The Road to 2020 - American Elections
I figured we needed a central hub for all discussion pertaining to the Democratic primary (even though it's in the beginning of its end) and the subsequent General Election, which is sure to generate quite a lot of discussion.
Curious to see who are people's Democratic candidate of choice (regardless of whether or not you are an American citizen), if they (or any Democratic candidate) can win the primary and beat Trump in the GE.
Personally, I will be voting for Bernie Sanders, and as it stands he has a good shot at being the Democratic nominee, and I think he can beat Trump in the General.
Feel free to discuss any and all topics as it relates to the American election here
Curious to see who are people's Democratic candidate of choice (regardless of whether or not you are an American citizen), if they (or any Democratic candidate) can win the primary and beat Trump in the GE.
Personally, I will be voting for Bernie Sanders, and as it stands he has a good shot at being the Democratic nominee, and I think he can beat Trump in the General.
Feel free to discuss any and all topics as it relates to the American election here
Comments (2159)
But Bernie yes.
The nihilist in me would love nothing better than to see a debate between Biden and Trump, two sundowning men who can't speak longer than 120 seconds before digressing into jabberwacky. Trump, the more brash, slightly more senile of the two would undeniably get the upper hand by attacking Biden's 40 year record of political blunders (his only saving grace being the VP of a beloved president). The ultimate manifestation of a sundowning nation.
Sanders is 78; Warren is 70. Biden is 77; Pelosi is 79; Bloomberg is 77. Buttigieg is 37. Klobuchar is 59. Trump clearly has the most youthful mind of all the candidates -- mid-teens. People in their 70s often have agile, resilient minds. What most people in their 70s and 80s do not have in abundance is the kind of endurance one would find in a much younger person.
I don't think the Democratic Demolition Derby Debates has been helpful to the party or to the public. In the good old days, the party bosses got together in 'a smoke filled room' and had a frank discussion about the would-be candidates. They decided who would be prepped to win the nominating convention. Of course, potential candidates had a role in all this; but they had to pass muster with the party's political experts and power players before anything else happened.
The back room system wasn't all bad. Candidates who had a good chance of embarrassing the party were deflected; candidates whose closets were well populated with skeletons could be interviewed frankly about their histories. The press back in the good old days was far more likely than the press today to extend personal privacy to candidates. John F. Kennedy was thus able to carry on an apparently very active sex life with all sorts of women, and the reporters and editors closed their eyes.
We probably won't be going back to the good old days, but it seems to me that the old system of experts picking the candidates had some merits.
:rofl:
Quoting 180 Proof
I think this has largely been untrue for quite sometime. Politico's robust polling has shown that since February 2019, African American voters have consistently leaned toward Sanders over Warren. Most recently polling (mid-December 2019) currently shows that Bernie supporters were 6% more likely to be African American contra Warren supporters who are 29% less likely to be African American. Additional polling substantiates this, increasingly within the last few months as Bernie's "electability" becomes increasingly viable, and as other candidates favored by Black Americans, such as Harris and Booker, dropped out, even over Biden (who otherwise continues to enjoy the majority of Black American support), and a recent polling show that more Black Americans would strongly consider voting for Sanders in the General over Warren in the GE by 30%.
The Constitution was designed to disallow a “tyranny of the majority.” By “minority” they meant the property owners. Now it’s the corporations. It will be the same old shit. Mark my words.
But if you are like me and you are tired of and embarrassed by our mentally ill and cognitively disabled president, then vote.
My opinion, much like the party bosses who said that an office boy like Harry Truman could be President, is that a Labrador retriever could easily do the bidding of the transnational corporations.
But by this point, she pretty much sabotaged her own campaign in the past few months, the former CAP Clinton campaign consultants working for her right now probably influenced her decision making more so than the grassroots support she had.
Of the candidates with an actual shot: Biden, way too corrupt and represents everything wrong with DC. Wrong on every issue for the past 40 years. Drug warrior, supporter of the ruinous foreign wars. No Biden. Just no. He's Hillary 2.0. Liz, no. Mayor Pete, he's very likable, he might be the best of the bunch. I like Bernie's feistiness but I'm not a socialist. In fact the part of me that likes Bernie is the same part of me that likes Trump. Blow up the system because it ain't working. There's a lot of overlap between Bernie and Trump supporters.
To put this in context, I live in California which will go for whatever Dem gets nominated. So my vote doesn't count. I will be voting for Tulsi in the March primary as a show of support for the one genuinely anti-war Dem. And that vote won't matter either.
According to a recent Emerson poll, only 4% of Bernie supporters will vote for Trump if Bernie doesn't get the election. Compare this with Buttigieg, Warren, and Biden at 12%, 10% and 9%, respectively.
Quoting Maw
Meaningless. Each poll is only a single data-point ("snapshot"); it takes a series of polls to exhibit a trend (curve) of data-points from which a prediction can be inferred.
I'm sorely tempted to support Yang just because he actually backs a UBI which I think is probably the most important progressive idea seriously raised in American history, but I think the ticket is going to come down to Bernie vs Biden and Biden's a lot worse, so I've got to vote strategically there. Warren would also be an acceptable win, though I'm a little turned off by how nominally "pro-capitalism" she is, but I think she just doesn't understand what the word "capitalism" means and is really just pro-market, anti-command-economy, which, sure, duh, but that's not what capitalism vs socialism is about.
I also think that Bernie has the best chance of beating Trump in the general election, and might actually consider voting Democrat in the general just to send the DNC the message that they didn't fuck up horribly this time and to please do more like that. (The point of voting Green is to tell the DNC "you lost a vote to these guys, be more like them").
:ok:
:clap: Fellow traveler - rage-voting against the two-headed party machine! Why do 'they' keep throwing away their votes by "swing state" voting in "safe states" or not voting at all? Fools want to tear down The System that their lesser-evilism, live poor vote rich conformity & lazy (cynical) non-voting has turned into this fetid pluto/kleptocratic "swamp" AND YET is all that stands (however porously) between their succulent, flabby resentments and the predacious bankster-gangster gators crocs snakes pirahna etc in their midst.
Warren and her campaign team have made a notable series of blunders that, to my mind, demonstrates poor political acumen. The Native American DNA fiasco demonstrated shoddy political judgement, particularly vis-à-vis prodding by Donald Trump. Had she made this decision now, any momentum her campaign currently has would likely screech to a halt. And while the Native American stuff hasn't and won't come up in the primary, you better bet that Trump will lean into it hard in the general. Additionally, her decision to first pursue a private-public healthcare option, only to then formulate a comprehensive Medicare-For-All legislation sans private insurance as late as her third year in office would effectively stifle the momentum that bona fide Medicare-For-All would have and make it harder to pursue. Healthcare is consistently ranked one of the most important policy issues, particularly among Democrats, and Warren's waffling on the subject is correlated with her atrophying support as she moved from the second place position, to third behind Sanders. She also mishandled the recent controversy with Bernie Sanders and potentially widened the animosity between the two camps which could have repercussions in the primary and broader repercussions for a progressive/socialist alliance. There are an array other concerns (e.g. endorsing Clinton over Sanders in 2016, despite the latter encouraging her to run against Clinton...and she probably would have won!) from policy to campaign judgement, but it's not my goal to be comprehensive here, just to outline a broad overview of objections.
And as cathartic as it may be to see Trump lose to a women in 2020, politics isn't aesthetics (liberals and conservatives often confuse it for one).
But my original reasoning for supporting Sanders over Warren is in their distinct theories of how social and political change occur. In true Democratic Socialism fashion, Bernie is (and has been since 2016) clearly focused on building and energizing a wider social movement so that even if he doesn't win the presidency, or after his political career is over, there is still a strong grassroots momentum to demand political change, which, beyond Sander's own message, is further substantiated by over 5M individual donors and donation numbers, rally turnout, and loyal following. Warren, while also having a solid donor and supporter base, nevertheless leans into a more technocratic approach, which locates social/economic/political changes not with a broader worker class-focused movement but with elite-decision makers (e.g. "Warren Has A Plan For That").
Quoting 180 Proof
The tense isn't exactly relevant, my point is that it's mistaken to claim there is a substantive overlap between Sanders and Trump supporters.
That's a very interesting statistic. It's contrary to what I would guess. My sense is that if the DNC screws Bernie out of the nomination again (whether they did or didn't, the Bernie brigade believes they did) they will stay home in droves. That is my personal belief, polls notwithstanding. And for what it's worth, if 2016 taught us anything, it's that people no longer tell pollsters the truth; and that the respondents don't accurately represent the general population. It's not 1950 anymore when getting a phone call was a big deal and being asked your opinion by an authority figure an even bigger one. People are a lot more sophisticated now, not to mention cynical. We're all accustomed to random phone calls from scammers of all kinds. People don't even answer their phones anymore unless it's someone they know.
I say wait and see. Bernie is actually leading Biden in Iowa and New Hampshire. Just as Nancy Pelosi pulls him off the campaign trail to sit in Washington for the impeachment theater. Liz too. What a coincidence. Who could ever have seen that coming? Not Nancy, who stalled the process a month after telling us what an immediate emergency we were in.
Anyway, that's my opinion. The Bernie brigade played ball in 2016 but they won't play ball this time if, as is all but certain, the DNC screws Bernie. They don't want another 1972.
The question isn't whether they vote for Trump. They'll just stay home. Then your statistic would still be right yet miss the point. That pollster should have asked about the stay home factor.
You originally said there was a lot of overlap between Sanders and Trump supporters, so now I'm not sure what "the point" is because it seems to have changed.
I still believe that. You quoted me a poll to the contrary. I said that I nevertheless still hold my opinion.
NYT Endorses Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar
YESS!!!
:razz:
The comrades want this! They deserve it.
Let's have that Trump Bernie meeting, which Trump chickened out last time.
From the Jan. 14, 2020 Democratic Party Presidential Debate:
[quote=Sen. Elizabeth Warren]So can a woman beat Donald Trump? Look at the men on this stage. Collectively they have lost 10 elections. The only people on this stage who have won every single election they've been in are the women, [Sen.] Amy [Klobuchar] and me.[/quote]
I think the point of the NYT's dual endorsement is
(a) the Democratic Party establishment - the DNC, Slick & Shillary, "O'Biden", Senator "Wall Street" Schumer + donors, etc (which also includes much of the NYT editorial board) - oppose Sanders again ... no surprise;
(b) to (demand? i.e. plant their flag) that the country vote (again) for a woman for president, which is especially timely with the tRUMP era ascendency of so many women politicians, anti-tRUMP/GOP mobilization of suburban women, the master-class political leadership of Speaker Pelosi, the #me too movement, and recent ratification of the ERA in Virginia;
(c) and to propose a "balanced" Northeast-Midwest ticket before the primaries (NB: I like the chances of Klobuchar & Warren coming out of the Iowa Caucus on top) that's strong enough, smart enough & ideologically broad enough in appeal to steamroll over tRUMP in the fall.
IMHO, not "incoherent" at all. :wink:
Btw, I'd prefer a Warren-Castro or even Klobuchar-Castro ticket to a Warren-Klobuchar (or Klobuchar-Warren) ticket ...
I've been challenged before on my opinion that a moderate has a better chance than Warren or Bernie, so I'll try to head that off. The pro-Bernie/Warren folks suggest they'll energize the base and bring more people out. IMO, this will result in them winning Blue states by a bigger margin than Hillary did in 2016 (which doesn't garner any more electoral votes), but it raises the risk of losing the swing states. The result could be an even bigger margin of popular vote victory than Hillary received, but still losing the electoral college. My view on this is consistent with state-specific polling in swing states - which show Biden has the best shot (and maybe the ONLY shot) of beating Trump.
Keep in mind that Incumbents rarely lose, especially when the economy is doing well. The only reason it's looking even CLOSE is because of this incumbent's off-putting behavior (I'll leave it at that, to avoid having this thread merged into the Trump thread).
Her alleged abusiveness isn't disqualifying. It's apparently contributed to her problem keeping staff, but if she were President, it probably wouldn't have THAT result - there's prestige and power associated with serving a President, so I think most people would just buck up under the petty complaints she might make. A positive spin on her behavior is that she is singularly focused on getting the work done, and doesn't waste energy fretting about the feelings of her staff.
It's a minor issue in the big picture, but, having served in the military years ago, I would prefer a CIC who has had some military experience. I like Mayor Pete and I like Tulsi (particularly since she demonstrates she can still do pushups! :smile: )
But I suspect Trump will pull it off after a disastrous performance by Biden in the final debate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/05/opinion/amy-klobuchar-2020.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR09Cmo48CZlnbNLDTtAj-TVQC_RDWDJJjZooVhHFTfz1kikIMVUigezh7g
Bernie. Was just at a rally Saturday in New Hampshire -- lots of enthusiasm, lots of young people, the most consistent candidate out there.
For all those worried about Trump being re-elected, which is definitely possible, remember that he won Michigan by about 11 thousand votes, Pennsylvania by 44 thousand, and Wisconsin by 24 thousand. That's not a lot. His approval rating in all three states is low.
There's also no guarantee he wins Florida. And if Florida goes blue, it's over. Biden seems to poll better there than anyone else -- but it's so early the polling is essentially meaningless.
I really hope it's Bernie, and we do not make the same mistake we made with Clinton. Nominate someone decent this time, with real ideas and a campaign funded entirely by real people.
The NYT "endorsement" is so spineless and pathetic they play right into Trump's hands.
I think this misses an important point: we already have the numbers in this country. All we need is to get the vote out. We need organization and enthusiasm. I don't buy the fact that Obama won because he was moderate -- it's because people turned out for him, they were excited about his candidacy (foolishly, in my view, but that's irrelevant).
So you may be correct, but honestly if Bernie or Warren are "too radical" for people to the point that they vote for Trump or 3rd party, or even stay home, then we deserve Trump another 4 years. But I don't think that will happen. Person after person I talk to cares about one thing: electing anyone but Trump -- they don't care who it is. We saw the turnout in the midterm elections in '18 -- it'll happen again in 20.
Don't be ridiculous. They're trying to make it as hard as possible to vote in some states. Republicans are doing all they can to suppress the votes and gerrymander because they see the trends.
I used to think as you do, and not vote. I hated all the propaganda trying like "Vote or Die" and the like. But I was wrong. Especially in swing states, you most certainly should vote. It's not the only thing that matters -- we can do much more than voting -- but in a country as powerful as ours, it matters and should be the minimum.
I don't think we do have the numbers in the swing states, and it's probable Republicans will be fired up if a "socialist" runs. I know Bernie supporters are enthusiastic, but not all Democrats are enthusiastic Bernie supporters. My wife can't stand him, although she'd vote for chicken poop over Trump.
Obama fired up black voters - their turnout was unprecedented. He ran against moderates (McCain and Romney), so there wasn't all that much space between them. There's huge space between Trump and any sane alternative, so choosing sides is pretty easy.
You may be right. I waver. Do I want a country where children are put in cages, where we are divided by the demagogues into racial divisions, where pre-existing conditions aren’t covered, where the President openly acts like a king, where right-wing judges rule the land, etc. etc.? No. Will anything change for me personally? No. But at least I can say I did the communal thing. Perhaps I will vote.
They're fired up anyway. There is no ideal candidate. The Trump people will vote Trump. The swing voters, if there are any, greatly dislike this president. After four years, I think they've given him "a chance" and will now vote blue, regardless of the candidate -- like your wife.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Are you sure about that? I didn't think so either, but things have changed. They're minor compared to others -- but my taxes have changed; I've had to pay money back for the first time in my life thanks to the tax scam, the company I work for has had to make changes, etc. I agree with you that it may not effect us individually that much, but seeing things you mentioned happening and not even doing the bare minimum is just a mistake. If you're out there organizing, protesting, engaging collaboratively with others on a local level, and things like that, and then decide not to vote....OK, in that case I suppose I could understand. Although it'd be strange. But if you're like me (and many others) who barely have enough time for anything, we've got to at least push a button against the worst.
True. It's frustrating.
If this was the case it would make more sense for the NYT to exclusively endorse Klobachar, since she more or less encompasses (a) & (b), while (c) is superfluous given the Northeast will be voting blue en bloc. What's "incoherent" about endorsing two candidates at once is that voters can only vote for one, and only one candidate can win. But more to the point, how the NYT came to this decision isn't collectively calibrated to the extent that you're formulating. The process for making an endorsement was that the 15 members of the Editorial Board voted for their two top candidates and the top choice wins the endorsement. In this case, Warren received 8 votes and Klobuchar 7. (Booker, who dropped out after the voting was already conducted, came in 3rd with 6 votes, which just goes to show how these people might simply be clueless.)
Ultimately, Warren won, but despite that they decided to add Klobuchar to the endorsement and I think the more discernible explanation for this rather haphazard decision is best elucidated via James Bennet, the Editorial Page Editor and member of the Editorial Board, who stated in 2018:
Warren, tout court, is a bit too radical for the "pro-capitalism" liberal Grey Lady, and the addition of Klobochur was simply used to dilute the otherwise subversive selection while simultaneously being presented to the public under the facade of feminism. America's Paper of Record can't alarm Capital, and instead opted for banal Liberal Indecisiveness.
But also, who cares? Bernie, who has the strongest donor base and grassroots support received a single vote from the Editorial Board. What does that say about them? I'm much more interested in the fact that several young politicians (of color) who will take up the mantel of Left politics in America, such as Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar endorsed Bernie, as did Pramila Jayapal (et. al.) I'm much more interested that Labor Organizations such as National Nurses United (representing 150K nurses), or the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (representing 36K blue collar workers) and others, endorsed Bernie.
Hahaha "buck up". That's victim-blaming nonsense. The problem isn't that Amy doesn't currently have staff that are tough enough to have a phone thrown at them, it's that Amy is throwing phones at staff.
The Trump team should also like this.
[quote=Wikipedia]A trump is a playing card which is elevated above its usual rank in trick-taking games. Typically, an entire suit is nominated as a trump suit; these cards then outrank all cards of plain (non-trump) suits. In other contexts, the terms trump card or to trump can refer to any sort of action, authority, or policy which automatically prevails over all others.[/quote]
All trumps are winners
Donald Trump is a trump
Ergo
Donald Trump is a winner (always)
:joke:
Please. The argument that one candidate will be less of a target for Trump and the right-wing media is absurd. To worry about it is a waste of time. It's exactly the mistake the Republican establishment made in '16 with Trump. The difference is: his win was a long shot. Bernie's (or anyone's candidacy not dubbed "moderate") chances are far greater, as nearly every proposal of his is supported by majorities.
Swing voters (both independents and never-Trumper Republicans) who don't like Trump won't vote for him, but if they also don't like the Democratic candidate - they'll stay home. My top priority is to oust Trump, and that priority is best served by picking the Democrat I feel has the best chance to win - and that entails being palatable to swing voters.
Fuck the swing voters, then. If they're going to stay home, let them. I'd rather a candidate that energizes the people with new ideas than to have someone bland but who appeals to a few bland people.
Fuck, yes, the GOP boys who cry socialist may as well get their asses bit by a real one.
Absolutely! Beyond question. Why? Because I'm rational. Any Sanders supporter who doesn't vote for the democratic non-Sanders nominee is an imbecile, in my view. Sanders essentially says this himself.
I 'voted' for Bloomberg. I'm hoping he gets some exposure here soon. From what I can tell thus far, he could be the 'moderate' (I'm a moderate independent) who has both political and business sense that appears strong enough to beat Trump. That could be a better alternative to sleepy Joe... .
Otherwise I'll settle for either Warren or Bernie (if I have to) as a protest vote to get Trump out. It's very clear now, Trump can't be trusted at all. (And finally BTW, Christianity Today recently saw the light in their Op-Ed where they apparently no longer have 'unanimous' support for the dumper Trumper. LOL )
"But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.
The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused."
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html
Stating the obvious, but good for them.
- Aggressive accusations and ad hominem attacks
- not much substance or debate about policies.
And Americans will be even more divided.
Whopee. Can't wait for this shit show.
Thank you kindly Baden!
I will forward that to my Fundy friend and get his take...needless to say, he and I have had our 'moments'... .
BTW, I've got a 2020 slogan, so if you're feelin-it, please pass it on:
Dump-Trump
So it's like now the boy crying "Wolf!" can genuinely cry wolf, because what the heck, let's give him a wolf?
Yes, At least with Bernie you have a politician that has stated to being a socialist. So at least it's not just fabricated lies. And I think you know perfectly well how Trump will go on with the campaign: the only way he knows.
I don't see any other outcome than that the polarization will get worse, any kind of real debate will be marginalized with the ad hominems and the foolish invented topics. Likely it's even worse than in 2016 and this might discourage people from voting.
I fear is that all the ugliness in elections and polarization will come to this continent too as our politicians eagerly mimic what you are doing. At least here it's not so bad as in Sweden, but it could go there.
It's all just a big "wash." So let's just throw up our hands and give up. This is just superficial analysis.
Yes, there's plenty of lying, corruption, bribery, and hypocrisy in both major political parties. But they're not equivalent. To take just one example, and the most important: climate change. One party says nice things about what they'll do about it, the other party denies it's happening altogether. How anyone "independently" minded can look at that alone and not at least "caucus" with the Democrats is continually baffling to me.
Of all the countries in Europe, you choose as an example of political ugliness Sweden?
Baffling.
Quite logically: it's our neighbor. We have a habit looking to Sweden for examples how things ought to be done. We usually don't look to the East, for some reason.
Yes, Xtrix, how can thinking people vote Republican?
Perhaps Eisenhower can be understood, but how could the American people pick Nixon, Reagan, Bush senior, Bush junior and Trump???
(hint: be as condescending towards your fellow citizens as you can in the reasoning.)
Not ALL Republicans deny anthropogenic global warming. This article mentions some (somewhat) positive things put forward by Republicans. The tone of the article is negative toward what they're doing, but it does at least show that they're accepting that its occuring.
That said, we all know that our current President denies it, and nothing meaningful will pass while he's in office - and his party enables this.
Exactly, when they're the party who's literally pushing us to the precipice of destruction. To say it's the party of Eisenhower or even Bush is a joke. They're now off the spectrum.
Quoting Relativist
The article's headline is the Republican plan is Big Oil's plan. Yes, they're been bullshitting for years about "clean coal" and other myths of that nature. They intend to do nothing, as the planet burns. For those who identify as Republicans who aren't outright deniers, to vote Republican at this point is simply insane. Either vote third party or don't vote at all if you can't stomach a (D) next to a name -- anything short of that, at this point, is voting the party who simply dismisses climatology as a hoax because their donors tell them to, and is thus insane.
So anyone voting GOP is insane. Nice. That will do the trick.
Have nice elections!
Another bit of insanity I see on the Republican side is a "no-compromise" stance. If Democrats adopt the mirror image of that, then big change cannot happen.
Correct. For the reasons I mentioned, which you continue to ignore.
Quoting Relativist
Their denial of climate change is what makes them insane. If they suddenly become interested in acknowledging the threat and make good faith efforts to help mitigate it, then they're no longer insane and those voting for them have more of a case. But I don't see that happening.
Voters themselves are, unfortunately, rather ignorant -- republican or democrat. They're not necessarily voting based on informed reasoning anyway.
But I agree the more people who join in, the better.
Are they actually so ignorant? 99% of the time, voters are being asked to vote for one ruling class candidate against another. They are not being asked whether the local power plant is sending too much CO2 up the stack. They aren't being asked whether neonicotinoids should be sprayed on crops, wiping out tons of insects. They aren't being asked to make specific decisions through voting.
What the electorate is asked to do is to vote for candidates they think/hope/wish will do something good for them (the voter) but which does not happen, much more often than not. Do voters have a lot of stupid ideas floating around in their heads. Sure they do -- but nothing as grandiose and ruinous as the stupid ideas floating around in the heads of the ruling class who are running things.
That "voters are stupid" is something of a class smear. Most voters are working class, by virtue of their composing by far the largest segment of potential voters. Dismissing most people as stupid leaves you with the narcissists, lunatics, megalomaniacs, and manipulating creeps who want to run things.
I prefer the ruling class smear: There is much more evidence at hand to support their bad reputation.
BTW, how do you happen to be exempt from your sweeping generalization?
I actually agree with you. I didn't say stupid, I said ignorant. Ignorant about science, ignorant really even about politics. They're ignorant of history and geography. People are ignorant about all kinds of things. I don't necessarily blame them, especially when the educational system is designed to fail and the media system is designed to brainwash (or else distract them from anything meaningful).
Point well taken.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Because I've educated myself. The ability to do so in this country isn't impossible, but you have to be willing to make the effort.
Again, I don't fault people for having busy lives, having to work several jobs, etc. I wouldn't expect them to come home and do a research project, assuming they even had the interest.
Yes. Not only that, but they are totally insane if they don't disagree Xtrix. Those climate deniers!
Quoting Bitter Crank
Your not listening to Xtrix.
They are insane. End of discussion.
(Btw, there's great series from PBS Frontline The Great Divide with interesting interviews. I base my pessimism on listening to likes of Robert Reich and Frank Luntz, who interestingly support each other in many issues,...and the various discussions on this forum. I think Luntz will be correct on his view on the election. I would hope I'd be wrong.)
Allow me a loud AMEN!
To each his/her own, but it is beyond me how any intelligent person can even consider voting to allow Trump to continue the carnage.
It's a good time to get philosophical about things. Deflate your passions and look at the situation as if from outer space.
So judging from your attempt at sarcasm, we can conclude climate denial is NOT insane? Fine. How about completely irrational.
Eh, you're a waste of time. Stick with your battles against the dystopia of Sweden.
"Obviously"? Not really. The simple fact that we have a candidate (Sanders) breaking a century of American political history, since the late 19th century, running on individual contributions -- also without establishment support or media support, and labeling himself with the scare word "socialist," -- this is a remarkable fact indeed.
Massive enthusiasm, huge popularity. All grassroots. And now he's leading or within the margin of error in the polls, including general election polls.
That's "weak"? Nonsense.
And insanity? People have believed in silly things (like the Soviet Union), but that doesn't make them insane. And calling them insane won't help. On the contrary. Your inability to notice (or understand) my or Bitter Cranks point about this just shows how deep this problem goes.
People like you simply show that the polarization is real. And it will not go away.
I'm sure he does appear strong in some places. It's a big country, though. I don't see him connecting with swing voters, especially after the promise to legalize pot with an executive order IIRC.
I love the guy. I'd love to have him as president. On the national level, he's a weak candidate.
Cry me a river. Sue me for believing I was talking to an adult.
I'm talking on a philosophy forum. This isn't a media junket. If you can't see my point here, you're just deluding yourself so you can make the same tired, fatuous points people want to make all the time about the perils of name-calling.
Even still, I'm not insulting people, nor would I use the choice of words like "insane" when dealing in most social contexts. But it's a description of reality, made to seemingly rational adults on an online forum. There's no other way to describe voting for utter environmental catastrophe than utter insanity, ignorance, or complete irrationality.
So sorry if that's harsh to your virgin ears. Grow up, Peter Pan.
And, again, that's nonsense. It's your own "gut-feeling" analysis, which is useless to me. Look at the facts: he beats Trump in national polls, he's been the most popular politician in America (according to even a Fox News poll take a while back), he's doing very well in Iowa and New Hampshire (both fairly independent-minded states - more so NH), even better in California. Yes, 48% of the country will probably vote conservative no matter what -- that's not saying anything.
If he's weak, then what's Trump? Trump who lost by 3 million votes. Trump who's approval rating is consistently lower than most presidents. And on and on. So if Bernie is still "weak," then who the hell is "strong"?
I think the Democratic field is not weak at all. And when compared with the Republican "field"...it looks positively powerful.
I do agree that Trump has a fairly decent chance of winning a second term...but that is faint praise indeed. Any president running for re-election with an "ok" economy...should be a prohibitive favorite for re-election...not just someone with a fairly decent chance.
I am being philosophical...but I also am being passionate. My feelings about Trump being our president are extremely negative...and I want very much for him to be out of office. I suspect I would feel that same way if I were on a space station.
Frank, if you're on a space station, take in the view, don't worry about American politics.
I am here on Earth...seeing the Republic (temporarily in our custody) being violated...and speaking out against the violation.
Why not join me.
None of my posts get deleted, because I don't name-call. As far as expressing myself too strongly -- perhaps. Others certainly have pointed that out. But it's because these issues are important.
But I think you missed the point.
Although the Presidential election polls put the Democrat candidates either winning or in a tie with Trump, it's not really clear how the elections will go and anything with Trump can (and will) happen. But how it's going, Trump can easily lose.
It's noteworthy that pre-election polls in 2016 put Trump losing to ANYBODY ELSE than Hillary Clinton, with whom he had a chance of winning. Biden and the group don't anger Republicans as much as the Clintons, but then again the real mud throwing hasn't begun.
An oft repeated mantra with startlingly little by way of empirical support.
It is not a fox...it is a pig.
Yeah...there's been lots of lipstick applied to that pig...
...but it is still a pig.
Still, a mantra of this forum, actually.
I hope Sanders and Warren team up, or Warren and Booker would be good... I'm pretty sure the DNC will push for more representation in the form of a male/female combo, ideally with some color thrown in. I guess that means Sanders might run with Harris.
I've loved seeing Gabbard and Wang in the race. They've brought up issues no one else has the guts to mention. I also can't wait to see Gabbard win her lawsuit against Hillary.
Biden needs to go far far away from this campaign.
Electing a socialist wouldnt be much more than an aesthetic victory.
Actually, I can (and do) agree with that.
My position on the issue you raise is: There are defects in the kind of capitalism that now is the norm in America...and I think adjustments can be made to improve it. Socialist countries borrow from capitalistic countries in order to make their system better. China has done that to the point where, more than likely, it will surpass the US as the most robust economy during the next couple of decades. (Maybe sooner.)
We can borrow from them...to the betterment of capitalism...and at no significant cost to the underling capitalistic system.
I wish we would do it.
We would, indeed.
I suspect they own a lot more of us...than appears publicly to be the case. And what "appears publicly to be the case"...is already a hell of a lot.
It would help if we had a capitalist system to begin with, but we don't. In any meaningful sense. It's a corporate nanny state economy. Friedman and others loved to use Hong Kong and the Asian tigers as examples of capitalism improving lives, but it's a complete joke.
This is purely anecdotal, but I don't know ONE person voting for Biden. I don't see anyone online, on radio or on television who's "excited" by Biden's running, either. It's a lot like Clinton in '16. I remember all the celebrities coming out trying to stoke the crowds, pushing the "first woman president" thing, and from what I saw it nearly always fell flat or else looked so contrived as to be embarrassing.
That's why it's shocking to me that he's leading in the polls, and does very well in key swing states. Fine, so be it -- I go with the polls over my own extremely limited sample size, but yet I wonder where these people are, how enthused they are, and why they aren't more vocal.
Here in New Hampshire, I'm seeing lots of signs for Bernie, for example. A few for Pete, Yang, plenty of Tulsi, a couple for Warren...I have yet to see ONE for Joe Biden. Here or in Massachusetts, where I work. Again, not going to claim there's some conspiracy out there -- I believe the polls -- but it does leave me wondering. Anyone else relate to this?
That's a kind of capitalism, it's just state capitalism, which is the worst of both worlds.
Quoting Xtrix
And it seems like he should have even worse odds than Clinton in '16, because women I know who were excited about Clinton despite her not being very exciting for policy reasons, just because she was the possible first women president, are all rolling their eyes and sighing about the possibility of Biden, yet another old white man. Of course, they're also equally unenthusiastic about Bernie, yet another old white man, despite the drastic policy differences between them. Sigh. Tribalism makes me sad.
Why not call it state socialism? You see my point -- "capitalism" and "socialism" are almost completely devoid of meaning at this point. The reality is that our economy is designed to favor concentrations of power -- whatever you call it, it's not what Adam Smith had in mind.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Fair enough. My thing is -- it's so early, let Bernie ride his enthusiastic core of supporters and then win over the rest once they learn a LITTLE more than "he's a socialist." I think many will like the policies.
Because it’s not at all socialist? Where in any of this corporatism is ownership of the means of the production, or even the proceeds from it, being distributed to the people? Instead wealth is being concentrated in the hands of those who already have more of it, which is the opposite of socialism: capitalism.
Quoting Xtrix
If so, that’s a product of Cold War era propaganda conflating them with command economies and free markets, respectively. Socialism is not opposed to free markets, just capitalism. Free markets are not opposed to socialism, just command economies. You can have state capitalism, and libertarian socialism, and it’s just the statists and capitalists who want you to believe otherwise.
Quoting Xtrix
That’s true. Adam Smith never advocated capitalism, just free markets. He probably would have been a libertarian socialist if he had lived to see socialism become a thing. Capitalism seems the opposite of what he expected free markets to create.
It is if you listen to Fox News. It's a welfare system. What they leave out is that it's mainly welfare for the corporate world, not the welfare queens.
Quoting Pfhorrest
That's not even fair to capitalism, either.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Absolutely right.
Quoting Pfhorrest
He did give an argument for markets, but the argument was that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality. That’s the argument for them, because he thought that equality of condition (not just opportunity) is what you should be aiming at.
That may be so, but that doesn't make it socialism. States protecting the welfare of the wealthy is the opposite of socialist. (And the commonness of that happening is one of the main complaints libertarian socialist have, who is against state socialism because, among other reasons, the state part just gets co-opted by the powerful and undos the socialism part; just like they're against libertarian capitalism because the capitalism part leads to de facto states and undoes the libertarian part).
Quoting Xtrix
It's the definition of capitalism: where those who have greater wealth than others (specifically in the form of capital) use that difference to extract further wealth from those who have less than them (with which to acquire further capital and accelerate the process). It's not the definition of a free market, sure, but you seem to accept that "free market" is not a synonym for "capitalism".
Quoting Xtrix
Correct, which is why I think he would have been a libertarian socialist, had he lived to see socialism become a thing at all. The libertarian socialists who came after him have long been proposing solutions to the problem of why markets in practice haven't lived up to that theoretical ideal. (Spoiler warning: it's because states, including private armies bought by capitalist robber-barons, enforcing unlimited claims to property and power to contract, undermines the actual freedom of the market, so the solution is to stop the enforcement of those illegitimate claims and powers and let the market be truly free).
There is one person in the Democratic Party campaign contingent who obviously scares Trump...Joe Biden. He is the one Trump most fears as an opponent.
Good enough for me. Biden will be my guy...although I'll have to wait for the General Election, because I am a registered Independent. I get no vote in the Primary Election. But at this point, I would vote for Satan rather than Trump...so I will be voting for the Democratic Party candidate no matter what.
I acknowledge that Trump will very likely win a second term.
The US?
Would a system controlled by the rich make that obvious (that it isn't socialism)?
You're getting hung up on definitions, which is the point I was making: no one in this country has any idea about these terms. Regarding your definitions, yes I roughly agree with interpreting socialism that way, but your presentation of capitalism (while true) is a minority view. Most say something about a profit-based system and private ownership. But it's all hair-splitting anyway, and really wasn't my point.
Quoting Pfhorrest
I'm skeptical about the concept of "free markets" as well. A lot of fantasies about them, but very little evidence that they exist, have existed, or can exist.
Very likely? I don't see strong evidence for this. I'd say he has a 50/50 shot.
The rich want a very strong welfare state -- for themselves. Thus they can take huge risks and have the taxpayers bail them out, get huge subsidies at taxpayer expense, tax breaks, favorable trade legislation, etc.
Of course that isn't socialism. My point is that the people who decry "socialism" as just giving money away to poor people who don't work (the "welfare queen"), all at taxpayer expense, never seem to turn around and accuse the government of being a "welfare state" for the rich -- which in reality is what it is. So if we're calling social welfare programs for the poor "socialist", why not for the rich? That's the point. I'm not confused about the US: it's a state capitalist system.
There are no socialists running.
That's socialism for the rich and powerful(including elected officials) and brute careless capitalism for everyone else.
Oh thank god.
If I were Trump I would love nothing better than to have Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee thanks to his 40 year career as a non-progressive establishment Democrat, his deteriorating brain which disallows him to speak for more than several minutes without digressing in an incoherent blob.
Further, Joe Biden's support among the youth is abysmal and his nomination would lay bare the disdain the Democratic party's establishment has for the concerns of its Millennial/Gen Z constituents who are inheriting the mistakes made by their parents and older generations.
And according to a Lev Parnas leaked audio, Trump claimed, "If Bernie would have been VP it would have been tougher...I got 20% of Bernie vote [note, this is not true, it was ~12%] because of trade. He's a big trade guy...Had she picked Bernie Sanders it would have been tougher. He is the only one I didn't want her to pick."
One...you are not Trump, Maw.
Two...if you were, you would be terrified of Biden...JUST AS TRUMP IS.
Three...Bernie stands for many of the things I see as essential to a more reasonable system...but I think Bernie would be a disaster as the candidate. Despite the fact that I agree with many of his "proposals" (wishes)...I hope he is not the Democratic Party candidate. I WILL ENTHUSIASTICALLY VOTE FOR HIM IF HE IS...because I would vote for Satan rather than Trump.
This is an interesting question. Yet are the older generations more important in the voting electorate? The younger generations seem to be less active to vote, so perhaps Boomers & Gen X are still more important than they appear at first.
Right, historically younger generations are less active voters compared to older generations, however your second graph ends in 2012, when nearly all of Gen Z were unable to vote. Looking at more contemporary data, you can see in the graph below that youth participation enjoyed a larger percentage jump than older generations, compared to 4 years earlier. What young voters require is motivation and they won't get that with Biden.
More to the point, the issue isn't voter rate between generations. Given the population differences between generations, as per your graph, the crux of the matter is the absolute numbers of voters. This was substantiated by research from PEW (although they bucketed Gen X with Millennials and Gen Z), which shows that younger generations outvoted older generations in the 2018 election. And a majority of Gen Z, the largest population out of any generation, are still are not old enough to vote, and so will have an even greater impact in the 2020 election (and beyond) and they enter voting age.
There's no evidence of this at all. Again, gut feelings isn't political analysis.
Biden would be a terrible candidate. Just more establishment Democrat bullshit -- exactly like Hillary.
Maybe Trump fears him, maybe not. We have no idea. Trump's an imbecile anyway, so who cares?
(So that's a notch on the wall.)
Well...I think Trump's actions with regard to Biden IS evidence of his fear of the man, but I agree so completely with your last statement about Trump being an imbecile, that I will leave that as a final comment.
Four years ago they endorsed Hilary Clinton. For a good paper, they are apt to make unpopular choices. Maybe they are paid off. I dunno.
This is true... it's also true that political analysis is not gut feelings.
You wouldn't believe what most voters consider important when they make a choice on the ballots.
Some always vote for red-haired candidates.
Some always vote for the female candidates.
Some vote for the wife beater candidate.
Some, for the racist ones.
Some, for whoever their wives tells them to.
Some, randomly. (There are those as well.)
And the list is approaching infinite length.
:roll: Déjà vu all over again, huh?
Des Moines Register endorses Warren 9 days before Iowa primary.
I saw this in the Atlantic and actually laughed out loud. They're fucking terrified, and it's hilarious. The article itself is mind-bending too: it compares Warren to Sanders on transgender issues, and disfavourably knocks Sanders for emphasising healthcare over - wait for it - Warren's promise to read out names in a fucking rose garden. Bsvakdvzjclcgsusks. Words actually fail.
Since it's counter to conventional wisdom, it would be.. bold. If you're from New England, there's a factor you may not be aware of. To the rest of the country, Bernie doesn't even slightly seem like "one of us." All Trump has to do is attach "socialist" to him somehow, and that foreignness becomes scary.
I don't expect you to listen to what I'm trying to tell you. I've just got downtime and extra energy.
Frank, I'm listening. You might be right of course -- but you might be wrong, too. That's why we have to go on the only evidence we have. Just asserting "Bernie doesn't even slightly seem like 'one of us'" isn't an argument. He's done fine outside of New England, and as I've mentioned before is one of the most popular politicians in America AND was polling better than Clinton was in '16 versus Trump.
If Bernie isn't one of you, who is? Biden? Warren? Bloomberg? The argument can be made they're not one of you either, in fact more so.
Let's face it: for some people, a (D) next to your name is all it takes to be counted as an outsider. It's not like there's a magic candidate that will make people like this start looking closely at the issues and suddenly become rational.
This is the one that had me laughing out loud:
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/bernie-sanders-electable-trump-2020-nomination-popular-socialism.html
Good. The more they push, the more Clinton talks up how unlikable he is, etc., the more he'll gain.
I definitely might be wrong. There's an aspect to contemporary politics that is purely aesthetic. We refer to NIxon and Kennedy appearing on television as the point where it started. Reagan's charisma turned out to be more important than his capabilities as a politician. Incumbents have an aesthetic advantage because they already look presidential.
A lot of people will vote based on instinct rather than knowledge of issues. That may sound terrible, but people with any experience with politicians know they say what they think you want to hear. It's business as usual for them to fail to keep their promises, and anyway, life is dynamic. If we're faced with the prospect of nuking China, who do you want in the driver's seat?
However great a president Bernie would be, to get elected, he has to appear a person who could take command of the military. In my opinion, he doesn't look that way at all. For all his idiocy, Trump the Bully looks like a better bet in a street fight.
What do you actually think about how Bernie presents himself? Does he appear strong to you?
Is it the 3 houses? All power to him. Even a self-proclaimed democratic socialist can make it big in America.
I actually like Bernie, but I apologize for shining a light on your sacred cows.
Me too.
About as strong as Trump does -- 70-somethings with a lot of bluster. Sure, Trump wears more makeup and is fatter -- plus he talks a good game. But all he's ever done is hide behind his money, his lawyers, and his bodyguards. Bernie knows far more about foreign policy, and he talks forcefully and with true conviction.
If you're asking who'd win in a fight -- who knows? Who cares? I suppose people do care about stuff like that, but back in 2000 it was all about "who you'd have a beer with." How'd that turn out? It's true people vote for all kinds of emotional reasons, but the point is that we have no way of figuring that out.
It reminds me of playing poker. Plenty of people play poker and make decisions based on all kinds of weird beliefs. In the long run, they're losers, and all you can do if you're a good player is make mathematically correct choices.
Bernie is the right choice, regardless of what cards come. Let's just try a non neo-liberal candidate for the first time in 50 years.
Fine. He's the all American boy. He's still dividing the Democratic party.
Very. The best kind of strength, the kind that's not afraid to stand up to bullies, but isn't going to become one either. That's exactly the kind of person I want holding the nuclear football: someone who's not going to use it, and is not going to stand for anyone else using theirs either, who's actually going to show concern for whatever is pushing anyone else to consider using theirs, bring them to the negotiating table, and talk out a win-win solution instead of just threatening lose-lose unless we get our way. A principled negotiator.
Which side of that split are you on?
I live in an extremely "safe" state where my personal vote is unlikely to influence the actual electoral outcome. As such, I usually vote third party in protest, to encourage the Democrats to move more toward the party I vote for so as to try to recapture that vote. I will probably vote Democratic in the general presidential election if Bernie gets the nomination, to reward them for that. Otherwise, probably Green.
But if I lived in a swing state, where my individual vote stood a chance of actually mattering, I would definitely vote for whichever Democratic candidate got the nomination just to prevent the worst option from winning. And I advocate for everybody else to do the same: if you live in a safe state, vote your conscience, vote third party unless you really do like a mainstream candidate best, vote whichever one you like, whether your state is safe red or safe blue and whether you lean left or right, vote your conscience when your vote matters so little, because doing otherwise is throwing it away. But if you live in a swing state, vote Democratic, even if their candidate sucks, because the Republican is assuredly worse.
I understand. I think a fair number of people think in terms of advocation or perhaps think their political leanings say something about who they are and so they defend their choices as they defend themselves.
Bernie supporters are known for intensity and the Newsweek article is pointing to the short sightedness that goes along with that. Though you aren't fanatical, I note that you also look at the scene through emotion-laden lenses instead of assessing it mechanically, which is fine. The Democratic party is not devoid of people who can look at the situation with cold reason. Those people are in a bad situation at present.
What makes you say this? I have emotions, sure, but I'm aiming to do practical things to bring about the ends I think should be brought about. My actual political philosophy is completely outside the Overton window of electoral politics, so I'm not unequivocally in favor of anybody in the field; the whole system is undesirable to me, and I'm looking to vote (and encourage others to vote) however is most likely to move it as much as possible (which is not very much) in the direction of where I want things to actually be.
Because instead and standing beside me to assess the landscape, you directed a sermon at me.
Instead of noting how people think and act, you signalled how they should do so.
You also asked me which side of a divide about a prescriptive question I fall on ("supporting" is a prescriptive thing), so I gave my answer to that prescriptive question. A descriptive answer to such a question would have been nonsense. And it wasn't "a sermon" "directed" at you. I wasn't telling you in particular what to do. I was saying what I generally encourage anyone to do, because that's what the question was about.
Yes, but the post you drew my question from was about aesthetics. I mentioned the Nixon/Kennedy TV appearance and Reagan. I was assessing charisma.
How on earth do you see prescriptions having a bearing on that?
Quoting Pfhorrest
I was asking if you understand that if Bernie loses the nomination, you should still vote for a Democrat if want RBG's seat to go to a freaking liberal. I was not asking for you to virtue signal.
Quoting Pfhorrest
It was a sermon all the same.
Quoting Pfhorrest
It most certainly wasn't. Your confusion is an indication of your inability to remove emotion from your mind long enough to look at anything mechanically.
I gave you my impression of Bernie's aesthetics directly without mentioning anything prescriptive. Then you asked me which side of a divide about supporting or not-supporting a non-Bernie candidate I would fall on. Supporting is a prescriptive thing.
Quoting frank
"Should" is a prescriptive thing. And I clarified that for me personally, living in a state where all electoral votes are going to whoever gets the Democratic nomination regardless of how I personally vote, the "should" statement you make above is actually false, but that I do understand that it is true for people who live in swing states. That's the entire "sermon" that apparently triggered you so hard.
Quoting frank
Straw Vulcan is not a good look (just to bring things back to aesthetics for you).
As did Trump with the Republicans. Now it's the Trump Party. In three years. Things can change rapidly if the voters are behind a candidate. Yes, Bernie is splitting the Democratic establishment. His policies are also supported by majorities of Americans (which is often forgotten).
Quoting Xtrix
Yea, David Frum, who was a speechwriter from George Bush, was a big War on Terror cheerleader, and coined the term 'Axis of Evil' wrote The Atlantic article. Jonathan Chait, who wrote the New York Magazine article, argued that liberals should support Donald Trump for GOP nominee because Clinton would have easily beaten him. He also supported the War in Iraq.
These are just people paid to tell certain groups what they want to hear. I mean anyone who cheerlead the Iraq War or a Trump nomination should have quit their jobs in shame and found a new line of work.
Oh, him. I was too flabbergasted by the title and the content to read who actually wrote the damn thing lol. But yeah, that makes total sense. And Chait is a fucking joke too.
No kidding? I'm not familiar with either of them, but it makes perfect sense now.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/02/why-liberals-should-support-a-trump-nomination.html
Another win.
If Bernie can win Iowa, his momentum will be hard to stop. Only 4 more days...
[quote=Very Stable Covfefe, 02.02.2020]Congratulations to the Kansas City Chiefs on a great game, and a fantastic comeback, under immense pressure. You represented the Great State of Kansas and, in fact, the entire USA, so very well. Our Country is PROUD OF YOU![/quote]
Wow. 200 000 in an 300 million country.
Btw, American Postal Service has 644 000 employees, so if even in a government organization you have only 31% belonging to a union, things aren't well for organized labor. But it isn't even so: in the 200,000 members there are also retirees.
The Big Picture:
Bill Clinton.
NAFTA.
The Internet Boom (early 1990's to 2000) was in full swing.
See 1990s United States boom
Imagine thinking that receiving the endorsement of the union representing the third largest employer in the country isn't important or noteworthy.
I would lean towards intentionally neglected to be mentioned by opposing candidates... not forgotten.
Choose a side, or better yet...
Let's look at what you've already chosen(in cases where it applies)... Bernie was right at the time, and sometimes he was the only one(the only nay).
:wink:
But he's done nothing to correct the trade problems. Despite all his blather. American manufacturing and building trades are no better off from anything he has done. Bernie will be quick to point this out and point it out clearly.
That dynamic(adopting Bernie's talking points) is no longer available if Bernie receives the nomination. If he does not, and he loses to Biden, then the same dynamic will apply again, because Biden cannot pick up those talking points any more than Hillary could.
Bernie 2020!
ssu is not an American, and based upon his/her participation on these forums, has absolutely no vested interest in the success of the USA, but rather seems to be more interested is sewing discord. So...
Touche.
Quoting creativesoul
This is an important point. Especially things like "rigged system." Trump wanted to appear to be an outsider running against the establishment, and saw the excitement of the Bernie crowd. He also said over and over how badly Bernie was being screwed. Since it was a rare moment of telling the truth, you have to question the motives -- in this case, it was to sow discord in the Democratic party. He even encouraged Bernie to run as an independent, if you recall. I think we all know why that was.
Maybe this stupidity will be the death knell for Iowa, a state with no reason for being the first.
Actually, I think that was Warren's phrase of choice.
Bernie was more about disclosing the fact that neither of the two parties had successfully introduced and/or passed legislation that was good for the average American manufacturing and/or building trades worker. Hence, he is an independent, and has said on more than one occasion that there is very little difference between the two parties for the last fifty or so years. He is spot on.
The Clinton's prided themselves upon "reaching across the aisle" and "getting things done", when all that really amounted to is conceding to Republican financial, ethical(regarding crime and government assistance), and globalization(trade agreements). All of those positions caused demonstrable financial harm to a very very large portion of the American population... and in more than one way. The only thing that separated the Clinton's from the republican party was better lip service to gun control, gay rights, and abortion... They were more than anything... political convenience seekers.
He was one of the first people(candidates) in recent times to divulge the truth about all of the trade agreements and their "disasterous" affects/effects upon all American blue collar workers. While standing for civil rights, he doesn't allow racial problems to distract us from these socio-economic ones... which also underlie many of the racial ones.
We can fix both.
Warren wasn't running in '16. Bernie was talking -- and continues to talk -- about a rigged economy for the wealthy. Trump appropriated the "rigged" shortly thereafter.
She need not be a candidate in the 2016 election to have repeatedly claimed that "the system is rigged" years before.
It could be that both use(d) the phrase...
Warren did a lot of research work into the financial disaster of 2008 and it included her famously saying that the system was rigged as a result of her findings... That was all long before 2016 my friend.
Bernie discusses several different aspects of the system that could be called "rigged" including, but not limited to, taxes, health insurance, financial/banking legislation, trade deals, anti-trust laws, etc.
I imagine he'll have quite a bit to say about the impeachment of Trump after the matter is officially closed/settled.
And there are multiple far larger trade unions in the US. If Bernie would get an endorsement from NEA (National Education Association), a 2,9 million union, that would represent far more people than the US Postal Office.
But that wasn't my point. My point (even if a bit off the topic) is that the labor unions are small midget size oddities in the US. And when there isn't large union representation (and they don't have to be leftist, thank God) to take on the employers, then the employers have the field day to do whatever they want...and have just done that. Then people complain that wages are stagnant and managers earn so much more than the average employee.
Yeah union and worker power isn't strong in America, that's why it's important to build a mass movement to organize, support, and strengthen worker power (among other things), which is precisely why it's notable that one of the largest unions in the country is backing the most pro-worker candidate.
There were many people using that phrase. I've been using it for 20 years. It's irrelevant. I doubt Donald Trump was listening to Warren. We're talking about the 2016 election. When Bernie generated massive crowds and enthusiasm, Trump noticed and took some of his rhetoric. That's fairly obvious.
You can continue to claim it was taken from Warren, but it's borderline ridiculous.
Quoting creativesoul
True, but he particularly uses the term regarding the economy.
Funny. I do not remember saying that. Never would, in fact.
They are denying any outside interference problems... currently anyway.
Was there an ongoing accurate tally to support this?
Curious. I really do not know. Sarcasm?
The final poll means the poll the night before the caucus that disappeared. He was ahead in the average of other polls.
Yeah, you did:
Quoting creativesoul
I don't know how this can be interpreted in any other way given the context, short of you irrelevantly pointing out that Warren also used the phrase -- but I don't know why you would do that. Or, perhaps, you're truly unsure that Bernie used that phrase during the '16 election? If that's the case, fine -- but then it kind of undermines your credibility, despite your general thesis being an accurate one.
According to Wikipedia, the preliminary results from the 2% of precincts that started reporting before the whole thing got shut down were showing Bernie in the lead, followed by Warren and Buttgeiger.
As silly as it is that Iowa is the first state to caucus, and that they can't seem to pull off the ONE thing they should have made fool-proof, making unsubstantiated, from-the-gut conspiratorial accusations makes us look like the Trump crowd.
Nobody said the conspiracy theory was true. I made a point about what it looked like. Which is what matters.
How out-off-tech can a political party become? If there would be class on the subject in the school below for the DNC organization:
NY Times: Sanders 26.3% and in the lead.
Washington Post: Buttigieg 26.9% and in the lead.
All with 62% of precincts reporting.
I'm sure there's a reason for this, but boy is it irritating.
The reason is Sanders is ahead in the popular vote and Buttigieg in delegates.
OK...but why don't the delegates line up with the votes?
Do they ever? Call it a mini electoral college. You can win the popular vote and lose the election.
God bless our straightforward and democratic elections.
Lol.
No, the DNC is holding them back to further screw Bernie when necessary.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-110083
Anyway, whatever. It all gets old quickly. 'Night.
I think there's definitely a bias against Bernie, beyond question. But the way they have (and continue) to screw him has been "subtle" in the media, or at least more so than rigging election results. The superdelegate rule, remember, was changed because of Bernie. We can't have it both ways. But your point is taken regardless. Playing Devil's advocate a bit today.
I believe it's weighted by population
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/iowa-might-have-screwed-up-the-whole-nomination-process/
One can dream :grin:
Quoting Pfhorrest
Or not :groan:
I don't think so. Once the full results come in, it'll get out there how poorly he did. The media may downplay it. The fuck-up only helps Biden for a couple of days tops, in my view.
I think all the Burisma business has damaged him quite a bit. Bloomberg might rescue the DP.
Bloomberg might "rescue" them? No thanks. I'll stick with Bernie -- he's actually saving the party, despite the propaganda.
I don't know who was saying Biden wouldn't do well in Iowa. Look at the polls -- he was either leading or in second place for most of them. Looks like he'll finish 4th or so. Regardless of how it plays, that alone tells you something.
I'll say it again: the Iowa polls showed Biden doing well.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html
Do you see the difference between what I actually said and your report of that?
Yes, as I just mentioned. So you WEREN'T saying the phrase was taken from Warren? Just that it was a favorite phrase of hers. Fine. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming it was at all relevant to the discussion. Who cares what Warren said? What does it have to do with Trump?
Either clarify what you meant or move on. I'm bored.
Iowa doesn't mean what it used to.
Spot on.
Telling.
I mentioned him. Looks like he'll win. Good for him. Seems like a decent guy and campaigned hard. It was very close and not all the results are in but if he wins he wins.
You misinterpret this how?
What are we supposed to say when up until tonight the results were either completely up in the air or still 40% unavailable? What is telling about it? Iowa only sends 49 delegates to the DNC. The value of Iowa for candidates isn't in the actual number of delegates a candidate can obtain but in the media narrative constructed around who is actually a viable candidate vs. who is non-viable, beyond the abstraction of simple polling.
Currently, at 92% precincts reporting in, Sanders leads the raw vote by about 1,200 and shares the same pledged delegate count, 11, with Buttigieg. Buttigieg had a better than anticipated turnout for sure, but he's far less of a viable candidate in upcoming states and doesn't have a very clear path forward given that he's polling single digits in nearly all of the next six states to vote.
Biggest story is the collapse of Biden, who came in a distant 4th, and was viewed as the biggest obstacle in Sander's path of victory. He will most likely not get a single delegate! Not a big fan of Nate Silver's political polling, but their latest odds model reflects Biden's poor performance as a huge positive for Sanders.
EDIT: Now 96% precincts reporting in, Sanders leads Buttigieg with 1,500 raw votes, 300 up from previous. No change in delegate count :roll:
Telling?
Nah.
Pretentiousness looms large.
Not all Sanders supporters fit your notion of "Bernie lovers".
Gross overgeneralization looms large.
The mayor's uptick is but a moment in time. What's to say?
I haven't given a definition of Bernie Lovers!!! :yikes:
Bernie supporters closely resemble the past supporters of Ron Paul on the Republican side: they are highly excited about their candidate, they are usually young and follow issues. They are thinkers. And they believe (with obvious reasons) that the party machinery is against their candidate.
I just wanted to hear what people think of Buttigieg as there hadn't been many mentions.
But anyway, from his speech (the one that Pelosi ripped) I think Trump is starting to prepare for a Sanders/Warren or similar vote: a lot of red paint is readied for use. And knowing Trump, it is going to be extremely ugly and the voters can be even more divided in the end than in 2016.
Yes, it's true, Iowa doesn't portray how things are going to go, and if Buttigieg has concentrated his efforts on Iowa, then he can punch above his weight-line. With New Hampshire the lines are more firmly drawn...and this case likely for a close race.
Uh, no. You said it was "telling", in light of his performance in Iowa. You didn't just want our 2 cents on him. What was "telling" about not mentioning him?
And of course from the political viewpoint, Buttigieg, Yang, Bloomberg or Biden etc. aren't so interesting.
What's telling about it, I'm an outspoken socialist
He's accusing you of homophobia.
Result: I am going to stop following American politics. Cancelling my WaPo sub, turn my attention to other subjects. America is truly going to hell in a handbasket, and there's nothing my commenting on it is going to achieve.
Bernie getting the nomination is the only hope the Democrats ever really had for beating Trump. Winning elections is not about convincing people to change their minds -- that almost never works -- but about exciting people enough to actually go out and vote. The left half of America have been sorely disappointed with the Democratic party for a long time, and Bernie's loss in 2016 encouraged a bunch of them to vote 3rd party (which is fine in some cases, problematic in others), stay home, or worse, "burn it all down" and vote Trump in protest (which... what, I don't fucking understand that). Mainstream party-line Democrats will still vote for Bernie anyway, mainstream Republicans won't no matter what, there are apparently those wtf voters who prefer Bernie over Trump but Trump over anyone else, and most importantly, the many discouraged progressive youths will actually get excited enough to show up on election day.
Quoting Wayfarer
He was. The impeachment is what sent him to trial. He was just acquitted in the trial.
Except that he polled better than Clinton did in 2016 and continues to beat Trump in polls today and in key states in particular.
Your "gut" is truly irrelevant. Spread your apathy and hopelessness elsewhere -- those of us that still fight will do everything we can to get Sanders nominated and elected. Feel free to sit there and say how none of it can be done -- you have plenty of company.
Exactly right.
What are you doing? Helping people who arent registered to get that status? Reaching out to people who don't have cars and facilitating early voting for the general election? Are you going to travel to Durham, NC on November 3rd and volunteer to go out and drive carless people to the voting stations?
Or what?
Yes, here in NH.
No, I won't be traveling to NC unfortunately. If I could I would.
Well fine, but with enough people like you it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. You must see that.
Cool.
And then there is Sleepy Joe. Hope he stays healthy enough for the ordeal, should he be selected. The excitement he arouses is palpable.
A Finnish newspaper had their journalists report on the Iowa caucus. They found the whole process confusing and quite strange, but ended just by saying "Well, This is America".
And what are SDE's?
Sanders is doing better than I expected, but it looks to me like Biden is still the current best hope to beat Trump. Here's latest polling data for battleground states (each state name is a link to the poll):
Florida - Trump beats everybody, but Biden is closest.
Colorado - Trump losing to everybody, but Biden and Sanders are tied for size of lead. (poll was from August, 2019)
Iowa - Trump beats everybody, but lead is narrowest for Buttigieg (Biden a close second)
Michigan - Everybody beats Trump, but Bloomberg has the biggest margin
Minnesota - Everybody beats Trump, but favorite daughter (is that a thing?) Klobuchar trounces him bigly. Biden is #2
Ohio - 3 candidates ahead of Trump, others behind. Biden#1, Sanders#2
Nevada - Everyone beats Trump, but Biden is tops.
New Hampshire - Most recent poll has Trump beating everyone, but prior poll (Jan 25) has Trump losing to everyone, with Buttegieg tops.
North Carolina - Only Biden and Sanders beat Trump, with the edge going to Sanders.
Pennsylvania - Trump beats everybody, but Biden and Bloomberg are closest.
Virginia - Trump beats everyone except Biden.
Wisconsin -Only Sanders and Biden can beat Trump, with Biden having the bigger margin.
I've seen most of these. I don't buy Virginia and Penn especially, too early and all indications for Virginia is that it's basically blue now. Pennsylvania is trickier -- maybe it's purple now, maybe not. I don't know what poll is showing Trump beating everyone there, but from what I saw last time I checked Biden has the edge.
Regardless, even with these polls it's still pretty close. We tried running the "guaranteed" nominee in 2016 and narrowly failed. Let's do something different this time -- no more establishment, no more vague promises and wishy-washy stances. If the country isn't ready for it, fine. At least we tried. But if they ARE...watch out, because that changes politics completely. Sanders has already reshaped the Democratic party, and for the better. Trump didn't reshape the Republican party -- they're still the party of corporations -- but he DID get them all to kiss his ass. If he could get elected without the establishment helping, so can Sanders -- who people actually like and who has popular New Deal-style ideas.
The entire system would be watered down if everyone had it.
But If the country isn't ready for it, is it fine to have another 4 years of Trump? Does the self-satisfaction of having tried make that OK? Our only real difference seems to be one of priorities. My top priority is to get rid of Trump, and that leads me to choose the person who seems most electable.
It's possible that Bernie or Warren will be that person, or close enough to it. But it's up to them to convince swing voters, especially in swing states, to make that so. If they don't succeed, I have to support whomever has the best chance.
The damage is already done. But a lot of the people who will suffer from this voted Republican, so they'll get what they asked for.
Don't forget social security.
Notice how people aren't talking about this anymore? Especially those tea party people? Because they follow Trump now. And Trump has said about social security: "“I have totally left it alone, as promised, and will save it!” Well, I guess that tweet takes care of it.
Quoting jgill
Sorry, but this is total nonsense.
We have universal health care and it costs half of what you are paying for your present system. So have others. So I guess the US with far higher GDP per capita could easily afford it, if it would change things. But Americans simply want to pay a lot for their health care and give the money to corporation profits. And without a functioning system you pay the most with then people that haven't had adequate health care turning up to be treated in the emergency ward.
It's really simple: the companies, especially the insurance companies make a big buck from the system. They have their own lobbyists taken care of the system. Hence no wonder that it is so expensive. But I guess you just love rackets!
Question: Why is it so hard to understand the underlying graph?
(Btw, as one smart commentator put it: Obama shouldn't have called it Health Care reform, it should have been called Health Insurance reform.)
Excuse my confusion, but doesn’t that graph indicate a higher spending by government on people than other countries? I don’t see what’s so bad about this graph.
You think it isn't bad???
Ok. The graph tells you just how much countries spend on health care per on citizen. The US spends the MOST money on it's citizens.
Then you can look at the outcomes on that spending:
Or how about a classic indicator, the infant mortality rate:
And I could go on and on with statistics that all show how bad your system is. By OECD standards, the US performance is utterly dismal. But these two above should make the point: Would you assume that the US puts THE MOST money on healthcare, looking at the two charts above? You spend far more than anybody else, so the natural reasoning would be then that the Americans would then be better of or at least close to the top by health indicators. No. Not so. Not with a long shot.
And why? Because of your health care system.
Sometimes a cartoon makes makes the point well:
Quoting ssu
No, I couldn’t understand the context. Now I do.
Edit: by the way why do you think I’m American?
I believe in probability calculus. And "Brett" sounds Anglo-American. :wink:
Sorry if I offended you.
Non taken.
Last I looked Social Security is ok for now, but thanks for worrying about your dear friends over here.
Actually, US healthcare is among the best in the world. It's just unaffordable because their insurance system is insanely expensive. The litigation culture also means insurance premiums for hospitals against liability is through the roof as well.
For those who can pay, definitely.
Unfortunately the stats don't take into account only the affluent in America, but include all people.
The difference in life expectancy of a white woman (81 years) and a African-American male (72 years) is quite big. So perhaps the answer would be in the case of the US, just to look at how the health stats are for the Americans with median income. Or simply don't take into account minorities. (That's a bit racist, I know.)
Or I know: just like they don't count those who have been unemployed for too long to be "unemployed" in the official unemployment figures (U3) and refer to these people of having opted not to go to work (U6), perhaps with the same kind of reasoning official stats could simply write off people that are alcoholics, smoke or have used drugs, because obviously their living habits show that they don't want to live, so we can exclude them from the ordinary stats! That would surely make the statistic concerning health better! Life expectancy figures as other health stats then would refer to group/class P1 of the population and the classic "population" could be referred to be P4 or something and never be spoken in the official stats.
I'll bet non-smoking teetotalers who haven't ever used drugs will have better health stats. Would be a great way for Trump to show how much Americans are winning!
Yang perhaps, but he's too unknown. I think looking at the times we live in, at least one candidate, either the the presidential candidate or the vice-presidential candidate has to be a woman. Even with Bernie (which would silence a lot of leftists), having two old white males on the DNC ticket would itself get a lot of flak. Which two old white males are you going to vote, the Republican or Democrat option?
Yet one party having candidates as different as Bloomberg and Sanders shows the inherent problem in the US system: the two are so different from Bernie, that in any other country you would have different political parties. Does Bloomberg fit into the mold of Democratic Socialism? No. Does Bernie fit in a Centrist party? No, or he's being hypocritical.
Political parties are formed around and ideology and an agenda. That is their core. Political parties cannot be totally open vessels that then one side or another hope to conquer and take it somewhere totally else than the other side of the party. This just creates genuine emptiness in the party, it is just a mere shell.
Yet many Americans pin their hopes on this. They pin their hopes on getting the perfect candidate nominated as the candidate of the two parties and then become President... as if that would change things. And one part thinks or hopes that they have gotten this with Trump. Trump WAS the outsider of the GOP, the GOP leadership was against him. And he got to be nominated and got elected. Hooray! NOS4A2 is ecstatic. Yet when look at Trump's actual performance, when the Republicans had both houses. And then what? It's the tax cuts. Something very much the same for all Republican administrations. But Trump tweets! Trump gets Democrats angry! Might be happy with that, because not much has changed.
Bloomberg obviously thinks that four years from now isn't the best option. Reminds of one former Democrat supporter (below in picture with Bloomberg and Clinton).
Best democratic buddies! Why wouldn't Michael Bloomberg want to be in the same league as his fellow golf friends?
Quoting 180 Proof
Political parties can make their own rules how they want.
What really matters is the general election.
If the parties select the candidates and there is nearly complete overlap in major donors support - control of the agendas - of (both) parties, then the differences are narrow enough that the electorate in the general election are reduced to shoppers in Walmart choosing between cases of Bud Lite & Miller Lite (or gonorrhea & syphillis :vomit:). The herd's getting more and more restless, even rambunctious, lifting their snouts from the slop to grunt their growing unease-to-displeasure with merely ratifying "acceptable" choices made for them by oligarchs. If we don't get it right before the conventions, then we get Wrong or Wronger at the polls in the general. I'm no populist but they have a point - have had it for decades (and not just under their baseball caps) - and the b.s. gumbo is at a boil since even they now see that Live Poor, Vote Rich never has and never will "trickle-down" as advertised.
Lose the terms, focus upon the issues involving what's best for the overwhelming majority.
I think the best would be if the two parties would partition to two parties.
the GOP => Libertarian&Conservative Wing GOP / Trumpist-populist GOP
the DNC => Leftist Social Democrat DNC / Centrist DNC
Even one party dissolving into two would mean that the other party would win. Both House and Senate could easily be contested. Also the political map at the state level could turn different.
It is essential for a democracy in order to function that the political landscape can change. Now America just get's these media campaigns promising change, yet the political structures don't change at all.
That's presuming that all business operate in a certain way or on a very specific business model in pure abstraction, in practice I don't see that as the case, and I believe business models are diverse in their goals and methods.
Lately I tend to view "mass media" businesses or ones which sell products widely considered "addictive" to be more likely to be operated on that type of basis, but that's just my opinion and I can't go into further detail on substantiating that.
I agree of course, which is why I'm voting for anyone who gets the nomination. I also think Bernie stacks up very well with Trump. According to the polls, only Biden does better in some of the key states...but Bernie isn't far behind. So if there's no clear "guarantee" then let's go with the candidate with the enthusiasm behind them? If Trump could do it in 2016, the democrats can do it in 2020.
I think the answer is organization and solidarity on the left. They already have the numbers. I've spoken to some Bernie-or-bust people and Never-Bernie people, and both groups boggle my mind. We need to come together after someone is nominated.
Quoting Xtrix
The problem with both Bernie and Biden is that they are too old. I'm in my 70s; Bernie is 78. He will be 79 before he takes office. Perhaps his health is very robust and he will live to be 100, mentally sharp all the way. Perhaps he will collapse under the strain of what is an extremely demanding job. I like Sanders, I like what he proposes. But he is still too old.
Biden is just a little younger, not enough to make a difference. He is also too old.
Pete, on the other hand, is short on governmental service, and perhaps short on 'gravitas'. I'm glad a young gay guy is running for president, more power to him, but... kind of young and inexperienced.
In the 'good old days' candidates were not put through the kind of demolition derby the Democrats are running. The 'pros' decided who was going to run on the basis of various political factors. The smoke filled back room had a decided downside, but it wasn't all down.
Just because somebody thinks they could run the country is no reason for the party to let them run. Donald Trump is the prime example of what happens when that route is tried.
Who really thinks that a "democratic socialist" can command enough votes? I'm a socialist, but most people are not, and I just don't see a DSA candidate winning.
What party is most successful depends quite a lot of the actual leaders and the people. And not just on right wing or left wing party gets everybody. The traditional blue collar worker voting for the left is quite far from the woke student voting left. Just as a traditional conservative is from the alt-right. The support of a party doesn't follow just from it's agenda. How it would play out, only God knows.
What a multiparty system does is that it creates the necessity of coalition administrations. This has one extremely important effect: the political parties have to work together. A party leader cannot viciously attack and defame an opponent and then think they can later form a government with that opponent. It would eat his/her own credibility. Hence the political debate loses part of the vitriol, which is actually good in my view. In the US system, the two parties have to invent that vitriol to get the people to be fixated on the two party system. Otherwise more would see through the facade. Just like Trump & Clinton, they were great friends! One of them took this role of being "an outsider", which his followers eagerly still believe in.
Or a no-confidence vote, one or the other. The ties that bind the coalition are rarely as solid as multi-party proponents like to pretend.
If "working together" means silencing or otherwise modifying a platform in order to appease the coalition and to achieve consensus, then maintaining the coalition and power becomes the prime motive over implementing party policy. Coalition becomes little more than bargaining between political elites, dressed up as compromise.
The term "socialism" is almost devoid of meaning these days. Look at the proposals. All of them have majority support. He has the enthusiasm and the young voters. If he's the nominee, more people will hear the message, and it's precisely that which accounts for his popularity: the message. Let him promise the world -- GOOD. The question of how you're going to pay for it has been answered: tax the wealthy. But people don't really care about that. Trump got elected by saying Mexico was going to pay for a wall, did the voters really care? No. The Republicans were screaming for years about the debt, and now they've run it up. No one seems to care. The level of ignorance of our electorate is stunning.
There are plenty of people "on the fence" with the same level of thinking. They LIKE the idea of student loan debt forgiveness, free public universities, free healthcare, doing something about climate change, etc. Keep hammering home that message, and it doesn't matter if Bernie is an old, cranky, white, Jewish socialist. We already have the numbers in this country, we just need to come together and organize in solidarity. Defeat Trump, and don't worry so much about the rest.
Those are the things in politics. If the coalition cannot work together, then the administration doesn't work. Usually the government falls on a "no confidence" vote. If nobody is willing to work together, then nothing happens. But Republics can work too, you know. One party rule isn't the only answer.
But how is now it working with the two party system? The other one can simply wait 4 to 8 years until people are so fed up with what they have they'll vote for something different. And that' 4 to 8 years time to get a working campaign together. Both just aim for total control and will have zero incentive to work with the other party.
Things like corruption, the rule of law or how well the institutions of a justice state work are the outcome of many different things. However, in a multiparty system it is more easier for new parties to emerge than in a two party system. Also if the political landscape is too much fractured to many little parties, that can pose also a problem.
I think we can agree that a one party system means a lot of trouble and the potential for overwhelming corruption and misuse of power. My argument that a far too solid two-party system will have those same negative aspects than as one party system too, even if the bickering between the two might hide it. Just as in business, replacing a monopoly with a duopoly might not make things better, especially if the duopolies agree on a joint effort on keeping any other serious competition ever from rising. And then dividing the market themselves.
All he needs to do is pick Trump apart with slick sarcasm. The media will love it.
You can read this:
Quoting Princeton research paper
This presupposes that the majority doesn't want what Trump offers. What you mean to say is that your hope is that US politics is brought into alignment with something you find more palatable.
I'd argue on the other hand that if the Democrats wish to win, they need to move back to the center, instead of continuing to drift left because that shift is reactionary to Trump and not the result of a sudden desire by middle America to emulate European liberalism.
No, I meant what I said not what you want it to mean. Research is quite clear on this. What the majority of voters want doesn't matter in the USA.
Greatest democracy my ass.
Quoting Hanover
Trump's election was reactionary to the fact the political establishment hasn't listened to people for quite some time and was a lurch to the insane right. Bernie Sanders isn't reactionary at all but the most sensible of the democrats as it most closely aligns what a majority of Americans want. As consistently polled when people are asked about policies without identifying whether it's a republican or democratic idea.
Don't worry about it turning into a European utopia. You're too far removed from that to reach that within 8 years. Also, we're mostly not Liberal but then that's not the only thing Americans consistently get wrong because they actually barely know anything about anything outside of the US.
Honestly, who knows where the center is anymore in US politics? Trump and with him most of the republican party went to somewhere completely outside the pre-Trump political spectrum. It's a shift to the right on many policy issues, but it's not just that.
Does it even make sense to talk of this as a right/left issue? Isn't it more a question of Trumpism vs. representative Democracy?
Sure. I am aware of those kinds of compasses. But what's special about the Trump presidency is not just the policies. Those had already been republican policies, if at the fringes.
No because that suggests that Trump wasn't voted into office.
How does it suggest that? There are principles apart from "you have to be elected" that have come to define representative democracies after WW2.
Ahh yes, the objective research shows that America does not want what Trump offers but the Trump voters are too stupid to vote for what they want. Quoting Benkei
The only polling that matters is that actual polling that occurs on election day. The other polls, and there were many, showed that Clinton was going to easily win the election. I guess you've located another poll that shows that Americans really don't want the president that they elected and that even should they continue to vote for him, they really don't want him.
Quoting Benkei
The quibble is likely over how you use the term "liberal," not in what I think European politics is like. I also realize that European politics varies from country to country, so I'm not suggesting there's a unified position on this.
But, in speaking to my ignorance of the European mindset, I'm sure I'd be better informed if I lived it day to day like you. I expect I feel the same frustration you do in being told what the general sentiment of my country is. Bernie is absolutely reactionary and is part of a continual move to the left. It seemed to have started with Bush/Cheney, that begot Obama, that begot Trump, that will then beget Bernie (or someone similar) if not this cycle, the next.
But, to the extent that you suggest that voters choose candidates for some reasons other than their polices, I think that's obvious. Charisma, presentation, persuasiveness, and rhetoric surely matters. It's why sometimes the ugly loser gets the girl. Surely you're familiar with that dynamic.
Latest polling shows that Trump's tax cuts have around 30% approval, and that 50% feel his immigration enforcement goes too far, while about 20% feel they are just right. Feel free to show which Trump policies have majority support.
You seem to have forgotten he lost the popular vote.
Quoting Hanover
Yeah, never mind trying to figure out what people actually want and need. There's just one moment in time that matters. And together with your two similar options for parties is why the US is a failed democracy. Congrats.
Quoting Hanover
He's only reactionary to you because you're a die hard Conservative. To a lot of Americans he isn't. The proof we see in his performance in iowa and new Hampshire.
Polling tracks popular sentiment. A series of polls (data points) tracks a trend (curve) of popular movement, or direction. The polls in 2016 accurately predicted that HRC would win 'the popular vote' (just as they also were accurate in 2000 predicting that AG would win 'the popular vote'). U.S. presidential elections are decided, however, not by 'the popular vote' but by the Electoral College. Why otherwise intelligent folks keep mindlessly repeating this "the polls are not accurate" innumerate crypto-conspiracy bullshit is beyond me. :shade:
The reason people keep saying the polls aren't accurate is because they aren't. They did the polling by state and incorrectly predicted wins in the various states They then used that incorrect information to add up the electoral college votes and incorrectly predicted Clinton would win. It's not as if they did a single national poll and just assumed since Clinton won that, she'd win the election. They knew how the electoral college worked when they did the polls.
You seem to forget that the majority vote isn't relevant. Campaigning is strategized around the electoral college system, so whether Trump would have won had the rules been different is unknown. Quoting Benkei
Do you guys vote daily in the Netherlands just to be sure you keep with the popular sentiment.Quoting Benkei
I just mean he's a reaction to Trump, who was a reaction to Obama, who was a reaction to GW. I admit Trump is reactionary. I don't know what that has to do with me being Conservative.
Why is Bernie doing well? He's young, hip, sharp, articulate, and he's captured the hearts and minds of the American public with his dazzling personality. It's either that or he gained popularity when he was the only one that Clinton couldn't exclude from the race with back room deals last election and everyone hates Trump so much that they're now willing to vote for a dying, babbling Socialist.
Missing the point as usual. Must be your age. Our politicians aren't so retarded to think they can ignore polling data about important issues.
You said that only one vote mattered, which was a reference to the one vote the people make at the ballot box. That's how that works.
In terms of whether our politicians look at polling data, I'm sure they do, but I'd expect they're more interested in what those who voted them want than their opponents. Maybe in the Netherlands, no one is in a party and no one has an ideology, but all politicians vote exactly the same based upon the objective polling data and unanimous votes are the norm.
In the US, our politicians do whatever the hell they want, totally disregarding the will of the people, but then they get re-elected because they talk fast and say exciting things.
It's an interesting contrast between our two nations, but it's good to understand the differences so that we can all live in harmony, with you in your irrelevant underwater outpost, and me in the center of universe.
:yum:
Hanover's a mod?
Oh, right. I can only presume there's been a terrible mistake. Just don't blame me. I have no recollection of any events regarding this whatsoever. :zip:
Not only that; but, he's defying the expectations of the right and the left!
But!@1 Chomsky said this and that!
The Democrats have not moved to the left. Everyone has moved to the right, it’s just that Republicans have moved so much further to the right that relative to themselves, the Democrats look further left than they did before. Richard Nixon was more to the left than modern Democrats; he supported a universal basic income, for example.
Quoting Hanover
Nobody is saying that Trump didn't successfully navigate the rules that determine who becomes President of the United States. They're saying that those rules do not necessarily reflect the will of the people in their outcome -- that it's possible for someone who is not only supported by less than a majority, but who isn't even more supported than any of the alternatives, to win that process -- and that that's a problem.
Under 1/2 of people are even eligible to vote.
Only around 2/3 of those actually voted.
Under 1/2 of those voted for Trump.
So under (1/2)*(2/3)*(1/2) = 1/6 of people voted for Trump.
(Looking at the actual numbers it's closer to 1/8, but I'm rounding for simplicity).
Of course the same is approximately true for Clinton, but the takeaway is that Trump (like most presidents in at least recent history) governs at the behest of only a small fraction of the population, and can hardly be said to have a mandate from the masses.
Absolutely right, and there's very good research about this. Take a look at Tom Ferguson's work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_theory_of_party_competition
Quoting Benkei
Despite the Republican establishment trying to tear Trump down, he used his existing notoriety, outlandish behavior and free media coverage to push through. He's also a very skilled politician, knowing exactly what played well to crowds and what to repeat. His voting coalition is gun enthusiasts, evangelicals, pro-lifers, white nationalists, xenophobes, and the uneducated. He throws them bones once in a while to keep them happy, and it's working -- 95% approval rating in the party. The Republicans having consequently kowtowed to him.
But you're right -- he plays to the worst aspects of the right. But why is the "right" so insane these days? Look to the financial crisis and the election of Obama. What came out of that? The Tea Party -- anti-establishment, feeling like their country is being taken from them, etc. Years of Fox News and conversation radio propaganda stirring their worst impulses, and suddenly you have a "movement" of voters reacting to things in their own way. The result was Trump.
Meanwhile, look at the Occupy Movement. For those who remember, this was a very big deal, drawing massive crowds and a lot of publicity. The the slogan of "We are the 99%" has stayed around, as has a lot of the imagery that developed within it, all despite critics saying it wasn't leading anywhere. It's led to Bernie. The difference between him and Trump is that the Democratic establishment in 2016 was able to beat Bernie back, as the Republicans did in 2012 with Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum.
And here we are. There was a good article today in the NYT about how Bernie has already won, in the sense that he's transformed the party. I agree with that. Whether he gets elected is hard to tell, given he has no support by the establishment and democratic voters seem much less interested in the (necessary) solidarity needed to prevail. Still, one can hope. It would be very good for the country right now.
No, objective research shows that what Americans want, right or left, gets ignored.
It's also pretty clear that Trump voters are voting against their interests, yes. Democrats have done the same in years past-- but this is in a league of its own.
Quoting Hanover
Great analysis. Why does the Trump crowd so often sound like adolescents?
Also, try looking up what "reactionary" means. You've continually used it wrong.
Excellent point. And let's not even start on Eisenhower.
Quoting Pfhorrest
This is very often forgotten, but shouldn't be.
Polling DOES suggest, though, that the country is fairly split on Trump. His approval rating has been around 42%, recently up to 49%. A lot of key swing states are still basically 50/50 on the next election. It boggles my mind, but that's what the numbers show.
I'm of the opinion that the truly dyed-in-the-wool Trump people are certainly in a minority, maybe 30-35% or so. But they're extremely vocal. They're the ones with the bumper stickers and Trump flags and MAGA hats.
Driving in Manchester NH this past Monday, outside the Trump rally, I got a decent look at the (large) crowd waiting in line outside. A lot of grey goatees, a lot of white hair, and almost all white folks. Now, we have a lot of hicks in NH, so I'm familiar with them -- and it looked very similar to a Loudon (Nascar) or Deerfield Fair crowd. Obviously this is stereotyping, but it's more true than not.
My point being this: these are the people who make their presence known -- they vote, they pick fights on the internet, they try to win by being the loudest and the most intimidating, etc. But they're still the minority, and becoming more so as demographics change. This is partly what energizes them. But they're the minority notwithstanding. I think we're seeing the last gasps of lot of old thinking. And Bernie, ironically, represents the new direction, whether now or ten years from now. The sad thing is, it may already be too late in terms of damage to the environment and to the courts. Especially if he (or the democrats generally) don't win in November.
This is quite a common trope. What are their interests, and how are they voting against them?
You look at states, for example, that went overwhelmingly for Trump. You look at the demographics and the problems they face. Then you look at Trump's policies and how they impact those states. The answer becomes clear.
Trump has screwed the working class in every way possible. It's a joke.
There's good research on this general phenomenon as well. Hochschild published an entire book in '16 about this phenomenon, actually. I'll link below.
https://www.amazon.com/Strangers-Their-Own-Land-Mourning/dp/1536684937
They see the government as more of a problem than a solution, and prefer it stay out of they private affairs rather than meddle in it. So it appears someone who cuts regulations, lessens government assistance, and limits government power is exactly in their best interests.
Things like abortion are kinda private. :grimace:
Quoting NOS4A2
Speaking of meddling, Trumps trade war hasn't panned out well for American farmers.
Only fools think that people are united...and all think as they themselves do.
And what is your problem with consensus?
Quoting Benkei
Uhhh...you're sure about that? USA isn't Europe.
Bernie is going to be made to be an American Corbyn. Here's a photo of young Bernie!
Yet the real mudslinging hasn't really started. Hence Trump can say this about Bernie Sanders:
If Bernie gets the ticket, I assume Trump's rhetoric will get more like he had for Hillary.
A surprising number of people on all points of the political spectrum are willing to roll the dice and blow up the system in the hopes that something better might arise. Of course such a hope is doomed to failure, as the revolutions of the twentieth century all made things horribly worse. The Russians and the the Chinese, to name two that turned out particularly badly. But there's an aspiration for something other than endless war, endless debt, endless corruption, and the government and media telling us little people what's good for us, even as they continue to do things that are bad for us.
Bernie comes in name of the people and so does Trump. Bernie comes in the name of radical change and so did Trump.
It's even noteworthy that Bernie's 2020 rise parallel's Trump's in 2016. First regarded as a joke, then he starts winning primaries and gaining in the national polls, and the party frantically starts to conspire against him. They throw one centrist after another at him -- Pete! Amy! -- to no avail. Bernie's win in Iowa brought out the same media talking points that were aimed at Trump four years ago. Can't win, what centrist will rise to beat him, he's a clown, he'll destroy the country, etc.
If you're a diehard partisan you may find it difficult to see current events through this lens. It's partisanship that makes it hard to see what's going on. If you want to know why Trump won, just watch what's happening with Bernie. People are sick to death of the neoliberal centrist consensus of the past forty years.
Bernie = Trump. Two sides of the same disaffected populist coin. When you get that, the news will start to make a lot more sense.
People definitely do have an attitude of "give us something better or blow it all up". But Bernie is the "something better" option, and Trump is only the "blow it all up" option. Bernie-Trump voters were doing the equivalent of throwing a tantrum that they didn't get their way, and while they ought to have gotten their way, because they really do deserve better, throwing that tantrum is definitely not the way to go about getting it. But that's what people are wont to do when they don't get their way: start breaking shit until someone pays attention and placates them.
The point of any trade policy isn’t just immediate results, but also long term ones as well. Given China’s recent pledge to purchase around 32 billion in agriculture products over two years, and also recent deals with Japan, Canada and Mexico which mostly Center around agriculture, things are looking up for farmers. I’d love to hear a Democrat’s policy towards agriculture but I’m not aware of any.
Curious to know, are you "Anyone but Trump?" Or "Bernie or bust?" That is, when the Dems screw Bernie out of the nomination (and they're not even being subtle about it) will you vote for the whatever "centrist" hack they run? Or will you stay home?
What do you think will happen in November?
Free tuition and healthcare and student loan relief definitely sound better, but whether it is better or results in something better is a different story. In that respect, Bernie is the “something-that-sounds better” option. And history is replete with examples of those.
Sanders has been in the national spotlight for years now and is on his second presidential run in which he's now the front-runner, and you really think there is more damaging mudslinging to come than what's been thrown at him in the past four years? I'm curious what you think the "real mudslinging" will be.
The manufacturing industry is still in a recession, which hurts many of Trumps supporters. More broadly though, regulations and government assistance programs can stabilize an economy and lessen the effects of a downturn. That would be good for Trump supporters in the long term.
Quoting NOS4A2
If you're referring to USMCA, Democrats worked for over a year to improve the deal.
Those trade deals also cover manufacturing. What would be good according to you doesn’t necessarily mesh with the interests of Trump supporters. Increasing regulations and government hand-outs aren’t normally on the menu.
I guess they knew a good deal when they saw it. Of course it was Trump’s idea to renegotiate NAFTA.
Yes, it's called anti-politic. Anything wrong, blame the government. That's fine for the people to believe, as the corporate sector amasses more and more wealth and lobby for (and get) whatever they want. It distracts the public's attention and anger to the "Big Government."
Deregulation, privatization, cutting corporate taxes, etc., -- yeah, all fine for big business. To say this serves the peoples' interests is a complete joke, with zero evidence.
The problem is the government takes our money and does with it what it sees fit. It has the monopoly on violence and we have to depend on it for our very lives. This isn’t true of “big business. Remember that those who own businesses and corporations are like you and I: private citizens and voters. We’re on the same team.
Do you remember the conclusions of Hochschild in her “Strangers in her own land”?
Actually, corporations are considered people. But regardless, you're completely wrong: big business owns the politicians and the media, which is why people like you continue to defend them as they run the country into the ground.
Actually, isn't that kind of a conservative talking point? People with problems just made bad choices and are suffering the consequences? Why aren't bad political choices part of that same picture?
Sorry, big big business and media don’t run the country. Government does. And if you think about it, if there is less government then there is less power for “big business” to own.
I don’t understand those who decry “big business” and lobbying. The only reason people buy out politicians and bureaucrats is because politicians and bureaucrats can be bought. We should decry the politicians and bureaucrats for setting the conditions. If they didn’t accept bribes and certain lobbying that sort of business would become untenable within a few years.
To keep this on topic, that’s why I fear the big government types who are now vying for power.
Anyway, you're right that bribery wouldn't work if politicians wouldn't accept bribes. The problem is that the ones who do accept bribes tend to win, on account of all the extra campaign money they have, from those bribes. So the ones who wouldn't accept bribes don't win and end up not being our politicians. Who's responsible for that? The people offering the bribes.
I was just continuing my point. My apologies.
But you’re right. It is difficult for anyone of lower means to compete with the political machinery now in place. But lobbying the government is still important. Our best hope is that grassroots efforts can compete.
No trade deal can compensate for ever-increasing manufacturing efficiency (automation). That's a Trumpian fantasy that his followers apparently indulge themselves with.
Quoting NOS4A2
I read the book Xtrix refers to and besides the potential long term economic costs already mentioned, in the book it discusses other costs of deregulation and 'smaller government' for the kind of people that support Trump. Industrial pollution in red states is not healthy. Diverting tax money away from the public sector and into the hands of industrial giants may sound like a good plan for economic growth, however, the data shows that many industries are attracted to areas with a healthy public sector.
Quoting NOS4A2
I don't know what they thought when they saw it but obviously they felt it needed work and they improved it.
hahaha. Somehow, I don't think that is what he meant. Well played :smile:
If so, there’s an easy strategy to make him do it anyway. Schedule a debate anyway, show up, and them call Trump a coward for not showing up, and use the rest of the allotted time to treat it like a rally. If Trump supporters show up, they get treated to a one-sided argument, and all Trump supporters everywhere hear him called a coward, undermining his strong man image, and you just know that that’s going to get under Trump’s thin skin all by itself, motivating him to show up next time.
A national election without debate between the candidates in order to inform the public about what they stand for?
Given recent events, that would not surprise me. However, it would only fuel Bernie to point it out.
That is precisely what a presidential election without nationally broadcasted debates between the two candidates would be. All Americans need to be watching the same channel, tuning into the same set of events, observing the same facts - as they happen.
A free and fair election must include a well informed electorate.
An election based upon that is anything but a free and fair election, because it quite simply does not include a well informed electorate.
3rd party. Join us, comrade!
Seems to be 'privileged' information you're passing along.
Weird.
Juvenile minds.
Quoting Xtrix
I don't think it matters which party is voted in, they will act against the interest of a majority of voters. So whether you vote Democrat or Republican, you are voting against your interest because the system is rigged in favour of monied interests. I refer to the paper I shared before. There's a correlation between what rich people want and don't want and the laws that get passed. There's no such correlation between what a majority wants and what laws get passed.
Quoting Hanover
Whoosh. That was the sarcasm flying past your head.
I didn't say any such thing, it was implied in your comment to which I reacted by first summarising your position distilling the stupidity of it in a single sentence.
Quoting Hanover
Uh no... That would still be stupid. If you want more votes you better deliver on what your opponent's voters want when they also want what your voters want. You seem to be under the false impression only Democrats want to legalise weed for instance. When I talk about a majority of americans wanting something I'm taking about a majority in total but also per subgroup of Democrats, Republicans and Independents.
Finally, I would like to think Americans as a people are as heterogeneous as Europeans and that political ideas from communism to despotism are represented among them. But in the US political arena only a very small fraction of that is represented (typical right of centre to right wing, with more difference on a cultural axis). It leads to a very impoverished political debate and a lot of ideological grand standing over perceived differences which are in fact minimal from any country with a pluralistic democratic system. Democrat or Republican you're screwed either way but you'll thank them for the privilege depending on what party you vote for. Bernie has a chance of changing this.
Last election the mudslinging was basically done by other Democrats, Hillary etc. It was convenient for GOP to portray Bernie positively or simple to back off, because he wasn't the "official" candidate. Trump has been quite cordial, yet backtracked from a debate with Bernie last election.
That Bernie Sanders will be painted to a like Corbyn is evident for examples like this article from Tom Rogan's piece in the Washington Examiner last month:
The last comment reminds me of how Ron Paul was painted to be a racist because of some opinion by another person posted on his webpage. That Bernie has referred Chavez to a (dead) dictator hardly matters as you can see.
Of course, he may not be portrayed as an anti-semite like Corbyn, but who knows in this post-truth World of ours...
Chomsky says Republicans will become subtly anti-Semitic regarding Sanders. I would expect that. Plus he says a win for Sanders will mean nothing without continued activism.
I will for now on spend more time unpacking the nuance impregnated in your posts. Quoting Benkei
You don't know what I'm under the false impression about. Only I know that, but that might not make any sense, but it sounds ridiculous enough for me to say, so I'll say it.
At any rate, I'm in favor of weed legalization. That's consistent with the Libertarian sentiment within conservatism and its ideology of limited government interference in personal decisions. The appeasement of the religious wing of the Republican party is what led to the war on drugs, but that had its heyday many years ago. The point is that there are plenty of drug legalization advocates who would classify as conservative, but probably a lesser number of actual pot smokers are conservatives, mostly because, well, someone has to go to work and pay the bills.
Quoting Benkei
Actually Americans are more ethnically diverse than Europeans but less ideologically diverse. That's because being American is different from being Dutch. America, quoting Lincoln, was conceived in liberty, making it distinct among other nations in that it was created under certain ideals. It did not spring forth from the settlement of one tribe after the other and arise from a common people sharing a common ethnic and genetic background. Assimilation is part of the American fabric and we do see certain ideals as creating a bond between our citizens. It's why the rift between these ideals is so polarizing because each side sees the other as unAmerican, which does remain a meaningful claim. I just don't think it matters quite so much for a Dutch person to claim himself a communist because being communist doesn't mean the person can't be Dutch as well. However, I would say that being communist keeps you from being American, largely because I see being an American as requiring an allegiance to a certain ideology, thus the term "unAmerican ideals" holds meaning.
And yet, despite bipartisan support, it's not being tabled by Republican politicians because the political establishment is more conservative than even conservative people and has been for quite some time (this would be true if Democrats were in power as well). The point of all this back and forth is that you agree on a lot of things with Democrats and Independents alike to the point where you are part of a majority that is entirely ignored. Unless, of course, you're part of the 1% in which case your politicians are only too happy to take your money and "get some shit done" for you.
Quoting Hanover
Americans are less ideologically diverse because being American means you don't hold certain ideologies. :rofl:
Awesome. We have gotten to "unAmerican ideals"!
It will come to this in the election hype. 9 months to go.
Greatest democracy!
Remember that the two American parties are both a hodgepodge of different groups and wings, which typically wouldn't be in the same political party in other countries.
That's not what I said. I said that there are American ideals, so I'm not sure how you got what you said from what I said.
I also have to call bullshit on your emoji. No way you laughed so hard you cried. Maybe you made a muffled "hmm" or something at what you saw to be contradictory, but you're just not that animated.
Whether it's awesome or not, I don't know. But that there is an ideology associated with America is obvious, easily decipherable from the Constitution, the Declaration, writings by the founders, and even as noted in writings by others (as I referenced Lincoln). Whether one considers being called unAmerican an insult or point of pride is another matter, but it is a meaningful statement.
I'm sure you would. I have universal appeal.
Simply untrue. You're a non-American, so I don't expect you to have a strong pulse on American political discourse, but it's simply not true that Bernie has thus far escaped criticism and scrutiny from the GOP.
Quoting ssu
Anyone who is an avid reader of the Washington Examiner is unlikely to consider voting for Sanders in the first place. However, the GOP (and the Democrats) have leveraged the state of contemporary Venezuela against Sanders and other Left politicians for the last year, which doesn't stick given that the simple solution, which has in fact been effective, is to ignore it and point to other developed countries or Norwegian models instead, some of which have Governments with larger wealth ownership in their countries than the Venezuela government has over their own.
Sanders has, cynically, been accused of some odd but new strain of anti-Semitism in which criticism of Israel is considered criticism of Jews, but this also won't be effective given that 1) Sanders is obviously Jewish and had relatives killed in the Holocaust, 2) the GOP has their own problems with anti-semitism and 3) Jewish Americans, unlike British Jews, overwhelmingly vote Democrat.
None of these slanders are particularly novel or potent.
Maw on the pulse! And again you simply don't get my point, which is totally typical of you.
Quoting Maw
I'm just making the point HOW the GOP will attack Bernie. Now it seems you think I'm think so about Bernie Sanders. :roll:
Bernie isn't actually very socialist, but when has things like facts had an impact on election rhetoric?
Quoting Maw
Are the slanders particularly novel or potent?
Just look at the nonsense put towards ALL Democrat candidates! Bill Clinton, Obama, Hillary Clinton. The vast majority of the accusations were quite outrageous. But that's the way US politics goes.
You originally said that "the real mudslinging hasnt yet started", and I explained how that's not true given the examples you provided. If you want to expand, feel free to do so.
Oh, the awesome was for how much people would get angry on the forum for that...
Coming from a right leaning member that unAmerican (Un-American?) sounds a bit bad. Reminds of House Un-American Activities Committee. It's the classic thing: ask a liberal, a right-leaning libertarian, a Trumpist, a progressive what is good in America and what is Un-American, I assume you won't get the same answer.
However, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Hence, Mike Bloomberg is my friend.
Amy Klobuchar is the only candidate that is talking about mental health parity.
Andrew Yang was the only candidate who implied that people have intrinsic value, unlike Ivanka Trump who calls women an “untapped resource”, flashing dollar signs in her eyes.
Right. New Hampshire is just behind us. The attack from the Republicans has not in earnest yet started (as you could see from Trump's remarks) as there are simply far too contenders to attack.
The accusations surely have already been done in the last election. Sanders has avoided them clearly and of course his supporters aren't bothered about it. Yet for them naturally it isn't at all focused. It's the Republican voters that have to be frightened in order to come to the ballot box. And if you don't find something bad that Bernie has said, then find something that his aides/staff/campaigners have said.
Say something about his small hands, low IQ, failed businesses, orange skin, or baby-bitch temper tantrums and tag @RealDonaldTrump with #DemsTrollTrump.
That whiny little bitch couldn’t handle it, and I would bet he would die of a stroke before the election! :100: :party:
I just want to fucking die
No, that’s what he will be saying.
I do believe there is something thematic about the Constitution, and I don't know of an Amendment that has violated that theme, but I suppose it's hypothetically possible that an amendment could be passed that could be so antithetical to the established American ideology that it could change its very nature. So, could you add a chapter to the Bible that praised Satan and changed the entire nature of the book? I guess. I just have to pray to Lucifer that doesn't happen.
As to your second question, I've drawn a distinction between being an American and having an American ideology. It's sort of like I'm born Jewish, but I may praise Satan, which would make me a very unJewish Jew. Paradoxical to be sure, but clear now that I've clarified.
Feel free to hit me with another question that challenges the consistency of my beliefs. I'll come up with something.
I draw a distinction between what is good for America and what is unAmerican. What is good for America is a pragmatic question. What is un-American is what violates its underlying ideology. For example, very strict gun control might be good for America, but it would also be unAmerican.
And that raises an interesting point, because a constant argument from the left is that the working class rural right often votes against its interests by supporting policies that favor the wealthy. The response is that they are not motivated by self-interest, but by ideology, which is as consistent as the very rich voting for socialism. The rural working class are motivated much more by American concepts of liberty than they are in receiving additional government social security measures, even if pragmatically, they'd be better off with a larger government.
This is a good point. Rural-white-male-right wingers believe in the mythology of freedom as given to them by their favorite pundits including Limbaugh, Hannity, Carlson, and now Trump himself is his own biggest pundit. They hear from them that the illegal immigrants are getting free healthcare and food stamps, and the welfare momma in the ghetto is driving a Cadillac, so they don’t want to be associated with them because they are gaming the system and taking the tax money of these hard-working poor white men. These pundits also tell them that the Democrats are going to confiscate their guns without any evidence for that claim. The poor rural white man believes them because these pundits speak their language, making the voter feel like pundit is one of them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Trump inherited $250,000,000. Limbaugh is a multi-millionaire, as is Hannity, and none of these people would freely become good friends with the people they daily dupe.
Meanwhile, the Democrats with their liberal arts and law degrees speak to them as if they are speaking to a college professor, using fancy words and acting like namby-pambies, expecting the rural white male right winger to listen because the Dems policies would make their lives better, but who wants to listen to a pussy?
Right, because all lawyers and educated folks are Democrats and smart and all rural white conservatives are dumb as shit. Only morons buy into the liberty mythology which has time and time again failed. One day they'll notice the wild success of Marxism and all the joy it has brought to the world and they'll change their tune.
Good post. Thank you.
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps, WIC, the right to form a union are not Marxism; but you certainly sound like a conservative pundit. Conservative politicians don’t like these programs that help the rural poor. These politicians (who have law degrees as well) don’t sound like Democrats with law degrees. You see this on the political ads on TV.
I was making the point of how the Democrats appear or come across to people like my ex-wife’s brother. People who work the factories, work construction, or who are now struggling to live after 40 years of union-busting and Reaganomics.
Conservative pundits and Trump know how to manipulate them, while the Democrats don’t know how to speak their language.
You live in Atlanta. I have lived in rural Wisconsin for most of my life apart from six years in the ghetto. I think I know rural America better than you.
Where can one find Chomsky's running commentary on current events? I'd like to read that.
Quoting frank
This. I was thinking last night, on the topic of someone asking if I was a "Bernie or bust" person, that I'm not even that excited over the prospect of a Bernie presidency. It's not like "woohoo we won! The revolution is here and now all our problems will be solved!" The president alone doesn't have the power to do that, and shouldn't. A Bernie victory, even in the general, is more like "finally a baby step in the right direction" to me.
There's one important traditional divide in the working class or with blue-collar workers. And that is if the person an employee or an entrepreneur, a self-employed person. This has a big effect on just what issues one see important. The self-employed or family enterprise hasn't got the employer and capital (if any) is owned by the person. This divides basically from outward factors the group into two.
And yes, you are totally correct about the effect of the American ideology. But why the left has been out of the picture in the US has to do other historical reasons also. The labor movement hasn't had the same success as in other countries (and was infiltrated by organized crime). Population made out of immigrants hasn't had similar social and class structure than old European countries: modern USA hasn't been built on the remnants of feudalism, so no history of peasant revolts. Non-leftist parties have dominated US politics. And of course, US has prospered, which naturally has kept the people very content and hasn't driven them to the barricades. People are happy when things work.
People weren’t happy. That’s why Trump.
Check out this OP.
Meanwhile, sudden outbreak of sanity from an unexpected source:
https://nyti.ms/2tVh4jH]
Trump's meddling in the judiciary is yet another impeachable offense.
Showing your unhappiness in the voting booth means that things are OK. That's just how Republics ought to work.
Totally another thing is to overthrow the whole system by violence and put your life on the line when doing it. Unhappiness comes in different levels.
If you ask me, Trump is definitely throwing a wrench in the system to say the least.
I won’t hold my breath, but maybe I will be humble and say that Barr could surprise us. Everything it’s been reported he’s been doing including working with Guiliani speaks otherwise.
I wish I could work for Trump for a day. I would make him cry.
They most certainly do. It's the reason you're even making the argument you're making.
Many of his voters love that. They don't care so much how otherwise Trump does, as long as the economy is going well, and are happy with the giving the middle finger to the establishment. Even that Trump basically has been part of the elite, but not very popular among them, doesn't matter. What works now days is portraying the politician to being the target of the establishment, the "deep state" etc.
Trump is populist and obviously doesn't have in mind to approach new voter segments. Populism of course divides people and causes juxtaposition in the political landscape. Basically the GOP strategy would be to portray the Democrat candidate as even worse than Trump. They know how historically low the approval ratings of the President are, so there are few other ways out of it. Hence my view that the fall election will be as bad as the 2016 election. Hard to see that Trump would change his antics.
Like Bernie?
So you take the line of blaming the politicians. Fine. Take a look at the amount of money needed to run a campaign. If you don't have the money, you're not in it. The media will ignore you, you won't be able to buy advertisements, etc. Those who fund your campaign you are beholden to. This has been the reality for over 100 years and since the rise of the PR industry. To blame any one thing, like politicians, is simpleminded. Of course many are weak, but there's an obvious filtration process: those who don't accept the money and rationalize accepting it don't get elected. So what do we end up with, given this condition?
The true power, however, lies in the hands of concentrated wealth, which in this society is found in the form of big business (mainly multinational corporations), run by a small segment of the population. As has been pointed out, this small segment gets nearly everything on their agenda legislatively and otherwise, through lobbying and the aforementioned bribes ("campaign contributions").
It's not only their fault, and it's not that they're all evil people. But we have to at least acknowledge their disproportionate influence on our society and our laws. It's all tilted in their favor, predictably. You have to notice this.
You are right about this, and all you said, but I'll add a root cause: people are stupid and lazy. If every voter took the time to analyze policy and candidates, they could (in theory) make a merit-based selection. It's sad that advertising blurbs make such a difference.
I have debates with friends of mine about exactly this. I certainly feel this way a lot, but the more rational part of me knows damn well that it's not just the people's fault. Many people can't locate the US on a world map or know that the Earth orbits the sun, etc. Terminology effects peoples opinions, too. In one poll, "Universal health coverage" and "medicare for all" had 63% "positive" reaction, while "single-payer health insurance" and "socialized medicine" had 49% and 46%, respectively.
The ignorance of our citizens is indeed astounding. But when millions are working multiple jobs with low wages, have families to take care of, feel completely (and justifiably) disenfranchised with the political process, with social supports weakening and the country becoming more afraid of one another and more polarized...how can you really blame them? Now add to this a very important piece: where they get their information. I don't expect Joe Sixpack to come home and read up on the latest from the Bureau of Labor Statistics or start a research project on income inequality. If he bothers with the news at all, it's probably local news (which is 95% garbage and 5% weather), or else one of the major information bubbles (like Fox News or Huffington Post, etc) or, unfortunately, social media and various Internet sites/blogs, etc. -- which is becoming more and more popular, as we all know. What do you expect to come out of all of this? An accurate and informed picture of the world?
In the introduction to "Manufacturing Consent," there's a quote from John Milton:
"Those who have put out the people's eyes reproach them of their blindness."
I think that's absolutely true.
I must have missed it. I would have remembered your response. Believe it or not you and I are virtually identical in our political outlooks even though we take the opposite side. That is, I vote in California also and I use my presidential vote as a protest vote.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Me too!
Quoting Pfhorrest
In 2008 I voted for Obama. In 2012 I voted for Gary Johnson as a protest against Obama's foreign policy, which was Bush's third term. In 2016 I voted for Trump as a protest against Hillary. But if I had lived in a swing state, I probably would have very reluctantly voted for Hillary. Trump was too much of a wildcard. But now that I've seen the Dems in delusion, denial, and outright sedition the last three years. I'm solidly for Trump. The post-2016 Dems have pushed me firmly out of their camp and into the corner of the only person who can oppose them.
Another thing I hate about California is this stupid jungle primary. By November it's Dem against Dem for every important office. Terrible system.
So, you think Bloomie can buy it? Ironic that the Dems have spent three years calling Trump an authoritarian racist; and now they may well nominate an actual authoritarian racist.
Of course I notice this. But who is doing the favoring?
Lobbying is an important avenue through which the public can petition the government, and it’s far game for any private citizen, group or corporation. People will attempt to entice politicians with money, of course. Even so, the final decision of any government legislation does not lie with the lobbyists; it lies with the government. That’s true power.
And I'm saying that your analysis is myopic since excludes the fact that the Democrats are made up of a diverse coalition of classes, ethnicities, and occupations. Not just liberal art carrying lawyers and university professors.
The "public"? "Private citizens"? Is that what comes to mind when you hear the word "lobbyist"?
There are around 14,000 lobbyists in Washington. Well over 3 billion dollars gets spent every year on lobbying.
Now look again at the research about which segment of the population ends up getting what they want. Here's a hint: it's no where close to the majority of people.
Yes, people like you and I. It is our first amendment right to petition, to influence the government. It’s one of the most important ways to do so. It worked in the case of slavery, for instance.
Funny that they’re Russian. Why do the Russians like Trump so much?
Yeah, I don’t know. He’s been harder on them than anyone else.
One could certainly make that argument, but it is strange.
One would think they would prefer someone like Bernie. The Hong Kong protesters loved Trump too. It was very interesting hearing them sing the American anthem and waving American flags. Strange world.
Well, Hong Kong makes sense. Trump and Congress made a statement against China.
He isn't Hillary Clinton.
Putin didn't like Hillary. Putin thought that when there were demonstrations against him in Russia, they were instigated by the Americans and especially by Hillary Clinton, who was the secretary of the State. Putin loathed the idea of Hillary becoming President. Then came along a playboy real estate developer down those escalator stairs and the rest is history, which NOS4A2 think didn't happen at all in any way or form, but is just a hoax conspiracy.
Why? Somehow forgetting that the US has really been a beacon of the Free Wold?
That your country has had this crazy idea of being for democracy and freedom where for example my EU stays more silent. What so strange about that?
Your views on government are laughable.
Ah, a Trump supporter. That explains the level of understanding about history and politics. Should have known.
You want to give away your own power and give it to the government. That explains your level servility.
I am consistently told how awful the country is and the becons of liberty are going out around the world.
Usually by Americans who believe it is their duty to do so. That the criticism they make actually makes America what it is. Classic example which makes is totally clear is the title of Noam Chomsky's first political bok from 1967: "The Resonsibility of Intellectuals". Cannot make it more clear what his agenda is.
They did the same with this genius Trump persecutor, what is here name, Maxima Waters? Totally hilarious, she is practically having an orgams on hearing that the Russian "Greta" can promise some dirt on Trump.
It is pretty awful in some respects, but I am curious if you can list the places that are better?
Ask a Hawaiian or a Cuban or a Fillipino or a Nicaraguan or a Guatemalan or an Iranian or an Iraqi (etcetcetc) historian what kind of beacon the United States has been.
I don't want to give up my power to the government either. Don't be ridiculoius. The difference between you and I, and why I mentioned your position is laughable (which shouldn't be taken personally), is that I'd prefer most of the power be in the hands of an entity we have a little more say in (and all too little) rather than in the hands of private ownership, where we have zero say, unless of course we own the majority (or significant amount) of shares. This is big business in the form of the (fewer and fewer) corporations that dominate banking, agriculture, drugs, energy, entertainment, sports, etc. You know this. These are not small, family-owned, local businesses.
If you're truly in favor of, or at least prefer, the real power lying in the hands of unaccountable corporations, then you're basically in favor of totalitarianism. Think about it. Not exterminating or deliberately starving people, but run in a totalitarian fashion where orders come from the top-down and where the vast majority of workers have no say whatsoever and ultimately answer to a small, removed group of people that own and make the major decisions for the company.
Consequently, I wouldn't be so quick jumping on "Big Government" liberals for their wanting to "give up" power, because you seemingly do as well, if reluctantly -- the difference, again, is that you simply can't see that of two bad choices, private tyranny or government, government is the by any measure the preferable choice. (At least if you care, as is often professed, about democracy -- what the majority of people in the country [the working and middle class] want, what most of them say they want and what most of them vote for. If you don't care about democracy, fine -- then you're in good company with James Madison and John Jay.)
And what would that be? The Responsibility of Intellectuals is a very interesting read indeed, if you take the time and make an effort to understand what's being said.
Chomsky is arguing the intellectuals throughout history have usually been on the side of the powerful and of the elite, that those who dissent are usually ostracized and persecuted (despite what we may now learn about them-- favorably-- from history books), and that this continues to the present day. I would include Chomsky himself in with these dissenters. It's no wonder he's not a Fox News or CNN pundit or gets to write for the NY Times, etc.
Sweden. Denmark. Germany. I like Canada and Belize a lot, too. Greece is really amazing. Etc.
So there's the answer to your absurd, disingenuous question. Now please go on to highlight the problems of the aforementioned countries and completely miss my point*.
* Hint: asking what country is "better" is a fatuous question, at best.
The only things private ownership has power over is its own property. They cannot force or otherwise coerce the government to do what they wish. They cannot force their employees to work for them. They cannot force you to purchase their products or services.
The government, on the other hand, can take from you what they wish, and enslave you, steal from you and kill you if you refuse to comply.
Here your use of the word "force" is I think too limited.
(1) Private ownership and private wealth do indeed exert influence and control over the government, as is well documented. If the people of the government who control what laws get written and passed -- the members of the House and Senate -- are beholden to "special interests," then these special interests have power over government. I never said it was complete power and total control.
(2) Not "forcing" employees to work for them. True, and this line is often used to justify the greed and maltreatment of workers that you see all the time. It's used to justify low wages and shortened hours to avoid benefits, etc. People don't "have" to work for these companies, after all. What do they do if they can't find anything else? They have the right to starve, I suppose.
(3) Same for "forcing" us to use their products and services. Sure. So you want high speed internet, and the only company in town is Comcast. No one is putting a gun to your head to buy high speed internet, after all. Or if Wal Mart and Shaws and CVS are the only general store and supermarket and pharmacy near you, you have a choice to drive farther and find something else, etc. etc.
Great logic. Put all the burden, all the responsibility, on the workers and consumers.
You're a good example of how propaganda turns people into apologists for concentrated power. It's terrible apologetics, in my view. All the more so because you're not one of them.
Philosophical and moral arguments were given for the justification of slavery, as well. Believed by slaveowners, yes -- but also by the slaves themselves. That's worth remembering.
Is this your adolescent son talking?
What a juvenile and petty response. If it's truly you I'd be embarrassed, even with the anonymity of the Internet.
Ayn Rand likes to focus on the word "force" too, without taking into account the power of PR and propaganda to dupe and derange the unwitting. (Most people are the unwitting, in this case.)
Another example of a conveniently limited delineation of the notion of force.
I'm sure Rand probably noticed the power of owning the media, but you're right -- she never emphasized that. But this is a huge piece of keeping the public complacent, confused, and apathetic. (There's also a lot of "political hobbyism" going on.) Power is also welded through our schools, of course.
True, because the laws are created by the government and law enforcement (from the FBI on down to local police) therefore has to exist. But ask yourself who's creating the laws (to be enforced in the first place), and who makes up the court system that interprets the law?
It's been shown that the government is in bed with private wealth and power, and thus you will see this reflected in the types of laws that get passed, the types of rulings that are handed down (Citizens United, Janus, etc), and the varying severity of punishment and use of force. (Also look at the spreading of news and information, now done mainly through the media.)
All of these factors therefore come into play when discussing power in the country. If you believe the "buck stops" with the President, or with Congress, or with the military and law enforcement, you're missing a bigger picture. Neither the government nor private power can exist without the majority of people, and everyone in business and everyone in government knows this. Your point about violence is simply one piece. There are other structures in place: indoctrination systems (like "education") and propaganda. This is especially true of a relatively free society like ours.
So in what respect are Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Canada, Belize and Greece better? They all have their number of problems too. And how is asking which country you find better after call one awful a "fatous question"? Looks like a relevant question to me.
Exactly. One can see this everywhere. In the prices of goods and services, in the rise of debt and credit cards, in the rise of tuition in public (and private) colleges and universities (and thus student loan debt), in rent prices, in mortgages, in car loans, in the limited choices we're given as "consumers," and on and on.
I grew up in Andover, MA. Right next door was Lawrence, an old mill town and much poorer. I could see very clearly what money can buy, from better schools and nicer stores and less police involvement on down. But it's hard to miss even without living with that contrast. I think a large part of it is that people don't like discussing class and money.
Which is exactly my point. We have our problems, they have theirs. We have our virtues, so do they.
Quoting Nobeernolife
Who called the United States "awful"? I certainly didn't. But who cares anyway if someone did? Why should you get defensive about that? It's as absurd as getting upset if someone "insults" your favorite sports team -- may be annoying, but the more interesting question is why they're doing that. Sometimes there's good reason. If there isn't, and they're just prejudiced, then in my view the proper response is to ignore them, not engage in a pissing contest about what country is "better."
I just checked, and no it was not you. I was commenting on another posters message. So why do butt in, and in such rude manner?
You might want to take a walk, take a deep breath, and get all that adrenaline out of your system, rather than banging on the keyboard.
Fine. The point stands.
Quoting Nobeernolife
Because it's a public forum. If you want to have private discussions, you can. If you don't want others reading or responding to you, that's the way to go.
As far as being "rude," fine. I get this a lot. I'll agree to try and be better if you (and others) agree to toughen up a little.
"[b]We have a short-term problem: what lever do you push in November of this year? Simple question. What you do is pick the one that's least damaging. OK, after having spent five minutes figuring that out, you now go back to work trying to develop the basis for much more substantial changes to develop popular movements which will be active, engaged on real issues, never stopping or restricting themselves to the quadrennial extravaganza, but working all the time on the ground in communities, in education and in organizing activism to create the larger scale changes that are needed.
These are not alternatives. We shouldn't be trapped by the doctrinal system which identifies "politics" as showing up every couple years to push a button to select one or another candidate picked by the powerful. Yes, that choice makes a difference -- makes a significant difference -- but after making that choice (which again should take you five minutes to figure out), you get back to work.
In fact, it's no secret that the mainstream Democratic establishment are very concerned that Bernie Sanders might gain the nomination, they're doing everything possible to undermine him. Why? I don't think it's because of his policies. The fact of the matter is that his policies are an expansion of the New Deal, which wouldn't surprise Eisenhauer -- our last conservative President. But what really is bothersome is that he's breaking with the condition that the public are supposed to be occasional participants who's role in the political system is to pick one or the other of the dominant class. He's breaking with that.[/b]"
I think Biden has almost no chance at this point. It's going to end up being Bernie or Bloomberg, which is a disaster. But let's hope Bernie pulls away with the delegates so it doesn't come to the shenanigans.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/18/politics/bloomberg-qualifies-democratic-debate-nevada/index.html
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/18/bloomberr-sanders-biden-top-virginia-primary-115743
Any idea what the “no one” means? I cannot wrap my head around it.
Hey thanks. Makes sense.
I don't know about needing to die, but I don't like him buying his way into this race either.
Then Diamond Donnie can verbally pound the Bernie Bros and Bern-outs like Lou the bar owner pummeled Tyler Durden in the basement scene from Fight Club, but all he’ll hear is “Hahahahahhaa! You don’t know where I’ve been, Lou!” :sweat:
Oh I can't wait to watch the video with a tub of extra buttery popcorn & a pint or three. :clap: :smirk:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomangell/2020/02/01/bernie-sanders-pledges-legal-marijuana-in-all-50-states-on-day-one-as-president/#39cbb1231c16
Only Bernie Sanders said yes, i.e. the candidate with the most votes should receive the nomination, while the other five on stage advocated for following the rules of the DNC which, in the case of a non-majority, would allow undemocratically elected super-delegates to vote in a second ballot to decide the nominee, and guess who the last person they would vote for would be? And with still a wide candidate field it disincentives candidates who have no path to victory to stay in the race on the chance of being favored by the undemocratic super-delegates should a brokered convention take place.
Oh yes, definitely! Thanks. Though since as you know DT seems to favor the status quo (according to the article linked below. But who knows what the heck his real thinking on the issue is. He is a master at obfuscation, bluffing, and misdirection. And he would probably take that as a compliment on his “gamesmanship”, lol.) of the individual States decisions on cannabis, a Democrat opponent who favors immediate national legalization would seem to have an edge in possibly swaying any voter partial to total legalization. In other words, “stealing” votes from Trump, who conceivably would not want to lose his powerful support from the anti-cannabis lobby in its various forms. This is of course speculation on my part, an attempt at an educated guess. I could envision other scenarios as well. But this issue is more than just “some pot in every pocket”. It concerns the decades-long practices of overly harsh criminal sentences and racial and political discrimination. It’s an issue with deep roots, and one that might have an impact on the presidential election.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/02/16/donald-trump-and-marijuana-everything-you-need-to.aspx
Well, yes... that’s the nightmare scenario, in my opinion. Of the DNC getting cold feet on a hot Bernie and screwing him and his many supporters over even worse than in 2016. It hopefully will not come to that. Personally, I hope Bernie Sanders wins the nomination handily. But as the saying goes, there is many a slip between cup and lip. Bernie must go full-speed until it is completely decided, not making any big mistakes, such as insulting potential Trump voters. Sway them, praise them. Don’t anger them as HRC did.
IF some sneaky shenanigans kept Bernie from the nomination (as opposed to getting beat fairly), then the difficult question of his running as an independent would arise. Running in the presidential election as an independent, conceivably with Elizabeth Warren as a running mate, he very possibly could win a three-horse race, despite the anguished cries of “you’ll split the vote!” Hopefully, a conservative independent candidate (or three) would take some votes from DT in that unfortunate and avoidable scenario.
He has stated that he will support the democratic nominee no matter what, so he very likely wouldn't consider running as an independent.
The irony of course is that, despite being called "devisive", despite the calls for "unity" among candidates, he was the only one on stage that believed the candidate with the most votes should receive the nomination, rather than swayed by undemocratic super-delegates.
Too much talk about a brokered convention. If by chance that happens, it won't be so close as to be reasonable to give it to someone other than the delegate leader. It would be suicide if they gave it to Bloomberg or whoever instead of Sanders, for example. There's no sense getting worked up about this. The DNC is sleazy but not that stupid.
I thought Bernie handled the attacks well. The "socialist millionaire with three houses" was bound to be brought up, and plays very well unfortunately. Better to get it out of the way and give Bernie some practice, because Trump will undoubtedly use this as well (ironically, another billionaire). I don't think "billionaires shouldn't exist" plays well either, and I wish he would be more clear about how he will pay for Medicare for All -- have some response that's quick. If citizens buy into "Mexico will pay for it," then they'll buy anything -- it doesn't matter, but say something and say it quickly.
Otherwise, he did fine as usual, and it was good to have a billionaire contrast on the stage.
In terms of composure, confidence, and handling a possible debate with DT (if he would even deign to appear at one) “Bulldog” Bernie seems the strongest and the best. Followed by Warren, with Joe Biden a distant third IMHO. The others are so-so, and Bloomberg looked like a deer frozen in the headlights, maybe thinking to himself “when did the word billionaire ever get to be a curse word? What planet am I on?” Trump would be relentless against Bloomberg, and just might make him cry. No one wants to see that. Yesterday’s debate was a tickling match, by comparison. (Bloomberg’s use of the word “communist” towards Sanders smacked of desperation. And did anyone else chuckle when he said “the Me-Too mutant... er... MOVEMENT... ? Freudian slips are always fun. And is it me, or does Michael Bloomberg have a slight but noticeable whining tone to his voice? He seems decent and sincere, but to me it’s a case of “too little, too late”.)
Pete B. does indeed present himself rather well. However, as inexperienced as he is, his lukewarm, middle-of-the-road stance on most issues appears to me even more problematic. Just very uninspiring, despite his pride in being the safe choice, or whatever. Vanilla. Sanders is 40 years older and has the burning passion of a college student handing out leaflets. Pete has all the fire of someone preparing their retirement fund, or something. One day, it would be good to see a LGBTQ President. Just not him, not now anyway. Though perhaps he could be Biden’s VP choice, going for a Batman / Robin “the boy wonder” vibe. Not sure. Also, I might be a little predisposed against him because I can’t pronounce his last name, lol.
Elizabeth Warren did well, as usual. She is probably more articulate when saying similar things than Bernie Sanders, who sometimes shouts a little too much and doesn’t appear as intellectually and verbally subtle as Warren. Am I wrong in assuming a Sanders / Warren ticket if Bernie wins the nomination? Personally, I don’t mind who would be president and who would be VP in that scenario. But Bernie has the mojo at the moment, so he’d be the nominee, one supposes. (Though as an aside, Warren loves to launch into “personal stories” that sometimes cause my eyes to inadvertently roll. I was waiting for her to say “I was talking to a Nevada man who was hospitalized because he had no head. He couldn’t afford the medical treatment, so it had to be removed. That he could still speak was an inspiration to me... :lol: )
Yes, Pete seemed to cruelly and unnecessarily twist the blade when confronting her about her forgetting the name of Mexico’s President. She looked shocked, but recovered nicely. I imagine that it must be torture up on that stage. One is either a forgotten loser, or the target of everyone else. Difficult sometimes to watch the Roman senators play gladiator.
I think she looked rattled and weak. She appeared on the verge of tears almost. Her line about "Do you think I'm dumb, are you mocking me?" was kind of pathetic. Why not just say "I forgot, mistakes happen" strongly, and then move on. This was terrible for her. Pete looked like an ass, too, but he was still successful in making her shake.
I really wouldn't worry about it. Like I said earlier, the DNC are indeed sleazy, but they're not completely blind. They don't like Sanders, but they'll very easily recognize what a big mistake it is, especially this time around. And Sanders will most likely get the plurality, yes -- but others will drop out as well along the way, leaving some distance between his delegate count and the count of the potential second-place finisher, making it even more striking if they simply declare a winner other than Sanders. In other words, if he ends up with 1400 delegates, it's not as if second place will have the remaining 1591 or whatever it is. The rest will either vote according to who their the candidate who dropped out endorsed or can vote however they'd like at the convention -- but the point is, the distance will be sufficiently large, and this in itself will almost force the DNC's hand to give it to Sanders.
I think that this (or something close) will indeed be the case. Truly hope so anyway. For people like me on the back edge of the sidelines, it doesn’t affect much whatever we say. For those directly involved, I imagine they have plans A, B, C, D, etc. lined up ready for any contingency.
I sometimes wonder how much the exclusive two-party system in the US feeds the imbalanced situation. The two parties pretend to be so different, but to my eyes they are very similar. Even if Sanders is elected, any improvements that the general public sees might be slow coming. Guess we’ll take what we can get, and get the type of leaders we ask for. For the leaders really don’t do much on their own. They just get in front of whichever way the people and times are going.
Yes, and it'll be very hard to defeat Trump, win congress, get things passed, etc. But what's the alternative? Lay down and die? Passivity? Apathy? That's been tried. We call it the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. We see what we got for aspiring to be nothing more than television watchers working steady 9-5 jobs with the hope of meeting someone, buying a house and starting a family. There's a big world out there and it's worth understanding and, more importantly, worth fighting for.
So yes, it'll probably be slow going and is an uphill battle. No doubt. We knew it from the beginning. We've gotten THIS far, though. Would we have dreamed of being this close even 6 years ago?
I’ll say this... if Sanders or Warren wins the upcoming election, then in some strange way I’ll be glad that HRC lost in 2016. (I felt devastated then). Even though the last four years have been white-knuckle anxiety at times. If Hillary were occupying the White House for 8 years, keeping the status quo while trying to seem to appear to care... well, it’d be depressing for everyone on both “sides”.
But that’s IF Sanders or Warren win, of course. Just my two cents, adjusted for stagflation, lol.
Personally, that's still something I aspire to... like, the bare minimum I aspired to have had already well over a decade ago, and am still very slowly struggling toward, despite making better progress at it than like 75% of the country if the statistics are to believed. The apparently near-impossibility of ever achieving that bare minimum any time in my natural lifespan is a large part of what's got me so pissed off about politics.
(I got the steady job and met someone just shy of a decade ago... but even beginning to buy a house, and so being able to afford to live together, and get married, is still years if not decades away, even at my breakneck rate of saving... and actually paying off that house before I'm too old to work, so we don't just die homeless in the streets when we're old, is not something I'm sure will ever be possible).
Boot-ih-judge. :wink:
Quoting 0 thru 9
I'd love that, but I think they're all probably courting Booker and Harris right now. I prefer Booker, myself, but Harris would be okay as VP.
I was just wondering about Kamala Harris. Thought that she’d be one of the finalists. But yes, she (or Booker) definitely could be someone’s VP choice. There’s a lot of soap opera left to go...
https://truthout.org/articles/elizabeth-warren-made-a-meal-of-mike-bloomberg-in-las-vegas/
Nice article. Very accurate about Buttigieg, whom I've nicknamed Petty Pete after last night.
I think The Onion really nailed it though. :joke:
Once you get to the second round and the superdelegates take over, Bernie is certain to be screwed. The only question is whether the Bernie bros will burn down the convention center or the entire city of Milwaukee. (/jk Bernie fans).
Bernie Bro or no, every American citizen should be up in arms if the DNC blatantly refuses to accept the will of the people.
Boot-edge-edge.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/us/politics/buttigieg-2020-president.html
I certainly sympathize with this point of view. I too was very disappointed in 2016 -- I voted for Clinton as the least damaging candidate, although I couldn't stand her. I think I was in very good and very large company. It was those friends of mine that felt that there was no big difference between candidates that swung the election; despite being ridiculous to me, for them there was not enough contrast between Clinton and Trump. They convinced themselves, or were convinced by the equivalence argument. Others stayed home because Clinton wasn't their 1st choice.
Anyone in a swing state that cares about climate change, to take one of the most important examples, and who didn't vote for Clinton in 2016 -- these are the people who angered me the most. They made a huge mistake, and essentially helped contribute to the last 3 years' policies which further accelerated the possibly of killing our species off (and this is not exaggeration, alarmism, or hyperbole-- this is real life). I'm hoping they are the ones who show up this time around.
But to your point -- yes, losing those people and costing us the election in 2016 may indeed be a blessing, but remember that Bernie could have been the nominee that year as well, and was polling better than Clinton was versus Trump. It's hard to forgive the DNC for that, in that case. But this is all speculation in the end -- maybe 4 years of Sanders would have resulted in an even more extreme Republican nominee, or 4 years of Clinton just status quo inaction and apathy on the Left and the continuation of Right's dominance of state and local politics through grassroots organization (I think that would have been far more probable).
I think it's time to pull more to the left now, because it's the only way to bring balance back after such a rightward shift for the last 40 years, culminating in this administration and embodied in the Great Opportunist, Donald Trump. There are still many in the middle, but best to provide the "middle" and all the "independents" out there with a real contrast: not deep red and reddish pink, but deep red and deep blue. I think most independents naturally get tired of the party in charge. Granted, that's normally been the case after 8 years, as most incumbents get re-relected, but Trump is an animal all of his own.
I digress.
What statistics? What metric are you referring to here? Yearly salary or something, or are you saying that 75% of Americans don't have a partner and steady job?
I think it should be either bare minimum as it once was (an economy that allowed for people to have a car and house and savings on a one-salary family income with inexpensive or affordable education and healthcare), or else given up on if it becomes too costly to personal well-being and living a good and happy life.
In other words, trying to keep up with the Jones or the standard idea of the "American Dream," if it means having to work non-stop, get into extreme debt -- why bother? And what's the dream, exactly? What's so essential about a house and a car? You don't need either to find someone to love, or to raise a family. Plenty of people all around the world and throughout history have done just fine without most of what we view as "essential." They may have been the standard way of American living in the 50s or something, but we live in a very different world and should therefore adjust our expectations and ambitions. Why are we still going for "success" in the form of money, material status, and having a family?
That was my point.
Explain why you think this is true. I don't see it.
How so?
Quoting Artemis
Bernie isn't a registered Democrat yet he's seeking the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party with the promise to take a (very much needed and overdue) wrecking-ball to establishment power structures which includes the DNC and donors, etc. Bernie's like a house guest that's come to visit and over breakfast announces he not only intends to rearrange the furniture but also replace some of it and remodel the kitchen, bathrooms, maybe finish the basement (rip out that funky ol' "man cave"), and redo the landscaping. Of course the DNC will protect itself - the status quo - and show this homewrecking guest - "revoluntionary" :roll: - the door any way they can as soon as they can. And this hyperbole - wtf - "will of the people"? The vox populi only applies to General Elections and not to 'nominating' elections & caucases within PRIVATE political parties (or conventions) which aren't under any obligation by statute or the constitution to be "fair & democratic". Btw, last time I checked, a plurality is less a majority and therefore only "the will of SOME of the people" ...
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Much appreciated. :up:
What helps me when thinking about these things in particular (or about the past in general) is to say to myself that the time just wasn’t ready for (X). The situation or circumstances (for whatever reason, fair or not) were not completely ripe. Maybe now it is ripe for a change. If so, then it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to stop the flow of the river that was once a tiny trickle of water.
Quoting Xtrix
Certainly. Where I live, the city is very quick to respond to a call about a rabid animal, and quickly puts it out of its misery, for everyone’s sake and safety. Just a random thought... (so vote early, and often!) :lol:
But... (how to put this in the right way?)... she is in the same “lane” as Bernie Sanders (to use that buzzword). And she is the only other person close to sharing his viewpoints, and therefore his potential voters. Now, even though she might conceivably do as well against “the incumbent” (or even perhaps better, her being less somewhat less radical or “socialist” than Sanders in the view of some voters)...
The question could soon arise as to if (or when) the best time for her to “throw her support” behind Bernie might be.
Now, in another campaign year, the normal strategy would be to stay in the race as long as possible, and let the chips fall where they may. But this time is a bit unusual, with its still crowded field, and polarized sides. Like many have mentioned, both here and in the media, it would GREATLY benefit Sanders to lock up the nomination as quickly as possible, long before the convention. Every single delegate is important. The thinking seems to be that Biden walks away with the nomination if the “super-delegates” decide the matter.
So... as great a candidate as she may indeed be... when would it become advantageous to the “progressive movement” (for lack of a better term) for her to clear the way for Sanders, and to unite forces?
True, and it's also important to remember that YOU are a part of that river. We all have far more influence than we think, in my view. The state of politics in this country is at a very interesting stage, and hasn't always been this way.
We've become alienated from politics in a way similar to other fields, yet many more people have opinions about it that are becoming more and more rigid, dogmatic and fanatical.
So while we're equally alienated from, and possess the same level of understanding as, say, physics, there are many more political "buffs" and "nerds" out there than there are physics buffs, in the sense of a hobby. That's a dangerous phenomenon. It's dangerous because politics isn't simply an academic subject one studies in school in an abstract, theoretical way. What happens in what's called our political realm has real-world consequences, and so our participation in the process matters all the more. It doesn't take a degree in "political science." All you need to do is look around at your own life and the lives of the people around you, the laws being passed, the distribution of wealth and resources, the quality of life of various groups (or "classes") of people. You don't have to know who Machiavelli, or John Locke, or Adam Smith, or Karl Marx, or Aristotle is, you don't have to read esoteric journals, and you don't have to know the history of every country. All of that can help, of course, but it's not necessary to seeing the truth and describing it accurately. It takes no greater level of intelligence than understanding sports.
This is a particularly good example in the US, because there are for more sports enthusiasts out there than even political hobbyists, and while perhaps most have a very detailed knowledge of the sport and can give vehement arguments about a team or a player, they're as equally removed from actual participation as political hobbyists like you and I (if that's a fair label). We don't run for anything or organize people in any way, and probably don't follow or contribute to an organization either. There was an excellent article in the Atlantic about this I'll link below. It opened my eyes even wider to how little influence all my thinking, reading, writing and talk about politics actually has on the state of affairs compared to concrete action, organization and collaboration with otherpeople in the real world.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/political-hobbyists-are-ruining-politics/605212/
March 4th is my guess: the day after Super Tuesday (unless, of course, she emerges with the most delegates, then Bernie should "clear the way" for her ...)
I think Warren has had a bit of bad luck in the sense of running alongside someone with similar ideology but also more experience and already existing, large base of supporters. That's one strike. Another strike is simply being a woman. As correct, intelligent, articulate, and confident as she is, I think there's a bias about both her looks and her delivery that works against her in much the same way it did for Hillary. I don't think that's fair, but I see it all around me and feel it in myself at times -- seems too calculated.
But the main reason is just getting less of a share of the progressive vote, and that's because of Sanders. For me, it's because he's been around longer and in that time has been far more consistent in his ideology and has been therefore consistently on the right side of history, even when the choices were extremely unpopular even within his own "party."
I was talking about income there, as apparently the mean personal income (which I approximately make) falls at around the 75th percentile of personal incomes, i.e. 75% of people make less than that.
Quoting Xtrix
You need a home big enough for two people to live in if they're going to be a family, even if they're not planning on having kids (which we're not). We're scraping by because she lives with family on super-discounted rent and I own a tiny one-room mobile home in a shitty trailer park that's also rent-controlled; when either of us visits the other, we can at most bring a backpack full of stuff to the other's place, and even that just sits on the floor in the way and constantly needs to be moved to get about, so there's no way we could actually live together on a long-term basis unless one of us was just living out of a backpack indefinitely.
An apartment big enough for two would leave us scraping by paycheck-to-paycheck, not saving anything for the future, and so when we're too old to have paychecks to pay toward that rent anymore, would leave us out on the street. The interest alone on a mortgage on the cheapest available house in the area would be just as bad, never mind paying down the principle.
So we're waiting for ages and ages and ages until we have enough saved up to put a big enough down payment on a house that the interest on the mortgage would not eat up even more than our rent already does and so even-further delay finally not owing money just for the right to exist somewhere, which at our current rates of savings we might just barely manage by the time we're too old to work anymore.
That is why a house is essential.
And apparently 75% of people make even less money than me, so are even more screwed.
Anyway, I wasn't meaning originally to contradict your point, but to emphasize that things were even worse than you're already making them out to be, to double down on your original point.
So.... around 50k? Have you paid off the mobile home? So monthly take home after tax is maybe...$4k? $3500? I'd be interested to see a budget breakdown.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/bernie-sanders-briefed-by-us-officials-that-russia-is-trying-to-help-his-presidential-campaign/2020/02/21/5ad396a6-54bd-11ea-929a-64efa7482a77_story.html
First rule of Russian interference: it’s always someone the DNC wants to destroy: sanders, Trump, Stein, Gabbard.
Thanks for the indepth response! I’ll check out the article that was linked.
Ahh, a guess with an exact date! Nice. (You win the donkey stuffed animal, signed by Jimmy Carter :grin: ). I might be inclined to agree with that thinking. I wonder if perhaps they have an agreement to do just that. We shall see soon enough. (I’m assuming that they even like each other? Seems like it. Hope so.)
Super Tuesday less than 2 weeks away, approaching like a tornado.
Saving 1/3 of your income is really good. Bravo. I don't know how much houses cost in your area, but if it's prohibitively expensive you might want to either look into a condo or just trying to find a different job in a different part of the country. I live on the east coast and the difference in the cost of housing between say, Boston and Baltimore (where I live now) is just absurd. If you were to move down south it gets even cheaper around $150k is possible and with the FHA loan you'd only be paying 10% down so $15k. You could be doing everything right but if you live in San Francisco forget about it.
Thanks.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
The median cost for the entire state of California is over half a million dollars, and I can't find anything less than that within hundreds of miles of the general area where my girlfriend and I have grown up and lived our entire lives with our families and friends and everything here. (Ventura county).
If it was just a matter of "moving out of the city" (I don't live in a city at all) or moving to the next county or something, there'd be no problem. And yes, I know that I personally could let myself be forced out of my homeland by wealthy [s]invaders[/s] "investors" and find a place that's cheaper in a far-away place that I would probably hate living, but when it's not my personal fault that I can't afford to stay here, and the vast majority of my compatriots, the hundreds of thousands of people who can afford to live here even less than me, aren't getting out first, I'm not just going to accept defeat.
Someone's gotta fucking do something about this and if that means killing some rich motherfucker so the people who live in his second or third "investment" house can stop paying him for the privilege, so be it. Or maybe, you know, we could try a less drastic solution before it comes to that.
Well good for you. :)
Quoting Pfhorrest
A home in the sense of some kind of dwelling place, yes. Not necessarily a house.
Quoting Pfhorrest
I'm sure your situation is shared by many Americans. How old are you, if you don't mind my asking?
Quoting Pfhorrest
My wife and I still rent and have been postponing buying a house. Mortgaging a house is in many ways the better alternative because you are at least paying down the mortgage and building equity as opposed to simply giving away money every month and owning nothing.
So I hear you on all of this, but my point was that none of this in itself should be an end in itself -- weather owning a home or saving money or having a retirement plan or making sure you're secured when you're old, etc. I think all of that is fine, but that the emphasis, the stress, that has been placed on these objectives is and has been out of whack for a long time.
It's simply taken for granted that having a billionaire dollars makes you "successful," for example. I hear this all the time in reference to Bloomberg. But I ask: why? Maybe in the domain of business, where the game is "won" by accumulating more and more profit, does this metric make sense, and even there this is arguable. But applied to a person's life generally is absurd. Moreover, what's frustrating is that my fellow countrymen will take this for granted while at the same time professing agreement with the proverbial "money can't buy me love" and "money is the root of all evil"-type stuff.
Quoting Pfhorrest
I understand. So you're right, of course. The "American Dream' has indeed become more and more elusive, especially since about the 1970s. But even if we were in the 1950s again, my point would be the same: that our highest aspirations as Americans, in the form of the American Dream of a steady, well-paid job, a house and car, and a wife and family, is itself a mistake. Not that it's morally or financially wrong to want a family or a house, but that the ideal itself is a mistake and is given too high a priority.
That most Americans are even worse off was kinda my point.
We’re both 37, so Elder Millennials, Class of 2000.
So long as the interest portion of the mortgage is less than the rent you would otherwise be paying, yes. Paying 6/12 your income in interest and 1/12 toward equity is worse than paying 3/12 in rent and saving 4/12 toward other investments, even though of course it’s definitely better than paying 7/12 in rent.
And yeah, sure you get more house right now for that 7/12 spent entirely on housing right now, but if you’re barely going to ever be safe from homelessness with just 4/12 set aside to buy your way out of that, reducing that to 1/12 or 0/12 so you can have a big enough place right now is just short sighted.
Beyond her ostentatious mishandling of Bernie's purported "A Women Can't Win" comment, she's increasingly engaged in spurious attacks centered on internet Bernie Bro meanies and misleading attacks from the Culinary Union's leadership. Despite nominally being the "unity" candidate and a progressive ally of Sanders, she's recently participated in hackenyed (and frankly anti-semitic) statements around Bernie's...yelling...despite prominent surrogates for Sanders defending her performance at Wednesday's debate against critics. But perhaps most egregious was her answer for one of the last questions at the most recent debate in which she answered no to the question "should the person with the most delegates at the end of this primary season be the nominee, even if they are short of a majority?", which, as it currently stands will most likely work against Sander's chances at the nomination in favor of a moderate who rejects the progressive policies proposed by Sanders/Warren.
There's already so much inane noise and table pounding directed against Sanders, (who may well become the first Socialist president of the USA or at least the most progressive president since FDR), from conservatives to pearl-clutching Democrats, Warren's comments and actions have become a major turnoff.
Quoting 180 Proof
Did you move, I thought you lived in Arizona?
If I were you I would swallow my pride and do what is best for you and your partner. If you want to suffer on this cross and complain about it you can, just don't act like you're "forced" to. In some areas of the country, not only would you be a homeowner but you'd be able to go out to eat whenever you wanted and genuinely enjoy a nice financial cushion. But I guess that would mean admitting defeat. It's really just a pride thing for you.
It’s not a matter of pride, it’s a matter of not just giving in and letting us be forced out of our home so that some rich asshole can move in here instead (or, more accurately, so some super-rich asshole can buy all the housing stock and rent it out for profit). The hundreds of thousands of people poorer than us who aren’t all fleeing to cheaper shitholes aren’t sticking around for pride either. People shouldn’t be forced out of their homes, and financial pressure is a kind of force. In telling me that I should move, you’re saying that almost everybody in the entire state of California, the most populous state in the country and one of the largest, also shouldn’t live in the state that they do: that almost everybody in a place bigger than most European countries should go to what is consequently equivalent to another country. Should the vast majority of Brits move to Russia too? It’s a comparable population, distance, climate difference, cost of living difference, etc. Or should Britain get its shit together so Brits can stay in Britain?
The only kind of home that you can truly own is a house, because if you live in a part of a building with other people, even if you nominally “own” your part, you have to keep paying fees or you can still be kicked out.
So for people to be secure from homelessness, they need to own houses. And security from homelessness is like... the most elementary kind of thing to aspire to.
I moved (back) to Atlanta in 2015. However, looking forward to relocating to Portland, Oregon this fall. Left coast "blue state" for the duration - putting down roots finally.
It was reported today that Bloomie's already conspiring with the superdelegates.
There's a fight to the death between the centrist neoliberals -- the Hillary wing of the party -- and the radical leftists. I'm sure you know this.
If Bernie shows up in Milwaukee with a plurality but not a majority of the votes, then the superdelegates will have their way. The superdelegates are party insiders, status quo types. They remember 1972. They are not letting Bernie win the nomination. Blooomie, flawed as he is, is the only status quo candidate who can beat Trump. Biden's not even in the race anymore, nobody bothered to attack him at the debate the other night. It was sad to watch. Today he got confused and said his late son Beau was the Attorney General under Obama.
When I went looking for a link to that last bit the only one I found was on Breitbart.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/02/21/joe-biden-falsely-claims-son-beau-was-us-attorney-general/
So people who don't read Breitbart and who get their news from MSNBC or the New York Times, have no idea that Joe Biden isn't even on this planet anymore, let alone in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. I hope you see how news reporting works these days.
The story about Bloomie plotting with the superdelegates was reported yesterday by Politico, a center-left outlet.
Bloomberg quietly plotting brokered convention strategy
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/20/bloomberg-brokered-convention-strategy-116407
Dems violently split between their centrists and leftists, just like today. In 1968 the centrists won and the Dems nominated centrist Hubert Humphrey, who had even refused to come out against the Vietnam war. The leftists were marching against the war every day.
Humphrey lost to Richard Nixon in what was at that time the closest election history.
By 1972 the leftists took back the party and nominated George McGovern. Nixon got reelected in a historic landslide, winning 49 out of the 50 states.
Hillary is Humphrey, the centrist beating back the challenge from Bernie in 2016; and Bernie, if he wins, would be McGovern. The pattern is that after the centrists beat back the leftists but then lose the general election, they're discredited and the leftists take over. Hence AOC and the sharp leftward lurch of the Democrats.
The Democratic party powers that be are damned if they are going to let 1972 happen all over again with Bernie. No other candidate can win. That leaves Bloomie as the great centrist hope. That's why his disastrous debate performance was such a shock. But Bloomie's still plotting and I would not count him out. He had the same stiff, wooden, cold demeanor when he won three elections as Mayor of NYC. He's rich and has powerful friends in high places.
Nice, hope you enjoy Portland, been a while since I've been there but certainly a great place to live.
Quoting fishfry
This was nearly 50 years ago, under vastly different conditions and with a set of voters who are now mostly dead. Not at all analogous.
Tell it to the DNC insiders plotting to stab Bernie in the back. 1972 is very much in the minds of the Dem insiders. I'm not making this stuff up. It's in the news. I can assure you that the professionals who run the campaigns are acutely aware of history. And today's politics comes directly out of that era.
Here's the Atlantic.
[b]Bernie Sanders Is George McGovern
The similarities between 2020 and 1972 are too astonishing to ignore. But there’s one big difference.[/b]
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/bernie-sanders-george-mcgovern/606883/
I don't care if it's "in the news", it's a vapid analogy attempting to be prophetic in service to democratic moderates
Apt analysis, which reminds me of a couple of maxims: "History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes" & "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce"; and the status quo "insiders" attempting to ham-fistedly avoid the rhyming farce will inadvertantly double-down on national tragedy. :shade:
2 weeks ago I also recognized there's no waking from this nightmare ... so "the game's afoot."
Take it up with the Atlantic. Or the LA Times, George McGovern is a cautionary tale for Sanders supporters.
Or if you prefer the other side of the proposition, 2020 is NOT 1972, and Bernie Sanders is NOT George McGovern.
Take your pick.
The Atlantic article, which I did happen to read early today, despite offering a simplistic overview, unequivocally concludes that the analogy is not valid (despite the clickbait headline). Did you actually read the article?
Let's agree to disagree here. Nobody knows if Bernie is McGovern. We'll find out in Milwaukee.
Quoting fishfry
You can just say "no" next time :wink:
It's legal, and Trump has benefitted from both sides of such monetary corruption. He actually publicly bragged about it on a national debate stage in 2016. The irony.
Depends on if you define majority or plurality as "most votes". The Bernie fans take one position, the swamp the other.
Whatever happens, one thing is sure: American election circus is always interesting. I have stock up on popcorn.
Maybe the DNC can implement a Condorcet method internally at least, to definitively resolve issues like this, and ensure the nomination always goes to a candidate who is preferred in a one-vs-one choice against any other option by a majority of voters. With our broken FPTP system, it's possible to have no clear majority winner, in which case the plurality winner is the closest option, but then you get issues of vote-splitting and strategic voting and all that nonsense. Goddamnit the Condorcet criteria are older than this country, how did the founders not bake them in to our voting system from the beginning.
You seem overly worried about homelessness. It's not an irrational concern, but in my view if you're fairly intelligent and resourceful enough, you can make your way -- even if that means working the menial jobs. There are a lot of ways to survive in this country. The point that it's getting harder to merely survive, let alone to live by the same standards we had 60 years ago, is obviously true.
The state of California generally recognizes that there is a homelessness crisis here... finally, after I’ve been screaming about it for well over a decade, ever since I first had to pay for my own housing, nearly couldn’t (spending a month homeless soon thereafter) despite making a median income already, did the math to figure out how long it would take to get free of that danger entirely, and realized the answer is “possibly never”. I’ve also been watching my elderly mother wavering on the edge of homelessness for years. I’ve been screaming about how can nobody see this doom coming for themselves and why isn’t anybody doing anything about it for all that time, and only now that said doom is actually starting to befall large numbers of people are they finally starting to acknowledge the problem.
I agree with most to your post, but I wasn't being facetious: if you know how the process works, what evidence is there that suggests this is most likely to happen? I realize the DNC doesn't want Bernie, but Bernie will end up with most of the delegates in the end. I have a hard time believing that the DNC is stupid enough, given the delegate numbers, to simply hand it over to Bloomberg. That's a disaster.
You could be right, but I need more. Bloomberg plotting against Sanders we knew from the beginning.
Except there are stark differences, despite the similarities.
Atlantic ran a good article about this. For those without access, here's a snippet:
No comparison of Sanders and McGovern is sufficient without acknowledging that McGovern’s campaign in the summer of 1972 was a one-of-a-kind disaster. At the national convention, McGovern faced widespread opposition from major Democratic figures, including future President Jimmy Carter. After securing the nomination in a messy war for delegates, he struggled to find a prominent Democrat to serve as his running mate. Senator Ted Kennedy, widely seen as the most popular choice, rejected multiple offers. When the convention finally agreed on Senator Thomas Eagleton, it was so late that McGovern famously didn’t take the stage to deliver his acceptance speech until after midnight on the East Coast. And this was all for naught: Within days, it was reported that Eagleton had received electroshock therapy for severe depression, and party officials urged him to quit the race. Eagleton withdrew from the ticket, the first vice-presidential candidate to ever do so, and McGovern went into late August down one running mate and 20 points in the polls.
Interesting you cite this article. He's actually arguing that while Bernie is like McGovern in many ways, the context is so very different as to make the comparison essentially meaningless. Nixon was polling very well against McGovern, and was in general a popular president --65% approval rating prior to watergate. Trump is nowhere near those numbers, Americans are not feeling the "great economy" in real terms - no matter how many times the conservative AND liberal media rams this down their throats, and Bernie has a better campaign strategy.
Fair enough. I forgot you lived in California -- I believe you mentioned it before.
Colorado has become a blue state, and our governor admires and wants to emulate California. May the saints preserve us . . .
Yeah, because those Republicans do such a great job on a state level. Everyone is dying to live in Alabama, Mississippi, and Kansas.
Try to grow beyond your simplistic red/blue dichotomy view of politics. You'll find the world is a complex place.
What's the argument against it? How about: we should be trying to simply fund medicare as it is before we consider going further.
Shooting for the moon when we cant even get a ride downtown just undermines our ability to get anything done.
An argument that has been given for decades.
I say the contrary: shoot for the moon. Who's to say what's "radical" and what isn't? Any of these things can be done. It makes sense, and it's what people want. Look at how far we came with marijuana, gay marriage, etc. Just a few years ago, there were people quite like you saying the same old stuff --- it's impossible, don't ask for it, settle for compromise.
Things have swung so far right in this country it's time for a shift to the left. At the very least it will help maintain balance in and stretch what's considered a "limit."
Medicare for All is a good idea and has majority support. Look at the plan in depth. John Oliver had a good segment on it, actually. If you can get by the silly humor, it's fairly well-researched:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z2XRg3dy9k
https://matadornetwork.com/life/10-reasons-moving-alabama-right-now/ :razz:
The first American to "give" it was Benjamin Franklin, who edited Jefferson's Declaration of Independence to avoid pissing off the south while they were trying to run a revolt. Do the revolt first, then worry about slavery.
The next famous giver of the argument was Frederick Douglass, who argued that women's rights should be put aside to pursue black citizenship post Civil War.
It's an argument that makes sense and deserves more than "it's old."
MFA is a distraction from the more pressing issue: save Medicare period.
Quoting Xtrix
Sure, but it's not going to happen.
I'm laughing at this comment. I realize it's not meant to be funny, but I guess that's partly why it's funny.
I worked with Ben Franklin. Ben Franklin was a friend of mine. You sir are no Ben Franklin.
Quoting frank
It's not that "it's old," it's that it's stupid, easy, boring, unimaginative, and shortsighted. It's been used over and over again to essentially keep the state of affairs within predetermined limits. Ask yourself: who determines the limits? And why do we accept them?
Why is Medicare for All radical, for example? Why can't we do it? People like you remind me of those nobles in Braveheart, always saying how impossible and reckless it is to do this and that. And you continually miss the point: even if we lose, even if it doesn't get through -- the very attempt changes things, and makes it even easier to get something else passed that we were all advocating to begin with. It's like the door-in-the-face compliance technique. Suddenly, after fighting this war, the battle over "fixing" medicare isn't so dire. If we settle for just fixing it, and demanding nothing more, then it's no wonder McConnell and others are getting away with setting the stage for "cutting entitlements." They're coming for social security, medicare, medicaid, and anything to do with the New Deal. Don't be fooled.
Quoting frank
Yawn. People have been screaming for decades about saving social security, saving medicare. It's going bankrupt! Etc.
Quoting frank
It will happen. But fine, take that position. Gives you a real sense of superiority. How incredibly realistic you are! A real straight-shooter!
You keep working on fixing medicare. That strategy has been a real winner so far. Way to advance the zeitgeist.
They may have just been pointing out that a high number of republicans in the neighborhood keeps property values low :razz:
Why is medicare for all a bad idea?
How do you feel about Sub-Blue Laws, Modernized Significantly reduced zoning laws and electric trike lanes. Is socialism or approaching the threshold of socialism the only option? Why is fiscal conservatism always given a bad name by many (not all) of the liberal elite? I fully understand that many republicans shouldn't be called republicans because they have no intention on embracing a truly free market. They actually aid the future enslavement and (after X time) astronomical violence that will come upon America.
The idea of a free market is a fantasy. It doesn't exist and never has.
Why do you say that. I assume you know what a spectrum is. Yes you are right an absolute free market has only ever existed when we had a band of 20 people living 500 miles from another 20 people, so by and large an absolute free market has never existed. Asking our society to move much closer to that end of the spectrum would be the best solution.
Towards a fantasy, and one that always justifies eliminating Big Government "interference", always excepting the corporate masters, of course.
I say it because it's nonsense. All the so-called examples of free-market capitalism (including the US) all turn out to be shaped by very heavy state intervention.
Quoting Xtrix
Approaching a fantasy and actually living in a fantasy are two very different things. Do you understand that? In China the government is the corporate master and the government at the same time. In America there is so much red tape that we approach the threshold of being like china. Sub-Blue Laws, modernized significantly reduced zoning laws and electric trike lanes circumvent these problems. It can be extremely tedious to legislate a religious observance to morality. Dealing with mean bosses will always be a potential no matter who takes over.
Quoting Xtrix
You realize most people who oppose a view on this forum will claim they opposed it because its nonsense. That doesn't prove your point.
Quoting Xtrix
That last sentence i would agree with for the most part, its actually many republicans who are shooting themselves in the foot, they want their taxes lowered but at the same time want to keep certain types of people out of their neighborhoods and they want their counties looking a certain way. These Republicans may as well call themselves Democrats.
I'm drawing a blank on why. Because it's not feasible? Because it's counter to American ideals? What do you think?
I understand what you think that implies, yes. But it's complete nonsense. I'm not arguing that because we never achieve some ideal or some concept of perfection that it's not worth aiming for. I'm arguing that the pursuit of this so-called ideal has been used to justify neoliberal policies, which have devised the country for 40 years and has led to astronomical wealth inequality.
Let's stop pushing for this silly ideal to begin with.
Quoting christian2017
China is a state-run economy. America is also a state-run economy, with some nice words about freedom of choice, free markets, etc. All fantasy. The concentration of wealth and power in this country gets everything they want from the government -- in a large degree they ARE in control of it. But even if you don't agree with that, it's impossible to look at the US and not see that the economy is directed by the government. Forget that China says they're "communist" and the US says it's a "democracy." Neither are true in any sense that matters.
What point? You asked meL "Why do you say that?" That's my answer. I go on to argue why, and provide evidence.
Quoting christian2017
I really don't see the relevance of that remark.
Because they probably don't even know what it means. Which is yet another reason to push for it -- gets everyone talking about it and familiar with it.
If politicians, because their corporate donors tell them to be, because medicare for all weakens corporate power and threatens many big (medical and insurance) corporations’ profits.
If voters, because those politicians and the media tell them that medicare for all will bankrupt the country and implicitly make them pay taxes through the roof and so bankrupt them, and make them wait in literal lines outside the hospital while dying of cancer instead of... not getting any treatment at all, like they probably do now.
You know, the normal ways that people are made to support things against their or their constituents’ interests.
I had a theory since my last post on this topic. Economics is irrelevant in the absence of scarcity. Housing is most people’s biggest economic factor: their biggest expense and/or biggest asset. Wherever most people live, housing is necessarily scarce relative to demand. So in the places where lots of people live, their biggest economic factor is necessarily scarce, so people in those places more readily face the failures of out capitalist economic system and call for policies ameliorating them. People who live in places that nobody wants to live therefore face no scarcity of housing and see little of the failures of capitalism, and think it’s all fine and everybody else must just be whiney losers who should leave them the fuck alone and just move somewhere nobody wants to live to escape those problems.
It's the 30 percent of Democrats I was asking about. I was hoping you'd have a thoughtful answer.
This is excellent.
The 30 percent of Democrats don't fall under "voters"?
Quite frankly, given the media coverage of M4A, and the general lack of knowledge about it, I'm shocked it's polling as well as it is not just with Democrats but nationally (51% favorability).
A good percentage of Americans can't identify the US on a world map. What do you suppose accounts for this? Thoughtful answers, please.
Yeah, one labor union in Nevada accounts for 30% of Democrats' opinions about M4A. Glad a quick Google search did the trick.
Go back to reading the NY Post and stop wasting everyone's time pretending to be interested in learning anything.
Where will they go?! Where??!
Consult Google to pick out the true and final answer -- i.e., the one you like.
The National Geographic–Roper 2002 Global Geographic Literacy Survey polled more than 3,000 18- to 24-year-olds in Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Sweden and the United States.
Sweden scored highest; Mexico, lowest. The U.S. was next to last.
"The survey demonstrates the geographic illiteracy of the United States," said Robert Pastor, professor of International Relations at American University, in Washington, D.C. "The results are particularly appalling in light of September 11, which traumatized America and revealed that our destiny is connected to the rest of the world."
About 11 percent of young citizens of the U.S. couldn't even locate the U.S. on a map. The Pacific Ocean's location was a mystery to 29 percent; Japan, to 58 percent; France, to 65 percent; and the United Kingdom, to 69 percent.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/geography-survey-illiteracy/#close
Looks like Bernie is winning big based on the little that's accounted for. I guess we're all in for another week of op-eds saying that same exact thing as last week: how he's the worst one to go against Trump and how none of his plans will happen.
And the voters will continue to steamroll over these pathetic, professional "opinion-givers."
Interesting. Now just wait until Frank finds the more thoughtful answer.
Even if Bernie wins, it's going to be brokered. Obama and Pelosi are both warning that the words "Medicare for all" are likely to make Trump seem like the safer choice. Alarms are ringing throughout the Democratic Party. People are just fundamentally afraid if socialism.
Bloomberg is going to be nominated no matter who wins the most votes.
Ok, I'm up to speed.
Not a chance.
Go Google a little more and find a more thoughtful opinion you can tout as your own.
If you are referring to the Culinary Union, the leadership of which condemned Bernie Sanders for his Medicare for All which created a lot of drawn out media furor. Despite this, the majority of the Culinary Union members ended up backing Sanders anyway :cool:
That some Americans want to keep their private insurance is a minor issue in comparison.
Well Sanders received the most votes by moderates in Nevada so it may be that mostly media and party elites consider Medicare For All to be "radical".
Quoting frank
They've been doing this for over 75 years. They did this to Obama, they did this to Hillary, and they'll do this to any other Democrat, whether or not they are a self-described socialist.
Obama is among those warning that this isn't the time to go further into socialism than we've ever gone.
It'll be interesting to see how it all pans out.
Perhaps there's a learning disability involved here.
Let me be the mean one and tell you for your own good: your entire narrative, which you continue to try to fit all evidence to the contrary neatly into, is wrong. It's stupid. It's obsolete.
Grow up.
The question you ask is, what is the evidence that I think makes the DNC screwing Bernie the most likely outcome. Well, the same people did the same thing to him in 2016. And they changed the rules to let Bloomie in the debate, while Tulsi, who has grassroots support, remains shut out.
The very existence of Bloomberg as a credible candidate is proof that the fix is in. You say you don't think they'd be stupid enough to be so blatant in their corruption. I say the Dems are long past that point. Bloomie had a tough night at the debate but he's never been a flashy debate performer. Many Dems are fully ready to abandon every one of their so-called principles to beat Trump and they know America's not ready for Bernie.
This all seems clear to me. I of course agree that I could be wrong. We'll all find out together, popcorn at the ready.
ps -- I'm pretty impressed by Bernie's strong showing in Nevada tonight. If his movement picks up steam, he could win. That's certainly the vibe tonight. Nobody believes in any of the other candidates.
Here's a nice analysis. It concludes, "The race is now Bernie's to lose." Maybe you're right.
Sanders eviscerates the conventional wisdom about why he can't win
Sander’s medicare plan seems pretty similar to what Canada and Australia already have. Why Americans are so hysterically frightened of that baffles me. You’d think he was running on ‘socializing the banking sector' or nationalising the airlines. But then, some Republicans called the Affordable Care Act communism. Capitalists have disproportionately large clout in the US electoral system.
If I thought Sanders could win, then I would be really hopeful. But unfortunately, I think it's going to be a replay of Johnson vs Corbyn, or Nixon vs McGovern. Except I can't fathom how Trump could possibly function as President for another term. He doesn't have enough family members to do the jobs and he's barely capable of a coherent thought.
At this point, given that she's come in a pretty abysmal 4th place in Nevada, it would be prudent for her to drop out and endorse Sanders. Her polling is terrible in South Carolina and every Super Tuesday state save for her own (Massachusetts), which she's projected to lose to Sanders. And she doesn't have the money for ad spending across 14 states to turn it around.
Here's some of the problems:
First, fear of the unknown. Most people have health insurance of some kind, and although they may grumble about it, there's no guarantee "Medicare for All" will be an improvement. But the unknowns are substantial.
What becomes of the medical insurance industry? I suspect most Bernie supporters don't care what happens to those fat cats, but keep in mind the industry employs a lot of people, and there are millions of stockholders (including people with a vested pension plan). . What impact will that have on the economy to lose jobs and household wealth? The collapse of this one sector could have huge impact on the economy as a whole.
Medical insurance premiums will be replaced with taxes. That sounds fine in the long run and in the aggregate, but will this happen all a once, or phased in? How can it be phased in without creating massive deficits? When phased in, this will have the same effect as a revenue-neutral change in the tax structure - it's inevitable that there will be both winners and losers. Losers will not support the change. Losers include big unions who have negotiated great health plans. Even if "Medicare for All" matches their current plans (which may be unlikely), it means their negotiations were for naught. If the transition is not done in a revenue-neutral way, we're back to massive deficits.
Will there be disruptions in service as the transition is made? There are good reasons to be concerned.
If Bernie gets elected, I predict his promise of Medicare for All will never happen. At best, a Buttigieg-style "Medicare for those who want it" might pass (I don't know how likely that is, but I think that's the best anyone can hope for).
Once again ass hole, once again, being on a spectrum and approaching that threshold is not trying to reach an ideal. Are you familiar with engineering or systems analysis and design? You don't just make a component as big as possible, you have to make it a more (more) precise shape (taper the edges and such) to get it to work (better) (not perfect).
Its funny i thought i made this clear in previous posts. I actually do for the most agree with this paragraph. Your a very simple guy at this point in your life. Just about every concept can be applied to a spectrum. Your finger nail was designed over billions of years through evolution and its development could be mapped on a spectrum. Perhaps randomness (intentional or not) could be shown to have some engineering insight as to how the finger nail got to the way it is. But like any engineer, you can't even begin to do your job if you don't understand spectrum. Absolutely everything can be applied to engineering (or systems analysis and design).principles. Part of the problem many scientists and "professionals" divorce themselves from mathematics and engineering and in all practicality these people should be called witch doctors.
ok. I'm not reposting that part. Feel free to repost our conversation, other than that i don't give a shit.
Well i did state this earlier but: zoning laws need to be restructured.....
What if it’s not a ‘collapse of a sector’ but a legitimate redistribution of resources? Why should shareholders profit from healthcare? They’re arguably transferring wealth from those unfortunate enough to fall ill.
As it happens, I currently work in the health insurance sector, in a NFP healthcare insurance company. Here in Australia they’re predicting the demise of such organisations also, as the young and healthy drop private insurance and the older and sicker pile on board. So I don’t imagine there are any easy answers. Nevertheless Sanders’ criticism of profiteering in the sector rings true with me. But the problem is, true as it might be, it won’t get him elected, and another four years of Trump could just f*** civilization to the point of no return.
I am continued to be be baffled by the Trump Derangement Syndrome. Can you explain how in your mind another years of Trump could just f*** civilization to the point of no return? I mean, rationally, without wild rants. (The claim sounds incredibly radicial, I wonder if any US president has such powers.) Thanks!
If you can't see it, there's no point trying to explain it.
Not much of an answer, is it!
If civilization is going to be %&%%%% to the point of no return, I would certainly like to hear more about it.
I do not really really see that, but OK, lets just assume it.
Quoting Wayfarer
OK, so you imagine "hugely damaging consequences for the Western democratic order".
But That is not the same as having "f*** civilization to the point of no return" as you said earlier. The "Western democratic order" as it is surely can survive some politician that you dislike. So it is not the end of civilization in 2024 after all, then?
So....pride. You can't let those rich assholes win. You are willing to continue struggling because your struggle is a moral one and you are on the good side.
Everybody is in a different situation, but I think for a lot of people if they could find a similarly-paying job elsewhere then they should probably move out. I'm not giving blanket advice here to everybody because everyone's situation is unique.
Even if you had the money required for a down payment you'd basically be draining your entire savings for that down payment, right? I would just really, really advise against that because it leaves you no cushion and you'd be living on knife's edge. On top of your mortgage you'd still have utilities, maintenance & repairs, homeowner's insurance, property taxes and HOA fees.
I'm just looking out for you here and giving you my honest take on how to best proceed. I am not a financial adviser, but I would recommend that you go to one. In the end its your life and you're going to make your own decisions. I didn't mean to start a debate, this is just what I would do.
EDIT: If you want to tough it out I would definitely try to get a side hustle going. This could mean filling out surveys for money, dog walking, opening credit cards and getting the bonuses, and others.
It WOULD be a "legltimate distribution of resources" in the long run, and that's why I'm not opposed to it in principle. Regardless of that, there are severe, short term risks.
Why should shareholders profit? Note that I pointed out that this may affect stocks generally, not just health care stocks. If all shareholders were billionaires, few would care if their wealth were dramatically reduced. But they aren't. Stocks are owned by pension funds, affecting firemen, policemen teachers union members,...and they are owned by many on their IRAs and 401Ks. Some retired people live off this. Many people have worked hard all their lives, sacrificed to save for retirement so that they have enough of a nest egg to live on, and then you cavalierly suggest they should suffer. Please.
Do not forget that this isn't simply a choice between status quo and medicare for all. A public option gets healthcare for everyone, without the huge disruption. Furthermore, it has a chance of passing, while an imposed medicare for all does not. I will vote for Bernie, if he's nominated, but many won't because they fear the consequences of a plan that will never be implemented. So whether or not you accept anything I've said, know that it's a fear that will lose some votes. Trump won swing states by only a few thousand votes - it's these margins that will make the difference.
(The “cut-to-the-chase” summary, aka TLDR: Sanders and Warren should unite quickly before their opponents can swallow their distaste for each other, and form a formidable and frightening foe).
(Live commentary from the world championship of political chess, USA division... )
The more I think about it, the more I wonder if it would be better for BOTH Sanders and Warren, for her to join Bernie RIGHT NOW. Before the South Carolina primary. Because Joe Biden is showing signs in Nevada of thawing out after his long winter nap. He might actually have a pulse (though the spin doctors opinions differ). One would imagine that his general strategy would be to keep his leaky yacht afloat until the democratic national convention. Then Obama will rise from the tropical seas like a giant Neptune, drown his opponents, and guide the righteous ship into safe harbors where glory awaits. (yawn... )
Anyway, for Warren and Sanders to join forces now would swamp the good ship SS Biden His Time. He could not gain any momentum if he is completely torpedoed by the USS ElizaBernie. (Sorry, I’ll stop this boat metaphor now, lol). A possible Sanders-Warren merger seems to be a remarkably fair quid pro quo. Warren gets an excellent chance at a being the next VP, the first woman to do so, of course. And she would definitely not be a trophy VP, like the current chair warmer. (Sorry Mike Pence. You’re probably a decent chap.) She would get very involved, as active as her rechargeable lithuim batteries will allow. (By which I mean she is quite energetic). Bernie would get at least as much out of the deal. He gets Warren’s primary votes first of all, which are crucial to achieving a quick and decisive majority. (He could feasibly have an insurmountable lead by St. Paddy’s day). And he would have a top-notch VP, who could well become POTUS sooner or later. (Unless, of course, Bernie wants @Bitter Crank to be his VP. :wink: )
But all of this speculation (and it is all speculation on my part obviously) hinges on actually defeating the Incumbent once the nomination is secured. Ahh... the details, lol. My crystal ball at this point does the “spinning beachball” thing my computer does when I’ve asked it to do something too difficult before its coffee break. (I’d consult the I Ching for some timely wisdom, but it appears not possible ATM because of the China trade situation). In other words... flip a coin (remember those?). Anyone who breathlessly tells me that they know EXACTLY what would happen in a Sanders-Trump heavyweight bout is either guessing/speculating, lying/clickbaiting, wishful thinking, or has just flown in from the future in nuclear-powered Lambo. (Sorry, DeLoreans were out of style even in the 80’s). I think-hope-wager that Sanders would win. Just as I’m guessing that DT has plateaued, and the novelty and shock value has worn off. Maybe he could change tactics, appear to need sympathy. Say that he feels our pain; and plead for a kinder, gentler MAGA. Say that orange people have been an oppressed minority, too. He could be tender, and show us his soft, great-white underbelly. (Eww).
Where were we going with this again? Oh yes... imagining a united front of Sanders And Warren, (SAW for short). They could chop through the DNC red tape, cut the crap, and beat the others to the punch bowl. Before the moderates can figure out who’ll be the presidential nominee and who’ll be the VP. (BTW, Pete Buttigieg appears very vice-presidential. If Biden or Bloomberg offer him that spot, it might be worth a gamble. Not a bad potential job for anyone, let alone at age 38... ) So c’mon Elizabeth and Bernie... you both know you want it, lol.
I actually believe there needs to be a major change to the hacked up private health insurance situation. Obamacare was dying and Trump killed whatever was left.
Whether Medicare for all is a solution is a question of expense, amount of increased taxes, and whether it will curb or increase out of control health care costs. I question whether it'll work, but most anything at this point would be better than what we have. The Republican response of ignoring this issue is a major failing.
To me, it's all pragmatics.
Ideologically, I'd suspect opponents would think it violates free market dictates, and the ideologues control
The whole point of medical insurance is a lot of people are on the plan. No one really "picks" their insurance. Their employers pick for them. If you are going to come back and say that people can change jobs to get a different insurance plan, you are living in a dream-land where people can just change jobs like they change their clothes.
I'm not saying that's your thoughts, but the people you were addressing with those views in that quote. Oh and don't forget jobs which are otherwise good, but don't provide health insurance (but perhaps a stipend). All people have are exchanges at this point, or a very high individualized rate. Oh and don't forget simply jobs that don't have insurance- period.
It’s not about them winning or not, it’s about me not losing; and not in the sense of some social competitive kind of “losing” but in the sense of actually being deprived of something.
Attributing this to pride is really, really offensive in a way I can’t seem to get through to you. A systemic injustice makes it nearly impossible for tens of millions of people to secure the right to continue living where they’ve always lived without constantly paying someone else for that privilege, something that an ever-growing number are increasingly unable to do. And your suggestion is “live somewhere else then”. Just give up and accept the hardship that’s being forced upon you instead of fighting it.
It’s like if a black person were complaining about the systemic difficulties of black people getting hired at any decent jobs and you tell him “then work somewhere else. Why would you want to work for someone who wouldn’t hire you anyway? Just saying, that’s what I would do.”
I have a year’s expenses in cash set aside besides my down payment fund IRA, so no.
I think you misapprehend how absolutely trivial something like this is in comparison to the scales pf money we’re talking about. Earlier you mentioned how I could “eat out whenever I want” if I lived elsewhere. I already can do that. I have absolutely no financial hardships whatsoever outside of the enormous long-term project of saving for a house, and taking on more hardships like you suggest to save or make more money would make such an absolutely trivial dent in that project that it’s ridiculous to even bring them up. It’s like those blowhards who say if millennials ate less avocado toast they could afford a house. Yeah, if I can somehow cut a few thousand dollars a month out of my nonexistent avocado toast budget, that’ll free the money right up.
It's not. The main arguments against it involve costs, as if it is too expensive to implement. That cost objection fails to consider that it is done already by every major industrialized nation in the world, and those citizens costs - per capita - are about half. So, it is neither financially impossible nor reasonably doubtable. Just because our current system doesn't do it, does not mean it could not and should not change so that it does. Taxes will go up, but the amount is directly offset by the savings in premiums, prescriptions, and co-pays. It will save the overwhelming majority of people money.
And taxes - in general - are much better understood as user fees.
The quality of care and the efficiency of services is also a major concern to some opponents of Bernies Medicare for All proposal.
That's fair, but all of that is minor compared to '16. Sanders was a relatively unknown candidate at the beginning, came out of nowhere, and so they didn't quite know how to handle him. They thought they could just sweep him aside without much backlash. They were obviously wrong.
It's four years later and almost everyone knows what happened. You have Trump tweeting about it at this point. And Sanders is now the clear frontrunner, so there's no excuse of "Well Hillary won fair and square, the so-called Revolution didn't show up!" and so forth. It's very different -- this time, the DNC is aware that everyone is watching closely and will be livid if there are any shenanigans. The media is slightly better at covering it as well this time around, as they can't ignore Sanders' numbers. They aren't stupid, they must see this.
You could be right, in the end. But I both think and hope that you're wrong.
There are many rational people, like you, in exactly this camp. They like Bernie, or at least agree more with him than other candidates, or at the very least would prefer him over Trump -- but don't think he can win. That's OK, for now.
Bernie's grassroots support will carry him, and he will therefore continue to build steam. When that happens, and he gets the nomination, and people like yourself see the passionate base of support for him, I think you'll change your mind. Unlike, say, with Clinton, who did not have a large base of enthusiastic, grassroots support. She was a boring, mediocre, establishment centrist. I imagine people like you either held their nose and voted for her anyway because the Republicans put up the likes of Trump, or else stayed home. I just don't see that happening with a Sanders nomination.
It. Is. Not. Your. Land.
There is no right to someone else's land. There is no right to a $500k house in California. The quicker you're able to move past this, the quicker you'll be able to actually find a solution to your problem. There are cheaper ways of living and there are ways to cut costs, but ultimately you can't just walk on to someone's land or property and demand that you be able to live there for free just as no one can knock on your door and demand the sofa. This is just basic property rights.
And by the way I have lived in places for free. If you join the military you'll get access to the barracks free of charge. Nice, right? I would wake up to dozens of rats scurrying above the ceiling when I lived there. Walls were also paper thin. But I didn't have to pay. I'm not a landowner by the way.
Nice. You have a little more breathing room then.
An extra $1k/month is an extra $12k/year that could go directly to your down payment on top of your savings from your salary. Additionally, by cutting costs at home whether or food or insurance or elsewhere even if it's only $500/month that ends up at $6k/year. If you want to ignore this and dismiss it as irrelevant than that's on you.
And, once again, you miss the point. I'll make it as concrete as I can: the very idea of a free market is nonsense. It hasn't happened, it won't happen, it won't come close to happening, we shouldn't be trying to make it happen in any way. It's a fantasy. It's not on a spectrum, it's not approaching a "threshold," or whatever other vague nonsense you want to use. We should abandon any talk about it because it is, and always has been, complete nonsense. Useful nonsense, yes -- keeping people confused with this concept keeps the status quo, which is a state-capitalist system favoring concentrations of power.
There it is again, the magic word: spectrum. Brilliant. How complex you are.
Quoting christian2017
What a bunch of bullshit. Why is it always the most simpleminded people who attack others for being simple?
You're the only one sounding like a witch doctor here. If you want to bore us with an explanation of what the hell you mean by "spectrum" and how this applies to free markets, go ahead. Otherwise you're comments are irrelevant.
So I'll repeat, again: free markets don't exist, nor have they ever existed. Interjecting engineering gibberish, without any explanation or elaboration, just shows who the "witch doctor" is.
Say something relevant or peddle your busllhit somewhere else.
Take a look at his position on climate change and the policies enacted under his administration. How his administration isn't a unique existential threat for this alone, I really don't understand.
It is. This is the land I was born and raised on and have already spend many many tens of thousands of dollars over decades to remain on, yet WITH NOTHING TO SHOW FOR THAT legally speaking. I’m not going to bother explaining how the rich assholes’ claims to it trace back ultimately to theft of it from the public domain or how rental contracts are an exploitative overreach of government power in favor of the wealthy because it’s clear you have an unquestioning faith in capitalist dogma and would just dismiss those. As I suspected, rather than offering actual solutions, you’re just denying the problem exists.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I’m not asking for a $500k house specifically, I’m asking for housing in California to be affordable to people who live and work in California. I make significantly more money than most people who live here yet housing still isn’t affordable for me. That indicates a systemic problem of some kind of another. I think the problem isn’t that the people here don’t make enough money, but that a house that isn’t actually worth $500k costs that much. And it’s not that there isn’t enough housing built either, because there’s more unoccupied housing than homeless people, and building more housing on the overpriced land doesn’t help the poor people who can’t even afford an empty piece of land to begin with: it just creates even more unaffordable housing that only helps rich people from elsewhere, not the poor people who are already here.
lol
Right-wing Dem neo-libs are what is termed on this side of the pond "conservatives".
I accidently ended up watching some CNN today. An analyst pointed out that a high percentage of Bernie supporters don't remember anything about the Cold War. They remember 911, the 2008 crisis, Obama and Trump, but nothing about the Berlin Wall or anything like that.
I think that probably is part of the divide. It's a different set of fears.
Yes. I completely agree with all of that.
Get a side hustle, make a budget, and maybe look into the tiny house movement. I'm also not sure what your IRA is invested in, but the S&P is a decent option. Do not go for mutual funds which often have higher fees and tend to underperform the S&P. I have given you considerable real-life, practical advice which is directly applicable to your situation.
But clearly instead of this advice the better solution here - one which would clearly directly help you - would be if I were to agree with you in theory and tell you "sure lets go kill those capitalist pigs."
I rescind all of my earlier advice and declare that my solution now is to cause a worker's uprising and send all the disenfranchised capitalists to Madagascar. How's that.
I am looking, and I do not understand how his "position on climate change" the "policies enacted under his administration" are an "existential threat". Can you explain?
I don't think this is true. Other countries don't fund military establishments sufficient to defend themselves. The US has unique problems. And Europe, for instance, doesn't do a Medicare-for-all type arrangement. It's universal healthcare, which is what Pelosi is pushing for.
That said, Medicare is already a powerful tool which could be used to limit the rise of healthcare costs. l know somebody who's getting ready to do fundraising to help people with COPD buy medications that would keep them out of the hospital. Many of the target people already have health insurance, it just won't pay for all their meds. It's ridiculous and it's something Medicare could easily help with.
Well, I’m starting to hope that Sander’s turnout is going to be a factor, and that a large number of would-be Trump voters will stay home because even they can’t stomach his corruption.
Quoting Nobeernolife
Western civilization - the Western liberal democratic social order - could feasibly collapse as a consequence of environmental disaster, overpopulation, and resource depletion running up against hard limits of sustainability. Apart from Trump's obvious malfeasance, he’s also completely dismissive of environmental action and simultaneously running up unsustainable levels of government debt. So in every sense he's contributing to the problems, rather than solving them.
Quoting Nobeernolife
Trump's Presidency has been relentless in undoing climate and environmental protections and fostering the interests of fossil fuel corporations. He has dismissed climate science as a hoax, taken the US out of the Paris Agreement, and overturned protections against drilling in environmentally-sensitive national parks, amongst many other things.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/
https://news.trust.org/packages/trump-and-climate-change/
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19122019/trump-climate-policy-record-rollback-fossil-energy-history-candidate-profile
Even if I accepted all your claims about climate change and what evil Trump is doing, that is still a non-sequitur. You could erase the US from the map, eliminating ANY influence that Trump or any other president could have, and fossil fuel consumption, environmental pollution, overpopulation, and climate change would still occur.
So where is the dotted line between your much-hated Trump and the end of civilization?
I have a full time job already making significantly more than most people in my area never mind the country as a whole, I only spend a quarter of my take home income disposably and most of that is split between food and gas, I already live in what is effectively a tiny house (which doesn’t solve the problem of needing land to park it on), and my IRA is mostly in a S&P tracking index fund. None of this is new advice, though it would be good advice for someone who wasn’t doing it. My point is that I’m already doing every right, doing better than a supermajority of people, and I’m still facing an impossible uphill battle, which is a sign that something is systematically wrong that I personally am not responsible for single-handedly overcoming or else helplessly succumbing to.
From the picture you've been painting you seem to be doing generally alright. Sure, maybe a 600k house is a little out of your range but you seem to be financially secure with a nice emergency fund and decent savings. You mentioned you have disposable income and you're able to go out to eat whenever you want which is really nice.
I understand you want the house but you know the mortgage on that thing is going to be a constant stressor and much more than what you're paying now for the land ($800ish?) I live in a 1 bedroom apartment so I figure we probably live in similarly-sized areas and I'm honestly perfectly happy with mine. I think even if I had a partner 700 square feet is fine for me. Your insistence to get a house is a matter of your personal psychology, not a failure of the system. It's just hard to me to try to sympathize with you when you're able to go out to eat whenever you want. I mean sure the rent is annoying but it's only 1/4 of your income.
Now *there's* a non-sequiter.
How?
Oh, to dream....
Yeah, I do have it much better than a lot of other people, which is part of the point I’m making about the problem being systemic. And part of why I have it so much better is because I’m constantly fighting and sacrificing to beat the system, living in shitty conditions to stay way below market costs so I can otherwise have this security, where if I just went out and rented a market-rate apartment I’d be scraping by check to check.
And the point of complaint isn’t that a specific price point of house is out of my reach, but that ANY house available for purchase (not a MH on rented land) in a very very broad area is out of my reach, and consequently out of reach of almost everybody else in that area, who mostly do barely scrape by check to check. I can easily buy a big enough structure; a simple add-on to the MH I already own would suffice. But even an empty plot of land to park and build that on would cost hundreds of thousands, and you can’t get a mortgage on an empty plot of land, if anyone were even to sell one of the right (small enough) size.
It should not be an unreasonable stretch goal for most people to own a place to live some time before they die. But evidently it is, and somehow everyone has normalized this concept of being indebted to whoever owns their land from adulthood to grave. It’s insane.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
If I tried to mortgage right now it would be yeah, which is why I need to save a ton of money for a huge downpayment in order to make it manageable. I basically have to pre-pay-off over half the house in order for “buying” (mortgaging) to not delay the day I have something paid off even longer than renting + saving already will take.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Your apartment is about 2/3 bigger than my trailer, so yeah if I had that much space it would be fine to live together. The difference between your place and mine is almost 3X the size of my girlfriend’s rented bedroom.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
See above about that only being possible because I’m living way below market rates and making way more than other people in an attempt to beat this system (and still not sure I will ever succeed at that). Most other people in the area are not so fortunate. Which is my whole point: I’m not the sob story myself, I’m just a clear demonstration of how much of a sob story the whole system is if EVEN SOMEONE LIKE ME may never end up owning just a place to sit and starve to death without getting kicked out when I inevitably run out of steam and stop kicking so much ass.
The most recent Politico demographic breakdown shows that Bernie supporters were 40% more likely to be ages 30-44 and 96% more likely to be ages 18-29 than all Democratic voters, so yes they don't have Communist Russia as a boogyman and having been either born during or after Reagan's neoliberal shift, they haven't benefited from Capitalism in the way their parents, who were born during the post-war boom, did. Also they will be affected by climate change in ways their 60+ YO parents won't be.
I'm impressed by the Bernie-mania right now. Suddenly everyone's realized all at once that his candidacy is for real. None of the other candidates inspire much enthusiasm. Bloomie's face-plant and Bernie's huge win in Nevada have snapped everything into focus. The only viable candidate is Bernie and he commands an army of true believers. His campaign is being compared to Trump's in 2016.
If you are saying that the DNC won't be able to screw him because it would be too obvious, I respectfully stand by my cynicism. But I am definitely impressed by the post-Nevada vibe in the country. Latinos and African-Americans came out for Bernie Sanders, a 68 year old Jewish guy from a virtually all-white state. It's something to behold. It's what this country's all about.
Quoting Xtrix
And yet I read a story just today ... Dick Morris, who's always been a conservative strategist but worked in the Bill Clinton administration and has seen the Clintons close up and personal, says that Bloomberg is just a fakeout. That explains why he doesn't even bother to pretend to be campaigning for president. He doesn't do interviews or campaign events, doesn't bother to prep for his debate, just throws fabulous sums of money at ad buys. All he wants to do is get enough delegates to keep Bernie from getting to Milwaukee with a majority. Once that happens and the convention is hopelessly deadlocked (because the superdelegate party insiders will get behind Bloomie but he still won't get near a majority either); then WHO can possibly come in and be the one person to unify the party?
That's right: As I call her, She Who Must Not Be Indicted: Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Dick Morris thinks that this is exactly the plan. So if I'm cynical about the lengths the Dem establishment will go to in order to stop Bernie ... I'm not alone.
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/02/23/dick-morris-hillary-clinton-will-get-the-nomination-in-a-brokered-convention/
Bottom line: Even as Bernie surges into a national phenomenon ... the plotting continues.
Quoting Xtrix
I saw a striking photo of Bernie surrounded by his crazed and adoring young fans. And you know what I thought as I saw their faces? How devastated and crushed and angry and heartbroken they're all going to be when the DNC steals the nomination from Bernie.
I will say this is great entertainment. Suddenly there's excitement on the Dem side. Liz destroying Bloomie so that Bernie can surge. Could that be part of a plan too? Maybe she's hoping to be his Veep. It would be a great ticket. Not one I'd vote for, but it would be a hell of an interesting election.
And how they will not vote next November, to show their frustration.
I don't fully follow your numbers. You save 75% of your income and you won't buy a home until you can make a 50% down payment? This points to either (1) low income and fear of a high mortgage, (2) unrealistically financially conservative. (3) credit problems, or (4) residing in a very affluent unaffordable area. You seem to suggest it's 4, but that you're in a trailer suggests otherwise (sorry, but true). What area are you from?
It might also be 2, based upon your statement that you think the goal of buying is to outright own. The goal of buying is to accumulate equity and hence wealth, as well as to get tax benefits, regardless of whether you eventually pay off the mortgage.
I think it'd be a struggle to survive at $200k per year at that tax rate if I insisted upon squirreling away $150k per year (75%), especially if I had a family and other mouths to feed, even though $200k would be considered quite wealthy.
I
ahem, 78. The difference might matter.
I don't know where you got that 75% figure from. Maybe the bit where I said somewhere earlier about only spending a quarter of my income disposably? Which both you and Carlos seem to have misinterpreted, but differently: I meant that that is the portion of my take-home income which is neither dedicated to fixed costs that I can't reduce (basically rent and bills) nor left over to save. That doesn't mean it's the only money I spend (like you seem to interpret it), nor that that's my free happy fun time party money (like Carlos seemed to interpret it), but that it's the part of my budget that's flexible, in that I could spend more or less on it. It's basically split pretty evenly between food and gas, as I said earlier, and all other non-fixed irregular expenses (like car repair and dental work, etc) make up the negligible rest of it. As I said earlier, my budget is roughly 1/8 food, 1/8 gas, 1/6 bills (mostly medical insurance), 1/4 rent, 1/3 savings toward future housing.
Quoting Hanover
I have a statistically high income, as I've repeatedly said; I make about the mean income, which is twice the median income, or nearly four times the mode income, and falls at around the 75th percentile of incomes.
I am afraid of a high mortgage inasmuch as that means spending even more on interest than I am already spending on rent, because at my current rate of savings it's not entirely clear that I will ever be able to save enough to pay off a house, and if I was mortgaging with a higher interest than my current rate, then that rate of "savings" (diverted directly into equity on the house, which is fine since the savings are earmarked for a house anyway) would be even lower and make it pretty much certain that I will never finish paying anything off. In order to avoid that, I need to borrow little enough that the interest does not exceed my current rent, which means paying off a huge portion of the house up front.
Look at the numbers: currently about 25% of my income goes to rent and 33% goes toward eventual equity. If I started mortgaging the cheapest place in the area now, the interest alone would easily be over 50% of my income, leaving at most about 8% to go toward equity, probably less. Meaning it would take about four times longer to pay something off (which means effectively never as I barely expect to pay anything off in my lifetime as it is now).
Quoting Hanover
What is unrealistic? When I complain about this housing issue everyone always says "work harder, work smarter, spend less, budget more". I've spent most of my adult life feeling guilty for not working hard enough, not spending little enough, because of people saying things like that. It wasn't until my current girlfriend (of nearly a decade now) talked me into believing that I could fit things into the budget like a trash can for the bathroom, or a new vacuum cleaner that isn't duct-taped together, that I stopped living like a starving student and working myself to death and decided to actually enjoy life a little bit along the way instead of waiting until I retire to live... and now Carlos is telling me I need to get a side hustle and budget more. So which is it, too conservative or not conservative enough? Should I go back to living off stale bread and water again so I can allocate whatever 10% or so of my income I spend on food toward saving for housing instead, or should I let myself splurge on a place big enough that I can marry and live with my girlfriend at the cost of spending more than half of my income on mortgage interest alone and therefore dying in the street when I'm too old to pay rent anymore?
Quoting Hanover
I have excellent credit. Well, technically a few points shy of the top "Excellent" category of FICO score, but zero debt, decades of on-time payments, etc.
Quoting Hanover
As I've said, I'm in Ventura county, California. And yes, I live in a trailer park, because that was the most economical way to get out of renting a bedroom in someone else's house full of ever-changing assholes I had no control over, which is how I lived my entire adult life prior to that. Market rate on a 1br apartment about the size of my trailer runs well over 2X, easily 3X my lot rent here. Because MH lots are rent-controlled, I've managed to keep my costs down close to what they were on the bedroom before, while the cost of even a rented bedroom like I used to live in now easily goes for nearly 2X what I'm paying here.
And this is not a problem restricted to just my "city" (I don't live in a city, I live in unincorporated countryside) nor my county. This is a problem that affects pretty much the entirety of the populated parts of the state. There are some places where you can buy a plot of land for $1000, but that's for good reason. Everywhere people actually live and jobs and civilization are found, it's like this. Looking at neighboring states, it doesn't seem much better; my job relocated to Oregon (I telecommute now) and the boss was telling me to move there too because it was so much cheaper, but I looked at the prices and it's really not, and the weather there would leave me an emotional wreck, never mind leaving behind everything else in my life, including the woman I want to marry who would be even more ruined by leaving our home than me.
Quoting Hanover
That is completely backwards. The point of wealth is to own the things you need so you don't have to pay someone else to borrow them from them. I am accumulating wealth, much faster than I would be if I was mortgaging a house right now (see the math above), and I am accumulating that toward the goal of eventually getting to stop paying to borrow someone else's land to live on. And I am succeeding at that far better than a supermajority of people, and yet still not sure I will ever actually succeed, which tells me that this is not a problem with me, this is a systemic problem.
Look at it this way. It seems to me a fairly reasonable, quite minimal thing to expect that:
- for any "commutable area" (an area of such a size that a typical person, i.e. a person making about the mode income, could reasonably live on one end of it and work on the other end of it with the kind of transportation affordable to them, which I'd estimate is about a 100 mile diameter with today's technology and infrastructure);
for any such area, ...
- the typical person in that area (meaning again, someone making about the mode income, which the statistics tell me is about the income of a full-time minimum-wage job for the US nationally, though the California minimum wage is significantly higher and yet the median income is about that of a full-time CA-minimum-wage job, which suggests to me that most people here are under-employed);
such a person ...
- should be able to finish paying off housing sufficient for at least one person (or two if we expect them to have children, which would mean a bathroom, kitchen, an open area like a living room, and one or two closed areas like bedrooms, which means, assuming about 10ftx10ft per room on average, obviously with some variance between them, about 400-500sqft in total);
should be able to pay off such a house ...
- by the time they could have grown kids (so mid-late 30s to early-mid 40s).
I am about that age. I have always made at least twice that income, and currently make about four times it. I finally own a structure about that size, but on rented land, and it's uncertain if I will ever be able to afford anything on its own land. My girlfriend is also that age, has always made about that mode income, and owns nothing whatsoever. My parents are 25 years older than us and they both own practically nothing (my mom literally nothing, my dad is complicated but suffice to say he won't leave any estate that I could inherit). Her parents are more like 30-35 years older than us and they just recently, as their grandkids are almost grown, finished paying off something about twice that size (so appropriate for a couple with children). And that situation her parents worked out is an enviable dream to our generation, but yet still pretty unreasonable by any objective standard; they spent basically their entire lives dedicating the bulk of their income just to the task of not owing anybody money for the right to exist somewhere. But they at least succeeded, whereas it's not clear that I, or the 75% of people who are worse off than me, ever will.
And that is a sign that something somewhere has gone horribly wrong. I have my ideas about what, but arguing for those ideas isn't nearly as important as people just recognizing that there is a problem in the first place.
And once again for the 5th time, i agree with you that an absolute free market has never existed. You would really like to twist that notion wouldn't you. I have to leave in 10 minutes.
Just curious, what's your solution to this problem? Should homeowners not be allowed to decide which price to sell at?
I think you're viewing it wrong. I want to show you a podcast a successful real estate investor sent me. The goal isn't to pay off the mortgage ASAP and therefore have no more payments (which even then isn't true you'll always have payments.) But seriously that money could be invested in much, much better places than in a house.
The podcast that was sent to me was "Get Rich Education: With Keith Weinhold" it's an apple podcast it's #6 "Here's why you aren't financially free" and it directly addresses this question of financially free vs debt-free.
Yes. Climate change is an existential risk to the human species. The Trump administration has appointed people with strong ties to the fossil fuel industry to head the EPA, rolled back (or is trying to roll back) regulations on carbon emission standards, including methane. Trump has himself claimed climate change is a "hoax" from the Chinese and has repeatedly stated he wants to bring back coal, the dirtiest of the fossil fuels. He's approved pipelines, weakened environmental reviews, and pulled out of the Paris Accord (making us the only country not in it). I could go on. There's plenty of documentation of this if you're interested -- no need to take my word for it. Trump isn't trying to hide it, because he believes there isn't even a problem to begin with.
So here we have an existential threat that's being exacerbated by the policies and ignorance of this administration. Thus, the administration on this issue alone is a clear existential threat to the country and the world.
To argue "Well, climate change would exist without Trump" is, at best, childish to the point of embarrassment.
I think he has a chance to win Trump. I hope that finally the Dems can pick a good candidate, not a bad candidate like Hillary.
If Bernie wins Trump, I think he will be like Lopez Obrador. Mexico hasn’t gone the way of Venezuela, even if the President is a leftist. And likely won’t the US either, even if the GOP will portray a Sanders ”regime” putting the US on the road to Venezuela like socialism.
Needless to say I agree, except with the cynicism. I'm more optimistic in that case...or maybe more "hopeful." Time will tell.
Quoting fishfry
Now here I really disagree. This is wild speculation and I see no evidence for it. It's true that Bloomberg is throwing a lot of money around, but that it's part of a conspiracy to elect Hillary Clinton? Come on.
Quoting fishfry
Not one you'd vote for? Given the alternative and the importance of this election? That's mind boggling. I'd vote for Bloomberg/Clinton over Trump. One believes in climate change, the other doesn't. That's enough of a reason right there.
I never said "absolute." Not once. So who's twisting things?
If you want to argue a relativity of freedom of the markets, located on some technical notion of "spectrum," you're welcome to. But that's completely irrelevant.
The fact remains our economy is a mixed one, with massive state intervention on all levels. Again, this is a fact.
It's on a spectrum too. As are you, apparently.
Nothing so crude as that. I think the problem traces back to much deeper systemic problems involving rent and interest which create a pressure away from center (pushing the rich richer and the poor poorer) in proportion to the relative scarcity (demand per supply) of whatever the market is for. That would undoubtedly turn into a very long argument (that I think we might have had already elsewhere), but the short version of the conclusion of it is:
The existence of rent and interest (caused by government enforcement of the contracts that create them) drives up demand for housing by the rich, who view it as an investment vehicle, and thus drives the price of it out of range of the poor, who need it to live in, and must instead rent and borrow, fueling the returns on those rich people's investments, and perpetuating (and exacerbating) the cycle. The world that I envision in place of what we have now is ultimately one very similar to what we have now, but where all payments for housing go toward equity, you can't profit from letting someone else borrow your property so instead your best option is to sell it, but for that same reason nobody buys housing for someone else to live in just as an investment anymore, and thus the cost of housing comes down to what the remaining market of people who just need it to live in can bear, and thus that housing ends up owned by the people who live in it.
I have extensive thoughts on the exact details of how a world like that would be implemented and the objections you're probably screaming right now can be circumvented, but that's a very long conversation because I have to unravel all of the assumptions everyone takes for granted and why they don't have to be that way. But the short version of that is: starting buying something (in installments) needn't be more difficult than starting renting something, nor do the size of the payments need to be different, and if what you want is the convenience of renting, you're always free to walk away from the thing you've been paying for and let the seller keep it and your money, like the owner would if you were renting. So if people want something like rent, they can easily get it, but if someone would rather be buying something and currently has no option but to rent, under my scheme they would accumulate equity and eventually get to stop paying.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I never listen to podcasts, so I don't know how to find or listen to that, and I'd really prefer a text source for time efficiency if you have one, or can at least summarize it.
In any case, I am currently investing that money somewhere other than a house, and I have considered the possibility of, rather than putting that money into equity when it's enough, using the returns on those investments to offset the cost of rent or mortgage interest. Basically grow my investments until they pay my current rent (even that is a ridiculous bar to reach right now), and then allow myself to move somewhere with higher rent (or mortgage interest) once I have the return on other investments to offset that. That does sound like a better solution, in the context of our current economic system at least, but I'm not certain whether it will delay the time before my girl and I can move in together and thus get married even further than the current plan.
I'm on a spectrum? Which ones are you referring too? Were all on various spectrums. Do you work in retail or food service? I can understand why you would hate capitalism in that case. However i feel embracing socialism would piss off those who feel they are fiscally conservative but in reality are not fiscally conservative. And i used the word absolute along with free market because you don't seem to think that the free market concept can be put on a spectrum.
It occurs to me, to make this a little more philosophically relevant, that this is essentially an issue of dealing with the Lockean proviso. The Lockean system of property and contracts that underlies the whole modern world works great so long as there is "enough and as good" left over for others to go and and get for themselves, as Locke himself said. So for people who live in Bumfuck Nowhere where there's plenty of equally shitty land for hundreds of miles in every direction, there isn't a problem of how to ethically handle scarcity, because there effectively isn't scarcity; that's why I could easily buy several suburban blocks of land in California City, where nobody wants to live. When there isn't enough and as good to go around, though, then the economic system is tested, and possibly breaks down if it isn't built to handle that right. I think rent and interest are the flaw of capitalism that causes it to break down in the face of scarcity. It works fine enough when there's a go-to solution to scarcity: go make more. But as of this writing, we can't yet make more land, and there it breaks down.
Interesting theory. And here I thought I was joking about Republicans bringing down property values...turns out it is low property values creating the conditions for more Republicans.
The more I think about it, the more reasonable it sounds. I can't think of any counter-examples...so it seems it must be somewhat accurate.(red portions of blue states - like CA - are typically wealthy enough that they are not worried about high housing costs {like orange county} / blue portions of red states - like Texas - are typically more popular places to live with higher property values {like Austin}). Interesting.
Yes thanks. I wonder why I didn't catch my typo. I think I somehow can't believe a 78 year old who had a heart attack a few months ago is the likely nominee and is surrounded by screaming youngsters like a rock star.
Quoting ssu
I believe Bernie could have beaten Trump in 2016. I don't think he can beat him in 2020 unless there is a humongous economic collapse. And there is currently a seriously nonzero probability exactly that. The Fed's been blowing bubbles of digital money into the system since the last financial crisis, which in effect never actually went away. It just got papered over, literally. When the bill comes due it will be a crash the likes of which the world has never seen. That's the theory, anyway. Maybe coronavirus has already triggered it. If it happens, Bernie can win.
If the economy stays good, Trump wins.
Quoting ssu
You know that's a very interesting point. Lopez Obrador has been called the Bernie Sanders of Mexico. And you are exactly right, people call him a socialist but he's actually a pragmatic populist. However I don't believe Bernie is the same! Bernie's a dangerous true believer IMO. I think a Bernie presidency would be a disaster on a historic scale.
Quoting Xtrix
I'm a glass half empty type. But this is the DNC we're talking about. The courting of the superdelegates is well under way. And there's no law that says Bloomberg can't just buy them.
Quoting Xtrix
Wild speculation has its place. It lets us explore the boundary between the possible and the unlikely. Dick Morris has known the Clintons a long time.
Quoting Xtrix
I'm not a socialist.Not even a democratic socialist. The US got its wealth through a system Bernie wants to destroy. He has no understanding of the economy at all. It would be insane for him to be president. The alternative is Trump. I have come to see Trump as a highly flawed but historic figure. In the past three years he's shown the world how corrupt the media and the Democratic party are. You think that's only right wing spin. I used to be a left winger. It's spin I believe because I watched it happen and I think for myself. I stand with Trump, warts and all. As opposed to what's become of the Dems. And Bernie? No no no no no. Unbelievable that an ignorant guy like that could be in charge of the country.
Quoting Xtrix
A lot of liberals just don't get it. I used to be a liberal. I'm off the reservation. Just how it is. I'm not alone. A lot of former liberals are in shock at what's become of our former side. So yeah, I'm mind boggled too.
Quoting Xtrix
Bloomberg and Clinton are exactly why the public wants Trump and Bernie. You cling to the neoliberal consensus perhaps because you don't know how truly evil it's become. Didn't the Iraq war teach you anything?
Quoting Xtrix
The US under Trump led the world in reducing CO2 emissions last year. So even on the facts you're wrong. Trump is not anti-environment. That's just something Rachel told you.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/us-led-world-in-reducing-co2-emissions
No, it is not. US policy does not determine the world climate.
If I assume that all the wild-eyed claims about global warming being solely caused by human burning of fossil fuels were true, it would not matter who is US president and what policy he makes. You could have Trump entact 100% of the most radical green agenda, and it would not make any difference.
The world is a lot bigger than the US, and the approx. 1100 bb of proven oil reserves (maybe double that including fracking) will be consumed regardless. Or do you think India, China, and Africa (heading towards a population of 4 billion within the next 50 years) give a wet fart about what the policy the US has?
To assume that a US president can determine the world`s climate is simply megalomania.
Second, locally it makes sense as well as it will lower pollution significantly if you move to alternative fuel sources and improve air quality (particularly due to reduced particulates). Investing in energy saving measures is even better as it will result in long term benefits freeing up resources (both money and fossil fuels) for other uses.
We will stand together. That's who we are.
I stand corrected. We are not debating whether Trump is responsible for global warming. None of us are that deluded. Whew!
We're just saying that it sure would be nice if the Trump administration would take global warming seriously and contribute constructively (with maybe funding research on finding the path that would help the most).
Absolutely. You're right.
Promoting carbon farming
Isolating older buildings, particularly in poor neighbourhood
Carbon tax to internalise costs that are now externalised
There are some things that cannot be compromised. For example, there is no possible centrism regarding the antinatalist proposal. You are either born or you are not born (and abortion debates are not the point here). You cannot "meet in the middle" regarding whether it is good to bring another person into the world. If you do it on behalf of someone else, it is they who have to deal with your decision (not to mention the collateral of all the people that person may interact with). We cannot meet in the middle for an agenda that is pushed on people. The first political decision made on behalf of someone is whether to bring them into the world. You can pretend that there are enough "options" for the person to justify the "freedom" to do what they want after birth, but there was never the option never to play the game in the first place :worry:. This will always make politics rationalization after the initial aggression. The aggression to presume that creating the circumstances of life for someone else is actually the right thing to do for someone else. That is an assumption, and it should be questioned.
Whether we should have public health care, free education, raise taxes, pay of the debt, etc. is just the collateral damage of the work foisted upon the already-born. Unless we question the root of all of this (birth), we are not getting to the philosophical root of all political theory.. the decision to birth in the first place on someone else's behalf.
That goes without saying. Only actual existing people have options.
Giant rugs so they can clean off their shoes.
We know that by existing. If there were null people in this world, this fact wouldn't matter. Once just one new person enters this world, then the antinatalist premise makes sense. Options aren't even a matter of mattering without people, true, but that wouldn't matter, so what's the matter with no people/no options? Giving people life, and thus "options" is still forcing life and the intendant "options" in the first place. The options are actually more limited than one might argue, and it is pretty straightfoward what the person born will have to face on a societal and existential level. That is forced options if you ask me. THAT is the first political move. Every other subject is footnotes to that first existential/political move on behalf of someone else. It is that initial ASSUMPTION of what must happen for the person being born. All of this other stuff is window-dressing to that originary decision (for someone else to deal with). There is no going back after that- not EVEN suicide.
I can't stand this this sort of enlightened centrism claptrap, but I'm happy you stand with me against it. Agreed, together we are much stronger in bringing down centrism as a viable intellectual position.
Although I agree democracy involves a lot of compromise, the result of that compromise at any given moment is unlikely to create a new coherent ideology.
Centrism, the ideology of the "what (I claim to be) the right compromise between (what I claim to be) good faith rational actors on the debate stage of politics" is simply a euphemism of militating for the status quo -- or then just lazy thinking that such status quo militants take advantage of.
The ideology of militating for the status quo (such as the now famous Iowa "coin flipper") is not a good faith ideology that the policy compromise between different world views actually forms a new coherent world view, rather it is the ideology of maintaining privilege and advantage of the the people that happen to benefit from the current status quo. If one is on-top, and only concerned with maintaining a privileged position and not with any notions of the public good, then any change is seen as a risk and it's nearly always best to keep things as they are; a change is generally sought to neutralize what is seen as a worse change that would otherwise happen.
Furthermore, if the compromise being referenced simply excludes any world view outside the privileged class, it's not even a compromise to begin with; it's simply a cowardly way of saying the privileged should rule the masses, because the privileged seem to agree on at least that.
Yay us!
You can always just shoot the other side and be done with. Might be a good solution for a lot of things really. Every 50 years we divide in two camps based on ideology and one of them gets to shoot the other based on a flip of the coin. We can have a debt jubilee afterwards. Good times will be had by (half of) all!
The first thing I said was compromise is apart of democracy. I'm fully willing to compromise if what is lost in strife is greater than what is gained by an uncompromising attitude.
My point is that whatever the resulting compromise is at any given moment, is unlikely to result in a new coherent ideology. Centrism is by definition simply the status quo, some static definition of centrism that didn't follow closely the status quo would become tomorrows extreme regressivism. The centrists of yesteryear are the strange deluded monarchists of today (unless you live in the UK of course).
One can be more-or-less content with the status quo (and willing to defend it against worse things) but, again, that does not result in the status quo representing a coherent world view; simply that it's better than the alternatives in question.
Likewise, simply because the status quo as a whole is unlikely to be coherent, does not entail every part is unjustifiable. Many parts will be justifiable, but such justification is only feasible to construct in relation to (at the least an honest attempt) to make a coherent world view in which that part happens to be justified; in making such a world view, every other part of the status quo one is very unlikely to be able to justify. Hence, to adopt the status quo as an ideology in itself is simply lazy thinking, just plastering the wall with the hodgepodge of what passes for laudable opinion of the day.
Militant centrists (those willing to defend the status quo through democratically bad faith actions of propaganda, changing laws to entrench the status quo, and fixing elections) do not actually have the status quo as an ideology. Attributing good faith to militant centrists is an analytical mistake. Their ideology is their own privilege and defending it against the risks change brings; and from this ideology, when change seems inevitable, the coherent decision is to ally with fascists, as, yes they may do all sorts of terrible things hardly acceptable in polite society to placate an enraged reactionary brownshirt movement, but they at least do not change the class structure of society; such an alliance is not only the logical decision to make but what we see historically. The "true believers in centrism" are simply lazy thinkers that simply live in denial about the inability to justify all parts of the status quo simultaneously in one coherent framework, and so rather than investigate the foundations of their own beliefs and making real decisions about them, of what they can actually defend in the status quo and what they can't, they are comforted by the conjuring up of worse people by the propagandists; when fascists takeover, such people do not even bother to rise to defend the status quo from a worse development: they're much too busy for such tiresome arguments.
Quoting fishfry
Quoting fishfry
Quoting fishfry
Interesting post with some thought put into it. Thanks.
But getting to the fine print... Ok, fair enough. You either don’t think Bernie can win, or if the unthinkable happened, it would be like having a former Hippie as president, throwing dollar bills and big doobies (marijuana) out of the Federal Reserve window to his crazed, brainwashed snowflaky fans. With Bob Dylan and the remnants of the Grateful Dead (including some holy relics from Jerry Garcia), Snoop Dogg with a reformed Public Enemy, performing a free concert on the White House lawn in some bizarre combination of Woodstock and the March on Washington. Bernie is inaugurated wearing a tie-dyed shirt, with Noam Chomsky standing next to him. (Ok, maybe that is going too far for a joke, lol. Anyway...)
You are not a “democratic socialist”. That is fine. Yes, obviously Bernie calls himself that. And his opponents do also, but use “scare quotes”, make clucking noises of disapproval, and warn of dire consequences. We have all seen the juicy sound bites. (Though I’m not sure what exactly these terms are supposed to mean anymore. I know in general what they are intended to mean. But words, labels, ideologies, and especially political philosophies have been ever so slowly drained of whatever meaning they once had. It all seems to be advertising, propaganda, and personal branding. Like how Christianity has somehow mutated into an apologist for the war machine. Oh pardon me, “national defense system”. Anyway, please excuse this tangential philosophical point).
But whatever other valid points you make, it is an extreme exaggeration to say Sanders “wants to destroy” the whole system. Come on now. Let’s be fair. That is practically calling him a communist, or something worse, but without the directness to do so openly. Because it is a totally unfounded cheap shot, either implied or explicit. Like calling Sanders “ignorant”. Ok, sure.. Par for the course in an election campaign, “sticks and stones”, etc. Hyperbole and humor. I do it too. (Like this silliness for example. Trump’s new slogan: “Four more years! Let’s Have Another Orangasm!” :snicker: Although come to think of it, Joe Biden has been looking a little orange lately. Is there a tariff-caused shortage of natural-looking makeup for men? Bernie is pale and proud, lol).
But most observers can see these type of ploys as a desperate attempt to trip up the runner who is 50 yards ahead of everybody in this preliminary track meet. Tackling is not officially allowed in a foot race. Just because it happens and often goes unpunished, doesn’t mean nobody notices or cares. Ok, maybe this is just some sideline forum of internet opinion, mixed with some occasional philosophical insight. But if one wants to stand on their words, they have to have some kind of rational foundation. (Or even a relatively honest emotional one. That is acceptable, if expressed fairly. Emotions are part of who we are, of course).
Quoting fishfry
Quoting fishfry
Now look... (Just kidding. Don’t you hate when debaters start with that bossy-sounding introduction? It’s like... LOOK... (pregnant pause... either signifying depth of thought, or perhaps an unspoken insult. Such as: LOOK... [s]ya big goofball[/s] etc... Almost as bad is someone saying “LISTEN... blah blah...” I’m waiting for the first debater to go all in with “LOOK... LISTEN... and LEARN...” ) Sorry for the rant.
Anyway, I am disillusioned (or perhaps “realistic”) about the Democratic Party. (I refuse to say I’m “woke”. Nor am I a “Bernie Bro”. Nor any other kind of “bro”. Buzzwords are as annoying as flies). But I had hopes for the Obama presidency. I thirstily sipped the Kool-aid, but only a little. I thought maybe, somehow he would understand, hoped he would care, figured he would at least try to make some little thing fairer. Maybe he was slightly better than the alternative. Maybe the Middle East would have exploded with 4 more years of Neo-Con meddling (and that’s putting it very politely). Maybe not. What do I know? Very little probably. My point is that the Democratic Party (which is neither democratic, nor much of a party) is NOT “liberalism” or even “the left wing” in its entirety. Not even close. The two-party system is an effective monopoly, a good cop/bad cop routine. Two sides of the same coin. They speak for no one except themselves mostly.
If Bernie were any more independent, he’d be on the sidelines with the rest of us. If he were any less independent, he’d be another gravy train rider looking for the path of least resistance. He definitely is NOT Frodo Baggins trying to destroy the evil Ring, nor Luke Skywalker trying to blow up the Death Star. He is not even trying to “level the playing field”... whatever that means. There is no playing field. There is a pyramid and a ladder, with those at the top of it pouring boiling oil on those below. Maybe at one time, the middle-class dreamed that there was room for more at the top of the pyramid, but there never was. Not a pretty picture. At best, Bernie Sanders SEEMS to be TRYING to go in a new direction that is at least a little tiny bit fairer for most people. I’ll take that chance, and hold him to his wager.
The casino has stacked the odds against us, and rigged the slot machines. Even the glittering showgirls are picking our pockets. Now it seems the only way to win... is to leave.
What do we - non-shareholding stakeholders - have to lose except our chains (aka "debt peonage" "wage stagnation" "healthcare un / under insurance" "opioid pill mills" "private prison mills" "voter suppression" etc)? :eyes:
Quoting boethius
Quoting boethius
Yes, it is.
Quoting Nobeernolife
Yes, it does, and to a very large degree. Only China currently emits more CO2, for example.
Quoting Nobeernolife
It's not "wild-eyed" claims, it's climatology. It's the entire scientific community. The claim is not that burning fossil fuels is the sole cause, either. Deforestation plays a significant role as well, among others.
Given how easy it is to educate yourself on this, your ignorance about it is striking -- yet not terribly surprising.
Quoting Nobeernolife
It absolutely would.
Quoting Nobeernolife
The US is a world leader, the wealthiest and most powerful country on Earth. To believe its climate policies and involvement in global agreements on climate change has little impact is mind-numbingly ignorant.
But regardless -- what is your point, exactly? We should do nothing, since we're doomed anyway? Common attitude among deniers, but no less ridiculous.
I never said Trump is responsible for climate change. Not once.
You really have some reading comprehension problems, don't you Frank?
Try to keep up, buddy.
What wealth? You mean the wealth of the 1%? Yes, we all agree the economy has worked very well for them, and they continue to prosper. The system that's been in place has been a state-capitalist system, rigged for the wealthy who can lobby for legislation, subsidies, contracts, tax breaks, and bailouts from the government (our tax money). Bernie does indeed want to destroy that. I agree with him.
I would grow out of this fear of "socialism" and try learning something about what Bernie's proposals really are and whether they make sense.
Quoting fishfry
Given the context, it was very easy to see that I don't like either, but was demonstrating how "low" I would go just to get Trump out of office. How is that hard to understand?
As for "neoliberal consensus"...do you even know what that is? Because it's the agenda of Donald Trump. It's every policy that's come out of the Trump administration: deregulation, privatization, corporate tax cuts, etc.
So you either don't know what you're talking about, or voted in favor of neoliberalism. I assume you're just confused, though, because the word "liberal" is in it.
Quoting fishfry
Great choice.
Quoting fishfry
Yeah, this coming from someone who voted for and continues to stand by Donald Trump?
Excuse me as I laugh myself out of this dialogue.
Difference in what, exactly? Firstly, It is not all clear what you mean, and secondly, 15% difference is a far cry from the "end of civilization" that was claimed here, evil orageman Trump would produce.
Quoting Benkei
Nothing wrong with reducing pollution, however "moving to alternative fuel sources" is easier said than done, seeing that currently the only viable alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear, and currently gen 4 nuclear technology is not fully developed yet.
And regardless of all this... where is the "end civilization" that was prophecied and that I doubted?
Oh, it would certainly have an impact on policy.... i.e. China taking advantage of the US hobbling its economy, and African dictators gathering at the trough of "climate" subsidies for vague promises. It would NOT have an impact on the worlds climate.
Quoting Xtrix
I do not buy the premise that we are all "doomed" because of some US political decisions. I am fully in favour of reducing the dependence on fossil fuels and on subsidizing research in alternative energy sources.
Quoting Xtrix
If you never said that, why are you arguing? The only reason I jumped in here was because of the hysterical claim that "civilization" would not survive another 4 years of Trump.
Yawn. And you know this for a fact because you're a climatologist, or at least have educated yourself on this topic. :roll:
It would have a drastic impact on the climate if we enacted a plan to cut emissions by moving to renewables, taxing carbon, better regulating Big Oil, more efficient practices in agriculture, etc. To argue this would have no impact is, again, insanely ignorant.
You're out of your league on this topic, and embarrassing yourself. Cut your losses and stop. It's not even fair -- I have the science community on my side. It's easy to Google and inform yourself. I highly recommend it.
Or continue making embarrassing claims. Your call.
I didn't say that either. I'm arguing because of your stupid statements, which you continue to make, about comments I never made.
Four more years of Trump's environmental policies will exacerbate the climate crisis. There's no doubt about that. He's also a climate denier. A Democratic alternative, no matter who it is (assuming they at least acknowledge climate change as a real threat), is a better choice for this reason alone. That was the point. The fact that you take this to mean "Trump is responsible for climate change" or we "won't survive 4 more years of Trump" is pretty telling. It means that's what you want to hear. It's a straw man -- which is all you are informed enough to argue against. Which is to say, not at all.
I am not a climatologist, and obviously neither are you. And my comment were about politics, not climate.
Quoting Xtrix
Sounds great, doesn´t it. But who is "we", and what should this plan look like? You do not say. Clearly, in "we" you do not include China, India, and Africa. As I pointed out, even if the US did not exist, the rest of world would continue to consume fossil fuels.
Quoting Xtrix
Name-calling is not an argument, and on Google you can find all sorts of things, including critics of the global warming talking points.
Well, if your point is that a massive recession would cut consumption, economic activity, and thus fossil fuel consumption, you might have a point. Other than that, I see only propaganda talking points. What the f&& is a "climate denier" anyway? The climate does not make claims, how can you deny them?
Got a link for that?
Mike Bloomberg says to NYC hotdog vendor: My good sir, would you happen to be able to break a thousand-dollar bill? It’s the smallest one in my wallet... :grin:
I just checked my posts, and the comment I was responding to was that "civilization is going to be %&%%%% to the point of no return" by Trump.
But that was made by a user called "Wayfarer" not you, so sorry about misattribution.
"Wayfarer" apparently left his t*rd behind and never explained.
Also, I’d like to express the hope for a peaceful and safe 2020 US election process. Safe for the candidates, their families, supporters, and everyone else involved. This is one of the most highly charged election seasons here in a long time. And it is easy to get wound up and frustrated, no matter where your beliefs may lie on the political spectrum. Violence of any kind is no answer to the subtle and complex questions that we are facing. It’s like trying to solve an algebra problem with dynamite. That’s probably very obvious, maybe goes without saying. But extremist irrationality sometimes is very powerfully seductive, and difficult for an individual or group to resist... Peace to all, without exception. :victory:
It’s like having your family yell and scream at you at the breakfast table, and you begin to look forward to going to your job hauling trash, or something, lol.
You can simply Google "Bloomberg Maoist", not giving Breitbart the click throughs
That's not what you initially said. If that's what you meant, fine -- that's fair and it's worth discussing seriously. But it certainly didn't come off that way.
I already alluded to the fact that the US's involvement would have an impact on the rest of the world, as did others on this thread. We're currently the only civilized nation not in the Paris Accord, for example. That matters.
If we're a world leader -- as we clearly are -- and also a leader in emissions per capita and second in total, then we have a responsibility to do something. I can't speak for China, India, or other countries. I don't like what they do, obviously, but I'm an American citizen and so I write and talk especially about American environmental policies, because that's where I can have the most (and still far too little) effect.
Yes, there's plenty of information on the Earth being flat too. I guess it's a wash, then. Great argument for remaining ignorant about science.
A climate denier is someone, like you, who denies that the climate is changing at a rapid rate of change and caused not by variance but by human activity, mainly from burning fossil fuels, agricultural practices and deforestation.
Someone who talks so much about "propaganda" sure can't recognize the role it's played in his own "opinions" about climate change. What a shocker.
"The climate is always changing" is the current denialist talking point. Surprised you have busted that one out yet.
Again: it's worth educating yourself on this. Try NASA, NOAA, or any college or university science department here or anywhere else in the world. I'll link the first below. Or is NASA included in this propaganda and global conspiracy?
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
It's an INTERNATIONAL conspiracy man! ALL the European and Asian universities are in on it too! Damn conspirational experts with their Internet and stuff coordinating all this and STILL nobody can find proof of the stuff I see, which if why I know climate change is a HOAX. The MSM are in on it too! Everywhere! There's not a newspaper in sight that doesn't peddle climate change fantasies. You need to read up on some real news on BREITBART.
They took our jobs!
They're going to take our guns!
Civil war! Semper fi!
Exactly. It's pretty disheartening to know how effective "politicizing" something can be. If I were an Exxon executive, or a Koch brother, and my wealth and power was threatened by the findings of science, I would certainly (if I were greedy and shortsighted) spend a great sum of money on sowing doubt, spreading misinformation, and associating any mention of the phenomenon as a product of the "elites," the liberal universities, or just liberals in general. Tree-hugging hippies, etc.
It's been effective enough to convince a large minority in this country that nothing is happening or, if there is something happening, we can't do anything about it -- and there's always some reason or other why we can't do anything: it'll destroy the economy, the rest of the world pollutes too, it's too expensive, we're all doomed anyway, God promised Noah there wouldn't be another flood, etc.
I didn't think Sanders looked bad at all, despite everyone coming after him. I only wish he'd tighten up the "how are you gonna pay for it" stuff with some quick responses. Say Mexico will pay for it, anything. Who cares anyway...certainly not the right-wing hypocrites. They don't really care anyway, they just pretend to when it's a proposal that doesn't benefit the wealthiest .001%, which they all apparently believe themselves to be (or at least have been convinced giving everything away to these corporate masters is good for the economy).
By this time next week, Sanders will be the clear nominee. Maybe a couple of others will stick around, but it'll be essentially over. Mark my words. All of the attacks and the negative press only helps him.
How do you define "impact" and "civilized"? And why does the Paris Accord matter? Read the thing --- it consists of goals, promises that are easily broken, and wealth transfer to countries for vague promises.
Quoting Xtrix
"Doing something" without have a clear idea of exactly what to do is child thinking. I am not against reducing fossil fuel consumption (if for no other reason that ressources are limited and largely in places we should not be dependent on), but we have to find offer reasonable alternatives. Wealth transfer like the Paris Accord is not that.
Quoting Xtrix
Well, they expand fossil fuel consumption massively and multiple times as much as the US. And they do not give a hoot how the do-gooders in the West "feel".
Yeah, and ask other countries about France, The UK, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Japan, Russia, Belgium, the Netherlands, Ethiopia, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Germany...etc etc etc.
But Oh no, you're the bad apple when others so innocent... As if being a Great Power (or a Super Power) itself wouldn't exactly mean that the country pushes around and gets involved with the businesses of others.
You know who will definitely want Sanders to become the Democratic candidate?
The gun manufacturers.
Nothing gets Americans hoarding more guns than a self-declared socialist that actually does have the chance to become President. Trump nation has been poison for gun sales.
Comrade Bernie is that you? Celebrating the wise and just rule of Fidel Castro who taught the peasants to read while he appropriated their land and imprisoned them for wrongthink?
Well ok then. Been to the supermarket lately? Seen the bounteous harvest in the produce department, the shelves full of all kinds of wondrous goods, the meat and fish sections filled with good stuff to eat? Maybe you'd prefer the stores in Venezuela or the Soviet Union or the aforementioned Cuba.
This conversation is frankly beneath me. Please go vote for Bernie. You know one theory I've heard is that the establishment Dems have this problem on their hands, their radical leftists in the AOC/Bernie wing of the party. One strategy is to let Bernie win the nomination then get slaughtered in the general election. Then in 2024 the Hillary wing of the party can take back control. Trump won't have a strong successor, least of all a dead fish like Pence. The Dems are a lock in 2024 with a centrist candidate and their left wing having been fully discredited.
But please, tomorrow as you go through your day, look around at the abundance around you. The bustling commerce, the well-stocked store shelves. Ask yourself if you'd rather live here or in Bernie's Cuba.
LOL. I can't believe you actually said that. Are you joking? You have no idea of the actual, literal wealth of the US -- spread throughout society, though certainly terribly unequal -- relative to the rest of the world?
Quoting Xtrix
All those people driving to and from work on the freeway, you want to shut down all that commerce. How many would starve under your plan? Are you insane? You seriously want to shut down the US economy? If you did that, ONLY the 1% would survive. They already have their bunkers. The rest of us working stiffs would be crushed in a depression that would make the 1930's look like the good old days.
Quoting Xtrix
I glanced at his detailed plans on his website. I don't believe his numbers because he hasn't factored in the adjustments people will make in response to his taxes. He'll pass laws, the wealthy will find ways around them. and the middle class will pay. The middle class MUST pay for such enormous spending programs because the rich have lawyers and the poor have no money. This is very basic.
Quoting Xtrix
I'm on the opposite side of that proposition. But I did realize that if by some miracle Pence won the 2024 GOP nomination, I'd vote for whoever the Dems run. Pence would be just awful, he's a dim bulb and his brand of social conservatism is of no use to me, I oppose it. That's where I'd draw the line. Trump is a once in a lifetime historical figure. I don't see anyone following his act. Which adds weight to the lose-with-Bernie and win in 2024 theory of the centrist Dems.
Quoting Xtrix
I do understand. I have a different opinion. But you did get me to realize that I'd vote for Bloomie against Pence. Or pretty much any other Republican on the current scene. I don't like many or even any of the GOPs.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes. Hollowing out our industrial base and outsourcing it to China. Endless wars, not just wars but stupid wars. Expensive stupid wars. Open borders for cheap labor, further destroying the working class. The globalist project that took over in the 1980's and really got going in the 90's.
Quoting Xtrix
No, I disagree. Trumps policies on trade and immigration go directly against neoliberalism. He hasn't started any new wars and he's trying to get us out of the ones we're in. Of course he's been rolled by the likes of Bolton and other warmongers. It's damned hard to fight the establishment alone. But his big overarching politics are directly opposed to the neoliberal consensus of the past thirty years.
Quoting Xtrix
Trade, immigration, war. Trump's solidly opposed to the neoliberal consensus and he's achieved quite a lot in that direction. He stood up to China at a time when the Bloombergs of the world want to sell what's left of this country to China. For my part I'm against cybertotalitarian surveillance states and I stand with the million Uyghurs in concentration camps. Trump is standing up to Xi and that is every bit as historic as Nixon's visit to China. You are missing the big picture and you are wrong on the facts.
Quoting Xtrix
Anyone who sleepwalks through their American life and doesn't see the incredible material abundance all around them is not one to talk about others being confused.
Quoting Xtrix
That's cool, I'm politicked out for a while. I saw that Democratic debate last night and I'm still rolling on the floor laughing. It must be awful to be a committed Democrat right now. But these are good days for the Bernie brigade. I like crazy Bernie personally. He could have won in 2016. He beat himself when he said nobody wanted to hear about Hillary's emails. If he truly had the stones to be president he would have gone after her hard on her corruption. He'd be president today.
2020, I don't think that's going to happen. But that's what they said about Trump in 2016 and Bernie's 2020 campaign is weirdly parallel. Not being taken seriously then the whole party panicking to stop him and the moderates unwilling to get out of each other's way. The parallels are eerie. Anything could happen.
Yes, I understood you were trying to point out some absurd logical terminus.
However, by pointing out centrism is not an ideology in itself, is not advocating for polarization. People could be very close to the compromise that makes up the center, my point is simply it's unlikely the working-out of a coherent ideology will "just so happen" to overlap the center completely.
The old word for "centrism" was "reformer", someone who had beliefs different from the status quo but believes it's only gradual step-by-step changes that will yield the best results.
Again, reformism is not an ideology in itself, a reformer under Swiss social-democracy maybe a violent radical under Nazi Germany in WWII, blowing up rail lines and the like.
So violence is not necessarily avoidable, and it's simply common sense to point out that the erosion of democracy, past a certain point, is no longer reformable and will lead to violence as the only viable option; the "centrists" that decided to move to the center of the new Reich, just "accepting reality", we tend to judge today as cowardly collaborators and party to the crimes and that the violent resisters (largely communists and anarchists, though we of skip over that detail) as heroes who saved allied lives and helped end the war sooner (hence avoid more violence than they themselves committed).
The reason the propagandists in the Democratic party have abandoned "we need to reform slowly" is that if that's not actually the goal, but simply to maintain the status quo and their privileged, then eventually people ask "well, where's the reform, things seem exactly the same, if not worse, whether we vote Democrat or not", and so at some point a bad-faith reformer is called out on it, hence the mainstream media in the US trying to make "centrism" itself as some sort of praiseworthy political ideal taking courage and "a certain j'eu ne say quoi" to stand up for how things happen to be and standing in the way of the sticks and stones hurled at the poor billionaires.
It is of course Bernie Sanders who is the reformer compared to the "moderates" in the current situation, proposing fairly small changes: closing tax loopholes, expanding social programs that already exist, spending less on the military and more on those programs etc. in each case with solid basis in policy successes seen in all the other rich countries, so it's simply difficult to support a "slower reform" program than Bernie, and so the logical alternative is simply abandon the pretense of reform and try to to argue for "doing nothing of importance" as the most important thing that could be done right now.
But maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way. We'll see, I guess.
Yes, my comments above I don't really expect anyone to be disagreeing with; my interest in this conversation has been mainly to clarify diction that, otherwise, the propagandist takes advantage of if left unclarified, and that, the bad faith centrist just trying to preserve the status quo (in either party), would likely prefer Trump, over actual positive change (for the lower classes).
I am doing exactly what sickens you. Here's my reasoning: Trump is a disaster, and it is of utmost importance to replace him. Odds of replacing him are improved by choosing the most electable alternative - as long as the alternative is a significant improvement. All the Democratic candidates are a significant improvement.
Where's the flaw in my reasoning? I'd like to know, because the Texas primary is coming up soon.
I will in turn argue that Bach was from a lower class. The notion that we're down here purely because we're diseased and stupid robs humanity of the greatness we could express if we had a chance. And further, that's what America is about. I stand for our core values, you against.
And this argument goes on, partly real philosophical difference and partly greed and the associated resentment.
Beyond all of that, lost in time, is a more basic reason humans act to secure the status quo: because we're out on the plains and it's dangerous. The status quo was built by generations of trial and error. Losing skills due to a lack of caution will be devastating to us.
And closer to home, a Ukrainian professor warns that the Russians specifically want to turn the poles against the center vecause of the crippling effects of that.
So there's a lot of layers to it, right?
:up: I appreciate your reasoning and attempts at caring. I think that is the critical first step, no matter how one votes, or where they fall on the “political color spectrum”. (I’m a pale teal, lol). But so often Reason and Compassion are treated like bygones of an ancient era, superstitions, or totally optional. So I respect and respond to those who seem to value those ideals, and see that those ideals are actually quite practical.
Personally, I’m convinced to throw my lot in and take my chances with Bernie Sanders. Your experience and feelings may differ, no problem. My head tells me that his ideas have substance and merit. My heart tells me he either gives a darn about people or is the greatest actor since Brando. And my gut tells me that if I compromise with a “safe” Democrat once more, I’m going to vomit on the voting booth!
Cool. Do it.
I think there's two important things that need to be distinguished here: the place on the political spectrum one is pushing toward, and how hard one is pushing toward it. To my mind, a "centrist" is someone who is pushing toward (what they perceive as) the center of the political spectrum. What you're describing by "reformer" is what I would instead call a "moderate", which is someone who is progressive but not radical, conservative but not reactionary, someone who wants change, but not reckless change, cautiousness, but not hyper-cautiousness.
Even Bloomberg?
Here's a few biggies:
He would be likely to appoint a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsberg who will have a similar judicial philosophy, and thus retain the right of a woman to control her own body. Trump will replace Ginsberg with someone likely to deny that right.
He would likely support comprehensive immigration reform (including protection for "dreamers"), whereas Trump wants to limit it as much as he can get away with, and would be fine with deporting "dreamers".
He's support measures to protect and extend Obamacare. Trump will do everything possible to kill it.
He is unlikely to interfere in the criminal justice system, while with Trump - interference is standard operating procedure.
These are not distinctions that are relevant to what I am talking about.
At any given moment, a broad "left-center-right" political spectrum can be pasted over the status quo, and useful as a short-hand for basic "friend-or-foe" identification.
In a first-past-the-post system such as the US, there is a strong tendency for 2 coalitions to emerge, and take on certain labels that simply stick through time.
For instance, since Reagan the Republican party has been the radical party and the Democratic party the conservative party relative the New Deal post Great Depression policy framework. This is why conservatives have to imagine some bygone era before the New Deal that they are trying to conserve by bringing it back. Most of these radical changes are implemented through the judiciary, such as the union killing ruling that union shops are somehow "forced speech" (radically changing labour relations to capital in one step) as well as things like citizens United, that spending money is speech.
So, although I agree that relative the status quo at any given moment, one may be trying to conserve it, reform it, radically change it or regress to a previous status quo (real or imagined); it's important to note that this may not actually match labels for things society is using. For instance, Republicans do not claim to be trying to conserve the status quo of the new deal, but rather to dismantle labour laws and progressive tax schemes in the name of conservative values imagined to have existed at some era in some prior time to it.
The other major problem with the political spectrum is that reformist and radical ideologies cannot be linearly ordered nor even regressives; we can only place the status quo in the center. Regressives may want to regress as such relative a previous status quo, but rather only selectively taking things from different eras from the past, and these combinations cannot be linearly ordered: if I want a 4 things from last year as well as something from a hundred years ago, this can't be linearly ordered relative someone who wants 3 things from 50 years ago or someone who wants 10 things from 70 years ago but 1 radical change that has never existed. And of course, reform and radical change can go in all sorts of completely incompatible directions.
To take an example, Ireland only legalized abortion a few years ago, so previous to this all the mainstream parties that kept abortion illegal would be extreme right wing position in the US context, but these same parties implemented universal health care, investments in lower education (equally distributed), free upper education, and pretty much the rest of the "welfare state" policies which would be "extreme left wing snow flake socialism" if a candidate started talking about them in the US. From an ideological perspective, the abortion issue can be easily seperated from the free education issue, and there's not much logical problem about being against abortion while for free education at all levels for instance; indeed, it could even be argued that "people who care about children" so much would want to make large investments in maternity leave, child-care support, free education, free university so that those children are also taken care of outside the womb; and so, if we imagined a proportional system in the US we could easily expect there would be christian parties that are basically welfare state socialist but against legal abortion (as was very strong in Ireland) as well as perhaps christian parties that see support legal abortion on legalistic grounds (proper extent of government sovereignty over one's personal body) and are against all social programs to help the poor because "if you do not work, you should not eat". So, ideologies can easily mix and match concepts all over any given spectrum without any apparent logical inconsistencies.
Just as importantly, even if ideologies are placed on the political spectrum despite the above difficulties, it says nothing about the reasons for supporting the associated policies. Two groups that really are very close in terms of policy may have incompatible reasons for believing so; hence, with this naive political compass view, policies that racists generally support is easy to conclude that all supporters of those policies therefore must be racists, or then, at least, are allied and coordinating with racists. Since this isn't true, different reasons can support the same policy, attempting a neat ordering of other people's beliefs lends nothing to a proper analysis, much less constructive dialogue.
So, although the political spectrum can be a useful shorthand to point to broad outlines of a person's politics relative a current status quo (because, probably, they are in the largest camp that general direction points to), it becomes essentially useless as soon as any proper analysis is attempted. Any deeper analysis, even by a European standard millimeter, requires getting into the actual substance of what people believe, what arguments support those beliefs, what alliances they form, or are likely to form, with people that have different goals and beliefs in some respects but overlap in others, and under what conditions are those alliances plausible or stable, and what are the potential, and historic, result of those alliances and so on.
The reason to stay at the level of the political spectrum is to avoid getting into the actual details, and to place oneself "above all that" and comprehend the world as people just getting up and deciding which "place on the political spectrum" they are on and "how hard one is pushing toward it".
But the above is simply useful notes and and simply a segue into my main point which is that a coherent ideology cannot be derived from the political spectrum. The political spectrum is constantly changing as the status quo changes.
There is no reason for an ideology to simply track the status quo; one could make such an ideology of simply believing the existing policies are the best at any given moment, but I know no one who has so it is only of pedantic interest if it's even feasible to make plausible reasons for doing so.
If you are a freedom loving capitalist, social democrat, anarchist or communist and believe in reforming gradually, step by step, the Wiemar Republic through the democratic process and then Hitler takes over and suspends democracy and launches a second world war, there's no reason one would expect any of these ideologies to stay a reformer and strive to reform the Nazi party from within; maybe some did, maybe some didn't, but the point is there's no reason to assume a reformer will stay a reformer if conditions change; it is a relation to the status quo, not an ideology in itself.
Now, we are born into the status quo and so it's quite natural that this is the starting point for political reflection, and I have no problem calling the status quo "the center" nor with most people likely to be fairly close to the center whenever things have been relatively stable for a while; the point I am making in this thread is that centrism is only an external description of a person's beliefs relative the status quo, and there cannot be a coherent ideology of the center as such (as it is the result of compromise between incompatible belief systems of the different political forces through time).
Quoting Pfhorrest
Things are already, by definition, in the center, and so one cannot move towards it. It is simply a construct of propaganda the idea that there is some natural balance between the left and the right and the responsible political actor pushes the pendulum always in the opposite direction to where it is moving. If that were so, all responsible political actors in America should then be pushing towards reestablishing the rule of the English Crown over the upstart American colonies, which is a reasonable political center between native American order and the government that exists today.
It simply doesn't make sense to call the center an ideology in itself. For instance, if Bernie wins and gets all his policy objectives implemented, Scandinavian style social democracy would then become the new center. Would today's centrists immediately start pushing towards this new center? Would Bloomberg immediately update his ideology to focus towards the new Bernie center in this scenario, or any other person that could be considered a centrist with your definition? Maybe, but maybe not. But, if yes, then today's centrist changing to tomorrow center after a change, it is unlikely to be due to some ideology that is setup to track the center, but rather changing ideas (for instance, after seeing the results aren't catastrophic, coming around to the Scandinavian style of doing things) or then maybe they seem go along with the new center without really believing in it, for practical expediency (in this case their ideology has not changed, just an update of what battles are winnable in the new political dynamic).
Quoting Pfhorrest
Though you can use moderate to refer to a reformer, as used in the US mainstream media today, a moderate is usually used to refer to a centrist in the sense of someone simply wanting to maintain the status quo, as far as I can see, but this is mere quibble.
As for "wanting change, but no reckless change" there is essentially no political camp that has more history than few camp fire diatribes, no matter how radical, that views their program as reckless. Radicals view the maintenance of the status quo and only contenting with slow reform as the reckless position. Again, consider resistance fighters under Hitler, they concluded they needed radical change because they viewed the Nazi regime as fundamentally dangerous and evil and no reasonable steps of reform available, and hence that leaving Hitler and his minions to do their thing as the reckless choice.
Likewise today, radical environmentalists view the status quo as unsustainable and reckless to leave to business as usual; that is is performing a global scale one-time experiment on the earth's atmosphere and living systems that is the opposite to cautious position; that simply because we are already doing it doesn't somehow magically make continuing the experiment the exercise of caution. Although reform was at one point available, it no longer is and only fairly radical changes are now available for any meaningful effect. So, in terms of avoiding reckless action, the radical environmentalist will argue they are less reckless than a step-by-step slow reformer. What is preferable cannot be determined by positioning on a political spectrum and some intuition of what part of the spectrum seems the most comfortable. Should Hitler be resisted violently? Depends on the verifiable details, what is he up to? Likewise, depends on exterior factors, is there external forces that are also fighting against Hitler which make intense violent resistance effective? Likewise, is there an environmental crisis, to what extent and what can be done about? A prerequisite empirical investigation is required to determine if environmental radicalism (of one form or another) is warranted.
The "meta-debate" about whether moderates are good as some sort of moral evaluation is simply propaganda to distract from the actual issues up for debate.
[url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/27/politics/nancy-pelosi-bernie-sanders-nomination/index.html]Nancy Pelosi says she would be comfortable with Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic presidential nomination
[/url].
At the same time, the NYT published a story in which they interviewed 93 superdelegates, who were astonishingly open and up front about how they intend to shaft Bernie.
Democratic Leaders Willing to Risk Party Damage to Stop Bernie Sanders.
Also, the powerful and influential Rep. Clyburn of South Carolina endorsed Biden, who immediately jumped up in the polls. If Biden shows he can hold the African-American vote in South Carolina Saturday, he may do better than expected three days later on super Tuesday ... in which case the corrupt and senile old coot may make it to the nomination. Bloomie's a bust, time for them to run Biden up the flagpole again as the great centrist hope.
Stay tuned.
The US needs not only a political shift but a cultural one as well and that's not going to happen with another status quo candidate. You'll still be in Trumpland if the measure of your political worth is "not-Trump". If that happens, the baseline for acceptable behaviour in office throughout the country will be "slightly better than Trump". If you're aiming that low nothing will change.
If anybody else than Bernie runs, it's 100% certain the status quo will remain what it is. If Bernie runs, even if it were more likely that he would lose to Trump, there's still a good chance Bernie will win. Let's call that chance x%.
That means there's a (100-x)% chance the status quo will change in the opposite direction.
A risk-based approach means Bernie is the only viable candidate.
Also, not to nit-pick, but Trump didn't do shit. He's been enabled by a political system and an electorate that's been shafted for so many years that they are mostly motivated by anger and fear. He's the wrong man at the wrong time but he's not the one driving a fundamental change; US politics was already there.
And Bernie isn't going to change anything about it. But his political base might if they realise that winning or losing isn't the end of the fight. He seems to be the only candidate that has such a politically motivated base at this time.
That judgment depends on what your priorities are.
Quoting Benkei
What happens to them in the likely event that he's ineffectual?
Though I like reasoning with:
Quoting Benkei
-- and hope that conversation continues; I think it is adjacent to the main issue most people have (and I'm sure you would agree with, but perhaps have not given a thorough look).
The main issue in "Bernie or 'moderate'", whatever is meant by moderate, is the DNC and friends in the media unfairly managing, if not out-right trying to fix, the primaries against Bernie, as well as the sort of "structural election fixing" that is the super delegates. Keeping in mind that since the DNC is a "private organization" it has no obligation to run a fair primary.
If the vote was fair, everyone has a different opinion sure, Bernie wins or not, the issue of backing the winner would be less contentious. The argument can be made a moderate is better position to defeat Trump or Bernie or Bloomberg or whoever, and the opposite arguments, and the best candidate wins and that's that.
However, if the vote's not fair two large issues arise.
The first, with regards of your priority of defeating Trump, an unfair process is very demotivating for the side that sees their candidate being shafted, as well as for independents, and in addition provides great ammunition for the right-wing spin machine (who would love nothing more than to counter balance the obvious and prodigious corruption of Trump with obvious corruption of the DNC primary process). So strategically, even if Bernie is less likely to win than a moderate, it is extremely dangerous to run a unfair primary process to attempt to determine the result.
It takes a certain "passion" to actually go out and vote, so the continuous hammering of "DNC corruption" in picking the candidate will lower that passion for many, perhaps leading to just "tuning things out" and not voting.
The second issue, is that it puts Bernie supporters in the position of enabling an unfair process if they support a winner of a corrupt process. By "punishing" the DNC by not voting, or even voting for Trump, is the only way to make them think twice next time; risking 4 years of Trump in exchange for pushing the DNC in a less corrupt direction maybe seen as the right calculation long term to some. Regardless of whether this is "true" or not (and who knows), it's a major theme in the "progressives" as it is clearly a critical question. Of course, this is exactly what happened with the "Bernie or bust" in the last primary with Hillary; again, maybe Hillary would have won anyway, maybe not, but the collusion with the mainstream media and anomalous coin-flipping and so on, obviously provides fuel to the Bernie or best argument. This is of course simply a subset of "demotivated" people, but a particularly vocal one.
Whether you disagree or not, these groups need to be taken into account in your strategic calculation; obviously, the best way to get as many participants as motivated as possible is a fair primary. Hillary's idea was "republicans will vote for me"; history proved that wasn't a good enough to win.
You are giving weight to changing the "status quo" and it seems you are saying Bernie, and only Bernie can possibly do that.
What specific status quo changes do you seek?
Are my big issues at all relevant to you? Do they fit into, or out of, the status quo? They are: rescuing Obamacare and improving access to affordable health care, judicial appointments (which indirectly protect abortion rights), comprehensive immigration reform, and social security reform. I overlap with Bernie supporters in also wanting to make it easier to climb out of poverty (which I did, growing up in the 1960s-70s). I give the edge to Bernie only on that last point, but I have low expectations about what he could possibly accomplish. I very much like his voting record, but he hasn't gotten any revolutionary bills to pass (he's the principle sponsor on a total of 7 bills that passed, during his 13 years in the Senate).
No one is advocating anything like the USSR or Cuba or Venezuela. No one. That's imaginary.
Quoting fishfry
Why you keep invoking Cuba or our supermarkets is beyond me. If you can't see that this is sheer stupidity, maybe it's not worth it talking to you. None of this has to do with my comment, that the wealth in the US has been concentrated to the top, especially the 1% (it's actually closer to 1/10 or 1/100 of 1%).
The wealth of the US is vast. We're the wealthiest country on Earth. So "relative to the rest of the world," that's not an "idea", it's a fact. What's your point?
Stop arguing against imaginary opponents. Outside of your information bubble, they don't exist. If all you know how to do is respond to straw men and imaginary opponents, that's OK. Just let me know so I don't waste my time trying to explain anything.
Quoting fishfry
Who said shutting down commerce? Try reading again what I wrote. Bernie wants to destroy a rigged system that distributes the wealth of this country to the top 1/10th of 1%, and I agree with that. I think such a system which produces such enormous inequality should be dismantled or at least heavily corrected. This is the exact opposite of what you're saying -- it's in FAVOR of the working and middle classes. It has nothing to do with "shutting down the American economy." Nothing. Nor did I ever say that. Nor has Bernie said that. It's a ridiculous statement that, once again, exists only in your imagination.
Quoting fishfry
It's very easy to tax wealth. All we need is the political will, which Bernie has. The working and middle classes will not pay for it, the wealthiest Americans and the corporate sector, however, will.
This is very basic.
Quoting fishfry
That's not true. Neoliberalism has little to do with wars. It has far more to do with increasing the military budget (to line the pockets of defense contractors), which Trump has done. Trump has cut taxes and deregulated everything from environment rules to banking laws. He's in favor of privatizing everything. Almost every policy he's proposed or enacted is exactly in the domain of neoliberal philosophy. It's true Trump doesn't have a clue about what he believes -- he's in it for himself only -- but the policies are clear, and he goes along with it. McConnell has been enacting this agenda while Trump tweets and stirs up controversy. Also, pretty basic. That you deny any of it is "neoliberal' is striking.
Quoting fishfry
He has done nothing on trade except re-named NAFTA and started a stupid trade war with China which changed literally nothing. His proposal of building a wall will go down as one of the stupidest ideas in history. As for war -- yes, he wants to stay out of war.
What does this have to do with the continued tax cuts, deregulation, and cutting of social welfare programs? These are neoliberal policies, and have been enacted over and over again during this administration. You can bury your head in the sand about it if you'd like, but you make yourself look like a fool.
Quoting fishfry
You're confused. Sorry for the accuracy. Try to stop arguing against your imagination.
Quoting fishfry
True. And being accurate about what's really happening in the current administration and about Bernie's actual policies is all the more important. I highly recommend making an effort to do so.
Yes... very interesting. We have a close contest now. Like a slow motion horse race. Tuesday will tell us much.
Will Pete join with Biden to create a “Moderate Monster”?
Will Bernie and Elizabeth Warren be the “Progressive Pair”? (Assuming Warren can stop criticizing him for a moment, lol). Will Tom Steyer then back them, provided he can pretend not to be a billionaire, and make thousands of small donations? :yum:
How will Bloomberg do, and how long will he last? Will he be a spoiler? Or just act spoiled?
After last night I think Warren burned that bridge. A memo from a campaign manager stated that the strategy is to stay in the race given the likelihood of a brokered convention, accumulate as many delegates as possible, and, somehow, "ultimately prevail at the national convention".
Yes, he’s probably not much help or inspiration to anyone. Well, the sooner Bloomers drops out the sooner then those incredibly annoying ads on YT of his will stop. Then we can return to mildly irritating insurance ads.
But seriously, even if Bernie gets jobbed and robbed there is still a chance... if he wants to risk it. He has the ace up his sleeve to run as an independent. I think his supporters would DEMAND it. Some other DNC people would almost have a coronary over it, and Biden and Co. would be fanning the flames accusing him of helping Chump, and worse. It could get ugly. (Like HRC throwing a tantrum, lol.) The very thought of tampering with the two-party race! Heresy! (Like Ross Perot never happened, or something). Oh well. That’s what “frenemies” are for. Bernie is trying to play by the “rules”. But if he gets the clear majority of delegates, he should get the nomination. The super delegates don’t (or should not) vote in that case. But who knows? We’ll see what shenanigans transpire...
To me, if he is forced to run as an independent, it’s simply a 3-person race. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever. May the best person win... (and f’ it... break up the monopoly while he’s at it).
Otherwise known as a Trump-win since Democrats would be divided.
This is a good delegate tracker.
Bernie up by about 8. But still counting SC. (This is like some bizarre sports tournament, lol)
Not necessarily. That’s the (somewhat understandable) reflex response, though. That’s your opinion, fair enough. Mine is that the situation has radically changed. This scenario probably won’t even happen, though.
What's not debatable is the consequence of Trump continuing: not only will you not get "Medicare for All" in the discussion, you risk taking a step backward - eliminating Obamacare. Consider that the Supreme Court has agreed to review the law for Constitutionality in the next term, which will be after the election. If Trump is elected, the Solicitor General will be arguing to eliminate it. If a Democrat is elected, there will be a Solicitor General defending Obamacare. There's also a good chance they can restore it to Constitutionality (it could be as simple as reinstating the fee/"tax" for failing to have coverage, which Republicans zeroed out).
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/02/business/media/chris-matthews-resigns-steps-down-msnbc.html
Lot of interesting developments since we last talked! The DNC fix is in. Pete and Amy dropped out and endorsed Biden after speaking with Bloomberg. They're both young and ambitious, the party will reward their loyalty down the line. Steyer's out, he spent $250M for nothing and never made any kind of impression at all. Just the rich guy at the end of the debate stage. Bloomie's events protested over stop-and-frisk. African-Americans turned their backs on him in church yesterday. And Chris Matthews finally got shitcanned. About ten years overdue IMO.
If I were to stipulate that Bernie doesn't want the US to be the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, and Mao's China rolled up in one; wouldn't you at least agree that this is a credible charge that he will be accused of anyway? His record on this is terrible. He's made many public statements and has many political alliances that argue my side of the proposition and not yours. I get that deep down you think he's a harmless old lefty who means well. Unfortunately he has a lot of friends far more dangerous than that.
I believe that the movement Bernie represents is extremely dangerous, even if Bernie himself is far more kindly than his followers.
Quoting Xtrix
Deep down you must know I'm right else it wouldn't bother you.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes, and inequality is an inevitable byproduct of a system that produces such wealth. In a capitalistic society there will be winners and losers; but on average, and overall, pretty much everyone's far better off than they are under the communist dictatorships of the twentieth century. Every single one of them has been bloodthirsty, brutal, repressive, and ultimately totally unproductive.
Bernie's a socialist. Socialism fails. It has always failed and as it fails it kills a lot of people.
I absolutely agree with you that our current system is pretty screwed up. The inequality has gotten out of hand. This is what everyone recognizes, it's what's given rise to Trump and Bernie. Nobody's interested in mainstream Republicans or mainstream Democrats. This is a crisis for the country.
But if you think socialism (or "democratic socialism" if you prefer) is the answer, then I humbly beg to differ.
Quoting Xtrix
I'm responding to the points you're making.
Quoting Xtrix
You are not required to respond to anything I write. If you did happen to make a coherent point, I'd acknowledge it. I see you defending a system and way of thinking totally discredited in the twentieth century. As I said I do agree that our system is a greatly distorted, corrupt, and unsustainable version of what it's supposed to be. We disagree on the remedies. Socialism can never be the answer because it's a flat out failed ideology that causes misery and horror wherever it's implemented.
Quoting Xtrix
I'd like to blow up that system too. It's part of the neoliberal consensus. The global elite suck the wealth of the world upwards from the middle classes. "Davos man." There is much merit in the socialist critique. Marx predicted most of what we know of as late stage capitalism. He saw the inevitable disaster that capitalism must become.
It's not the socialist theorizing I object to. It's the authoritarianism of leftists that I oppose. With Bernie the cure would be much worse than the disease.
Quoting Xtrix
The goals may be noble but the policies would be economic disasters. The Green new deal, the radical environmentalism, the opening of borders (you know Bernie used to be a sensible immigration restrictionist just a few years ago. He knows immigration's bad for workers); the confiscatory taxation of the successful, as if you think all the wealth of the country would still be there if we abolished billionaires, whatever that means.
Quoting Xtrix
You have not run the numbers. If you stripped every billionaire in the country down to the clothes on their back, you could run the current federal budget plus Bernie's new programs for a year or two at best. After that you'd have to come for the hundred millionaires, then the ten millionaires, then the millionaires, and finally the high school teacher married to the firefighter making $150 or $200k together.
If you sit down and run the numbers: WHERE does the money come from, HOW MUCH, money, and how long does that run the newly doubled federal budget -- you see you will run out of the "rich" pretty quickly and soon be be into the middle class.
Run the numbers.
Quoting Xtrix
Tax cuts stimulate the economy. Corporations don't pay taxes, they collect them. Now I disagree with Trump in that he cut taxes but then allowed the budget to blow up. Same mistake Bush 43 made. I disagree terribly with the government's profligate spending combined with tax cuts, borrowing, and printing. It's not going to end well. But I'm sure you've noticed that there's no interest in Washington for getting the trillion dollar deficits under control. You know that every nickel the government spends is authorized by the House and personally signed off on by Nancy Pelosi. The financial trainwreck in Washington is bipartisan.
Quoting Xtrix
Hillary and Obama's foreign policy was a disaster. Trump is getting us out of Afghanistan. Of course we lost, but he has some sort of face-saving deal and there's a chance he could get the troops the hell out of there. Hillary would have had us in ten more wars. The neoliberals are part of the neocon war agenda. That's why Hillary, Schumer, DiFi, and all the other "liberal" Democratic senators signed on to the Iraq war. You give us our social programs and you can have your wars. That in a nutshell is the unholy neocon/neolib alliance that's destroying this country; that both Trump and Bernie oppose.
Quoting Xtrix
Trump stood up to Xi. China has over a million Uyghurs in concentration camps. In the end we're all going to have to stand up to China. One could ague that Trump standing up to Xi is why Hong Kong has whatever autonomy it has left. Cozying up to China is one of the biggest pieces of the neoliberal project. Trump sees the future in this regard with far more clarity than many.
Quoting Xtrix
As I've indicated elsewhere on this site I'm a longtime follower of US-Mexico politics and I've lived in Mexico. I strongly oppose Trump's wall. But I also opposed the equally cynical Secure Fence Act of 2006, which Hillary and Biden the other power Dems voted for. And it was Obama who built the kid cages in 2014. What I object to is liberals who attack Trump for implementing essentially the same policies Dems have been implementing since the Bill Clinton administration. The militarization of the border did not start with Mr. Trump you know. It's the other side of the sanctuary cities and drivers' licenses for the undocumented. Total hypocrisy. The same people who support DACA built the cages. You want to complain about Trump's wall but not take responsibility for the Democrats' complicity for the screwed up border policies.
Quoting Xtrix
That's good, right? We have a point of agreement.
Quoting Xtrix
Yeah yeah whatever. The fix is in against your guy Bernie, what do you think about that? Tomorrow's Super Tuesday, we'll know a lot more by the end of the day.
Quoting Xtrix
Doubling the spending of the federal government while making unrealistic estimates of where the revenue will come from strikes me as a recipe for disaster.
I feel like I am going to regret asking, but how do you figure Bernie is an authoritarian, or that his election would lead to authoritarianism?
Quoting fishfry
I think the unholy alliance is that of big business with the politicians. Trump is hardly opposed to that. Bernie won't really be either, I suspect.
Barack Obama has obviously not so far given his endorsement to any of the Democratic candidates as of yet. He has said something like he is waiting to see how the process turns out, he doesn’t want to interfere, blah, blah... Ok, that’s fine. Completely understandable. Mr. Obama has a lot to potentially lose, if he makes the slightest miscalculation or says a (perceived) wrong word. He is perhaps viewed as a “Mr. Moderate”, and is best known for giving form to what became “Obamacare”, and lately, mildly criticizing people who call themselves “woke”.
But... Maybe... What if Mr. Obama, after almost 4 years out of public office, with some time to reflect on the current political landscape, and his role in creating it, is perhaps having some second thoughts? What if, come DNC convention time, Bernie Sanders is still alive and twitching, and just needs the slightest breeze to push him into the nomination?
And what if Mr. Obama, sitting is his chair of eminence as a respected (if perhaps not universally beloved) ex-president like a wise King Solomon, is asked to give his blessings on a candidate? What if he still harbors, in his heart of hearts, the slightest bit of that fire and idealism he showed in 2008? What if he thinks the times and circumstances have changed? What if maybe he has some tiny bitterness about the way his administration turned out or might be perceived now, especially with regard to the healthcare plan which (like it or not) still bears his name?
And what if he wants to be remembered as a bold trailblazer, rather than somewhat unfairly as a corporate team-player who played his part, got paid, and then comfortably retired? Isn’t that kind of anticlimactic? Is there a crucial second act left in this particular American life?
Would it then be worth it to Mr. Obama to bless Bernie with his endorsement, despite the almost certain grief and vicious criticism it would engender, even from Democrats?
Only if he really believes that it is the right move at the right time. And if he really wants to make a lasting change.
Good call, I imagine the Democrats will likely ask him to drop out to consolidate around zombie Biden, animated by the DNC necromancers and the sudden (and calculated) endorsement of Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Beto.
I'm starting to think there's a deep generational divide. I don't even think I know any younger people who support Biden.
Meanwhile I'm just sitting over here as someone who's right of center and watching the left duke it out.
The delegate count will not reflect the voting. The super delegate count will most certainly not. We'll see. This is the time(these states) when Hillary pulled away only for Bernie to pull closer in the end. If Biden does not get too far ahead as a result of today, Bernie will be fine... as far as votes in the remaining states go. The convention could be quite a circus though.
There's no way Obama or Hillary or Warren lend support to Bernie. No way. No how.
We'll see what happens.
Well that is easy for Obama and Hillary. Warren, on the other hand, would be a complete hypocrite. "Taking down the billionaires is important, but I don't really like Bernie" :yikes:
This may be why she is sticking it out for the super-delegates...she knows she can't win, but if she drops out, she MUST endorse Bernie or everything she stood for was a lie.
Wise people, your folks. :smile:
However, unexpectedly, Massachusetts and Minnesota are currently (at 30% and 42% reporting respectively) leaning toward Biden, which shifts the predicted outcome even further in Biden's favor than it was prior to today. :-(
A probably-trivial wildcard though: American Samoa, predicted for a Biden win, went to Bloomberg. 538's model didn't account for any timelines where that happened, so it's not able to tell me what the probable outcome of the whole primaries will be accounting for that. But it probably makes only a trivial difference (six delegates).
From 538 themselves:
Moderaters... moderate.
Maybe. I've not enough reliable true information at my fingertips in order to draw such a conclusion. Namely, I do not know what will be the determining factor guiding Warren's decision, on way or the other.
I will say that when she threw her support to Clinton, it showed beyond all reasonable doubt that the primary issue is not fixing the broken/rigged system. Clinton refused to produce the evidence at her disposal which would be the strongest evidence we have to render judgment about her true intentions regarding both the public and the private financial sector.
People wanted to know what she said to those people who have tremendously benefitted at the expense of everyday American citizens, voters, and/or consumers. The exact words she used as a means to compel the movers and shakers of the financial sector to go out and vote for her are the strongest evidence possible for making informed decisions about whether or not she is the kind of candidate who can get the overwhelming majority of poor people the opportunities that every American deserves simply by being American.
I would say that a trustworthy government does everything in it's power to make sure it is able to provide trustworthy money lenders.
Failing to actually provide the entire unedited paid speaking engagement to 'wall street' is adequate ground to temper the amount of trust one places upon Clinton to do what needs to be done in order to correct the grave injustices that have been done in the aforementioned economic sector.
Either Warren did not fully grasp this situation for what it is, which shows poor judgment, or correcting the issues which have led and will continue to lead to an enormous financial wealth gap between the richest and the poorest Americans.
One measure of what a government is worth to it's people is the inverse proportion to the size of the aforementioned wealth gap. The greater the gap between the least and the most fortunate circumstances an American can be born into the less worthy the government is... especially when we're talking about a representative form of like the American republic.
Fixing that requires reversing and/or correcting all of the previous pieces of legislation that paved the road. That requires electing and keeping enough individuals focusing upon the right sorts of change...
You see...
Not just any change will do, and that's what really chaps my ass about a long standing pronouncement of "getting things done". No one has batted that shit into the stands as it ought and need be.
Where's Rodman when you need him?
It's rather hard to claim to be a champion of the people if you also lend public support to one who can be clearly and demonstratively shown to have played a key personal role in harming so many...
Thank you! Tell that to my many critics ...
Quoting 0 thru 9
Ok no totally I would love that. It's his Marxism not his hippiedom. I wasn't an official hipped but I certainly identified with them. And we were all against the war. I marched on Washington. I loved the hell out of this paragraph. You reached right into my forgotten past and hit the nail on just about every point. I saw Chomsky speak against the war. I love the crazed hippie president image. I'm imagining Bernie as Fat Freddy from the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers. I was so into those comics. If Bernie was promising an actual return to the hippie ethos I'd put on my tie-tie and beads and sign up for the whole program.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Even if I concede the poin[ that Bernie is not a Stalin socialist but more like a Mr. Rogers socialist, I would not change a word of what I wrote. Because Bernie has many followers who ARE Stalin socialists or worse. The #CancelCulture out there is like Chairman Mao's cultural revolution, complete with public shaming sessions. struggle sessions, they use to call them. The far left scares the shit out of me lately and they're all way into Bernie.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Bernie has a lengthy track record of making statements in support of the most appalling regimes. I'm taking the man at his word and you want me make excuses for him. I'm not buying that.
Quoting 0 thru 9
His plans would double the annual spending of the Federal government. Doing that would blow up the world's economy. Now we could be here all night arguing THAT particular claim, but it's what I believe and you should take that for an indication of where I'm coming from. If someone did have that belief, then it would be rational for them to say that Bernie is going to blow up the country's economy -- even if you disagree with the premise. Fair?
Quoting 0 thru 9
It was Bloomie who called Bernie a Communist. I'm not calling Bernie names. I'm pointing out that his policies, as outlined on his website, would blow up the US economy and almost certainly take the rest of the world economy with it. That is my considered opinion. I'm not calling anyone names. I like Bernie as a person. Wish he'd hit Hillary harder on the emails in 2016, he could have been president. He would have beaten Trump then. Not now, unless there's a huge economic crash -- which could happen.
Quoting 0 thru 9
It is not a cheap shot. It's my informed opinion having glanced at Bernie's plan on his website, and verified in several different places that he will double the annual spending of the federal government. If anyone did that there are certain disastrous economic consequences that would follow. I don't want to spend time arguing this particular point. I'd like you to acknowledge that this is my opinion, and agree to the validity of the argument that IF I believe as I do, THEN it is rational for me to state that Bernie would destroy the world economy virtually overnight.
There are no personal attacks or cheap shots whatever in my comments.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I hope I have outlined my rational foundation with sufficient clarity. It is as follows:
P1: Bernie's own detailed plan on his website would, according to most fair observers, would double the annual spending of the federal government.
P2. That would be a Very Bad Thing; for reasons I don't feel like enumerating because it would amount to spending the time to boil down my thoughts and draft a good response and I don't want to do that at the moment. So I ask you to simply accept that I believe doubling spending is a Very Bad Thing.
C: Therefore electing Bernie would be a Very Bad Thing.
I hope, as I've tried to explain, that if you accept that if I hold P2, then it's valid to conclude C. Even if you disagree about P2. I hope you regard this as an exercise in rationality. In fact you may be confusing me with other people, because I've never disparaged Bernie personally. I really like the crazy old coot. I just don't want him to be president.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Did not follow that para.
Quoting 0 thru 9
It's hard not to be. Over the years they've lost their moral center and what we see today is the end result. At least I hope it's the end, if they get any worse they'll have to be designated a terrorist organization. [That's hyperbole for the purpose of intended humor; not a point on which you need to accuse me of name calling].
Quoting 0 thru 9
As a symbol he was revolutionary and much needed. As a president, his greatest trick was to convince people he was a leftist. His foreign policy was Bush's 3rd and 4th term. Instead of apologizing for and prosecuting Bush's torture regime, he institutionalized it. He had many many scandals but gets away by saying he was scandal-free because the medial lets him get away with it. He had his foot on the brake of the economy. Trump's economy would have been Obama's if Obama had a clue.
Great symbol, so-so president. I liked his no-drama approach, we all prefer that over Trump's bombast.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Oh no. McCain would have blown up the world. I am not on Team McCain, all the people who want to make a saint out a corrupt warmonger. Between Obama and McCain I'd take Obama 100 times out of 100, even in hindsight. All in all Obama was a pretty good president but he had a lot of flaws that his defenders don't admit, and the reaction to his flaws led to Trump.
Quoting 0 thru 9
On that we agree wholeheartedly. I hate partisanship. I believe the worst the Dems say about the GOPs and the worst the GOPs say about the Dems. I hate both parties. They both deserve to die.
In fact that's why we had a Trumpian populist insurgency in 2016 and now a Bernie populist insurgency in 2020. The centrist consensus isn't working and people are starting to notice.
And this week we see the establishment fighting back ... with Joe Biden? This senile and corrupt warmongering, civil-liberties-hating, tool of the banking industry? Do people even know who Joe Biden is? You can be sure Trump will remind us.
Quoting 0 thru 9
You're right. Bernie's just an old leftist who's been spouting the same slogans for 40 years and finally the country has become ripe for his message. He's more of a symbol than an individual for his followers. But what a character ... there's something about him, the crazy old uncle with the hair and the hands waving and the delivery and the cadence ... he's got his act down really well. He's actually a very effective speaker. Like I say, I like the guy. Just not his ideas.
Quoting 0 thru 9
If by that you mean that this country's going down, sooner rather than later, there's a good chance. The spending and the stupidity on both sides are out of control, probably past the tipping point.
I think the tl;dr is that you think doubling federal spending is a good idea and I think it will be the end of civilization as we know it. Or perhaps you disagree with that number. That also could explain our difference of opinion. It actually comes down to this point I think.
Maybe. I've not enough reliable true information at my fingertips in order to draw such a strongly expressed conclusion. Namely, I do not know what will be the determining factor guiding Warren's decision, one way or the other.
I will say that when she threw her support to Clinton in 2016, it showed beyond all reasonable doubt that the primary motivating factor for her was not 'fixing the broken/rigged system'.
Secretary Clinton refused to produce evidence readily at her disposal that was and is needed for developing sound judgment about her true intentions regarding both the public and the private financial sector.
A well informed electorate is absolutely imperative to any and all free and fair elections. So many of the most vulnerable people are taken advantage of by those who are able and willing. Clinton has ties to the 2008 financial scam. She also had their(the financial sector) full support... as does president Trump... as did president Obama... as did president Bush Jr... as did president Clinton... as did president Bush Sr... as did Ronald Reagan...
...as does vice-president Biden...
All of them bragged about geting things done... look at the results for the poorest and most unfortunate people...
"In the spirit of transparency"...
Given that a financial loan is absolutely necessary for pulling oneself up by their own bootstraps if they find themselves in all sorts of unfortunate circumstances; given that nearly all poor people require a loan in order to even take some of the first steps towards a happy, healthy, rewardingly successful life; given that many many people in financial sector deliberately and knowingly crafted financial instruments for the sole purpose of immediate tremendous financial gains despite knowing that in doing so many many other people would be forced to face some of the most difficult and trying financial times of their lives; given that Hillary Clinton was paid to compel/convince these very same people to vote for her; given her propensity to hold belief that move her towards policies that are very favorable to the financial sector; given the absence of any attempt at correcting all those past mistakes; given these and so many other things of this very nature...
Either Warren did not fully grasp this situation for what it is, or something else compelled her decision to lend support to Hillary instead of Bernie. A band of sisters... perhaps? I'd be ok with that. In her circles, very few predicted Trump's victory, and even fewer thought he had a chance. The timing of the surprise breaking news stories shortly before the election was/is curious though. Those seemed to damage Clinton far more than Trump. Particularly the ones about the corruption in the DNC. Couple that news with the broadly held belief that Hillary was going to beat Trump, and many of the people who would have voted if they thought it was needed... probably would have.
So, I would buy that claim from Warren regarding her choice between Bernie and Clinton. Biden is not a sister though.
Like his ideas about which pieces of legislation resulted in harming the most vulnerable members of American society? Like his ideas about what actually caused the tremendous disparity in wealth that we see today? Like his ideas about not continuing to allow money lenders to peddle misleading predatory and/or damaging financial instruments to everyday trusting Americans? Like his ideas about doing what it takes, over the long haul, to cultivate a politics that benefits nearly everyone across the board?
:brow:
Yeah, I can see how someone would not like those...
I think he means his socialist ideas, the ones that have proven ruinous to all the despotic regimes he once championed.
Late night on Tuesday. Biden beat Bernie decisively. Looks like Dem voters aren't buying what Bernie's selling. Biden will be a disaster of course as a candidate but these results are certainly interesting. A big Bernie win was predicted but instead the Dems got Amy and Pete to quit and endorse Bernie and all the Dem voters fell into line. Rarely if ever have the Dems been this organized recently.
Regarding your questions, I am not arguing with Bernie's idealistic beliefs; only his specific policies, their costs, and his highly unrealistic plans to pay for them.
Bernie's weakest point is his most fundamentalist supporters.
Quoting fishfry
Actually thanks to Trump, Americans can believe that they can make a change to their party by participating in [i]the primaries[/I]. Yet normally political parties usually have a leadership which decides on the candidates.
If (when) Biden gets the candidacy, will Bernie supporters go and vote for him? Got to stir up that Trump hatred!
Quoting Benkei
The US is different in many ways, Benkei.
Bernie is right behind Joe, with a less than a million vote difference, and we still have about 60% of delegates left to go.
Yep, and he has successors. But I think it would take an economic crisis to put the Democratic party behind them.
A trustworthy government does everything in it's power to make sure it is able to provide it's people with trustworthy markets, patrons, businesses, and all other services being provided by the American marketplace. This most certainly includes trustworthy money lenders for those in need. A trustworthy government does everything in it's power to ensure that it's citizens are not being systemically taken advantage of by any individual or group of individuals who wield such power... over and over and over again...
A trustworthy government does everything in it's power to protect and serve the best interests of the people, and this must include cultivating a socio-economic landscape with the most possible good trustworthy opportunities for those who want to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps(as many as possible if and when there are conflicts).
One measure of a government's worth to it's own people is the size of the aforementioned wealth gap. The greater the gap between the least and the most fortunate circumstances an American can be born into... the less worthy the government is to it's own people... especially when we're talking about a representative form of like the American republic.
Fixing that huge wealth gap requires reversing and/or correcting all of the previous pieces of legislation that paved the road. That requires electing and keeping enough individuals focusing upon the right sorts of change...
You see...
Not just any change will do, and that's what really chaps my ass about a long standing pronouncement of "getting things done". No one has swatted that shit into the stands as it ought and need be.
Where's Rodman when you need him?
Why is Russia supporting Warren?
Because Europe supports Bernie.
Why is Russia supporting Trump?
We're gluttons for punishment, I suppose.
More like he serves your geopolitical interests. Your dear leader, V.P., is no fool.
Yes we love a strong American economy, military and energy independence. It’s bound to help out the motherland.
Is it that difficult to comprehend that people care about policy first and foremost and don't think of elections as reality TV shows?
Anyone who wants Warren to back out so as to syphon her voters to Bernie is concerned about seeking power, not policy. Warren is a capitalist and believes in markets.
It's about accruing and consolidating power with which to leverage and enact policy, how are you so bad at this?
That’s easy to say when the power would be consolidated under the candidate you prefer. It’s not a strategy so much as it is simply complaining that you are not getting the votes you want.
No, it's easy when there are clear and notable ideological and policy overlaps between the two, and only one has a viable path of victory in the primary that was very clearly reflected in the polls for the last several months, which then, surprise surprise, played out last night. You're a fan of Trump, so I understand how you can only perceive politics as a sort of reality TV game show in which voters are only interested in candidates irrespective of any policy, but in fact many voters actual care about primarily about policies that affect their material well-being and vote based on which candidate promises to enact those policies.
According a recent Morning Consult poll 40% of Warren supporters name Sanders as their second choice (35% of Sanders supporters name Warren as their second choice, which makes sense because she's nearest to him policy-wise). Let's assume that increases to 50% had Warren dropped out and endorsed Sanders on Monday night, as the other moderates did for Biden (apparently not a strategy?). Had that been the case, it's quite likely that Sanders would have won Texas, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Maine instead of Biden.
Sure, counterfactually Warren's supporters may have switched to Sanders on her dropping out. I think that's a fair assumption. Frankly, I'd much rather see a strong, demonstrably left-wing party myself, especially while watching the incestuous political triangulation of the likes of Biden and Buttigeg, and between the Democrats and Republicans pre-Trump.
But as of now Warren is still in the race. So none of that matters; she is still Sanders' opponent. The idea that she should have dropped out in order to help Sanders' chances is the sort of anti-democratic power-grubbing that essentially ended Sanders' chances the last time.
Because he's bad for America, bad for democracy, bad for capitalism and liberal social democracy. He's the best trojan horse a dictator like Putin could ever dream of. (Incidentally, this is also why, at least according to rumor, the Kremlin is rooting for Sanders - they know that if Sanders is the nominee, Trump will win a second term.)
Hmmm, I was just basing it on her running a VERY anti-billionaire campaign. There is only one other anti-billionaire candidate.
Quoting creativesoul
Well that is fair. We have no reason to know for sure what will drive her decision. But if we look at her decision based on the ideology of the campaign she has been running for the last year, we can conclude that she is giving up on deeply held beliefs for the sake of a personal dislike (or the drive for personal glory, but she can't possibly still think she has a chance)...I am happy to use a word like hypocrite for such actions.
Quoting creativesoul
A good point. As you say, it shows her primary motivators are not really what she talks about when campaigning...which is strange.
Quoting creativesoul
:up: So you understand my confusion at Warren's efforts to hinder Bernie's chances of success (and therefor her own supposedly deeply held beliefs' and goals' chances of success).
Quoting creativesoul
That seems a fair assessment...but for this cycle I would complain that her campaign was far more focused on economic equality than the struggles of women (she definitely touches on women's issues...but I would struggle to identify anything but economics as her driving ideology).
Quoting creativesoul
Yep, she doesn't have the band of sisters option this time. It will be interesting to see what she does...but disappointment is the new normal for leftist politics in this country (which is WAY better than my previous feelings of no hope at all. In recent years, I can at least get excited that things might change, but so far it has only resulted in disappointment).
It's quite simple.
They know that the more polarized the US is, the better for them.
At least Bernie gets the point totally clearly:
See article Bernie Sanders briefed by US officials that Russia is trying to aid his campaign
The fix is already in. The deal's done. My condolences to the Bernie fans on the board. Note also that the mythical youth vote didn't bother to show up. Of course a lot can happen between now and the convention so we shall see. But there's no way to spin Super Tuesday as anything but a shocking defeat for not only Bernie, but also all the AOC-backed Congressional candidates. The Dem voters have rejected ultra leftism.
Yeah yeah Denmark population 5 million. Britain's NHS is a total horror show disaster. Canada's too. I'll take the opposite side of the "free health care free college free everything" debate if you please.
Ah yes, another amazing piece of statistical analysis from the "American Thinker" by a blogger considering one single anecdote compared to the alternative course of events in the US that he simply imagines.
overview universal healthcare in the world
The NHS is set up differently than other European countries. Part of the reason why it's struggling is because conservative governments keep reducing funding increases (it still increases but at a much lower rates) and lowering taxes, making it appear as if it becomes disproportionaly more expensive as part of the budget.
Quoting fishfry
These types of posts are so funny.
I think they were trying to reject Trump. Closing ranks is the way to do that. We'll see if the left side of the party is wise enough to realize that.
Unless Bernie is delusional, I think he knows there's no way to get funding for his ambitions. I'm left wondering what he was really trying to accomplish.
If 2008 had led to a depression, and then the Bernie/Trump conflict unfolded, it would have been an epic battle for the future of the US. Real fascism vs real socialism.
A change in the general consensus of thought regarding what the government ought be doing for Americans...
He knows it is not a quick fix. Most people, it seems, do not realize that.
I heard him say a couple of times that without an energizing message, Democrats would lose to Trump. He sees himself as the best option for beating Trump.
So in the process, bring universal healthcare in as a dominant theme. Makes sense. It was a two edged sword, though.
Quoting creativesoul
Should we get Obamacare back on track? Or reach further?
[tweet]https://twitter.com/msnbc/status/1235624381612797953?s=21[/tweet]
I hope Bernie gets the bump he needs.
I'm starting to think this way myself.
I'm even starting to think that all the silly wokeness is a way to crush the left luring it away from the important question. Forget the bluecollar worker and health care, let's talk about trans rights etc.
I don't think the Dems were so alarmed by the leftism of Bernie themselves, they were afraid that Bernie would become a similarly divisive as Jeremy Corbyn in Britain. That many otherwise democrat sanctuaries would turn into surprising Trump support. This is why the gang up against Bernie.
And likely Bernie will do what he did in 2016: give support to Joe as he did the last time with Hillary.
The Good Loser. Same repeat now with Joe coming soon.
And btw. has anybody else noticed that Joe Biden is a lot like Walter Mondale?
Oh, oh, oh! And back then Mondale had Ferraro! How progressive!
Yup. Bernie has the heart but not the cojones. Just like he let Hillary off the hook on her email scandal He should have hit her hard on her corruption and carelessness with classified documents. He should hit Joe hard on his corruption. There's a debate coming up soon, we'll see if Bernie wants it or not.
Every AOC-backed candidate lost. Cenk Uygur, running to fill Katie Hill's vacates House seat, lost badly. Leftist candidates lost to centrists nationwide. It could mean nothing or it could be that we've reached peak Woke and the voters have had enough. We'll find out.
One interesting take I read is that the Dems might have been wrong to coalesce around Biden. The GOPs failed to coalesce to stop Trump, but Trump won the general election. There's something to be said for that. Getting behind senile and corrupt old Joe will be a disaster.
I'm glad to see a Bernie supporter maintaining a sense of humor. I'd assume most are in a state of shock and depression. Liz quit today and failed to endorse anyone. It's down to Bernie and Biden. How did the Democrats come to this? I wonder if lifelong centrists who swerved left, like Cory and Kamala, realize that they would have had a better chance staying in the middle. I'd gladly have supported the business-oriented Democrat Cory Booker, but not the bug-eyed Spartacus nonsense that started when he decided to run for president.
I'll stipulate that we disagree on health care policy. This thread's not the place. But if health care is "free," who pays for it? Taxes would go through the roof. And what makes you think the Democratic party could run health care for 300 million people? You already forgot the Obamacare rollout debacle?
This is not the thread to debate health care policy. To my mind, government-run health care would be the worst of the post office and the VA. Note that current Medicare is a public/private partnership, with private companies having a central role via Medicare Supplemental and Medicare Advantage plans. You abolish private insurance and you take all the flexibility out of the system. And when has a government takeover of industry ever resulted in cost reductions? Medicare for All as Bernie sees it would be a humanitarian disaster.
There's nothing new under the sun.
Quoting fishfry
No, he's a good man. It feels good to have a good person in charge. That's enough. The rest is the delusion that we control any of this.
Ok just help me out here on this "Joe's a good person" bit, or that he represents a "return to normalcy" etc. He's a tool of the banking industry, helped pass the punitive bankruptcy bill of the Clinton era that hurt many people. He's a warmonger. He hates civil liberties and has even bragged about writing the original draft of what eventually became the Patriot act. He's been on the wrong side of every major issue for the past forty years. He's spent decades corruptly enriching his family.
His schtick is to pose as friendly Uncle Joe, "just regular folks." Behind the scenes he's a venal, corrupt, warmongering shit. That's before his recent obvious cognitive decline.
Can you explain why you think he's a good guy?
Quoting frank
I have no such illusions. I voted for Tulsi in the California primary as a protest vote against the war machine.
Are you a pacifist?
No, they don't. Not if you make an attempt at understanding Bernie, of course. If you're not willing to understand his position, fine. In that case, refrain from "translating" until you do or simply don't talk about it.
Bernie has never -- not once, not ever -- claimed he wants the US to be like China or Cuba or the USSR or wants to turn them into that. You won't find one statement of his that suggests this. Not one -- in 50 years. That's such a preposterous claim, and it's shocking you don't recognize it. Yet you want me to take you seriously regarding your analysis?
I skipped the rest of your post after this. Not interesting until you show you've at least understood Bernie's brand of Democratic Socialism. It's not hard to do, he's had a decades-long record which, approached without your inherited, preconceived notions, is easy to comprehend.
I've noted several times that I perused his latest plan on his website and consulted several sources who analyzed the probable costs, the spending ramifications, and the dubiosity of his revenue projections. I've also run the numbers of the total wealth of all the billionaires in the country versus projected federal spending under Bernies plans as described, I repeat yet again, on his website. The government would be broke within a few years and they'd be into the millionaires and then the middle class.
I've made these points several times. If you want to claim, after the posts I've written recently, that I make no attempt to understand Bernie, I'm not interested in further conversation. I written extensively and clearly on the subject. If you want to toss false and gratuitious stinkbombs then as Donna Brazile said to Ronna McDaniel the other day, you can Go to Hell.
She's a Dem by the way so I'm just stooping to the latest socially acceptable parlance used by your side. She's the one who gave Hillary debate questions in advance. Why's she even on tv?
Bottom line is I've made substantive posts repeatedly recently on this subject and all you've got is a totally unfounded and untrue personal attack. Have a nice day.
Oh and also when it comes to Bernie, I'm not your enemy. I like him a lot better than I like Biden. Your beef is with the DNC and the media, with Obama working in the background, who just knifed Bernie in the back. You did notice that I hope. Liz stayed in long enough to hurt Bernie on Super Tuesday then dropped out without endorsing anyone.
You think I'm your problem? I hope Bernie comes out fighting hard and calls Joe on his corruption and warmongering. Let's see if he does.
I don't believe I wrote the words quoted. But as I say I voted for Tulsi as a symbolic vote against the war machine. I would not call myself a pacifist. I'm not against all wars. I'm against stupid, evil wars run for profit and against the national interest. All of our effing Middle East and North African wars since 9/11, to pick several you may have noticed yourself. I would say that the Dems lost me the day Hillary voted for the Iraq war (and gave cover to all the other Dems to do the same); and then when Obama chose to institutionalize rather to investigate and punish Bush's lawless torture regime.
And, I also happen to prioritize foreign policy. The left these days is more interested in domestic issues. Before Obergefell I used to say that if you throw the liberals a bone on gay marriage they'll look the other way on torture. That's my take. I support gay rights but not at the expense of our wretched and appalling foreign policy.
Hope that was a suitable response to your question. By the way between Trump and Biden, Trump is the peace candidate.
Quoting fishfry
These types of posts are so funny.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/kantrowitz/status/1235810749622050818?s=21[/tweet]
Unfortunately for Bernie he is not breathing enough fire. He has the excited base but is too scared or too principled to hit Biden for whatever reason.
"Nobody wants to hear about emails." He lost the nomination that night. He should have hit her hard on her corruption and incompetence handling classified data. Instead he wants to be a "gentleman" and make nice. That's his fatal flaw. He came out yesterday and said what a great guy Joe is. He should be hammering Joe on corruption and warmongering. Let's see what happens next debate.
Rumor has it they'll change the rules to keep out Tulsi, who just won herself a delegate and thereby qualified. Can you imagine Tulsi up there with those two fossils? She could get elected president just by not being an 80 year old guy.
I get that you disagree with me. I don't want the US government running my health care. They can run yours if you like. How is that? Isn't that Mayor Pete's plan, Medicare for all who want it? I would go with a public option as it used to be called. Let free enterprise and the government compete and see which system people prefer. You ok with that?
You replied to me the same way twice in a row but never tried to make a point. What is your point?
God knows why people such as you have such an issue with government run healthcare when the outcomes in other countries are vastly superior to the crap you have in the USA. It's a silly ideological position and fails to take into account how the government runs a lot of things far more efficiently than markets could. But whatever. Here's the full market solution:
1. obligate insurance company to provide basic health insurance (contents of which are decided by law) for everyone with no right of refusal;
2. insurance companies set their own premiums for this care;
3. have insurance companies pool the premiums for basic care and pay out from the pool if someone draws care that falls under the basic health insurance;
4. give them rights to audit each other in the event that a company's customers draw more from the pool than premiums those customers provide to ensure pay-out standards are harmonised across the board;
5. insurance companies negotiate health care costs directly with hospitals and other care providers;
6. insurance companies offer additional health insurance packages, which is left entirely optional;
7. severely limit liability for professional neglicence for health care providers that provide basic health care and that have been contracted by insurance companies to provide such care. The costs of negligence will fall on the insurance company as they have to pay for additional care for their clients and this will put a lot of pressure on them to contract with health are providers that are actually good. In the medium-to-long-term this will mean quacks will go bankrupt and the money goes to better healthcare.
This way, insurance companies can compete on premiums and what they negotiatie with health care providers. You still have mutualisation of all basic healthcare costs this way and allow a lot of freedom for people to buy more insurance.
I doubt that Warren dropping out would help Bernie much at this point. It could've helped in Super Tuesday if she dropped out and endorsed him like Pete and Amy did but that ship has sailed.
Anyways, I think we have to hand it to Warren for ending her campaign the way she did. She ended up abandoning her friend when he needed her most, going back on the values she claimed to be fighting for by kneecapping the progressive movement and taking superPAC money from an oil lobbyist that clearly only had an interest in her role as a spoiler, in a delusional and selfish attempt to win the presidency via. stealing the nomination on a second ballot and potentially fracturing the democratic party in doing so, and what did she get from all that? Losing in her home state and coming in third. I can't think of a more worse and embarrassing way for someone to end their political career and I consider her to be the biggest loser of the night, second being the billionaire who spent $500 million just to turn himself into a national laughing stock.
To be fair, if senile and corrupt were things that would disqualify someone, then Trump wouldn't be president right now.
He fears that tearing down Biden (or running as third candidate) will simply get Trump re-elected. That's the lack of cojones.
Quoting fishfry
I think we have reached "Peak Woke" already.
Just to look at things from a totally different perspective, have you noticed the response that Greece got to closing it's borders and how the EU responded to Erdogan? There simply isn't the "woke" responses anywhere. Nobody started shaming Greece. No EU member (that I know) has reprimanded Greece. Even the leftist politicians here say "If the international argeements have to be followed, a state needs to take care of it's borders". One even purposed that asylum applications could be just given with the people remaining in Turkey. The EU has decided to give Greece 700 million euros and is setting up a 'rapid intervention team' with Frontex. If Greece asks for more border personnel, likely it will get it. The EU is finally starting to close it's borders as, well, the US.
Just look at the response Ursula von der Leyen gave:
A Sea change from the confusion of 2015-2016. Von der Leyen's response now would be attacked as populism and Trumpist rhetoric back then. What a difference few years make.
Few if any woke calls for solidarity or us having to do our share, especially when Erdogan's move is so obvious and calculated, that even idiots understand that the refugees and migrants are just a political pawn in the game of the Turkish dictator.
Now this is good, because what it does is that takes all that important fuel from the right-wing populists. They need that annoying wokesters to get their people supporting them. And also the futility and indifference of the state. But if the mainstream doesn't follow the wokest, people aren't interested in them either.
Back to the elections, I should note that Bernie has never been the hero of the wokest. Sanders is actually a traditionalist when it comes to the left and what he has been for is very traditional western social democracy. As an old leftist, he of course has a lot of positive things to say about the Soviet Union, but luckily he hasn't praised Venezuela (or what later came of the Sandinistas). Smart politician would look at this and understand what needs to change, but likely an old fart like Biden won't understand. Just like Hillary didn't.
Yes. Trump is an aspect of the US sinking off the world stage. Biden would try to reinforce the illusion a little longer, none of which matters much. In the 22nd century I think natural disasters and peak oil/natural gas will initiate conflicts. Maybe nuclear ones. I think we as a species came close to creating a global government. We had the global economy as a threshold to it. We just won't take the next step into it.
Unless a new global religion appears. I guess that might do it. So anyway, I don't see the point in trading pithy comments about politics. My head is located a few centuries or millennia from now.
I was already sad today, and now I am more sad. Another four years of Trump are probably ahead, and even if not, it's not likely that anything is likely to actually improve under Biden, at best they'll just stop getting continuously worse.
The guy who is least mentally competent to be President won because of... electability. You have to laugh...
It's funny because in each case your first statement is contradicted by the second.
First you said offer a eulogy to the Sander's campaign based on the results of Super Tuesday, but then a sentence later you say "of course a lot can happen between now and the convention so we shall see."
You say that Bernie supporters should be despondent; that we should be in a state of shock and depression, but then the next sentence state that it's just "down to Bernie and Biden", as if Bernie supporters should be upset that in a field that consisted of 20+ candidates we should be upset that we are down to two and the only other candidate is someone who can't speak coherently for more than two minutes.
Hard to take you seriously at all.
It's also because young people didn't show up. I'm sorry, but as much as young people on here may complain about the way things are, they're to blame for Bernie's loss more than anything. They just didn't show up on Tuesday when they had a progressive option, and the moderates did turn out in big numbers, which says alot about the state of things.
Likewise.
Agreed, I'm politicked out. The DNC just changed their rules to ban Tulsi from the debate. Can you imagine her appearing alongside those two fossilized relics Bernie and Biden? The contrast would be so striking, Americans would start listening to her anti-war message. Can't have that.
Even though we knew it was coming, I'm sad today. Let's see if the left squawks about misogyny over Tulsi. I'm not holding my breath.
Quoting Mr Bee
He seems pretty sharp to me. Blew up the Republican party then blew up the Democratic party, confounding the experts and beating the "inevitable" Hillary. Survived three years of everything the "#resistance" could throw against him. Unleashed the most vibrant economy in the world. Stood up to China. Didn't start any new wars.
You call that senile. That makes you look like you have your hands over your eyes while you shout insults at a guy you don't like and whose achievements you won't recognize. Or as it's called, Trump Derangement Syndrome. You got it bad.
People "such as me" would include a big majority of the Democratic primary voters, who resoundingly pushed back on Bernie. Take it up with them, not with me. As I told another Bernie supporter the other day, I'm not your enemy. Your fellow Dems are the ones who have it in for your candidate. I'm just spectating.
I do apologize that I'm politicked out and will skip discussing the details of health care policy. I've been watching this since Hillarycare blew up in 1993, I've lived through Obamacare, and now we have Medicare for All, which will inevitably degrade to health care for none. You want to defend the VA? That's government health care.
But to answer your question directly, as to why I'd feel that way, I instinctively distrust any humongous one-size-fits-all government program. I do like Mayor Pete's idea of Medicare for all who want it; that is, a public option. But giving people choices is not what leftists are about. It's their way or the highway, and that's the kind of authoritarianism I oppose. Not to mention the competence issue. The government could never pull it off, even with the best of intentions.
I don't see how any of that requires a sharp mind. Beating an incredibly unpopular politician, having a cult following and a congress that's willing to put party over country to protect your ass, and inheriting a great economy that's already been growing for years doesn't require a very stable genius.
It shouldn't be controversial to say this: Trump is a f***in corrupt moron.
:lol: Thanks for the response. Much appreciated, and funny. (But maybe don’t put the tie-dye shirts and love beads into the closet with mothballs quite yet, lol. Bernie still has a pulse, and perhaps his handlers will give him a syringe full of a mix of adrenaline, caffeine, and testosterone before the next debate with Joe Biden. If so, he will be frothing at the mouth. And make John the Baptist’s rant against King Herod sound like a “Tonight Show” monologue.)
Bernie must take Joe “off-script”. Biden has a hard enough time sounding coherent even when he is reading his lines correctly. In an impromptu and free-flowing argument, if Bernie were relentless, he could provoke Joe into saying some wild and outlandish quotes. Quotes that would be extremely memorable and damage Biden’s chances. Bernie has to transform the debate from a stately waltz into a mosh pit, basically. If Joe survives, well then it’s good practice for the next round...
Quoting fishfry
Yep, agree with that. I could totally see Trump trying to weasel out of a possible Presidential debate with Bernie with some dismissive handwaving and excuses. For “Clueless Joe” on the other hand, he would clear his busy Tweeting schedule, and start licking his chops like a hungry dog.
I don’t think that Rosen is officially connected (or is / was she?) to Biden’s campaign. But still, she did Joe no favors with such a tone deaf and haughty attitude. Being “political” doesn’t necessarily mean being “polite” or “politically correct”. But a little diplomacy goes a long way...
If you think a democratic process resulting in a medicare for all solution is authoritarian then the problem is you don't understand the different political modes of government.
Great, then let's have a discussion about those plans and numbers. I'd be happy to. Simply waving your hand and dismissing it all as USSR-style "socialism," however, is a bore to me. It's something your average YouTube commenter would say. Be better than that.
Quoting fishfry
Fine with me.
Quoting fishfry
And this is exactly why you're a waste of time. I'm not a Democrat and never once claimed to be. Never. Not once. Exactly like Bernie never claimed he admired or wanted to implement Soviet policies, which you've also stated and, when pointed out by me, ignored. If you stopped your own childish projections and stopped trying to force-fit everything you read into your silly boxes, you'll learn something new. I, for example, am not a Democrat nor a socialist. Yet I argue for Bernie Sanders' policies and have voted Democratic for years. If you struggle with these facts, that's your problem.
I guess it's all a matter of you being too "clear and consistent" for me.
Quoting fishfry
Ok, bye....
Oh wait, he's back:
Quoting fishfry
I never once said you're my "enemy." Not once, not ever. I'm sure you're a good person. I wish you no harm. I am frustrated and repulsed by your argumentation. Again, if it's a struggle to square these two things, then I can't help that. I make the assumption that people who show up on a philosophy forum are fairly resilient, educated adults.
Two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. I prefer liberty. The left has a tremendous authoritarian streak. See Mao, Stalin, Castro, etc. The US is not a democracy, by the way. It's a Constitutional republic.
Quoting Xtrix
You're overreacting to a figure of speech. Let me rephrase.
I am not the person you need to be arguing with. It's your fellow Democrats who soundly rejected Bernie on Super Tuesday. Your political argument is with them, not me.
Is that a more clear representation of what I'm saying?
Let me put it another way. I feel for you Bernie supporters. You must be in pain right now. If it makes you feel better to think that convincing me of the error of my ways would help your cause, feel free. In that way I'm performing a public service.
So it's ok. You think I'm wrong to want to make my own health care decisions; and that I must not be allowed to do so? I assume you wouldn't normally be so uncharitable except for your political grief. It's going to get worse. The NYT is smearing Bernie as a tool of Putin as we speak. That's your enemy, and now I do use the word literally. The New York Times is the enemy of us all. It represents the forces that Trump and Bernie alike are fighting.
But when you presume to tell me that you demand and insist to make my health care decisions for me. I will always push back on authoritarianism.
Choice, remember? I thought your side was all into Choice. Free markets give consumers choices. I stand with free markets as the most effective means of delivering goods and services to the greatest number of people. If you don't believe me, drop in to your local grocery store.
I'm politicked out for the moment. Health care policy is very wonky, I only get into it to a certain level. In general I favor liberty and individual choice, so instinctively I push back on any kind of one-size-fits-all system imposed from the top down by a government that does not exactly have a good track record for competence.
That's a set of sensibilities that inform the way I process the evidence. So you and I could well look at the same numbers and statistics and come away with different conclusions. You prefer collective solutions and I prefer individual ones. We're not going to resolve that difference by looking at data.
I am a little burnt out on politics. If I allowed myself to care I'd be pretty pissed today that my candidate Tulsi Gabbard was just excluded from the Dem debates. Can you imagine that brilliant, beautiful, strong, vibrant, accomplished 38 year old woman on the stage with those two fossilized relics? The American people might start listening to Tulsi's powerful anti-war message and we can't have that. So they change the rules to exclude Tulsi, just as they changed the rules to allow in Bloomie. Who ironically would have been far better off if he'd stayed out!
If there's a less democratic institution in the country than the Democratic National Committee I don't know what it would be.
And those liberal women crying sexism about Liz? Think they'll stand up for Tulsi? Me either.
I'm just going to sit back and see how this goes. It's all theater at this point. Arguing the fine points of health care policy isn't something I want to do right now. But like I say. It's not me you need to convince. It's all those suburbanites who just came out for Joe; and the youngsters who didn't come out for Bernie. That's the story this week. As somebody wrote, maybe Bernie picked a bad week to double down on Cuba.
If Sanders doesn't get the nomination (if Biden is shoe-horned in), then Trump will win a second term.
This is arguably what happened in 2016...
Not unless the Coronavirus crashes the economy first. 2020 is gonna be a crazy year.
That much is obvious, isnt it? The swamp clearly does not want Sanders.
Scott Adams predicts the swamp candiate combination will be: Biden+Harris. Scott Adams has a good record of predicting these things, I would bet on him.
Anyway, US elections are always entertaining. I keep the popcorn ready to watch the fury of the Bernie fans when he gets shut down...
This is just lazy reasoning. The "left" like the right is on a spectrum. Equating it with the worst we've seen is just silly. Most western countries are more "left" (eg progressive) than the USA and they're better places to live.
Also, democracy and republicanism aren't mutually exclusive. "Greatest democracy on earth" was coined and used by Americans.
@fishfry suffers from a particularly virulent form of LDS (left derangement syndrome). Red man = bad. Reading his posts at least gives an insight into how the powered and privileged have convinced much of the country that everything not in the interests of a tiny wealthy elite is "socialism" Mao! Stalin! Castro! :scream: There is no vaccine for that except the ability to think.
All I can say to that is that with the present system, you pay far, far more in health care costs, than anybody else in the whole World and have a truly dismal health statistics starting with lower average life expectancy than other rich countries. I'd say that is a sign of a huge racket. Why? Because in any case all those countries that do have universal health care and a public sector lead health care system aren't phenomenally efficient, but just moderately good. But your system is even more inefficient! But hey, large pharma gets it's profits and doctors can get to be millionaires, so I guess that makes it good.
Is change possible in your corrupt political system? That is a good question.
We've seen again and again how the Democrats have failed in the health care reform or how watered down it has been in the end.
I think we are all now familiar with this train-wreck of a disaster President Trumpov. Wonder how Democrats will feel then in 2024.
Quoting Mr Bee
Or more likely said, if the responses to corona-virus crash the Global economy.
Already China's exports have dramatically decreased. Yet if the corona-hysteria dies down (just like SARS, swine-flu or ebola-hysteria died down too), the markets can rebound. After all, the only true deadly pandemic we have seen in our life time is the HIV pandemic.
Yes. But since I don't have Tom Perez in front of me, you'll have to do.
(That was a joke.) Quoting fishfry
Of course not.
Quoting fishfry
You have to read the NYT with a critical and skeptical eye, yes. To say it's an enemy is too dramatic. It's very important to have newspapers and journalism in this country. the NYT still have many good journalists doing very good work.
To say Trump is fighting the forces like Sanders is a joke. Trump attacks the NYT whenever there's something he doesn't like or when he perceives it makes him look bad (maybe a redundancy). He's not interested in whether they're telling the truth or not.
Quoting fishfry
You're welcome to keep fighting the good fight against a scarecrow. I want no part in it.
Quoting fishfry
Yes, the magical free markets. If you're open to changing your positions, read the following with an open mind. If not, ignore it. But it's a very good analysis.
https://chomsky.info/19960413/
No kidding.
Quoting fishfry
People overwhelmingly like medicare, actually. This belief that everything the government does is terrible or incompetent is old and boring.
I'm in favor of choices too. If given the choice between giving my money to private corporate tyrannies whose ultimate purpose is to turn a profit, or a system run by my tax dollars, I'm ready to give the latter a chance. But suit yourself.
Quoting fishfry
How else do we have conversations and solve problems? Our feelings?
Creationists use this argument a lot, actually. They claim the geologic data can be interpreted as evidence for Noah's flood. Just a different scientific model from "evolutionism." So they deserve equal time in schools. Do you accept this?
If not, why take that very same attitude towards healthcare or anything else? It's citizens identifying and discussing problems, and generating sensible solutions, that move this country forward. Not by throwing up their hands and saying "Well it's all a matter of opinion anyway, so why bother?"
This attitude is very revealing and exposes a general lack of knowledge and lack of effort to gain knowledge. It's at the heart of these arguments from anti-vaxers, climate "skeptics," 9/11 truthers, etc. They don't believe there's such a thing as expertise. Or they do, but just not in this particular domain. Why? Because it's either been politicized (deliberately, in the media) and so they've been essentially brainwashed through misinformation, or because they've taken a few minutes to read something on the Internet about it and bam, they know just as much as anyone else and their position is just as valid.
It's nonsense. I suspect you wouldn't accept those positions. So why do it here?
Every American deserves to have the very best healthcare available. There is no excuse for a representative republican government to not place the overall well being, general happiness, and livelihoods of all Americans on the top of the priority list. That is one of the guiding principles of any and all representative governments. The American government has been erring on the side of faceless corporate entities when it comes to a conflict of interest between their profit and the lives of everyday Americans... including healthcare 'concerns'.
When the overwhelming majority of Americans want the best healthcare coverage for all Americans at a significantly lower individual cost than the current average, and that goal is an attainable one, as all of the rest of the major industrialized nations show, yet all the major media news outlets make a concerted attempt to push the idea that it cannot happen...
When huge American and multinational corporations have been using the enormous power of their own free speech to influence all those citizens that the corporations themselves take advantage of...
There's a big problem in the system... monetary corruption of politicians and tremendous corporate influence on public policy. Joe Biden and Obama and Hillary and all the rest of the 'establishment' people on both sides -republican and democrat - have and will continue to err on the side of the huge corporate profits. The only 'difference' between the two is talk... the actual policies that have been disastrous for so many Americans could have been put in place from either side... and were often put in place from both during the transfer of power or just prior to.
If Joe wins it will be more of the same. If Trump wins it will be more of the same.
Joe's a bit more palatable in general.
Yep. But it seems as though world leaders are caught between a rock and a hard place here in responding to the epidemic. On the one hand you have China and now Italy quarantining entire cities which is obviously gonna cause damage to their economies, and then you have Trump downplaying and lying about the situation to save his reelection bid, leading people to distrust their leaders to do anything and causing widespread panic, which is also bad for the markets. And I imagine that panic and distrust will only get worse once the actual testing kits gets put in place and people in the US realize that there are far more cases than they were able to find before.
The threat of the virus itself on actual people is overblown as far as we're concerned, but the threat to the economy is very real.
Mainstream political thinking here is obvious.
As I've said in the other thread dedicated to this, when you have even just the potential of a truly deadly pandemic, you take drastic measures. It is a political suicide to dismiss the pandemic at first and downsize the response if the epidemic later causes then lots of deaths. However, if it goes on to be like, well, all the previous pandemics one's like Ebola or SARS or Swineflu, you are not going to be challenged because you took drastic measures that were felt economically. You can always say that the drastic measures were needed and they were successful. Nobody will dare to complain that you wrecked economic growth for a while, just to save some people. It ought to be a no-brainer.
Yet Trump has chosen as he is Trump, a different narrative. At least for now. And if you really listen to everything he says, not just the picks the Trump-hating media says, he is quite normal also and admits that there is a possibility of the situation to become dire.
And with Trump, of course, he can say just about whatever he wants and can easily backtrack what he has said.
A deeply disingenuous point, which you'd understand if you knew the first thing about Medicare.
Medicare is a public/private partnership. Private insurance companies offer Medicare drug programs, Medicare supplemental insurance, and Medicare advantage. Those programs add flexibility and individual choice to Medicare.
M4A as envisioned by Bernie (and Liz before she abandoned it) eliminates the private component and forces everyone into a one-size-fits-all program.
To have written what you wrote, that people overwhelmingly like Medicare, you must either be ignorant or disingenuous. People love Medicare as it currently is implemented: as a public/private partnership. When you take all the flexibility and choice out of it, people will hate it.
My point exactly. But I'm a poor proxy for the DNC. I'm a disinterested spectator of the ongoing Democratic train wreck. Thus my remark. Why vent your frustration with me? It's the establishment Dems sticking the knife into your guy Bernie. And I detest the establishment Dems. You and I have the same enemy.
Yes that is part of my point. Forget the right and wrong or comparisons with other countries. There's a pure competence argument to be made. The rollout of Obamacare was a disaster of epic proportions. It utterly failed to bring down costs and sent premiums skyrocketing for self-employed people and small business owners.
Even if one believed in universal, mandatory, government-run health care -- is the US government the government you want in charge of your health care? I say no, and I'd point to the ongoing scandal of the VA as evidence.
I see.
For the matter I am furious over the lack of coverage on pretty much every major news outlet over the astonishing success of Bernie's campaign.
Do you have evidence to support this?
Completely false. I'm a lifelong social liberal and registered Democrat (still am, voted for Tulsi in California) who is utterly appalled at what's become of the left and the Democrats. And I'm not the only one. Trump could not have won with only the support of the deplorables. He won when tens of millions of people who voted for Obamain 2008 and 2012 either stayed home or voted for Trump in 2016. I'm one of them. I didn't leave the Democrats. The Democrats left me. Just ask the Democratic voters in Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania who Hillary ignored at the cost of her presidency.
I'm a big fan of Chomsky. Many of his positions I disagree with. On foreign policy I'm a Chomskyite all the way. And when it comes to knocking the New York Times, Chomsky is the one who's spent decades meticulously documenting their ruling class, warmongering soul.
You joking? It's perfectly well known. Do your own research. No Democrats are even bothering to defend Obamacare anymore.
ps ok I did a quick search. Second time in the last five minutes I did someone's Google research for them. Why? You don't know how to use Google?
It's perfectly obvious what happened. Obamacare hugely raised premiums, that's well known. The poor got subsidies. The self-employed got absolutely destroyed. You could look it up.
https://www.google.com/search?q=obamacare+raised+premiums&oq=obamacare+raised+p&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l2.3120j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/07/28/overwhelming-evidence-that-obamacare-caused-premiums-to-increase-substantially/#58bd168715be
https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/how-obamacare-raised-premiums
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/071415/did-obamacare-make-premiums-go.asp
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/08/obamacare-premiums-democrats-donald-trump-insurance-aca-coverage-mandate-column/1444804002/
https://www.cms.gov/blog/thank-obamacare-rise-uninsured
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/health-care-premiums-rising-obamacare/story?id=43047190
The burden is on you to support your sentiments about Obamacare and it's deleterious effects on the middle class, or not?
Yes, this is the crucial thing here.
What is actually possible?
The big-pharma and medical lobby hasn't just power because it gives money to politicians. It has power because in truth a lot of Americans are OK with the prevailing system. They have a job, they have a decent plan. Otherwise things would have changed already. Just whining about the stranglehold that the rich have of the political system doesn't cut it. There has to be the majority which is OK enough with the system.
We shouldn't forget that if Americans pay the most for health care, they also have the highest income on average. Some stats put median income or household disposable income of Norway, Luxembourg perhaps Switzerland higher than in the US. If you pay much, you also get much income also.
Besides, it's with Bernie as it was with the odd duck candidate Ron Paul some years ago. On the right the young libertarians got excited about him, but the real question would be just how much could on man change the whole structure?
I don't actually defend the US system of health care. The corporate medical practices, the pill industrial complex, the waste and the bureaucracy. But our standard of care is very high and very available. I brought up the NHS recently and someone said I'm wrong or just arguing from one article I've found. I've heard bad stories of the NHS for years. The American system provides very high quality care to a lot of people. Some people are unfairly under-served. The question is how to deal with the bottom 25%, not blow up the system that's working for the 75%. In my opinion, of course. I realize we have in this forum many avid leftists who adhere essentially to the Marxian point of view. Myself I'm partial to Groucho.
Your joshing, yes?
Let's forget about the 25 percent and enjoy the fact that 75 percent were happy. Btw, another 25 percent of the 75 percent were on the verge of losing healthcare...
I want my cake and eat it too!
Most Americans are perfectly happy with their health care.
Now this is where you say, "Do you have any evidence to back that up?" and I post a half dozen on-point links and someone else complains that they could look up crystal healing on Google and someone else complains that they don't like one of the authors. Like I say, slow Sunday. Hey Jesse endorsed Bernie so the Bernie fans should be happy today. Meanwhile Biden said that "We can only reelect Trump." While liberal publications frantically try to spin Joe's obvious cognitive issues as stuttering. It's to laugh.
Yes, the situation is quite tragic. But, let's not get depressed and apathetic or cynical. Ya?
*Long fart noise*
If you want to know why Trump is so popular, note how out of touch most leftists are about what's going on in this country. And so utterly dismissive of the possibility of ever finding out.
The DNC just changed the upcoming debate format to a town hall with the public asking questions and Biden and Bernie being seated. The fix is in to hide Biden's infirmity.
Do any Dem voters want to tell me how long the Dems will be able to maintain this farce?
I guess you missed the Gallup Poll link I included showing that Americans are not in fact "perfectly happy with their healthcare"
Nothing about this is new. Chomsky should come to mind with regards to all this fuckery going on in America.
Disguised as a fart? All your utterances are thinly disguised farts.
Here's another Gallup poll to the contrary. You got a poll, I got a poll.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245195/americans-rate-healthcare-quite-positively.aspx
You know, I want to emphasize this point. Most Americans are happy with their health care. The problems that need to be fixed are on the margin. The under-served for reasons of poverty or geography. So let's figure out how to fix the problems with the system. Don't blow up a system that's already working for most Americans.
Yeah per the article those positive ratings are primarily driven by age and income, surprise surprise. Not sure where "perfectly happy" is tho.
Most people have jobs that include health insurance. They get medical plus dental and optometry services. They're happy as clams and never think twice about their health care costs because it's all free to them.
People on Medicare are happy because the public/private partnership makes the system work. A lot of people are on Obamacare and are moderate income so they get subsidies.
Some people fall through the cracks and don't have health care. You want to blow up a mostly functioning system rather than fix what's broken.
And again, even if you're right in principle, do you really think the federal government is competent enough to pull off such a huge transition? We lose all our wars, our social programs turn into welfare for bureaucrats and never lift anyone out of poverty. Do you personally want this government to be totally in charge of every aspect of your own personal health care? I can't imagine that.
"Medicaid/Medicare Recipients Rate Coverage, Quality Most Positively"
How ironic
Are you not an American? I have health insurance through the company I work for and I still pay medical, dental and optometry through co-pays, deductibles, and whatever is deducted from my bi-monthly salary.
Are you happy with your health insurance? Yes or no, be honest.
Hard question to answer because I've only ever had top tier providers through employment because I'm fortunate to have a good job. Obviously most Americans don't have a similar experience. I also live in NYC so finding and getting to doctors, therapists, dentists, etc. that take my insurance is relatively easy, and I can't complain about the quality. That said, between various doctor/dentist/optometrist/psychologist/psychiatrist visits and medication in the last year I've probably paid over $3,000 out of pocket.
I take that as a Yes. After all you'd pay way more than $3k if you had to pay for health insurance for all the third world peasants who desired to come here, as all Democratic candidates pledged to do at the first debate.
I wonder if we took a poll, what would the results be. If we asked everyone on this forum if they're happy with their health care, availability, price, and quality. I bet we'd get a lot of yesses.
Sounds like the UK these days.
Yes, I would tend to agree with that assessment. History happening twice. The first time as comic tragedy. The second time as tragi-comedy. (Or vice versa).
I’m as opposed to Trump as always, but now I can really FEEL why he was elected, and why he might be again. The anger and frustration in the pit of the stomach that has no place to go except online forums and (every few years) the ballot box. Trump tapped into that Kundalini energy of voters, and drilled it like the biggest oil well ever discovered. And is drilling still. Bernie tapped into that too, though in a different way.
But how “Park Avenue” Donnie ever got to be the voice of the working class is a trick that would have amazed both George Orwell and Harry Houdini.
:up: Yep. I agree with that. The two parties are mirror images of each other. One hand washing the other. Good cop (Democratic party), bad cop (Republican). Trump is nauseating to me, but there’s at least one upside if he wins. The Democratic side would potentially be open for a takeover in four years by a Bernie follower. (Assuming Bernie has retired by then... )
Otherwise, it is time for other new parties to join the fray. Like a “United Progressive Party”. UPP... that’s kinda catchy... :grin:
You asked me for an honest answer and you give a knowingly dishonest interpretation. Fuck off with this dumb shit and stick to spending your days watching the XFL.
:up: :up:
I think this response is disingenuous. I was illustrating that not everything the government does is awful, nor do the public view it that way. Now you want to say that the reason it's popular is because of the private aspect of it, or otherwise "people would hate it." Heads I win, tails you lose.
Nearly everything is mixed. So you can say it about anything: People like roads not because the government builds them but because they contract with private companies, etc.
Libraries are popular, too. So I guess that must be due to some private element as well?
The government is funded largely by taxes, which in a working society would be spent in ways that benefit the vast majority of Americans: public transportation, infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc. The basics. It's true that there's plenty to complain about, but the answer isn't to privatize everything. The push for privatization has in fact led to disasters.
The reasons our roads and bridges are falling apart, for example, isn't because it's government-run, but because it's underfunded. Which is a common tactic used by those who want to privatize an industry -- underfund it, watch it fail, then point to that failure and say "See, the government can't do anything right -- better give it over to private, unaccountable companies."
That strategy has succeeded. We're living the results. Meanwhile the neoliberal philosophy trickles down to working and middle class people like you, who continue to promote it with vigor. In this sense, one has to be in awe of the private sector.
Thanks for your support! But this new fledgling party may need a place to meet for now. How big is your living room? :rofl:
Yes of course, but he's also one of the press's biggest defenders. Criticizing our country or our press doesn't mean one hates or wants to destroy either. In fact, you criticize the things you love, especially when they start making huge mistakes.
Pretty curious on your thoughts now
Hah!
:roll:
She can only hurt Bernie by endorsing Biden and not help much, or at all, by endorsing Bernie. I won't be surprised if she waits till the nomination to endorse whomever is the nominee like she did in 2016. Other than that, Warren's now just another promising also-ran (wannabe) ...
That's the thing, you said it right there.
I don't know if it is 25% to 75% ratio, but something along the lines it has to be. Hell, even Maw is personally OK how things are in his life when it comes to health care!
Then of course, you are talking at a "Philosophy Forum", not on a forum dedicated to either golf or yachting. So I guess many here are younger than Bitter Crank and don't have a luxurious health insurance policies. Or if they do, then they have their principles.
Typical technocratic approach, which isn't necessarily the right approach. It's also rather callous. How many people should have shitty healthcare before admitting the system isn't working? 30, 35, 40... or even 50%? The liberty people think they're pursuing by resisting a government run solution to healthcare (which works as shown in many countries across the world) actually hurts a fair amount of people causing them to have the liberty to choose between paying a healthcare bill and becoming homeless. Which is no choice at all in a civilised country. John Mill had something to say about exercising liberty when it hurts others but God forbid you pay a bit of extra tax (@fishfry I'm talking to you).
40% of Americans are one paycheck away from poverty because they don't manage to save enough. That means that even with insurance, one serious condition can bankrupt you due to deductibles and co-payments. While wage increases are stagnating, we can only expect this percentage to increase.
Quoting Benkei
The liberty people? So your reason is that those Americans believing in liberty and small government are the cause of the problem and hence basically hurting others? Sounds like they are like those gun enthusiasts. No wait, they are the same Americans! Oh those terrible people!!!
I'll just follow a different path of thinking here. I think that the issue really is that enough people have to be at least somewhat OK and accept the present system for it to exist. If asked, they may not like it. Maw earlier is the perfect example. We know what he thinks about this, yet he himself says he's OK, because he is fortunate to have a good job. And there's services where he lives. Isn't that a huge issue for many: being fortunate to have a good job?
Let me put it another way: Is there something you don't like in your country, but you aren't willing to take up arms and man the barricades or simply move out of your country because of it? I think there might be something like that which annoys you.
Perhaps the reason is that even if the problem is annoying, it isn't totally unbearable.
The liberty they think they're pursuing...
Quoting ssu
... by resisting a government run solution to healthcare. It's a very specific issue addressing a very specific argument. Your reaction seems to be to something else than I actually said.
Quoting ssu
The issue of (un)employment is a totally different one yet again. Of course that's a huge issue. The reply is though "so what?" when we're talking about healthcare. If only good jobs (whatever that even is) gets you coverage then that means poor people just get shafted (again), besides the lower wages they also have to pay more for healthcare because their coverage is worse or non-existent and they usually have worse lifestyle choices requiring more healthcare. The government has to step up in some way to make sure people have healthcare regardless of whether they have a "good" job or not.
Quoting ssu
If there was a system that randomly killed 1 jobless person out of 10, and of the working population 6% of people are jobless. Would you be ok with that just because the percentage is low and you have a job (so you're safe)?
People like to obfuscate the moral dimension here but not being able to afford healthcare means people die from otherwise treatable diseases.
American healthcare is like feudalism.. Your Lord provides you the ability to access healthcare. If you cross the Lord and get fired, you will suffer the consequences. From what I recall, the system developed after WWII whereby it was mainly the company's job to provide healthcare instead of perhaps better wages as a way to keep people on board (and perhaps increase bottom line)?
I see two things going on, Benkei. 1) Americans who "like" the system currently haven't really had a chance to see the hefty prices of a real emergency at a hospital.. Once they see bills upwards to the 10s of thousands of dollars, they might change their tune.. until then, their $20 copays and $300 premiums seem OK enough for them. 2) It's called cognitive dissonance. Even if some people do get these hefty bills, they can't picture what such a large overhaul would look like, and get scared. Also, if they grew up with "rugged individualism" they might say ridiculous things like "you just want things for free" or "doctors need incentives" and things like this.
We have like 74 million people on medicare. Another maybe 6-7 million who are eligible but don't sign up. We also have another 20 million veterans who again get free, government healthcare. government involvement in healthcare is huge in the US. the government will subsidize you if you're low income. the ones who get shafted are the middle class who do earn pay but they get squeezed a little. everybody agrees that healthcare needs reform in the US the issue is how exactly to do it, but don't pretend like we're just on a private, free market system right now.
Understatement. If there is an emergency or underlying condition, they get squeezed a lot until they are out of the middle class.
That's probably the 40% of Americans that are one payslip away from poverty.
I explicitly said I was in a privileged position in regards to healthcare that most Americans aren't in, and even then I'm certainly not happy with what I pay out of pocket. What part of that do you have trouble understanding?
:mask:
Every single one of the Dem candidates is on record as wanting to give free health care to anyone who shows up from anywhere in the world. You think your taxes won't go through the roof to pay for that?
Yes, that is exactly the case. Straight Medicare would be very unpopular. It doesn't pay enough benefits and it offers no flexibility. It's the private component that makes it work. You should do your homework on this issue. What I state is well-known fact.
You could look it up.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245195/americans-rate-healthcare-quite-positively.aspx
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/03/sorry-bernie-most-americans-like-their-health-insurance-way-it-is/
Nope
It is pure fantasy to believe that the access and quality Americans enjoy today would hold if private insurance were abolished.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/09/opinion/medicare-for-all-cost.html
Where does it say my taxes will "go through the roof"?
"Older, higher income Americans rate their Healthcare quite positively"
I appreciate your and everyone else's passion on this topic. Medicare for All is dead as a campaign issue. Biden is on record as opposing it and wanting to extend Obamacare. I've said my piece and will leave it at that.
Tragically, and I know you'll be personally devastated to hear this, they just cancelled the rest of the XFL season. Looks like I'm stuck here for the duration for my entertainment. I just washed my hands so it's ok.
Oh so it doesn't say that, you just like making stuff up.
So how can the health care cost be half of what you pay in many countries and still have the ability to afford universal health care?
Now I don't believe that public sector health care is particularly efficient, yet think about it. You pay twice and even more than twice than others. And in the end, the public heath statistics are dismal. I would say the US system a racket.
I do understand and it's a real possibility, if your argument is that the US would totally f*#k up an universal health care system if the corrupt system was put to make it...
It's amazing how insurance companies and other vested interests have managed to convince tools like @fishfry that a system that costs twice as much as it should, is half as good as it should be, and makes them billions is in his and the public's interest. All the data in the world won't wake the guy up to reality. Pure ideological blindness.
Perhaps I just lived through the disastrous Obamacare rollout and watched over the next few years as everyone's premiums went through the roof. Perhaps, unlike most people, I spent decades paying for my own health care out of my own pocket and thereby know a lot more about how health care costs and how it's paid for than the average office worker with a company-supplied insurance plan.
Perhaps I don't trust the government to run my health care. I don't trust them to run my foreign policy, do you? And for what it's worth, Joe Biden is opposed to Medicare for All and wants to extend Obamacare. 100 million Democrats can't be wrong, right? LOL. Cognitively impaired Joe is their savior. Point being that the Democratic party has decided against your chimera of a government takeover of healthcare. Your argument is no longer with me. It's with the entire Democratic establishment. Sorry Bernie bro's. And if I'm a tool, I'm a whammin' slammin' jackhammer baby.
We need socialism in order to get rid of stupidity. Capitalism is melting people's brains, just look at @fishfry
Funny how facts have been replaced by insults in my last couple of mentions. You like Stalin, Mao, and Castro? Good for you. "Oh but that wasn't REAL socialism, nobody's ever done it right." LOL. Now THAT is dumb.
You don't trust a government which you can vote for and change (i.e. you don't trust the public including yourself) but you trust corporations whose only motivation is profit. Really? Have you ever stopped and asked yourself cui bono? Who does this attitude and the ideology it represents benefit? It doesn't benefit the American public as a whole because your health care system is measurably one of the worst in the developed world and, as repeatedly pointed out, costs the public more in taxes than anywhere else in the developed world. It does benefit insurance companies massively because they make more money in America than anywhere. Try putting that all together. Maybe read some Gramsci on hegemony. You've been conned. This whole hysterical mistrust of government thing is manufactured by corporations afraid of the public using government as a tool to look after their own interests rather than theirs, i.e. of democracy. Seriously, just sit down and think.
They were "through the roof" before that already. The price increases for Obamacare are exaggerated and actually less than historic trends, with possible outliers in certain states.
See; https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/071415/did-obamacare-make-premiums-go.asp
I've sat down and studied the twentieth century. I lived through a good chunk of it. Socialism is the most brutal, dehumanizing system ever imagined. A boot stamping on a human face as Orwell put it. Think of the awful cybertotalitarian regime in China. That's not my vision for the future. That's my vision of the thing I will stand up and oppose to my dying breath.
Oh this explains it
Maybe read and respond to what I wrote instead of repeating hysterical nonsense.
You'll be a good Biden voter then. Hope you're happy with what your side has done.
Done politicking for the day. Not productive to debate socialists who don't even see the wealth around them that liberty and free enterprise have produced.
By the way what motivates private entities to do well by consumers is competition. All the kids with iPhone in their hands use them to tweet against corporations. It's to laugh.
I'm honestly politicked out., no more replies today else this could go on without end. FWIW a lot of people in this thread should be writing to the DNC and yelling at their fellow Dems who just resoundingly rejected their socialistic ideas.
Are you representing to me that (a) You read a wide variety of political news and opinion; and (b) that you have never heard such speculation from professional pundits and observers?
Thank you so much for that. I agree completely. And I'm not a socialist, which upsets a few handles on this site. The entire Dem electorate just rejected them the past two weeks, they must be despondent.
You keep saying "socialist", "socialist" without responding to anything I said and then you say you're done. Nothing I've said is "socialist" in the way you've implied. I repeat, it's conservative policy here too. We can talk about socialism another time.
This is too rosy. They are also motivated to lobby. To externalise costs, cutting corners and basically arbitraging legal, tax and economic differences between countries. So they evade tax, or lobby for less tax, pollute where they can, or lobby for looser environmental regulations, make you work as much as you can and pay as little as they can or move to a country where they can.
What motivates corporations is PROFIT. They don't like competition at all. Uber is trying to buy a monopoly in the taxi business. Banks have been consolidating so they can get the implicit guarantee that comes with "too big to fail" (and save millions in financing per year). I could continue for 2 hours enumerating examples how corporations often do not work to our benefit.
The market mechanism is great in a mature, predictable and informationally and power balanced market. These markets are pretty rare though and even then there are usually a lot of hidden costs.
I had a flood of mentions and have not kept track of everyone's individual positions. If I misconstrued your position I apologize. But if I simply failed to respond to your substantive remarks, it's because I only noticed the insults. But as I say, I cut all the Bernie fans a lot of slack since you all must be totally devastated this week. M4A is the worst idea ever. If you disagree then we disagree. See if you can get more people on your side next time.
I don't live in the US, so I don't have to worry about it, personally. Excepting doctor's visits, I get my healthcare for free. Ergo, it's a theoretical argument for me. And you're not engaging.
I agree that Marx had it right when he described what a disaster late stage capitalism would be. No question the system's not working. Hence Trump and Bernie. I just don't think socialism's the answer. If capitalism's not the answer either, what then? I have no idea. What Uber does is very exploitive. It would be pointless for me to try to defend what's become of capitalism. Our system's broken. That doesn't mean I can't call out the worst of the bad ideas that have been suggested to fix it.
Feel free to shoot questions at me about aspects of Dutch society if you can't tell just yet. I am going to bed now though so I won't answer soon.
Well FWIW the corporatized American system of medicine is problematic. I don't dispute that. And I'm not engaging. Haven't I said enough about health care? It's not even one of my hobby horse subjects. I don't care about it enough. I've stated my opinions to the level of detail I have an interest in discussing. I hope this is ok with you because I just don't care that much about health care policy except for opposition to M4A.
If you are happy with your health care that's great. I'm an American and I am very happy with my health care although the bureaucracy can be frustrating.
Sure.
Not familiar with the Netherlands at all. What if I said I have no objection in principle to universal state-run health care, but that I deeply distrust the US government to provide it? That might be closer to my actual position. There are a lot of problems with the American system. None of them can be solved with M4A as envisioned by, say, the Dem candidates of the past few months.
Damn. I should've asked this question pages ago because this fear I can understand, given the system you have.
I think I might not have realized this myself a few pages ago. I just can't see the US government pulling this off without making things much, much worse. Obamacare was sold with lies, did not "bend the cost curve" as they kept telling us, and you could not "keep your doctor," it was passed in a 100% partisan manner, self-employed people got financially destroyed, and it made premiums very expensive for healthy young people, causing them to have to forego health insurance altogether.
I would say that I have arrived at the highly defensible position that I under no circumstances want the current Democratic party running my health care. They are neither moral nor competent.
I was just making the point that I don't stand to personally benefit from any change.
Then you ought be more than willing to push the agenda of one who knows the issues and how to correct them... yet you rail against Bernie.
Odd, but common. That's what happens when someone buys into all the publicly available mis and disinformation...
That's just the beginning of it... It is a piece of legal collusion, not at all unlike internet service providers...
They literally divide up the country and do not interfere into the other people's territory. Reminds me of drug cartels, as well as street and/or biker gangs...
They are said to have the same sort of agreements between each other.
There is no competition.
I like Bernie personally. It's just his politics I don't like. I've already said I'm not a socialist and don't support M4A. Not sure what I could add. Bernie's policies, which I did take the trouble to glance at on his website, are all big government programs. It's perfectly sensible to be against a "democratic socialist" if one distrusts big government. Yes I'm aware that Trump has implemented his own brand of big government, completely blowing up the budget. I'm not happy about that.
I may have missed the link and didn't see it scrolling back a bit. If you live in a country with a competent, caring government, I envy you. I don't live in such a place. My sense of the US government is more aligned with the title of this book: A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. I haven't read the book but I've read many of John Whitehead's essays.
I really, really, really don't want Nancy Pelosi running every aspect of my health care. I really don't. I'll take my chance with the semi-free market and the miserable insurance companies and corporate health care we have now. That's the lesser of two evils, if I'm given a choice.
I do think Obamacare was as bad as reported, by the way. I was on Obamacare for a while. Very high premiums.
Quoting Benkei
Thx.
I read the article. I don't believe a word of it. It says nothing about the effect on young people, who used to be able to get low cost plans that covered catastrophic situations. Now those plans are outlawed and the premiums for the young need to be far higher than the risk profile would suggest, in order to subsidize premiums for the old and sick. Many young people chose to pay the fine (or tax, if you're John Roberts) and forego being insured. This is bad policy. That article is cherry-picked and misleading according to my understanding of the issue.
Same issue with self-employed people. Allowing people to choose higher deductibles to keep their premiums down is a good deal for a lot of people. Outlawing that means that the self-employed got killed by Obamacare premiums. Most people with employer health coverage never see that aspect of things because to them their health care is inexpensive. They don't see the actual costs and they don't pay those costs. Self-employed people do.
That article obscured more than it revealed in my opinion.
But besides Joe Biden, who's defending Obamacare these days?
There is of course an important choice to make if what you describe is true. Do you mutualise risk across the board resulting in lower health insurance costs on average or do you mutualise per age category allowing for differentiated premiums? And what happens if you develop a condition?
If it wasn't for Medicaid I suspect the premiums for seniors would be through the roof if you'd mutualise only across age category.
I am very skeptical about this. What is the evidence? What are the well-known facts? Saying I should "do my homework" is childish -- either you have an argument based on evidence, or you don't. If you do, then give the evidence and cite your sources, and I can check them myself. Otherwise no, you're not a credible source. I've already cited polls that show medicare is popular. Medicare is a government-run program. Case closed until further evidence is admitted, not simply your feelings on the matter and vague allusions to "common knowledge."
Quoting fishfry
You lose credibility when saying things like this.
Christianity is the most brutal, dehumanizing system ever imagined. Responsible for far more deaths.
Capitalism is the most brutal system ever imagined. Likewise, far more resulting deaths.
Better arguments could be made for just these alone. But I don't go around saying silly things like that.
Medicare is a public/private partnership. Bernie and Liz's plans for M4A would abolish the private component. You're simply wrong on the facts.
Quoting Xtrix
Or, as I've stated, I haven't sufficient interest in the topic of health care policy to drill down another level of detail. It's clear to me from what you write that you don't know how Medicare works. It's ok, nobody does till they get old enough to have to find out. That's why Dem candidates can get away with saying M4A and the public doesn't realize that what they're proposing is a much less flexible and much worse system than Medicare as currently implemented. You don't seem to know about Medicare Supplemental and Medicare Advantage. Those two programs are the reason Medicare is so popular. And they're what Bernie (and Liz before she backed off M4A entirely) want to abolish.
Of course this is now all moot as Joe is against M4A.
As I've noted, Obamacare makes the young subsidize the old and the risk-tolerant to pay for more risk reduction than they want or can afford.
From a pure numbers game, the greater the group mutualising the risk the cheaper the insurance becomes. This explains why, on average, healthcare costs rose less than the years before Obamacare.
For me, policy that benefits the greatest amount of people at the least cost makes the most sense economically. Besides, young people grow old. They will benefit eventually and they can see it as paying more now so they can pay less later for coverage. So I also see a benefit at the personal level.
Well Social Security too. That's FDR's legacy. FDR and LBJ, the two great liberal creators of our social safety net. I'm all for a social safety net.
The problem isn't ethics so much as demographics and economics. I don't feel like looking up the numbers but you know that at the time of FDR there were a lot more workers supporting each retiree than there are today. And modern medicine is keeping geezers alive a lot longer.
I don't know what the optimum reforms would be. I do have a personal experience though. When I was young a friend of a friend who was an insurance salesman sold me a health care policy. I was broke and the policy was cheap. Long story short I was in an accident and the insurance took care of everything and I had no problems. Since then even as a sometimes self-employed person I've always made sure I have health insurance.
The kind of policy I got is illegal under Obamacare. I could never have afforded the Obamacare premium and like most young people today, I would have just paid the fine and not had health insurance. My life might be very different if I hadn't had the excellent care I got at the time.
You are right that with Medicare the young subsidize the old. But it's much worse with Obamacare. I don't know the numbers. I only know that the policy that practically saved my life decades ago is flat out illegal today. I don't think that's a good idea.
Quoting Benkei
Not buying it. Had an experience to the contrary. Obamacare specifically made things worse for young people to a degree never before seen. My own life would have been radically worse if Obamacare had been in effect. So you will never make your point with me on this.
How?
I'm afraid I'm talked out on health care policy for now. Thanks for your good questions, I'm worn out!
So you don't. You might have stated this clearly from the beginning and not waste my time.
Medicare is a government-run program. This should be simple stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)#Administration
Of course there will be involvement with private hospitals and private insurance, to a degree.
You've made it clear you're not interested in learning anything "in detail," so why bother?
Thanks to the corona-virus, Joe likely will refrain himself from awkward attempts at smooching with the poor female vp-candidate. If he remembers the existence of the pandemic, that is.
And no Joe-Bernie old grandpa team. :sad:
Any time you spent in my presence made you less ignorant. It was time well spent.
Those involvements are exactly what makes Medicare so popular; and they're exactly what Bernie and Liz want to abolish.
Quoting Xtrix
Your reading comprehension issues noted.
I did not say I'm not interested in learning. I'm actually quite knowledgable on health care policy and economics. I stated that I don't feel like talking about it right now in this thread. Needless to say you couldn't help yourself not to lie about what I said.
Bernie didn't take out doddering, "sleepy" Joe (like Warren took out Bloomy) the way he needed to on Sunday night, and got crushed again for the 3rd Tuesday primaries in a row. Voters are more afraid of tRUMP than they are of not changing The Rigged System that made his 2016 election possible. C'est la vie, comrades - the vox populi (proles + bourgies & bougies) has spoken - the barracades will have to wait till 2022/24! We Progressives need to downshift now - Bernie needs to suspend his campaign today! - from primary campaigning to general electioneering and support Biden (probably with K. Harris/A. Klobuchar/S. Abrams/M. Obama/O. Winfrey). The MAGAt-in-Chief is hemorrhaging covfefe-19 and Dems need to frenzy like feeding sharks in this stew of chum. Anything less than full support of Biden now by progressives / "Bernie Bros" makes 2016 Redux more likely than not.
FeelTheBern - Curb-stomp the Donald! (Old school NYers effin' know.)
So you've asserted, without any evidence whatsoever.
Quoting fishfry
Ohhh, I see. Got it. Fortunately for all of us, you DO feel like talking complete nonsense. Glad you find time for that, at least.
So let's recap:
All government programs = bad.
Medicare is popular.
Thus, medicare must not be a government-run program. It's the private aspects that people like.
Evidence requested? Yes. Evidence given? None. Reason? "Don't want to talk about it."
Conclusion:
Quoting fishfry
Lol.
Tbh, I don't think kindergarten Don is going to survive his toddle through the economic and social wasteland that Trump 'Murica is about to become. The Dems could probably run and win with the arse end of a donkey at this point. But yes, Bernie is unfortunately toast. Let sleepy Joe sleepwalk to victory.
Quoting fishfry
Quoting fishfry
Quoting fishfry
What was that about reading comprehension?
Not having "sufficient interest in the topic" is a far cry from "knowing a lot about it, but not wanting to talk about it."
Maybe you SHOULD be excluded from adult conversations after all.
:mask:
Progressives, an appellation increasingly reserved to those under 40, will act on November 3rd 2020 in proportion to how we've been treated in this election cycle and to the degree of exigency in the face of a global pandemic, healthcare crisis, and ecological disaster.
Treated?
Racist "Bernie Bros" labeling, excluding questions on Climate Change for the majority of debates, excluding progressives/Leftists/Socialists from major media outlets, "hOw wIlL wE pAy fOr iT?" regarding any public services, and the barrage of negative coverage for Bernie Sanders, just to name a few.
Of course, they’ll probably find some poison pill to stick in there, that will save everyone from the crisis now, medically and economically, and then as a consequence destroy social security and medicare next year or something.
Depends on how things are looking 8 months down the road.
Besides the VP is going to be a WOMAN because Biden is WOKE.
In all likelyhood, it is going to be a Biden/Harris combination. If that pair wins, the presidency is going to looks like a WH version of "Driving Miss Daisy", with an increasingly senile Biden being Miss Daisy. Keep the popcorn ready and hope the blunders are not too big.
“....The answer is that you can do nothing. The opportunity to win back Bernie's voters came and went four years ago. Bernie could spend the rest of the year campaigning for Joe. Joe could promise to abolish private property by executive order on day one. It would not be enough.
...I campaigned for Bernie in the 2016 primary and voted for Hillary Clinton in the general election. Actually, in spite of my reservations about the party, I have, as a form of harm mitigation, chosen a straight Democratic ticket in every election I have ever voted in. I will probably volunteer for Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts after the Sanders campaign concludes. Because I’ve texted literally tens of thousands of Bernie voters, I wanted to offer some suggestions about what the party (and you as individuals) can do to ensure that enough of them show up in November to beat Donald Trump...
...According to the New York Times, Bernie Sanders was the most donated-to candidate in almost every district of every state in the union. He has a volunteer corps of over a million people. He lit a fire under a bunch of us who spend most of our time joking around on Twitter. I have never seen more people give freely to something bigger than themselves. It was not enough to win, but it was something unique in recent history.
If Sanders drops out of the race and endorses Joe Biden, that network of volunteers and grassroots donors will vanish like frost. The problem is not that Sanders lost but that he was defeated by main force. You don't see it that way, but my friends do.
You are going to have to count on losing more Bernie Bros than Hillary lost. Maybe you don’t need them, but you do need to take stock of your own forces. Your army is consultants, suburban parents, journalists who are addicted to Twitter, and senior citizens who are addicted to MSNBC. Also, possibly, the handful of very confused senior citizens who have wandered onto Twitter.
I have been giving about twenty to thirty hours a week to the Sanders campaign, which amounts to a few more than six hundred assignments requested. The top texter has requested, last I checked, over eleven thousand assignments. The total number of volunteers on the text team is over thirty thousand. On a slow day, I sign up maybe a dozen people to join us as volunteers. Other texters have told me much the same. You can do the multiplication.”
https://medium.com/@srwm1138/im-a-bernie-volunteer-here-s-how-joe-biden-can-win-bernie-voters-6da47bbf4d52?fbclid=IwAR1I2RfBsDJ8xu2pJm84I3Bx8-Du1eWKnh4KDaoCGchd5O2-Wdo7BogYN-w
So fucking what? Look it up. Medicare Advantage, Medicare Supplemental. I can't sit here and teach you Medicare. It's a very complicated system. Go do your homework.
I wonder where I got the idea it was a waste of time to interact with you.
Lol (I actually did). The response of an adolescent who hasn't a clue wha the's talking about. Fair enough, buddy. I'll spend my time tracking down stupid claims form ignorant people with zero credibility.
Quoting fishfry
Yeah, YOU'RE the one who's wondering that. lol. God you're a joke. Goodbye.
"For almost a whole week, as the crisis has exponentially worsened by day, Biden seemed to have vanished off the face off the earth, surfacing only last Friday in a call with the press. He was “desperately” trying to “be in daily or at least, you know, significant contact with the American people and communicate what I would be doing,” he told reporters, as if regular, successful livestreaming hadn’t already been accomplished by both his opponent and millions of teenagers. To be fair, a source told ABC, Biden’s house in Wilmington had low ceilings, making lighting tough."
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/3/joe-biden-coronavirus-pandemic-presidential-campaign
1. This is the time that Trump would like to be plastering Biden with negative ads (before he consolidates the party behind him). He cant do that right now.
2. Trump has been putting his ineptitude on display. He looks bad.
3. The economy is tanking.
The virus favors Biden (unless he has it).
Some think he's doing quite well. His poll numbers are up. While he was restricting Chinese immigration in January, the Dems were calling him a racist and impeaching him. Now everyone in the world, even Doctor Fauci, say he did exactly the right thing.
People rally to the president in times of crisis. The Dems' constant carping comes off as childish to many.
I hope that even if you don't personally subscribe to these ideas, you are at least aware that many people of good will share them. The Dems reflexively attack everything Trump says and it's quite counterproductive. Today he said that we have to balance the virus with the economy. I personally agree. I don't think blowing up our economy is necessary and that it's possible to take a dispassionate look at things. The flu killed 80,000 Americans in 2018 and there was no panic and we didn't deliberately crash our economy. Trump was right today to simply say that we'll take another look in a couple of weeks. I agreed with what he said. If you disagree, ok. But you should realize, and the polls confirm, that many Americans do think that on balance he's doing a good job of leading the country right now. And yeah I get you don't like his style.
Quoting frank
Have you seen Biden's latest webcast on coronavirus? He looks terrible. Robotically reading a teleprompter with zero charisma or leadership. #presidentCuomo is trending.
What the Dems and the people close to Biden are doing to him is cruel. He hasn't the capacity to be president. Which is just fine, because if we wins the Hillary/Obama wing of the party gets into power and runs things. Joe just has to show up and talk about Corn Pop or whatever. That's the Dems' cynical plan. And if Biden loses? At least they beat down the Bernie wing of the party. That was the main goal.
It's a long way to November. I for one don't think the American people are going to go along with the Biden sham.
Lol. Well, when has that been a problem??? :grin:
Quoting fishfry
Immigration??? I think it was travel and quarantines (tourists aren't immigrants). Anyway, that is now one of the good decisions that Trump has made. Especially when Trump doing this went against WHO, which at that time was against travel bans.
See (from that time) Health experts warn China travel ban will hinder coronavirus response
Yet now Trump is panicking about the prevailing economic depression and wanting to stop this "social distancing" and lock down for economic purposes. And knowing Trump's supporters and Fox News, they will reurgitate whatever this guy says. Yet I don't think the economic depression will be such a problem: people understand this happens because of the pandemic, which isn't in Trump's hands.
You would hope he's not that irrational, but he can't stand the idea of being a loser on the economy, which he now is, so it is possible he'd sacrifice American lives for a stockmarket boost.
Quoting ssu
And his sycophants here too will be singing his praises even as more Americans die. Hard to understand. But that's what will happen.