baron Scarpia on May 14, 2020, 05:23:47 AM
You're taking the bait.


It is objectively good news for the Biden campaign.  No president has been re-elected during a Depression with worsening or unstable unemployment.  There is no reason to believe Trump will be any different.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 14, 2020, 07:20:27 AM
Quote from: Todd on May 14, 2020, 05:29:41 AM
It is objectively good news for the Biden campaign. 

True. Biden might be one of the luckiest presidential candidates ever if Covid-19 helps him get to the White House. Without this crisis Tara Reade's accusations, cognitive decline and total ignorance of the left would have made beating Trump really hard.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: FelixSkodi on May 14, 2020, 08:02:06 AM
Quote from: Todd on May 14, 2020, 05:29:41 AM
It is objectively good news for the Biden campaign.  No president has been re-elected during a Depression with worsening or unstable unemployment.  There is no reason to believe Trump will be any different.

And Biden does well in those places hardest hit.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 14, 2020, 12:29:03 PM
Biden has six "Unity Task Forces" (climate change, criminal justice reform, economy, education, health care, and immigration), but Kyle Kulinski is very critical of them. He says they are BS to make the left feel included and we know this because Biden has been in politics for decades and his record tells us he is a neoliberal corporatist. Kyle Kulinski says many on the left WANT to believe these "task forces" mean something and aren't there just for the show because people don't want to feel hopeless.

Kyle Kulinski won't pretend the left is being served chocolate cake when it's a plate of horse crap and president Biden will use these "Unity Task Forces" as toilet paper. :P

However, Kyle Kulinski gives credit to Biden for at least giving the left this Kabuki Theatre, something Hillary Clinton didn't even try, which made Hillary more honest albeit politically dumb... ...so there is that...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 14, 2020, 12:33:54 PM
Sometimes it's not clear if you're trolling. Other times it's very clear.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 14, 2020, 12:44:35 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 14, 2020, 12:33:54 PM
Sometimes it's not clear if you're trolling. Other times it's very clear.

How am I trolling? Are you saying Kyle Kulinski didn't say these things, because you can go to Youtube and see he says exactly these things. Or are you implaying Kyle Kulinski is trolling? If so it's not me trolling. It's him and I am just telling how he trolls, except THAT GUY doesn't troll! That much I can tell. So, if he is not trolling and I am not trolling where is the trolling? Is it YOU who is trolling? I don't think so. Nobody is trolling. We just disagree.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: FelixSkodi on May 14, 2020, 12:47:41 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 14, 2020, 12:44:35 PM
How am I trolling? Are you saying Kyle Kulinski didn't say these things, because you can go to Youtube and see he says exactly these things. Or are you implaying Kyle Kulinski is trolling? If so it's not me trolling. It's him and I am just telling how he trolls, except THAT GUY doesn't troll! That much I can tell. So, if he is not trolling and I am not trolling where is the trolling? Is it YOU who is trolling? I don't think so. Nobody is trolling. We just disagree.

Seinfeld: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3iV8X8ubGCc
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 14, 2020, 01:02:05 PM
Quote from: Philoctetes on May 14, 2020, 12:47:41 PM
Seinfeld: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3iV8X8ubGCc

That might be more for the flag lapel badge people.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: FelixSkodi on May 14, 2020, 01:02:45 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 14, 2020, 01:02:05 PM
That might be more for the flag lapel badge people.

No, it is well-suited to this thread.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 14, 2020, 01:10:25 PM
Quote from: Philoctetes on May 14, 2020, 01:02:45 PM
No, it is well-suited to this thread.

I'm not following then. I'll need you to explain.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 14, 2020, 01:18:22 PM
Quote from: Philoctetes on May 14, 2020, 12:47:41 PM
Seinfeld: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3iV8X8ubGCc

Keep posting these Seinfeld clip links and you'll make me start watching my Seinfeld DVDs from the start.  0:)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 14, 2020, 01:19:03 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 14, 2020, 12:44:35 PM
How am I trolling? Are you saying Kyle Kulinski didn't say these things, because you can go to Youtube and see he says exactly these things. Or are you implaying Kyle Kulinski is trolling? If so it's not me trolling. It's him and I am just telling how he trolls, except THAT GUY doesn't troll! That much I can tell. So, if he is not trolling and I am not trolling where is the trolling? Is it YOU who is trolling? I don't think so. Nobody is trolling. We just disagree.

You know nobody here respects Kulinski and you know you've been heavily criticized for parroting his views uncritically. So when you make a post with a string of "Kyle Kulinski says..." you know what the reaction will be. You're setting up and hoping for that specific response.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 14, 2020, 01:30:23 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 14, 2020, 01:19:03 PM
You know nobody here respects Kulinski and you know you've been heavily criticized for parroting his views uncritically. So when you make a post with a string of "Kyle Kulinski says..." you know what the reaction will be. You're setting up and hoping for that specific response.

You should respect him. Don't tell me you are into intellectual honesty if you don't. The left admires him, the right fears him (because he "kyledrives" the right)  ;D

I keep posting these posts, because in time someone here might be converted to see the light. I got to believe in something...
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 14, 2020, 01:34:29 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 14, 2020, 01:30:23 PM
You should respect him. Don't tell me you are into intellectual honesty if you don't. The left admires him, the right fears him (because he "kyledrives" the right)  ;D

I keep posting these posts, because in time someone here might be converted to see the light. I got to believe in something...

Oligarchy Oligarchy Oligarchy Kyle Rocks Kyle Rocks Oligarch Oligarch Oligarch
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 14, 2020, 01:40:41 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 14, 2020, 01:18:22 PM
Keep posting these Seinfeld clip links and you'll make me start watching my Seinfeld DVDs from the start.  0:)

Not a bad idea. You'll learn a lot more about the average American thinks than you will from Kulinski.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 14, 2020, 01:42:51 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 14, 2020, 01:34:29 PM
Oligarchy Oligarchy Oligarchy Kyle Rocks Kyle Rocks Oligarch Oligarch Oligarch

Who's your favorite political commentator Karl? Who do you trust? Who do you respect? Someone working in a corporate media outlet earning millions every year talking in front of camera and telling how medicare for all is pie in the sky in between Aetna and Big Pharma adds?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: arpeggio on May 14, 2020, 01:50:17 PM
Well the Trump thread has been locked down because of the hostility.  I wonder if this thread will be next.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 14, 2020, 01:56:41 PM
Quote from: arpeggio on May 14, 2020, 01:50:17 PM
Well the Trump thread has been locked down because of the hostility.  I wonder if this thread will be next.

Actually it might be time to close up this thread and start one devoted to the general election.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 14, 2020, 01:59:07 PM
Quote from: JBS on May 14, 2020, 01:56:41 PM
Actually it might be time to close up this thread and start one devoted to the general election.

Good thought.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 14, 2020, 01:59:38 PM
Quote from: JBS on May 14, 2020, 01:40:41 PM
Not a bad idea. You'll learn a lot more about the average American thinks than you will from Kulinski.

What average Americans think isn't automatically the truth or the most rational view of the thing. The Overton Window has moved right since the days of Seinfeld. I believe for profit healthcare was more affordable and the prices have gone up fast. If I am wrong about this someone can correct me. What I wish you had learned from me is Americans are more left-wing that they realize themselves or what the corporate media is willing to admit. People don't know labels well and many people who call themselves conservatives may have many left-wing opinions on economic issues. In some polls half of Republican voters have supported medicare for all and raising minimum wage to living wage polls around 80 % among Americans. Many Republican voters struggle economically and their conservatism is more about social issues: They are religious, oppose abortion and same sex marriage and so on. You tell me to learn things, but you show zero interest of learning anything yourself.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: FelixSkodi on May 14, 2020, 02:06:54 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 14, 2020, 01:10:25 PM
I'm not following then. I'll need you to explain.

If I'm not a troll, and Kyle's not a troll, then why don't you tell me who the troll is?!"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 14, 2020, 02:10:21 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 14, 2020, 01:59:38 PM
What average Americans think isn't automatically the truth or the most rational view of the thing. The Overton Window has moved right since the days of Seinfeld. I believe for profit healthcare was more affordable and the prices have gone up fast. If I am wrong about this someone can correct me. What I wish you had learned from me is Americans are more left-wing that they realize themselves or what the corporate media is willing to admit. People don't know labels well and many people who call themselves conservatives may have many left-wing opinions on economic issues. In some polls half of Republican voters have supported medicare for all and raising minimum wage to living wage polls around 80 % among Americans. Many Republican voters struggle economically and their conservatism is more about social issues: They are religious, oppose abortion and same sex marriage and so on. You tell me to learn things, but you show zero interest of learning anything yourself.

Imbibing false facts is not "learning".  If you ask people if they want free health care, or higher pay, of course they will say yes. But when you look at honest polls that point out the negatives (for instance, raising minimum wage means fewer jobs available and/or higher prices to consumers), the support falls.

The progressive agenda has lots of nice sounding ideas, but you need to learn about the negatives they entail.  Which you won't get from Kulinski.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on May 14, 2020, 02:10:41 PM
Quote from: Philoctetes on May 14, 2020, 12:47:41 PM
Seinfeld: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3iV8X8ubGCc
Good stuff.  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 14, 2020, 02:22:00 PM
Quote from: Philoctetes on May 14, 2020, 02:06:54 PM
If I'm not a troll, and Kyle's not a troll, then why don't you tell me who the troll is?!"

I was saying 71db was trolling by tailoring his post to get a specific type of reaction. I still don't get how the ribbon thing relates.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 14, 2020, 02:52:14 PM
Quote from: JBS on May 14, 2020, 02:10:21 PM
Imbibing false facts is not "learning".  If you ask people if they want free health care, or higher pay, of course they will say yes. But when you look at honest polls that point out the negatives (for instance, raising minimum wage means fewer jobs available and/or higher prices to consumers), the support falls.

The progressive agenda has lots of nice sounding ideas, but you need to learn about the negatives they entail.  Which you won't get from Kulinski.

Nordic countries suffer from these horrible negatives of social democratic ideas. It's so bad in here Nordic countries systematically rank very high in quality of living and happiness.  0:)

Higher wages increase purchasing power of regular people  = more jobs higher minimum wages don't really reduces jobs. It's a right wing lie, because the rich want to take home all the profits and give nothing to the workers.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 14, 2020, 03:35:50 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 14, 2020, 02:52:14 PM


Higher wages increase purchasing power of regular people  = more jobs higher minimum wages don't really reduces jobs. It's a right wing lie, because the rich want to take home all the profits and give nothing to the workers.


It's simple math.

If an employer pays higher wages, he can do one of three things:  hire fewer employees, raise the prices his customers pay, or  absorb the extra expense. Most employers are small and medium size businesses who aren't rich and can't afford to absorb the extra expense.

As I said, you aren't going to learn the negatives from Kulinski.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 14, 2020, 03:48:00 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 14, 2020, 03:41:38 PM
Increased profits usually meant that the workers got a larger share and their standard of living improved in general.

Except that for much of the last two decades, workers haven't been getting the profits.  71 dB does have a point.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 14, 2020, 03:55:27 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 14, 2020, 03:52:00 PM
Depends which country you are referencing.

The US
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 14, 2020, 04:04:14 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 14, 2020, 03:58:19 PM
I don't think that is necessarily the fault of the market. Central bank, tax, trade and immigration policy all influence that.

The market is an abstract concept that refers to all the individual decisions sellers and buyers make. Policies are not, and to the degree thar they funnel assets to a certain segment, they distort the market.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 14, 2020, 04:05:48 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 14, 2020, 03:41:38 PM
What JBS just said. Mandating higher wages will also raise the prices for goods and services, eroding the purchasing power and making the wage increase meaningless for most people.   
Economic history defies this. Increased profits usually meant that the workers got a larger share and their standard of living improved in general. Minimum wage laws have been shown to be counter productive, a market distortion that winds up hurting the low skilled the most. If you really love the poor don't embrace policies that only make them poorer and further disenfranchised.

Does stuff become free if people work without pay?
Of course not. Labor costs are only part of overal costs, profit margins etc.
That's why prices go up less than the purchasing power.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on May 14, 2020, 04:13:41 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 14, 2020, 03:52:00 PM
Depends which country you are referencing.
In this  thread I am talking about US.

Quote from: JBS on May 14, 2020, 03:48:00 PM
Except that for much of the last two decades, workers haven't been getting the profits.  71 dB does have a point.

Wages have stagnated for 40 years while productivity has skyrocketed. The oligarchs (the famous 1 %) took pretty much all the gains. If the minimum wage had gone up with productivity it would be at least $20 so in that sense the left demanding $15 living wage isn't unreasonable.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on May 14, 2020, 04:52:29 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 14, 2020, 04:10:28 PM
Which is why less government interference is usually better and in the end more equitable.

Except it's the opposite. When policies allow the funneling of assets on a one way track, the result is anything but equitable.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 14, 2020, 05:07:54 PM
Quote from: André on May 14, 2020, 04:52:29 PM
Except it's the opposite. When policies allow the funneling of assets on a one way track, the result is anything but equitable.

In fact, we're all saying the same thing. What Dowder calls government interference is those policies you and I refer to.
Even 71 dB agrees, although he puts it more dramatically when he talks about oligarchs and the 1%.  But it's those policies he's referring to.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: André on May 14, 2020, 05:09:53 PM
Quote from: JBS on May 14, 2020, 05:07:54 PM
In fact, we're all saying the same thing. What Dowder calls government interference is those policies you and I refer to.
Even 71 dB agrees, although he puts it more dramatically when he talks about oligarchs and the 1%.  But it's those policies he's referring to.

I get it. Thanks !
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 22, 2020, 08:52:01 AM
There is reason to believe Tara Reade...committed fraud, perjury, and possibly a few other things.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/21/tara-reade-biden-expert-testimony-274460
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on May 22, 2020, 09:11:56 AM
    The main point of "interference" by government is the promotion of money driven markets, done by its purchases of goods and services by the currency thus provided. The value of the currency is maintained within a range largely by the tax return, which grows as the economy does.

     There is no such thing as nonintereference in a currency by the issuer of it. The idea is incompatible with the history of the most successful government program ever, capitalism.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 23, 2020, 06:17:29 AM
Democrats have settled on Biden because he can win.  Biden has said multiple racist things throughout this career, and during each of his three runs for president.  In prior races, Dems used those statements against him.  Here, for obvious reasons, Dems will look the other way.  Just like they have taken to attacking Tara Reade, a behavior that is clearly reprehensible if a Republican does it and would (and has) invite Democrat scorn and derision.  Joe Biden is a terrible person.  That's a fact.  Ask Anita Hill.  Dems are willing to accept him as their next president.  It is always worth repeating that if it weren't for double standards, Democrats would have no standards at all.

Many young Dems are not so quick to forget or forgive or accept.  A good number of young progressive men and women do have a problem with Biden.  He will have problems controlling his party.  For instance, Biden took only two-thirds of the Dem vote in the Oregon primary, and it was this week.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on May 23, 2020, 06:26:56 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 23, 2020, 06:05:06 AM
https://apple.news/Ai-SSzkf9QoOddKL8S7W2jg (https://apple.news/Ai-SSzkf9QoOddKL8S7W2jg)

Amazing that an 80 year old "liberal" white guy can say something like this and some of you here ignore it while you blather on about "Trump racist, Trump bad, blah blah blah......."

I would categorize it as a gaffe, but I would not categorize it as offensive. I think what he was trying to get across is "Trump has been so offensive to black people in words and actions that it is unlikely a typical black person would support him." Of course, since I am not a black person my viewpoint is not the most relevant. It remains to be seen if Biden has offended black supporters, of if it is only his haters that have taken offense on behalf of black people.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: arpeggio on May 23, 2020, 08:39:42 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
So what? For every stupid thing Biden says that irritates me, Trump says at least a dozen.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on May 23, 2020, 08:49:36 AM
Quote from: Todd on May 23, 2020, 06:46:00 AM

As good a self-serving rationale as any.
Well, this is going to be the way to think about things for anyone determined to vote (Trump or Biden regardless).

But they could also not vote... oh, wait, never mind, that's illegal... oh wait, never mind, that's immoral... oh wait, never mind, that's just an alternate method of preventing cognitive dissonance. Ok, yeah, that's pretty much it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 23, 2020, 10:24:53 AM
Since it was clear last year that Biden was the man with the plan for the Dems, I stopped paying much attention to him.  Sure, he'll bomb the shit out of some poor, brown country or countries, and probably raise my federal income taxes a bit, maybe cutting into my CD/download buying habit (nah), but otherwise he won't impact my life.  (And really, it's just the tax increase that I'll notice.  He can bomb the shit out of a dozen poor, brown countries and it won't impact me.)  But recently, for chuckles, I've started paying attention to some of his "gaffes", as his apologists call them.  I'm sure these are old hat to Biden fans, but they were new to me.

Uncle Joe's thoughts on leg hair, among other topics:

https://www.youtube.com/v/3DbE2SmV2bs


And then there's Biden sucking his wife's fingers during one of her speeches.  (This made it on the august, serious news show The Daily Show, for those who need a gauge of its seriousness.)

(https://i0.wp.com/trumbletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Capture-494.png?resize=672%2C372&ssl=1)

There's your stable genius.  Way to go Dems!

(Yeah, yeah, I know, what about Trump?!?!)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 23, 2020, 02:03:35 PM
Will this be like the Trumpists who said Hilary's "deplorable" gaffe outweighed the daily mountain of Trump's offensiveness?

So Trump can completely shit the bed day after day after day and bungle appallingly this ongoing ultimate test of his "leadership"...but one boneheaded comment from the D means game over?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 23, 2020, 02:52:32 PM
Quote from: arpeggio on May 23, 2020, 08:39:42 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
So what? For every stupid thing Biden says that irritates me, Trump says at least a dozen.

And, Biden has apologized, unlike President "apologizing is a sign of weakness."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 23, 2020, 02:53:58 PM
Quote from: Todd on May 23, 2020, 02:48:57 PM
Reading is hard.

If you want to disagree or point out something I've overlooked or misread then just do so.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 23, 2020, 03:52:10 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 23, 2020, 03:35:02 PM
You didn't pay attention to what he wrote earlier, Simon. Shame on you.

"Shame on me"??

Are you guys referring to post 4257 as though it should have been the final word on the subject? Its no such thing. I disagree with pretty much everything in it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on May 23, 2020, 04:33:44 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 23, 2020, 02:52:32 PM
And, Biden has apologized, unlike President "apologizing is a sign of weakness."
Apologizing is neither a good or bad thing, it entirely depends on context.

(I won't go into specific detail regarding Biden or Trump, just wanted to point that out).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 23, 2020, 04:50:37 PM
Looks like Creepy Uncle Joe has a thing for kissing his granddaughter on the mouth.  In public.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSIBOLl54QtgAqG_gEr70vVaeJXFNwepJSE3wS1GStR0ZsLhwjl&usqp=CAU)

(https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/joe-bide-and-grand-daughter-ap.jpg?quality=80&strip=all)


I thought only The Donald did icky stuff like this.  Guess not.  I had actually not seen these before.  That's how little I have paid attention given the inevitability of the Creepy Uncle Joe Presidency.  I will not be surprised if some GMGer says it's perfectly normal, or it's not so bad because, you know, Trump.

Social distancing should cut down on moments of creepiness for the next president, at least for a while.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 23, 2020, 05:01:13 PM
Christ this is desperate.

Its perfectly normal. Assuming its a quick peck and not a Hollywood makeout session.

Find some better muck to throw.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 23, 2020, 05:02:06 PM
As expected.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on May 23, 2020, 05:02:55 PM
Quote from: Todd on May 23, 2020, 04:50:37 PM
Looks like Creepy Uncle Joe has a thing for kissing his granddaughter on the mouth.  In public.
Wtf.  ???


Quote from: SimonNZ on May 23, 2020, 05:01:13 PM
Christ this is desperate.

Its perfectly normal. Assuming its a quick peck and not a Hollywood makeout session.

Find some better muck to throw.

I don't think it's normal for Americans to do this... maybe for Europeans, idk. Maybe some families are just weird like that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 23, 2020, 07:24:04 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 23, 2020, 07:15:50 PM
Don't worry, buddy: we will.

The days of the GOP being afraid to fight back are long gone. There's a lot of dirt on that shitty candidate of yours and by November he'll be flushed like HRC.

He's not "my" candidate. And playing this game from a distance of 10,000 km I would have rated Biden as "my" sixth or seventh choice from the D field - without having experienced any of their governing at a local level.

Which were the days when the GOP was "afraid to fight back"?. Its been the Atwater-Stone style low road of dirty tricks and smears from them for as long as I've been watching.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 23, 2020, 07:26:16 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 23, 2020, 07:15:50 PM
Don't worry, buddy: we will.

The days of the GOP being afraid to fight back are long gone. There's a lot of dirt on that shitty candidate of yours and by November he'll be flushed like HRC.
I am sure that if GOP voters can ignore all the dirt on Trump, Democratic voters can ignore the dirt on Biden.

Besides, Biden came to DC in 1973. Whatever dirt that can be dug up on him probably has already.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 23, 2020, 08:01:49 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 23, 2020, 07:51:54 PM
You believe everything you see on CNN, MSNBC the "big three" or even Netflix that is spewing leftist crap.

Ever since Watergate the GOP lost its balls and was afraid to stand up to the liberal media. However, the revolution in media has changed that. First talk radio, then Fox, the WWW and later social media gave conservatives a voice to stand up to the bullying and attacks. Stories that the leftist MSM ignored or tried to heavily filter get passed around now and spread to a wide audience. Hence why the Leftists want to break up Big Tech and censor online content.

I'd need Sky to watch CNN here, and MSNBC isn't even available that way.

Presumably I could stream them, but as I said in reply to something else: I've allocated that bandwidth to Al Jazeera.

It ought to have been clear from the things I link to where I'm getting my news from.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 23, 2020, 08:03:25 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 23, 2020, 07:44:15 PM
Nope, as Todd mentioned there is an idealogical split in the Dems between the remaining silent generation/baby boomer and slowly graying Gen Xers who overwhelmingly voted for Biden and the Millennial/Gen Z who embraced Sanders or Warren. That gap can be exploited like in 2016.

Unlike both Trump and HRC, Biden is not arrogant and openly corrupt.  Which is why people who didn't vote for HRC will vote for Biden.  And why people who held their noses and voted for Trump in 2016 because they couldn't stand Hillary will stay home this year.

Also, unlike 2016, Trump's utter incompetence and the GOP's craven refusal to force even minimal competence on him, are fully on display.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 23, 2020, 08:13:02 PM
Who would be the equivalent of William F Buckley Jr. in right wing media today?

To reply to Dowder's second part in his post to me I want to say that the contrasting voice for a Rachel Maddow wouldn't be a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity, it would be someone like Buckley - but I can't think who is filling that role of conservative public intellectual. Whoever that is I might actually like to tune in to them.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 23, 2020, 08:21:28 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 23, 2020, 08:13:02 PM
Who would be the equivalent of William F Buckley Jr. in right wing media today?

To reply to Dowder's second part in his post to me I want to say that the contrasting voice for a Rachel Maddow wouldn't be a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity, it would be someone like Buckley - but I can't think who is filling that role of conservative public intellectual. Whoever that is I might actually like to tune in to them.

There are plenty of such conservatives:  Frum, Goldberg, etc. But they've been banished because they oppose Trump.

I think Maddow is really a Hannity or Tucker Carlson for the Left.  There isn't a Buckley on the Left, although several people might come to be that in the future. Closest possibly is Chris Hayes.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on May 23, 2020, 08:22:25 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 23, 2020, 08:13:02 PM
Who would be the equivalent of William F Buckley Jr. in right wing media today?

To reply to Dowder's second part in his post to me I want to say that the contrasting voice for a Rachel Maddow wouldn't be a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity, it would be someone like Buckley - but I can't think who is filling that role of conservative public intellectual. Whoever that is I might actually like to tune in to them.

George Will?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 23, 2020, 08:23:44 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 23, 2020, 08:18:09 PM
Biden isn't openly corrupt? You say that because he has an actual personality compared to the robotic HRC and feel Joe is more personable thus more honest. In reality he used his power to enrich his family the same way the Clintons and the Obamas did. Don't be fooled by his malarkey, JBS.

Actually, he didn't. But you would have to pay attention to facts, not Fox, to know that.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 23, 2020, 08:33:59 PM
Quote from: JBS on May 23, 2020, 08:21:28 PM
There are plenty of such conservatives:  Frum, Goldberg, etc. But they've been banished because they oppose Trump.

I think Maddow is really a Hannity or Tucker Carlson for the Left.  There isn't a Buckley on the Left, although several people might come to be that in the future. Closest possibly is Chris Hayes.

Really? I've seen only snippets of Maddow's show but I know her from her books her podcast on Spiro Agnew and from interviews etc and it seems like a comparison with those two would be unfair. Could she be compared more fairly to a Chris Wallace?

Who are Frum and Goldberg?

edit: David Frum and Jonah Goldberg? (I'm guessing you don't mean Whoopi Goldberg)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 23, 2020, 08:35:14 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 23, 2020, 08:30:59 PM
Yup, but he has no influence.

Back in the day Buckley did.

Back in the day when you say the GOP had no voice and no balls?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 23, 2020, 08:39:04 PM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on May 23, 2020, 08:22:25 PM
George Will?

Interesting. I heard him interviewed on David Axelrod's podcast and liked his differing perspective. I'll try and make a point of reading more of his articles. Thanks.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 23, 2020, 08:42:42 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 23, 2020, 08:37:42 PM
If you're not smart enough to see the difference between influence and campaigning then by all means post nonsense.

So...you expect a right wing media outlet to be explicitly and openly a part of and in service to the campaign? This is what you're saying they lacked before Fox but thank goodness now have?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 24, 2020, 05:00:51 AM
Since it has been established on this very forum that The Daily Show is a serious outlet to be taken seriously, perhaps the powerful, informed opinion of Trevor Noah will help change hearts and minds:

Joe Biden's "Super-Creepy" Hair-Smelling Skeeves Out Trevor Noah (https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/04/joe-biden-hair-smelling-2020-race-lucy-flores-trevor-noah-daily-show)

You know, I think I see why Trevor Noah is so esteemed on this forum.  Super-Creepy is a more accurate, fact-based description of Joe Biden.  Henceforth, I shall endeavor to accurately describe the 46th President of the United States as Super-Creepy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 24, 2020, 05:26:00 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 23, 2020, 08:33:59 PM
Really? I've seen only snippets of Maddow's show but I know her from her books her podcast on Spiro Agnew and from interviews etc and it seems like a comparison with those two would be unfair. Could she be compared more fairly to a Chris Wallace?

Who are Frum and Goldberg?

edit: David Frum and Jonah Goldberg? (I'm guessing you don't mean Whoopi Goldberg)

Re Maddow
I'm the reverse. I know her through her show, where she comes across as a Leftist version of  Carlson and Hannity. Of course, she is more sane and fact based than they are.

I did mean David Frum and Jonah Goldberg. The latter's books might interest you, especially.

All the ones Dowder mentioned are  advocates of Trumpism. Mark Steyn (the masks are sharia guy) is another.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 24, 2020, 05:32:57 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 23, 2020, 08:35:33 PM
What Todd said was true. You'll just defend Biden regardless, which is weird because I remember you saying Obama was the most liberal president ever. Now you want Biden in the white house and do you expect him to be any different?

I know Biden will be at least as liberal. But Trump is merely an incompetent deeply corrupt authoritarian statist, whereas Biden is  a mildly corrupt authoritarian statist who can be expected to be at least miminally competent.  Nor does Biden indulge in the hatred of fellow men that Trump specializes in.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on May 24, 2020, 06:25:11 AM
Quote from: JBS on May 24, 2020, 05:26:00 AM
Re Maddow
I'm the reverse. I know her through her show, where she comes across as a Leftist version of  Carlson and Hannity. Of course, she is more sane and fact based than they are.



     I watch Maddow occasionally and it strikes me as odd to imagine that someone as fact based as her could be a version of Carlson or Hannity. Even her leftism is a bit of an exaggeration, as it's composed of her opposition to military adventures and oil company hijinks that inspire them, as well as a very detailed critical appraisal of TrumPutin, which offends many on the right, too. Leftism is better judged on domestic policy IMV.

     She authored well regarded books which she actually wrote. She does research! That puts her in a different league than the others mentioned.

     Having said all that, I find her grating at times.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 24, 2020, 07:55:25 AM
Joe Biden's good pandemic (https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/05/23/joe-bidens-good-pandemic)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 24, 2020, 08:08:55 AM
Quote from: drogulus on May 24, 2020, 06:25:11 AM
     I watch Maddow occasionally and it strikes me as odd to imagine that someone as fact based as her could be a version of Carlson or Hannity. Even her leftism is a bit of an exaggeration, as it's composed of her opposition to military adventures and oil company hijinks that inspire them, as well as a very detailed critical appraisal of TrumPutin, which offends many on the right, too. Leftism is better judged on domestic policy IMV.

     She authored well regarded books which she actually wrote. She does research! That puts her in a different league than the others mentioned.

     Having said all that, I find her grating at times.

She gives detailed (sometimes overly detailed) explanations of what The Other Side has done, delivered with passion and high moral fervor.  Which is what Hannity/Carlson do. The style is the same. It's the substance, and the fact that it's grounded in real facts and not alternative  facts that makes the difference.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on May 24, 2020, 10:42:51 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 24, 2020, 08:27:16 AM

Still, if you find Fox or Breitbart toxic then MSNBC is just as bad.

     That makes no sense. What makes Fox and Brietbart toxic is that they have no respect for fact. MSNBC is not as bad or even close. You can actually learn something watching MSNBC, and go to other sources to confirm what you learned. Try that with Fox hosts, or just note how the Foxers find themselves refuted by their own hard news colleagues at the network, who belong to the same world as reporters elsewhere do, the real one.

     I also wonder why you think the ideological disposition of Fox/Breitbart is as toxic as MSNBC.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on May 24, 2020, 11:35:37 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 24, 2020, 11:11:36 AM
We just shouldn't continue because we're not qualified to speak for some. Suffice to say, MSNBC aligns with your confirmation bias, Fox News and to a far lesser degree Breitbart does with mine.

    It doesn't suffice to say that. My biases are not so confirmed as you have guessed. I have a strong bias for information that looms just as large as my bias for confirmation, sometimes a little larger.

    Like many on the moderate left I value information for its own sake and look at beliefy ideology as epistemic poison. My choices are limited by respect for fact. So what goes into an ideology ought to determine what comes out of it. If you exalt beliefy bullshittery going in, you'll find an ideology that allows and champions that stance. I can't do that. I have to settle on occasion for being wrong.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 24, 2020, 01:50:23 PM
Quote from: JBS on May 24, 2020, 08:08:55 AM
She gives detailed (sometimes overly detailed) explanations of what The Other Side has done, delivered with passion and high moral fervor.  Which is what Hannity/Carlson do. The style is the same. It's the substance, and the fact that it's grounded in real facts and not alternative  facts that makes the difference.

I think what you're describing there is someone more like Keith Olberman, who I can't stand because of his screaming moral outrage, even if his politics might broadly align with mine, and even if he does more and better research than H/C and is speaking from a place of sincerity.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on May 24, 2020, 01:58:06 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 24, 2020, 11:36:51 AM
Interesting analysis.

It's all just entertainment for me. Only horror films are taboo. No catharsis for me watching them.
Ha, was starting to think maybe we think similarly, but then you say this, complete opposite for me.  ;D

Musicals just seem so... fake, I guess?... fake in a cheery, optimistic way (at least that's my association- surely there are plenty of exceptions).

On the other hand, the bleak, evil atmosphere of something like a horror movie/video game/book, or a death metal concert, is something that I will just soak up because it feels sublime. Just the general atmosphere, not really anything specific about it.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 24, 2020, 05:22:05 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 24, 2020, 01:50:23 PM
I think what you're describing there is someone more like Keith Olberman, who I can't stand because of his screaming moral outrage, even if his politics might broadly align with mine, and even if he does more and better research than H/C and is speaking from a place of sincerity.

"Screaming moral outrage".  Hmm, I think that describes her rather well.
You know her through her books, I know her through her show. I would guess the screaming moral outrage doesn't come through in the books.

Of the current MSNBC crop, the best might be Chris Hayes. He can do moral outrage, but does it without the screaming.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 24, 2020, 06:38:02 PM
Quote from: Todd on May 24, 2020, 05:00:51 AM
Since it has been established on this very forum that The Daily Show is a serious outlet to be taken seriously, perhaps the powerful, informed opinion of Trevor Noah will help change hearts and minds:

Joe Biden's "Super-Creepy" Hair-Smelling Skeeves Out Trevor Noah (https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/04/joe-biden-hair-smelling-2020-race-lucy-flores-trevor-noah-daily-show)

You know, I think I see why Trevor Noah is so esteemed on this forum.  Super-Creepy is a more accurate, fact-based description of Joe Biden.  Henceforth, I shall endeavor to accurately describe the 46th President of the United States as Super-Creepy.

I meant to ask earlier: who has been saying this? You must be thinking of a different forum.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 24, 2020, 08:25:31 PM
Then you're been imagining that some of us are the kind of people who would think that, and over time that thought has ossified into "fact"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on May 24, 2020, 08:55:18 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 24, 2020, 08:29:50 PM
Fair enough, my friend. I think metal was awesome in the 70's and 80's, perhaps reached a zenith around 1990 or so and then faded. Can't really tell you about death metal at all. Friends raved about the Euro metal scene years ago but I longed for coherent lyrics, something tangible like Ozzy singing Paranoid or Rob Halford Breaking the Law. 
The metal scene is probably bigger than it's ever been, but at this point is so diverse that everything is just branches off of branches rather than the roots, like the stuff you're talking about. You probably wouldn't like the modern stuff- although still there is more traditional stuff out there, it can be very progressive, harsh, abstract stuff. So many subgenres to explore.


Quote from: Dowder on May 24, 2020, 08:29:50 PM
Film noir always intrigued more than horror movies. The latter seemed gratuitous, scenes meant to shock and awe for its own sake. Perhaps I'm missing something here. The former had a far greater psychology to it and violence emerged naturally from choices that flowed upon a river of fatalism.
Film noir seems like something I should have gotten into, but tbh I have no idea exactly what it is.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on May 24, 2020, 09:53:36 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 24, 2020, 09:21:40 PM
It certainly has evolved. I'm sure there is great music out there but I've never explored it, sad to say. I think the last metal song I remember loving was Slayer's God Hates Us All and that was like in 2001. I liked some of Metallica's last album but does that still count as metal?
Well, if I had give an example of the sound of modern metal this would be a good one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzznL_8DIUM

That Slayer album is great, probably my favorite out of the ones that I've heard. Not really a thrash metal guy... there are a select few bands still doing thrash, like Vektor, who I've been listening to recently, who is pretty decent.


Quote from: Dowder on May 24, 2020, 09:21:40 PM
Usually centered around a crime of some kind, usually a femme fatale but not always, a morally comprised man whose lust or weaknesses leads him to murder or something sinister. There is a day to day concrete psychological resonance with me. Whereas with horror I feel like I've entered a world that is totally foreign, except maybe in a nightmare. I dunno. Random violence like that just unsettles me. If you kill someone there should be a reason.
Yeah, not having a reason is pretty inhuman, it's more like a force of nature than a thinking person. But the aspect of people that do that IRL like serial killers, I think it's purely based on feelings. They don't quite understand it, either, except as compulsions. Usually it may stem from childhood abuse so it just gets baked in to the wiring of their brain.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: arpeggio on May 25, 2020, 12:05:14 AM
I can watch MSNBS for about half an hour before I get frustrated and start watching old episodes of NCIS.

Fox, only a few minutes.

It is all a matter of degrees.

"How's you mother-in-law? Compared to what?"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 25, 2020, 05:12:47 AM
Perhaps it's time to revisit this op-ed:

America Shouldn't Tolerate 'Biden Being Biden' (https://time.com/3713264/joe-biden-stephanie-carter-shoulder-rub/)

Here's the accompanying photo of another famous inappropriate moment from Super-Creepy Uncle Joe.

(https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/biden-being-biden.jpg?w=800&quality=85)

It is from that intractable, far-right outlet Time, so it's just kooky. 

It's hard to tell if and when things will get back to normal in terms of retail politics and pressing the flesh.  Super-Creepy 46 may not get a chance to get all touchy-feely as president.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on May 25, 2020, 05:57:32 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 24, 2020, 11:47:15 AM
Fair enough, Drog, but if I may add that pretty much most people think they have facts on their side, no matter whether they are on the left or the right or hold firmly to an ideology or not. I think most are selective in finding a particular set of information and using it to advance policies, goals, etc or confirm what they already wanted it to.

If that doesn't make any sense I had a Moscow Mule with lunch so apologies in advance.

     Some selectivity might be controlled by bias and some in defiance of it. The question is whether you are the servant or the master of your beliefs. I prefer to choose based on what I know and can find out, and in the process try to shape my ideology more than it shapes me.

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 25, 2020, 06:54:23 AM
Quote from: drogulus on May 25, 2020, 05:57:32 AM
     Some selectivity might be controlled by bias and some in defiance of it. The question is whether you are the servant or the master of your beliefs. I prefer to choose based on what I know and can find out, and in the process try to shape my ideology more than it shapes me.

     

Surgically done, sir.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on May 25, 2020, 08:03:12 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 25, 2020, 06:53:40 AM
I believe you 100%. Perhaps it's more of a conservative tradition to stick with and value your beliefs, traditions, and ideology longer because they have worked hitherto and only alter them slowly when liberals typically react with far more gusto to notions of change or progressivism because of something like "having facts on their side." Could be a values vs facts debate in the end.

     Acting on the notion that one has facts on your side is doubleplus good IMV. It means you can be wrong about things, which I value very highly. It makes wrongness a discoverable fact rather than just allowing beliefs to reinforce themselves with no check on them.

     Values may not be facts but if facts can't alter them you are a puppet. Murder is wrong and stays wrong because the social facts that determine this value will not change even if your favorite Bog says otherwise.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on May 25, 2020, 10:03:33 AM
Quote from: Philoctetes on May 25, 2020, 08:09:16 AM
"This process, Garsten acknowledges, is very different from "justification," the mode of discourse featured in liberal political theory, which assumes the possibility of universal agreement and thus advocates that we treat "different audiences similarly," whereas rhetoricians assume the inevitability of disagreement and advocate treating "different audiences differently" (5)" (Fleming, 2019, p. 519).
Some people can't agree with themselves from month to month about who their favorite composer is, let alone imagine getting multiple people to agree on a favorite composer for years at a time... or about "what's right," when information availability is changing all the time... sounds like "justification" is just fantasy land wishful thinking, or possibly even an authoritarian attitude destined to be short-lived. Even Genghis Khan allowed the different conquered people under his rule to practice their own religions, because why not? Why provoke even further? 
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 25, 2020, 03:15:20 PM
I know its going to sound like a silly question, but I feel compelled to ask it just for clarity's sake:

You're not against the use of news outlets to make you aware of issues you may have overlooked or to signpost things to be followed up in more depth elsewhere, right?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Todd on May 26, 2020, 05:50:44 AM
Rep. Ilhan Omar says she believes woman's sex assault claims against presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden

Under fire, first-term congresswoman says she will still vote for the Democratic presidential nominee. (https://www.startribune.com/omar-says-she-believes-tara-reade-s-sex-assault-claims-against-biden/570748902/)


Quote from: The 46th President of the United States Joe BidenI wouldn't vote for me if I believed Tara Reade (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/i-wouldn-t-vote-me-if-i-believed-tara-read-n1207516)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on May 26, 2020, 06:24:58 AM

     I suppose one can justify voting for the theoretically terrible Biden as an emergency measure. Tara seems to have crashed and burned without any effort to disbelieve her, so I don't know if this will be a live issue going forward.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on May 26, 2020, 06:42:21 AM
Quote from: Philoctetes on May 25, 2020, 02:12:12 PM
For the purpose of simplicity, I am going to focus on a single representative, Steve King. He was selected because he is likely the most controversial member of Congress. His own party withdrew his funding and removed him from prominent seats he once held. He has been accused of being a white nationalist, which is what compelled the GOP to remove him, and he received condemnation from many, and is currently running to get reelected, which seems unlikely.


     Any shithead will coalesce with others for pork. You haven't earned the lofty perch you are assuming with humdrummery like this.

     The possibility of agreement isn't a truth, it's an enabling assumption. People don't try to do things if they adopt the disabling assumption that it won't work.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on May 26, 2020, 07:00:23 AM
The relationship between facts and values has been long since established by David Hume. One cannot go from facts to values, there is simply no way to infer "what ought to be" from "what is". Facts cannot create values. To begin with, selecting the relevant facts out of myriads of them already presupposes values.

The opposite, though, is true. Values can create facts. Eg: freedom of the press, constitutional government, universal healthcare --- prior to them being facts, they were values.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on May 26, 2020, 07:33:39 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 26, 2020, 07:31:18 AM
Correct. Don't know if we were having a strict philosophical conversation, 'tho.

Everything is philosophy, sir, despising philosophy included.  ;D
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on May 26, 2020, 07:38:54 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2020, 07:00:23 AM
The relationship between facts and values has been long since established by David Hume. One cannot go from facts to values, there is simply no way to infer "what ought to be" from "what is". Facts cannot create values. To begin with, selecting the relevant facts out of myriads of them already presupposes values.

The opposite, though, is true. Values can create facts. Eg: freedom of the press, constitutional government, universal healthcare --- prior to them being facts, they were values.



     You can't have values without prior facts to work from, about human life as individuals and social beings. Values sort facts according to how they might be used advantageously, sometimes with a little metaphysical rocket fuel to make them stick.

     The value/fact complex is far too interesting to be stuck where Hume left it. It's best not to treat even the best philosophers as though thought stopped with them. There, I did a value!

Quote from: Dowder on May 26, 2020, 07:31:18 AM
Correct. Don't know if we were having a strict philosophical conversation, 'tho.   

     Sir, negative, sir! Hume said "ought" isn't derived from "is". Values are not so simply derived from facts as that. The question remains how facts are used to derive "oughts".

     Philosophical discussions don't have to be strict. This one isn't, and that's very OK.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: ritter on May 26, 2020, 07:41:58 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2020, 07:33:39 AM
Everything is philosophy, sir, despising philosophy included.  ;D

From the classic Argentine comic strip Mafalda, by Quino:

(https://i.imgur.com/K8dTtJ9.jpg)
-What is philopsphy, daddy?

(https://i.imgur.com/QW8EU2D.jpg)
-Yesterday I asked my dad to explain to me what philosophy is. - And?

Good day, Andrei.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on May 26, 2020, 07:44:51 AM
Quote from: ritter on May 26, 2020, 07:41:58 AM
Good day, Andrei.

Good day, Rafael.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 26, 2020, 07:52:51 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2020, 07:33:39 AM
Everything is philosophy, sir, despising philosophy included.  ;D

Ecce homo, ergo elk 8)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on May 26, 2020, 07:55:50 AM
Quote from: drogulus on May 26, 2020, 07:38:54 AM
     You can't have values without prior facts to work from, about human life as individuals and social beings. Values sort facts according to how they might be used advantageously, sometimes with a little metaphysical rocket fuel to make them stick.

     The value/fact complex is far too interesting to be stuck where Hume left it. It's best not to treat even the best philosophers as though thought stopped with them. There, I did a value!

Of course you did! You could not have done without it, no way, sir!

QuoteThe question remains how facts are used to derive "oughts".

But that's precisely what I alluded to: there is simply no way that facts can be used to derive "oughts".

It's Hume, sir!

 
QuotePhilosophical discussions don't have to be strict. This one isn't, and that's very OK.

Philosophy is not a strict science. Ask Socrates, Pascal, Kierkegaard or Unamuno. Interestingly enough, none of them was German...  ;)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on May 26, 2020, 07:56:25 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 26, 2020, 07:52:51 AM
Ecce homo, ergo elk 8)

What is elk?  ???
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 26, 2020, 08:09:55 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2020, 07:56:25 AM
What is elk?  ???

From a Monty Python sketch....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on May 26, 2020, 08:12:26 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 26, 2020, 08:09:55 AM
From a Monty Python sketch....

Ah! I'm not familiar at all with them.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: drogulus on May 26, 2020, 08:25:08 AM

[/quote]
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2020, 07:55:50 AM

It's Hume, sir!

 


     No, it's not Hume, who devoted a great deal of his moral philosophy discussing just what kinds of facts are used to form values. He did not think values came from Nowheresville or a creature residing there. He didn't think they were arbitrary. Hume didn't think reason alone produced the facts that mattered. He thought there were innate sentiments and social derivations for the relevant facts of value formation. Some of these questions are better answered in light of Darwin and the application of parallel ideas in social evolution.

     
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on May 26, 2020, 08:29:43 AM
Quote from: drogulus on May 26, 2020, 08:25:08 AM

     No, it's not Hume, who devoted a great deal of his moral philosophy discussing just what kinds of facts are used to form values. He did not think values came from Nowheresville or a creature residing there. He didn't think they were arbitrary. Hume didn't think reason alone produced the facts that mattered. He thought there were innate sentiments and social derivations for the relevant facts of value formation. Some of these questions are better answered in light of Darwin and the application of parallel ideas in social evolution.

   

Both Hume and Darwin were partially right. They both missed... but no, I'm not going there, no, sir, I won't. Please excuse the interruption, carry on with Trump. My lips are sealed for now.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Que on May 26, 2020, 08:47:07 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2020, 08:29:43 AM
Both Hume and Darwin were partially right. They both missed... but no, I'm not going there, no, sir, I won't. Please excuse the interruption, carry on with Trump. My lips are sealed for now.

Good... ;)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Florestan on May 26, 2020, 08:49:43 AM
Quote from: Que on May 26, 2020, 08:47:07 AM
Good... ;)

Scout honor, my friend, scout honor!  ;) (no kidding, actually, I was one of them for a short while).
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 26, 2020, 08:22:02 PM
Quote from: Todd on May 26, 2020, 05:50:44 AM
Rep. Ilhan Omar says she believes woman's sex assault claims against presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden

Under fire, first-term congresswoman says she will still vote for the Democratic presidential nominee. (https://www.startribune.com/omar-says-she-believes-tara-reade-s-sex-assault-claims-against-biden/570748902/)

Rep. Ilhan Omar will support Biden, but said it's important to 'believe survivors' (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rep-ilhan-omar-support-biden-important-survivors/story?id=70873972)

[...]"Omar said that the interview quoted in the Sunday Times of London was several weeks old, and given before ABC News and other outlets reported on Reade's past and instances in which she's accused of exaggerating her credentials as an expert witness in sexual assault cases. As a result, defense attorneys in California are reportedly now trying to determine if those comments in court amount to false testimony.

Omar did not take a firm stance on whether she still believes all aspects of Reade's allegations. Instead, she said it's possible to support Biden in his presidential run while still creating a space for survivors to come forward.

"There's obviously parts of what she has said that have been corroborated and parts that haven't, that is not my place to litigate her story," Omar told "GMA" of Reade's allegations against Biden. "I think it's important when someone says they have been assaulted and they see themselves as survivors that we, as we have been saying, believe survivors."[...]
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on May 26, 2020, 08:47:51 PM
Another gaffe! He doesn't even know the word "pee" has two "e's" instead of one!  :o

How senile can ya get, Joe? What an atrocity!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: arpeggio on May 26, 2020, 09:28:48 PM
Quote from: greg on May 26, 2020, 08:47:51 PM
Another gaffe! He doesn't even know the word "pee" has two "e's" instead of one!  :o

How senile can ya get, Joe? What an atrocity!

Oh no.  What are we to do? Biden has done two gaffs compared to Trump's 20,000.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 26, 2020, 09:36:20 PM
I'm gonna guess the sign on the right says Poor People just like the one on the left does.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on May 26, 2020, 11:46:12 PM
the one on the left says "ople", so that's another gaffe.

Or they're code messages to Bill Gates and Soros....

Take him out of the race!
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on May 27, 2020, 07:59:22 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 26, 2020, 09:36:20 PM
I'm gonna guess the sign on the right says Poor People just like the one on the left does.
Maybe.  ;)


Quote from: Dowder on May 27, 2020, 07:37:49 AM
Makes you wonder what Biden's criteria is for a VP, since he said he will pick a woman. How much coerced kisses, groping, and hair sniffing do they have to put up with?  ::)
I just wanna see a live debate with him vs. Trump, where he starts groping Trump, and then Trump starts liking it and then they start tongue kissing, and undress and...

Well, sure, vomiting would ensue worldwide but at least it would stop being boring for one second.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on May 27, 2020, 08:38:02 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 27, 2020, 08:10:21 AM
That's a little too surreal for me.  :-X

Maybe AOC will strip nude for climate change  or something extra special.
Ew.
I've always thought she looks like a horse that got loose from a farm and then discovered someone's secret stash of cocaine and just went crazy with it.

Sure, it wouldn't be as pukeworthy as Biden and Trump making out, but going nude is such a common type of protest on the left that it would only get a yawn from me.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on May 27, 2020, 08:50:17 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 27, 2020, 08:10:21 AM
That's a little too surreal for me.  :-X

Maybe AOC will strip nude for climate change  or something extra special.

Congratulations, you've just gone below greg's level, and that's something noteworthy.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Karl Henning on May 27, 2020, 08:50:38 AM
What a peculiar exchange.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Ratliff on May 27, 2020, 08:51:28 AM
Quote from: greg on May 27, 2020, 08:38:02 AM
it would only get a yawn from me.

Is there anything on god's green earth that doesn't get a yawn from you?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on May 27, 2020, 09:12:00 AM
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on May 27, 2020, 08:51:28 AM
Is there anything on god's green earth that doesn't get a yawn from you?
Yeah, but would be nice if everything didn't get old so quickly- that would cause less yawns.

I used to work with people in retail and they would complain about how much I yawned, especially in the afternoon. Seriously, what is wrong with yawning?  ::)

But no, Trump and Biden spontaneously making out on live TV would be novel enough to catch my attention for a while. That would certainly not get a yawn from me. But alas, life isn't so exciting.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on May 27, 2020, 09:39:48 AM
Quote from: Dowder on May 27, 2020, 08:10:21 AM
That's a little too surreal for me.  :-X

Maybe AOC will strip nude for climate change  or something extra special.

The right wing obsession with AOC as too sexy for her shirt....
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Herman on May 27, 2020, 12:27:57 PM
Don't hold your breath.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 27, 2020, 12:41:45 PM
Shall I draw any larger truth from the right wingers here posting like twelve year olds?

Grow the hell up you children.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 27, 2020, 01:31:15 PM
Quote from: Todd on May 27, 2020, 01:14:09 PM

Typing is hard.

No, autocorrect is frustrating. Glad I could give you another opportunity to pounce and "win".
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on May 27, 2020, 01:43:54 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 27, 2020, 12:41:45 PM
Shall I draw any larger truth from the right wingers here posting like twelve year olds?

Grow the hell up you children.
People on left: Right bad. Left good.
People on right: Left bad. Right good.

That about sums up these political threads. Too advanced for a two year old, maybe, but maybe not so much for a three year old.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on May 27, 2020, 01:57:46 PM
Quote from: Todd on May 27, 2020, 01:50:06 PM

Some people find technology baffling.
Not only that, but sometimes people may take a minute to reference their chart...

"Hmm, I don't like this comment. What shall I make of it?"

*reads chart for reference... "Right = bad. Left = good."
"hmmm... what does this mean?"

*goes to chalkboard and ponders a bit, making some scribbles and calculations
*takes some more time to think

After a few minutes, "Aha! It's bad, so it's right-wing! Yaaay, I solved the problem, do I get a trophy?"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 27, 2020, 01:59:03 PM
Quote from: Todd on May 27, 2020, 01:50:06 PM

Some people find technology baffling.

Snark like this makes your endless posts carrying water for whichever troll farm or Bannon-lite group came up with the "Creepy Uncle Joe" meme - and which don't engage with the other members comments here about the highly problematic accusation by Tara Reade - seem so much more substantive in comparison.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 27, 2020, 02:04:16 PM
Quote from: greg on May 27, 2020, 01:57:46 PM
Not only that, but sometimes people may take a minute to reference their chart...

"Hmm, I don't like this comment. What shall I make of it?"

*reads chart for reference... "Right = bad. Left = good."
"hmmm... what does this mean?"

*goes to chalkboard and ponders a bit, making some scribbles and calculations
*takes some more time to think

After a few minutes, "Aha! It's bad, so it's right-wing! Yaaay, I solved the problem, do I get a trophy?"

That is a) insulting to people who take the time to articulate and post their opinions, which are never simply "x=bad" however much you may disagree with those opinions, and b ) is still sounding like the post of a twelve year old. If you want to argue against something here then do so, rather than trying to shut any conversation down by claiming its all worthless.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 27, 2020, 02:22:29 PM
Quote from: Todd on May 27, 2020, 02:17:49 PM

I have offered the free and helpful advice on this very forum to stop, breath, wait, and re-read a post before hitting the 'Post' button.  That is hard to do for some people.



Run-on sentences are bad.

Physician: heal thyself.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 27, 2020, 02:35:59 PM
Which one is the "utterly bored by this" emoji?

How clever would you think me if I pounced on you writing "breath" instead of "breathe", and snarked that "typing is hard"? Would I be a master of wit in your estimation?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 27, 2020, 03:42:04 PM
In dealing with children, a time out is sometimes a good thing.

Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on May 28, 2020, 01:38:13 PM
Quote from: greg on May 26, 2020, 08:47:51 PM
Another gaffe! He doesn't even know the word "pee" has two "e's" instead of one!  :o

How senile can ya get, Joe? What an atrocity!
Prophetic toilet humor...
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/joe-biden-fart-noise-tom-wolf

ugh... ::)
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on May 28, 2020, 02:24:36 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 28, 2020, 02:05:18 PM
Poor guy, so old and confused he was wearing an ass mic.
And he named the mic "Donald."
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: greg on May 28, 2020, 02:45:14 PM
Quote from: Dowder on May 28, 2020, 02:36:48 PM
If Trump ripped a fart, it would be huuuuuuuge.
Yes, it would put Krakatoa to shame. It would single-handedly single-buttedly make America stay great for the next 500 years.

Meanwhile, if Biden can't win on that front, at least he can try to eat more cheetos and turn his skin orange, because that might have to be what he needs to do to win the presidency.

"These young people nowadays appreciate an orange man, so maybe that's what I should go for to win it! I'll be the orangest of them all!"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 28, 2020, 03:06:22 PM
Again: I'm seeing a direct correlation  between Trump support and an infantile mentality.

Grow the hell up you pathetic little babies.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: milk on May 28, 2020, 03:15:42 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 27, 2020, 02:35:59 PM
Which one is the "utterly bored by this" emoji?

How clever would you think me if I pounced on you writing "breath" instead of "breathe", and snarked that "typing is hard"? Would I be a master of wit in your estimation?
That's gotta sting.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 28, 2020, 03:30:28 PM
No, I sound like I come to a political thread for political discussion, not a long string of fart jokes, you child.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: SimonNZ on May 28, 2020, 03:45:35 PM
Now that you mention it: I often wonder what right humour even is. Left wing humour is Stephen Colbert and Trevor Noah and, well, pretty much every other comedy successful comedy show or successful stand up comic. What does right wing humour look like? Does it rise much at all anywhere beyond fart jokes or braying at the suffering of others?
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on May 28, 2020, 03:49:24 PM
Simon, I fully agree with those sentiments.

But I have had quite enough of this.
As the OP here, I am locking this.

I'll leave it up to the forum moderators to decide if it should be unlocked.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2020, 04:01:40 PM
Given that the Democratic Candidates for 2020 have now dwindled to 1, I went ahead and locked this thread, let it sink into the darkness from whence it arose.  I'm sure when someone starts the inevitable Biden v. T***p thread, it will be a shining example of political discourse, suitable for the entire Interwebs to admire and attempt to emulate.   ::) 

8)