GMG Classical Music Forum

The Back Room => The Diner => Topic started by: JBS on June 26, 2019, 04:40:42 PM

Title: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on June 26, 2019, 04:40:42 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, 04:45:12 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, 04:47:07 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, 09:33:52 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, 09:48:11 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, 02:06:36 AM
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, 04:10:54 AM
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: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 28, 2019, 05:17:54 AM
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, 09:41:03 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, 09:48:53 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, 06:02:00 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, 06:36:41 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, 06:41:37 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, 07:22:30 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, 07:40:27 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, 06:57:22 AM
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)

Quote
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.

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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 05, 2019, 09:29:52 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, 07:08:57 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, 01:42:42 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, 04:14:12 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, 05:47:20 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, 06:35:29 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, 07:03:34 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, 12:20:36 AM
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, 01:47:51 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, 05:35:54 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, 05:51:09 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2019, 06:20:13 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2019, 06:54:44 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, 12:15:13 PM
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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2019, 12:56:02 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, 01:59:11 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, 02:07:18 AM
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, 03:30:15 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, 05:11:08 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, 06:05:33 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, 07:17:10 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, 10:46:29 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, 11:06:10 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, 11:14:23 AM
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, 11:15:45 AM
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, 11:17:20 AM
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, 11:18:41 AM
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, 11:19:12 AM
 :-[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, 11:23:52 AM
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, 11:27:15 AM
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, 11:28:01 AM
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, 11:29:47 AM
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, 04:07:05 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, 04:38:07 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, 05:43:12 AM
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, 06:15:10 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, 07:23:53 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, 11:25:02 AM
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, 02:41:15 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 10, 2019, 03:03:31 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, 03:07:31 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 10, 2019, 03:44:39 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, 03:51:55 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, 05:37:50 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, 08:52:13 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, 04:09:38 AM
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, 06:14:01 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, 06:28:38 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, 06:47:08 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, 07:03:48 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 11, 2019, 07:04:55 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, 07:44:39 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, 09:01:00 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, 10:20:44 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, 11:19:35 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 11, 2019, 12:15:12 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, 12:18:50 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, 01:08:37 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, 01:16:55 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, 01:36:27 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, 01:48:14 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, 06:14:02 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, 06:47:49 PM
     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, 07:26:25 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, 07:50:08 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, 01:28:03 AM
     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, 04:47:47 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, 06:37:43 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, 07:41:36 AM
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, 08:29:03 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, 08:33:20 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, 10:07:54 PM
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, 03:17:42 AM
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, 06:24:35 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, 06:50:59 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, 03:13:13 PM
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, 06:23:07 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, 06:50:04 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, 07:30:27 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, 03:08:08 AM
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.

You 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?

They 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)

They 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.

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.

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?
 
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.


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, 05:55:14 AM
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, 05:58:25 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, 06:42:51 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, 07:41:09 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, 09:34:07 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, 09:35:28 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 15, 2019, 11:21:30 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 15, 2019, 11:22:07 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, 02:17:08 PM
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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 15, 2019, 03:41:40 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, 03:59:17 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, 04:53:18 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 15, 2019, 05:25:13 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, 05:33:40 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, 05:44:18 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, 06:00:19 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, 01:08:35 AM
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, 01:51:36 AM
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, 02:00:47 AM
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, 02:20:45 AM
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, 03:45:02 AM
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, 03:49:01 AM
Donald J Trump wouldn't recognize a scientific fact even  if he fell into it.
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, 05:58:37 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, 06:26:18 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, 06:35:41 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 16, 2019, 07:08:37 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 16, 2019, 07:20:17 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, 08:12:16 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, 08:39:44 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, 09:07:08 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

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.

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.

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".

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, 09:13:08 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, 09:14:16 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."

Quote
The 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, 09:29:52 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, 09:43:40 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, 09:44:28 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, 09:56:06 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, 10:08:16 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 16, 2019, 11:50:23 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, 01:07:08 PM
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..

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: schnittkease on July 16, 2019, 03:06:41 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.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on July 16, 2019, 04:35:42 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, 04:38:53 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, 04:55:17 PM
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, 05:23:21 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, 05:37:56 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, 05:38:34 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, 05:41:34 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, 05:52:26 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, 05:59:12 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, 07:09:24 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, 07:27:27 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, 07:39:37 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, 08:21:18 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: schnittkease on July 16, 2019, 08:24:33 PM
B O O M (https://splinternews.com/b-o-o-m-1836430588)

Try that on for size.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: 71 dB on July 16, 2019, 08:58:28 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, 09:10:29 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, 12:21:16 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.

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, 12:03:31 AM
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, 02:30:46 AM
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, 02:54:53 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, 03:05:36 AM


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, 03:11:54 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, 05:52:59 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, 06:04:35 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 18, 2019, 07:18:00 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, 08:00:29 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, 08:14:45 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, 08:37:32 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, 08:40:47 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, 09:03:56 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, 09:05:53 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, 09:15:29 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, 09:30:36 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".

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, 11:14:07 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, 12:38:14 PM
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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 18, 2019, 12:48:18 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, 12:58:13 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, 01:51:52 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, 04:13:12 PM
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, 04:18:11 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, 04:26:07 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, 04:29:05 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, 04:37:20 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 18, 2019, 05:13:52 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 18, 2019, 05:15:49 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, 06:03:59 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, 10:07:04 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, 02:31:34 AM
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, 02:35:29 AM
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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 19, 2019, 04:52:25 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, 07:19:36 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, 08:52:42 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 19, 2019, 09:13:58 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, 11:52:35 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, 02:17:29 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, 02:47:20 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, 04:29:47 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, 04:58:11 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.
Quote
Brown'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, 05:24:58 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 26, 2019, 05:27:45 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, 05:31:20 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, 05:33:08 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, 09:44:14 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, 08:01:59 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, 10:55:29 AM
MSNBC's better moments:

https://www.youtube.com/v/YpdgCrdLQbw
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 27, 2019, 11:03:42 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, 11:55:40 AM
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, 01:24:32 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, 03:35:44 PM
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, 01:04:28 AM
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, 01:16:01 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, 01:57:56 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, 08:45:43 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, 08:48:07 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, 10:01:54 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, 10:03:21 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, 10:14:54 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, 10:16:08 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, 11:09:59 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/
Quote
Along 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

Quote
Throughout 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, 11:22:43 AM
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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 28, 2019, 11:27:47 AM
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, 11:29:54 AM
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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 28, 2019, 11:33:25 AM
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, 11:58:09 AM
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, 12:10:16 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/
Quote
Initially, 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, 02:30:21 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, 02:22:14 AM
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
Quote
Anastasio 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
Quote
In 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, 02:52:33 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, 05:00:48 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, 05:23:26 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 29, 2019, 06:03:44 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, 06:13:54 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 29, 2019, 06:22:22 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, 07:55:19 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.

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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 29, 2019, 08:01:53 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, 10:16:34 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, 10:56:43 AM
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.

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, 11:05:25 AM
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, 11:26:50 AM
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, 11:57:46 AM
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, 11:59:17 AM
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.

Quote
There 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, 12:18:31 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, 12:42:22 PM
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, 12:48:23 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, 12:59:07 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, 01:03:13 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, 01:06:13 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, 01:16:33 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, 01:27:20 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.

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, 03:50:17 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 29, 2019, 03:56:14 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, 04:01:54 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, 05:46:09 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, 01:01:06 AM
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, 01:10:33 AM
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, 01:24:39 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, 03:25:57 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, 09:36:43 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, 10:09:20 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, 10:33:56 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, 10:44:15 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, 05:44:54 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, 07:34:57 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 31, 2019, 07:48:57 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, 10:13:53 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, 12:05:09 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, 01:01:52 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, 02:51:57 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, 05:19:43 AM
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, 11:05:22 AM
     (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, 07:14:49 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 02, 2019, 02:15:01 AM
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, 03:15:10 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

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, 08:12:58 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, 09:35:29 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 03, 2019, 11:57:09 PM
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, 11:23:18 AM
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: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 05, 2019, 01:16:33 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, 04:57:53 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, 08:25:47 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, 02:50:23 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, 01:09:41 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 13, 2019, 10:27:38 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, 11:28:11 AM

     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: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 13, 2019, 12:10:32 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, 02:14:35 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 13, 2019, 03:53:54 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 14, 2019, 07:46:25 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 14, 2019, 07:49:27 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, 08:06:08 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, 08:45:02 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, 11:52:40 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, 11:53:31 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, 11:54:37 AM
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, 03:07:41 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, 03:48:12 PM
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, 04:30:58 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, 04:32:13 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, 06:21:32 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, 10:00:58 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, 02:24:11 AM
     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, 02:36:22 AM
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, 03:00:39 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, 03:22:48 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, 05:40:39 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, 06:02:55 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, 10:38:04 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, 10:54:01 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
Quote
It 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 15, 2019, 04:01:14 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 15, 2019, 11:19:53 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 15, 2019, 11:49:31 PM
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, 02:04:00 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, 10:17:29 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, 10:27:14 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 16, 2019, 05:40:33 PM
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: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 16, 2019, 05:47:32 PM


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, 06:01:16 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, 06:04:57 PM
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, 07:10:51 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 16, 2019, 07:48:33 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, 02:03:17 AM
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.

. 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

Getting 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, 08:32:06 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, 08:50:53 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, 09:15:50 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, 09:20:32 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, 10:16:40 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, 01:40:36 PM
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, 05:02:20 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, 03:32:58 AM
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, 04:11:52 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, 08:14:25 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, 02:13:35 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.

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, 02:46:46 PM
Well put.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 19, 2019, 04:19:02 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, 04:30:52 PM
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, 05:18:09 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, 05:24:32 PM
(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, 06:06:14 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.

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, 06:22:18 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 19, 2019, 06:25:02 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, 07:04:02 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, 07:58:42 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 19, 2019, 11:50:10 PM
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, 03:01:10 AM
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, 03:12:02 AM
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, 03:14:18 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, 07:20:35 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, 08:20:43 AM
GMG is working very slow for me at the moment...  ::)

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: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 20, 2019, 08:30:40 AM
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, 09:17:58 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, 12:20:57 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, 12:31:20 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, 02:20:25 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, 10:30:22 PM
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.

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, 04:46:01 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, 11:30:36 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, 11:33:15 AM
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, 12:39:58 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, 12:48:40 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, 01:17:49 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 21, 2019, 03:56:10 PM
I never said Vox was perfect (far from it), but they certainly aren't the worst actors.

Agreed...
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, 04:48:31 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, 05:39:28 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, 06:50:41 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, 07:00:51 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, 07:12:38 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, 10:50:20 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, 12:09:45 AM
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, 12:27:58 AM
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, 02:00:15 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, 03:55:30 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.

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, 06:05:05 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, 08:29:56 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, 08:37:27 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, 08:55:39 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, 09:18:32 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.
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.

(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, 09:26:19 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, 09:31:18 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, 09:45:27 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, 11:06:04 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, 01:08:26 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, 01:25:34 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, 03:35:40 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, 05:47:56 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, 06:03:08 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, 06:25:31 PM
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, 06:31:19 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, 06:43:23 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, 06:50:58 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, 06:53:38 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, 07:12:01 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 22, 2019, 11:28:32 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, 02:39:30 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, 05:42:20 AM
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, 06:38:09 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, 09:11:28 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, 03:21:48 PM
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)


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, 03:34:30 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, 04:04:14 PM
So 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.

But 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?

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.

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, 04:09:41 PM
Naivety is never appalling. Cynicism is.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 23, 2019, 04:14:26 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, 04:26:12 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, 04:39:43 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, 04:54:22 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, 05:00:49 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, 05:21:02 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: schnittkease on August 23, 2019, 05:25:36 PM
If this doesn't change your mind, I don't know what will.

https://www.youtube.com/v/2gP35_JqKVc
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: JBS on August 23, 2019, 05:33:06 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, 05:35:02 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, 06:44:44 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, 06:53:38 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, 06:59:58 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, 07:07:28 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, 07:09:44 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, 07:23:01 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, 07:27:42 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, 07:50:27 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.

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.





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, 02:46:19 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, 03:41:29 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, 04:22:37 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, 05:39:49 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, 10:22:54 AM
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, 11:27:45 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, 11:44:33 AM
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, 02:54:51 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, 03:38:02 PM
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, 04:13:30 PM
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.

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, 06:30:37 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, 06:35:29 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, 06:38:42 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, 07:00:52 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, 07:29:09 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.)

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, 01:02:25 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, 02:36:21 AM
(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, 02:57:17 AM
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, 06:36:37 AM
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, 08:58:27 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, 10:08:48 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 25, 2019, 10:49:52 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, 11:08:58 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, 12:00:51 PM
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: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 25, 2019, 12:54:34 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, 01:09:13 PM
"Called the calling off off"
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: amw on August 25, 2019, 02:50:25 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, 02:57:27 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, 04:15:19 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 25, 2019, 05:21:44 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, 01:55:44 AM
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, 09:05:42 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, 11:39:31 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, 12:21:18 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, 12:37:17 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.

     
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, 12:49:25 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 26, 2019, 01:22:02 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, 01:36:29 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, 01:52:54 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.

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.

Quote
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.
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, 01:56:29 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, 02:12:03 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, 02:28:04 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, 02:47:35 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, 03:47:36 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 26, 2019, 04:02:31 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, 10:11:40 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, 01:07:50 AM
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, 02:39:47 AM
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: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 27, 2019, 05:31:10 AM
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, 07:00:42 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, 01:21:08 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 27, 2019, 01:45:49 PM
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, 05:20:37 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, 07:09:58 PM
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.

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, 01:15:45 AM
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, 02:09:09 AM
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.

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, 07:19:16 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, 07:44:01 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, 12:13:17 PM
     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.

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, 01:28:01 PM
     Gillibrand is out. I never knew yee much.

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, 10:07:56 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, 02:35:19 PM
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, 02:44:31 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, 02:56:23 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, 03:42:31 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, 05:56:58 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, 01:42:18 AM
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.

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, 10:47:21 AM
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, 04:34:14 PM
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, 04:50:17 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, 05:24:17 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, 05:55:55 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, 06:05:10 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, 08:09:32 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, 09:57:10 AM
     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, 04:43:16 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 05, 2019, 08:51:28 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, 09:48:46 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, 10:21:20 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, 10:27:31 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, 11:28:25 AM
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, 01:45:28 PM
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, 02:12:56 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, 02:39:17 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, 06:21:23 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, 04:11:01 PM
     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, 04:41:49 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, 05:07:33 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, 06:20:17 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, 01:13:31 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, 02:23:01 AM
----> Deleted...not pertinent.
Title: Re: And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020
Post by: Muzio on September 19, 2019, 01:39:53 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, 02:23:22 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, 03:44:13 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, 05:35:30 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, 06:04:11 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, 06:13:45 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, 02:25:58 AM
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, 01:46:01 PM
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: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 20, 2019, 01:55:12 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, 04:24:53 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, 05:26:09 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, 05:34:06 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, 05:41:33 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, 05:44:15 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, 05:46:26 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 20, 2019, 05:53:12 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, 05:54:06 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, 05:57:50 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, 06:04:05 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, 06:06:25 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, 06:10:34 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, 06:29:49 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, 01:46:41 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, 05:47:39 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 21, 2019, 06:48:25 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 21, 2019, 06:55:40 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, 12:46:23 PM
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, 01:27:55 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 21, 2019, 02:43:34 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, 06:19:17 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, 02:00:55 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, 03:41:45 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, 05:06:07 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, 06:15:36 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 22, 2019, 06:17:48 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, 06:20:21 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, 06:25:00 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!

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, 01:22:10 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, 03:09:44 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, 04:30:59 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, 04:33:13 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, 04:39:05 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, 04:49:09 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, 04:53:14 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, 04:58:02 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, 05:35:42 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, 05:50:54 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, 05:55:04 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, 06:03:02 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, 06:05:22 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
Quote
The 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, 06:09:34 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, 06:13:54 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, 06:14:57 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, 06:16:32 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, 06:17:16 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, 06:34:18 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.

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.

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, 06:37:11 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, 06:45:03 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, 06:47:25 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, 06:49:45 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 23, 2019, 06:53:19 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, 07:25:06 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, 07:42:03 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 23, 2019, 11:18:27 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, 03:03:54 AM
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.

Does 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, 03:06:41 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, 03:28:44 AM
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, 03:29:33 AM
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, 03:32:52 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, 03:37:02 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, 04:27:08 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 24, 2019, 05:46:39 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 24, 2019, 05:53:10 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.

Quote
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.

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, 06:18:38 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, 06:33:58 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, 06:43:24 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, 06:49:26 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, 06:58:51 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, 07:22:02 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, 07:43:53 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, 08:45:38 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, 08:54:10 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, 09:13:16 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, 09:14:47 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, 10:01:06 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, 10:20:27 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

Quote
A 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
Quote
Other 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, 10:51:44 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, 10:57:24 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, 11:04:23 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, 11:07:20 AM
     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, 11:17:23 AM
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, 12:52:08 PM
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, 01:31:16 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, 02:00:25 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, 02:08:12 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, 02:32:32 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, 03:42:37 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, 03:57:50 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.

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, 03:59:45 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, 04:08:05 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, 04:10:34 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, 04:29:06 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, 04:56:50 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, 05:05:04 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, 05:06:29 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, 05:12:26 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 24, 2019, 05:17:03 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 24, 2019, 05:20:24 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 24, 2019, 05:22:25 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, 06:10:14 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, 06:16:37 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, 06:22:21 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, 06:38:22 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, 09:23:24 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, 06:08:49 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, 03:48:07 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, 10:51:58 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 26, 2019, 11:55:20 AM
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, 01:15:46 PM
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, 03:36:32 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, 04:12:04 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, 04:51:43 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, 05:56:25 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, 06:02:15 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, 06:33:56 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, 07:31:21 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, 03:11:07 AM
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: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 27, 2019, 04:07:07 AM


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, 04:48:08 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, 05:41:35 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, 05:44:25 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, 06:06:01 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, 10:00:00 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, 03:22:03 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, 03:41:00 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 27, 2019, 04:56:20 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, 04:58:00 AM
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, 06:40:00 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, 01:39:39 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, 02:43:29 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, 03:23:50 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, 04:05:57 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, 06:23:16 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, 05:00:28 AM
      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, 05:11:30 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, 05:40:33 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, 05:46:41 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, 06:41:21 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, 07:24:57 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, 07:46:04 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 05, 2019, 08:10:52 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, 09:13:31 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, 09:18:08 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, 11:15:16 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: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 05, 2019, 01:07:43 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, 02:52:37 PM
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, 02:55:03 PM
     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, 03:13:16 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, 03:22:05 PM
Some complimentary remarks about Warren from a conservative reporter in The American Thinker:
Quote
It'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, 03:44:20 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, 05:35:47 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
Quote
She 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, 06:21:51 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, 07:00:34 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, 07:58:38 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, 07:59:04 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, 12:05:23 AM
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, 12:48:09 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
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

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
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
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: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 06, 2019, 10:08:33 AM
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: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 06, 2019, 10:09:08 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
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
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
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: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 06, 2019, 04:19:58 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
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
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
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

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
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
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
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

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
   
     
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


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
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. 


I'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.


The 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

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
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
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
: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
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
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.

Quote
Willie 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
: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.


One 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.


Nuclear 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.


     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




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
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.


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
     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