Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: August 03 2019 at 07:50
For all the talk of progressives moving the Democratic Party too far to the Left, Biden still leads the early polling by a ginormous margin. Kind of shows how effective the Trump gambit of painting the entire party in the image of the squad has been.
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
Posted: August 03 2019 at 06:50
and my crystal ball is humming.. really humming..
I can definitely see a Democratic Convention that will be the most contentious.. and perhaps most historical since the infamous 68 convention. I think there is electroral/political reason and strategy behind the Warren-Sanders alliance.. Biden best hope he gets a majority of delegates.. if he doesn't... I can see a coalition form against him and we could see the candidate with the plurality of the delegates.. not get the nomination. Harris is the wild card here.. and the more bad blood that flows between her and Biden.. the more chance she throws in with either Warren or Sanders.. who will likely combine their delegates to the overall winner between the two of them.
interesting times ahead.... even more interesting perhaps ahead...
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
Posted: August 03 2019 at 06:33
Got sidetracked in other threads and didn't get to finish my thoughts...
nice to see some new.. and old faces post their thoughts. It is likely going to be dilemma isn't it .. either for the centrists or the progressives. Support what you may not necessariy agree with.. or risk getting another 4 years of Trump. That is why I have been calling out what is going to come.. the party is going to rupture. Just as the Repubicans did earlier in the decade with their civil war within the party.
It has long been a big tent.. but don't really see how it can exist as such moving too far forward as the progressive grow from a fringe, distinct minority within the party to where they are now.. pretty much on equal footing with the centrist/moderates. Perhaps not in numbers.. but as we saw in 2016.. enough power to throw an election to the other side if they don't support the nominee. That is the obviously the 24k dollar question of 2020. It is pretty much out of Trump's hands, it is plainly obvious he is not going to make an appeal to moderates or centrists.. his strategy is pretty hope for another split in the party.
As I've posted.. I think there is more of a chance of a repeat of 2016 coming from progressives bailing on Biden than moderates bailing on Sanders.. or even less so with Warren who is more centrist and conservative than Sanders. The centrists and moderates are more pragmatic.. not dogmatic like the left.. and suspet will in large part support a progressive candidate.. saying.. you know.. I may not agree but how much will they really get done.. and no matter what.. it won't be Trump because with him it isn't merely an ideological thing.. the man is a piss poor excuse for a human being and should have never been elected in teh first place. Something that even the most ardent Bush Light hater never would say about him. He was a good man.. just ignorant of the powers that played him like a puppet and was completely over his head.
we shall see what happens.. a lot of time before even the first primary vote is cast. And even much more before the General election and some things that can really change the political calculus. Obamacare tossed out by teh courts? Advantage progressive.. for something would need to go in its place, and obviously remove a major case against their plans.. we already have something.
then there is the economy... when is that correction/crash going to happen.. it is going to happen but WHEN it is going to happen....happens before the election. Trump pretty much loses any chance to win a 2nd term.
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Joined: December 09 2017
Location: Now
Status: Offline
Points: 9233
Posted: August 03 2019 at 02:24
rushfan4 wrote:
King of Loss wrote:
rushfan4 wrote:
As we have previously discussed, I am one of those moderate/centrist Democrats, which I have mostly considered to be a social Democrat. I agree with the Democrats on many of the social issues, but I am fiscally conservative and part ways there. I really cannot see myself voting for a Warren or a Sanders. While I know that they think that they mean well, their policies of free everything are nothing but a pipe dream and I believe would do far more harm than good for our country. I have watched all 4 debates because I must be a sadist and the only candidate that I think that I could fully support would be Delaney, and obviously he is not going anywhere. If the Democrats settle on Biden, I would probably support him, but like with Clinton, I wouldn't be overly thrilled about it. If Sanders or Warren is the candidate, than I might have to go a different way with my vote.
These things are not free, they are being paid by taxpayers. How is having taxpayer funded free tuition public colleges bad for our country? They'll mean millions of people can now go to college, upgrade their skills and graduate WITHOUT DEBT. How is having a Medicare-for-all system bad for our country? It might lead to a much lower cost of healthcare in this country, which would mean thousands of dollars of extra money per family to spend on other things. Britain has a nationalized healthcare system and it costs half the price as ours with the even better results... Both of these two policy ideas would be an immediate boost to the macroeconomy as a whole. Maybe if you're extremely well off, it won't benefit you, but how many of us make millions of dollars a year? My parents are considered almost "rich" by what the government says, but they aren't doing all that well.
These "pipe dream" ideas are already adopted by other developed countries and research shows there's a clear benefit to the many, not the few at the top.
Exactly. They are being paid for by taxpayers. People who actually work and make money. Why should these people have to pay more in taxes to benefit other people. I lived at home and worked my way through college. Guess what. I have no college debt. Why should I now have to pay more in taxes so someone else can get a free ride? Live within your means. Go to community college for the first couple of years. Live at home and commute to school to save money. Work while your in school to pay for your school. Get a degree in something useful so you actually have skills where you can get a job that pays enough to make it worth while for getting a college degree. There are far too many people coming out of college with 6 figures in debt to get a job that pays $25k-$30k a year. Do the math!
I would be thrilled if the government gave me free health care. I would probably retire the next day. The $32 trillion dollars to pay for it has to come from somewhere...and it isn't coming from the wealthiest 1%. It is coming out of the pockets of the same pockets that would be paying for free education. People who already have insurance paid for by their employers. Despite what Warren thinks, I can guarantee you that the employers aren't going to say hey, I am saving $15,000 from paying for your health insurance, would you like that in $20s or $100s? The employer is going to pocket that money and the employee is going to pay for it with more taxes. I love the idea in theory, but the reality is that it just won't work. As much as it sucks for the rest of us, hospitals and doctors and big pharma have a right to make money from their skills and knowledge. The government needs to do their job to balance what is fair for people to charge for these services. Obama Care needs to be protected and improved upon but I think that a complete overhaul would destroy our economy. I have heard nothing but horror stories with medical care in Canada. I don't know how much is true and how much is old wives' tales but for one they have way fewer people than the US and a much different economy.
Don't get me wrong. I would much rather spend trillions of dollars on free education and free health care than on nuclear weapons and warships and presidents and congressional salaries and $1,000 hammers, but I realistically never seeing that happen.
Solid post rushfan4.
"I am so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle." -KMac2021
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: August 02 2019 at 04:37
omphaloskepsis wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
[QUOTE=micky] [QUOTE=Atavachron]
It can be another change election but of what kind. To my mind, the candidate who plays well with the electorate of the disenchanted is one who is prepared to go economically left while not straying left socially per se and particularly on immigration and national security. That is, healthcare reform may play well but border decriminalisation will not. Both Gabbard and Yang seem to be playing this sort of game but not many others and none of the big name candidates who are polling well so far.
The Elite Left and Right are two wings on the same Globalist War Hawk. It's not Left vs Right. It's Elite Establishment, Havard, Yale, MSM, and Big Tech, Pharma VERSUS (US, You and me, the working class, doctors, nurses and the poor.)
Big Tech, MSM, and DNC are rigging it again. For example... Gabbard was the only candidate not Trending on Twitter last night. Yang and Gabbard gained between 8-10 thousand Twitter followers last night. The next closest candidate? Booker, with a net gain of 2 thousand Twitter followers. Gabbard is suing Google for 50 million for manipulating search results against her. Why? Gabbard is Anti War. Media on the Right are among the few reporting about Google/Twitter and Gabbard. Conservative news sites such as OAN, FOX, and Infowars report on Gabbard. It's crickets on the Left. Except for a few independent Liberal journalists such as Jimmy Dore and Tim Pool.
Jimmy Dore is a progressive democrat, not a republican.
Tim Pool is a liberal independent journalist. He admits to contributing to Gabbard and Yang's campaigns. A month ago, on page 162 of this thread, I predicted that Kamala Harris's Achille's heel would be her prosecutorial record against poor minorities. Again, my predictions come true. I also predicted on page 162 that Kamala Harris would fade like a shooting star. I stand beside my prediction. More predictions coming soon...
Not only Jimmy Dore, but the Youtubers on the left are generally sympathetic to Gabbard. Even CNN had to carry the headline "Gabbard rips Harris" yesterday. They will likely still just deplatform her (by rigging the polls) for the next debates and thus hurt her chances in the Primary. The problem for the establishment is Gabbard's blows still help bring down Harris and help the candidacy of Sanders or Warren, which is what they so desperately want to avoid.
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
Posted: August 01 2019 at 15:11
great posts guys.. and after a few cold ones I might tackle a few of the wonderful replies.
let me say though... before tackling some earlier posts.. let me say from a personal perspective..
Warren was f**king spot on last night.. this is no laughing matter.. or even should be a ideological fault line.
back in 2003... the spawn of Satan had kidney stones that went misdiagnosed by our wonderful health care system that ended up causing an infection, of the septic sort, that nearly killed her and put her in ICU for nearly 2 f**king weeks. We both had insurance... but our bill.. after insurance covered what it felt it should..
30 thousand dollars. Like me she was too mean,and stubborn to die but it could have ruined us even more than dying off might have. If the Spawn of Satan's family wasn't absolutely loaded.. it would have broken us. We got a loan from her old man and paid it. How many are really that fortunate.
and a 2nd case... as if that first wasnt' bad enough.
Just last year I was on my way to a job.. and suddenly felt tickling and numbness in my extremites and nearly passed out. Figured my hard life and sinning ways had finally caught up with me and was about to leave Raff a widow and me dead in the middle of Route 50..
went to the ER.. ..and later to a 'specialist' who told me... I had carpel tunnel. WTF!!!! and oh yeah.. to be told that.. with insurance.. cost us nearly a grand out of pocket and that was following all the rules
so don't tell me our system works... and is not in need of a complete overhawl. It in't enough to make sure everyone has insurance.. for when you need it.. even if it saves your life.. it ruins it.
Edited by micky - August 01 2019 at 15:13
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 11 2007
Location: Memphis
Status: Offline
Points: 10679
Posted: August 01 2019 at 13:54
Any country that doesn't supply low cost or free upper education for its citizens is just shooting itself in the foot. Strong minds build strong countries.
Help the victims of the russian invasion: http://www.jazzmusicarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28523&PID=130446&title=various-ways-you-can-help-ukraine#130446
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65606
Posted: August 01 2019 at 13:30
micky wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
None of them looked very good.
Personal observation David? If so, I'd be curious to know about the one person who probably best of all of them across the two debates. For not only to these eyes, but more importantly the narrative that came from these debates which is important for it sets a great narrative moving forward for face it.. only the most energized per se are really paying attention, thus that narrative is important for that is what most are following it in passing or simply looking to that narrative at this point in the campaign rather than following it directly. It is the summer you know, and a long way off for most until they do need to make up their minds and actually vote.
Oh don't listen to me, I barely watched that last one. I'm Just going on bites, snippets, and hearsay.
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Points: 16889
Posted: August 01 2019 at 12:45
rushfan4 wrote:
King of Loss wrote:
rushfan4 wrote:
As we have previously discussed, I am one of those moderate/centrist Democrats, which I have mostly considered to be a social Democrat. I agree with the Democrats on many of the social issues, but I am fiscally conservative and part ways there. I really cannot see myself voting for a Warren or a Sanders. While I know that they think that they mean well, their policies of free everything are nothing but a pipe dream and I believe would do far more harm than good for our country. I have watched all 4 debates because I must be a sadist and the only candidate that I think that I could fully support would be Delaney, and obviously he is not going anywhere. If the Democrats settle on Biden, I would probably support him, but like with Clinton, I wouldn't be overly thrilled about it. If Sanders or Warren is the candidate, than I might have to go a different way with my vote.
These things are not free, they are being paid by taxpayers. How is having taxpayer funded free tuition public colleges bad for our country? They'll mean millions of people can now go to college, upgrade their skills and graduate WITHOUT DEBT. How is having a Medicare-for-all system bad for our country? It might lead to a much lower cost of healthcare in this country, which would mean thousands of dollars of extra money per family to spend on other things. Britain has a nationalized healthcare system and it costs half the price as ours with the even better results... Both of these two policy ideas would be an immediate boost to the macroeconomy as a whole. Maybe if you're extremely well off, it won't benefit you, but how many of us make millions of dollars a year? My parents are considered almost "rich" by what the government says, but they aren't doing all that well.
These "pipe dream" ideas are already adopted by other developed countries and research shows there's a clear benefit to the many, not the few at the top.
Exactly. They are being paid for by taxpayers. People who actually work and make money. Why should these people have to pay more in taxes to benefit other people. I lived at home and worked my way through college. Guess what. I have no college debt. Why should I now have to pay more in taxes so someone else can get a free ride? Live within your means. Go to community college for the first couple of years. Live at home and commute to school to save money. Work while your in school to pay for your school. Get a degree in something useful so you actually have skills where you can get a job that pays enough to make it worth while for getting a college degree. There are far too many people coming out of college with 6 figures in debt to get a job that pays $25k-$30k a year. Do the math!
I would be thrilled if the government gave me free health care. I would probably retire the next day. The $32 trillion dollars to pay for it has to come from somewhere...and it isn't coming from the wealthiest 1%. It is coming out of the pockets of the same pockets that would be paying for free education. People who already have insurance paid for by their employers. Despite what Warren thinks, I can guarantee you that the employers aren't going to say hey, I am saving $15,000 from paying for your health insurance, would you like that in $20s or $100s? The employer is going to pocket that money and the employee is going to pay for it with more taxes. I love the idea in theory, but the reality is that it just won't work. As much as it sucks for the rest of us, hospitals and doctors and big pharma have a right to make money from their skills and knowledge. The government needs to do their job to balance what is fair for people to charge for these services. Obama Care needs to be protected and improved upon but I think that a complete overhaul would destroy our economy. I have heard nothing but horror stories with medical care in Canada. I don't know how much is true and how much is old wives' tales but for one they have way fewer people than the US and a much different economy.
Don't get me wrong. I would much rather spend trillions of dollars on free education and free health care than on nuclear weapons and warships and presidents and congressional salaries and $1,000 hammers, but I realistically never seeing that happen.
True, you can say that you can go through community college and live at home. But is that what we really should do? Should we throw away an opportunity to go to an elite university for a place at a community college? I don't think so. If college was more affordable, I'd be able to go to a top 25 university instead of the top 50 place I went to. I didn't get the same kind of student body that you can get from a better school or the letters of recommendation that could get me into an even better graduate school. The reason why people should pay more in taxes is because it benefits society as a whole. We live in society after all and not as isolated automatons as people like Rand Paul would think.
The $32 trillion dollar number is from a libertarian/conservative think tank that distorts the numbers heavily. I wouldn't trust research from that place for your information. You might have heard of horror stories from Canada, but from what kinds of source is that from? The statistics show better results for half of the price that there is in the US. I don't think doctors, big pharma should not make any money, but what they do is gouge the average person with ridiculous fees, prices and co-pays. They don't even deliver a product that's better than those other developed countries. In fact, they deliver INFERIOR SERVICES for a MUCH HIGHER PRICE.
Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66588
Posted: August 01 2019 at 12:33
King of Loss wrote:
rushfan4 wrote:
As we have previously discussed, I am one of those moderate/centrist Democrats, which I have mostly considered to be a social Democrat. I agree with the Democrats on many of the social issues, but I am fiscally conservative and part ways there. I really cannot see myself voting for a Warren or a Sanders. While I know that they think that they mean well, their policies of free everything are nothing but a pipe dream and I believe would do far more harm than good for our country. I have watched all 4 debates because I must be a sadist and the only candidate that I think that I could fully support would be Delaney, and obviously he is not going anywhere. If the Democrats settle on Biden, I would probably support him, but like with Clinton, I wouldn't be overly thrilled about it. If Sanders or Warren is the candidate, than I might have to go a different way with my vote.
These things are not free, they are being paid by taxpayers. How is having taxpayer funded free tuition public colleges bad for our country? They'll mean millions of people can now go to college, upgrade their skills and graduate WITHOUT DEBT. How is having a Medicare-for-all system bad for our country? It might lead to a much lower cost of healthcare in this country, which would mean thousands of dollars of extra money per family to spend on other things. Britain has a nationalized healthcare system and it costs half the price as ours with the even better results... Both of these two policy ideas would be an immediate boost to the macroeconomy as a whole. Maybe if you're extremely well off, it won't benefit you, but how many of us make millions of dollars a year? My parents are considered almost "rich" by what the government says, but they aren't doing all that well.
These "pipe dream" ideas are already adopted by other developed countries and research shows there's a clear benefit to the many, not the few at the top.
Exactly. They are being paid for by taxpayers. People who actually work and make money. Why should these people have to pay more in taxes to benefit other people. I lived at home and worked my way through college. Guess what. I have no college debt. Why should I now have to pay more in taxes so someone else can get a free ride? Live within your means. Go to community college for the first couple of years. Live at home and commute to school to save money. Work while your in school to pay for your school. Get a degree in something useful so you actually have skills where you can get a job that pays enough to make it worth while for getting a college degree. There are far too many people coming out of college with 6 figures in debt to get a job that pays $25k-$30k a year. Do the math!
I would be thrilled if the government gave me free health care. I would probably retire the next day. The $32 trillion dollars to pay for it has to come from somewhere...and it isn't coming from the wealthiest 1%. It is coming out of the pockets of the same pockets that would be paying for free education. People who already have insurance paid for by their employers. Despite what Warren thinks, I can guarantee you that the employers aren't going to say hey, I am saving $15,000 from paying for your health insurance, would you like that in $20s or $100s? The employer is going to pocket that money and the employee is going to pay for it with more taxes. I love the idea in theory, but the reality is that it just won't work. As much as it sucks for the rest of us, hospitals and doctors and big pharma have a right to make money from their skills and knowledge. The government needs to do their job to balance what is fair for people to charge for these services. Obama Care needs to be protected and improved upon but I think that a complete overhaul would destroy our economy. I have heard nothing but horror stories with medical care in Canada. I don't know how much is true and how much is old wives' tales but for one they have way fewer people than the US and a much different economy.
Don't get me wrong. I would much rather spend trillions of dollars on free education and free health care than on nuclear weapons and warships and presidents and congressional salaries and $1,000 hammers, but I realistically never seeing that happen.
Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Points: 16889
Posted: August 01 2019 at 12:24
Argo2112 wrote:
Keep in mind , before we can make everything all sunshine & unicorns we have to get the orange man out of office. I'm worried if we end up going hard to the left it will scare the crap out of the center & we'll end up with four more years of Uncle Donnie.
It depends. Some on the center would probably prefer the left and some on the center would prefer Drumpf. I doubt that it'd make a big difference. A big difference would be the set of policies that the Democrats put out that's palatable to both their more left of center base AND the moderates.
Joined: June 20 2017
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 4462
Posted: August 01 2019 at 12:11
Keep in mind , before we can make everything all sunshine & unicorns we have to get the orange man out of office. I'm worried if we end up going hard to the left it will scare the crap out of the center & we'll end up with four more years of Uncle Donnie.
Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Points: 16889
Posted: August 01 2019 at 11:57
omphaloskepsis wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
[QUOTE=micky] [QUOTE=Atavachron]
It can be another change election but of what kind. To my mind, the candidate who plays well with the electorate of the disenchanted is one who is prepared to go economically left while not straying left socially per se and particularly on immigration and national security. That is, healthcare reform may play well but border decriminalisation will not. Both Gabbard and Yang seem to be playing this sort of game but not many others and none of the big name candidates who are polling well so far.
Big Tech, MSM, and DNC are rigging it again. For example... Gabbard was the only candidate not Trending on Twitter last night. Yang and Gabbard gained between 8-10 thousand Twitter followers last night. The next closest candidate? Booker, with a net gain of 2 thousand Twitter followers. Gabbard is suing Google for 50 million for manipulating search results against her. Why? Gabbard is Anti War. Mostly media on the Right are reporting about Google/Twitter and Gabbard. Conservative news sites such as OAN, FOX, and Infowars report on Gabbard. It's crickets on the Left. Except for a few independent Liberal journalists such as Jimmy Dore and Tim Pool.
Jimmy Dore is a progressive democrat, not a republican.
Tim Pool is a liberal independent journalist. He admits to contributing to Gabbard and Yang's campaigns.
That's cause the mainstream media is connected well with the US establishment, which is essentially Eisenhower Republican/Rockefeller Republican in nature. Generally, fiscally conservative and socially liberal, but VERY VERY keen on interventions globally. Having been around Harvard quite a lot (My cousin went there), these views are held by many of the kids of the elites that go there.
Joined: October 19 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 6801
Posted: August 01 2019 at 11:48
rogerthat wrote:
[QUOTE=micky] [QUOTE=Atavachron]
It can be another change election but of what kind. To my mind, the candidate who plays well with the electorate of the disenchanted is one who is prepared to go economically left while not straying left socially per se and particularly on immigration and national security. That is, healthcare reform may play well but border decriminalisation will not. Both Gabbard and Yang seem to be playing this sort of game but not many others and none of the big name candidates who are polling well so far.
The Elite Left and Right are two wings on the same Globalist War Hawk. It's not Left vs Right. It's Elite Establishment, Havard, Yale, MSM, and Big Tech, Pharma VERSUS (US, You and me, the working class, doctors, nurses and the poor.)
Big Tech, MSM, and DNC are rigging it again. For example... Gabbard was the only candidate not Trending on Twitter last night. Yang and Gabbard gained between 8-10 thousand Twitter followers last night. The next closest candidate? Booker, with a net gain of 2 thousand Twitter followers. Gabbard is suing Google for 50 million for manipulating search results against her. Why? Gabbard is Anti War. Media on the Right are among the few reporting about Google/Twitter and Gabbard. Conservative news sites such as OAN, FOX, and Infowars report on Gabbard. It's crickets on the Left. Except for a few independent Liberal journalists such as Jimmy Dore and Tim Pool.
Jimmy Dore is a progressive democrat, not a republican.
Tim Pool is a liberal independent journalist. He admits to contributing to Gabbard and Yang's campaigns. A month ago, on page 162 of this thread, I predicted that Kamala Harris's Achille's heel would be her prosecutorial record against poor minorities. Again, my predictions come true. I also predicted on page 162 that Kamala Harris would fade like a shooting star. I stand beside my prediction. More predictions coming soon...
Edited by omphaloskepsis - August 01 2019 at 12:16
Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Points: 16889
Posted: August 01 2019 at 11:16
rushfan4 wrote:
As we have previously discussed, I am one of those moderate/centrist Democrats, which I have mostly considered to be a social Democrat. I agree with the Democrats on many of the social issues, but I am fiscally conservative and part ways there. I really cannot see myself voting for a Warren or a Sanders. While I know that they think that they mean well, their policies of free everything are nothing but a pipe dream and I believe would do far more harm than good for our country. I have watched all 4 debates because I must be a sadist and the only candidate that I think that I could fully support would be Delaney, and obviously he is not going anywhere. If the Democrats settle on Biden, I would probably support him, but like with Clinton, I wouldn't be overly thrilled about it. If Sanders or Warren is the candidate, than I might have to go a different way with my vote.
These things are not free, they are being paid by taxpayers. How is having taxpayer funded free tuition public colleges bad for our country? They'll mean millions of people can now go to college, upgrade their skills and graduate WITHOUT DEBT. How is having a Medicare-for-all system bad for our country? It might lead to a much lower cost of healthcare in this country, which would mean thousands of dollars of extra money per family to spend on other things. Britain has a nationalized healthcare system and it costs half the price as ours with the even better results... Both of these two policy ideas would be an immediate boost to the macroeconomy as a whole. Maybe if you're extremely well off, it won't benefit you, but how many of us make millions of dollars a year? My parents are considered almost "rich" by what the government says, but they aren't doing all that well.
These "pipe dream" ideas are already adopted by other developed countries and research shows there's a clear benefit to the many, not the few at the top.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: August 01 2019 at 09:17
micky wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
^ Biden fumbled because he's old and tone-deaf. None of them looked very good. We may be in a brave new post-Trump era where if you're not outrageous you're crap.
yeah Biden... a great deal of inertia is going to get him a ways but think at some point as we really get into next year he is going to run out of gas, or simply drop dead
wise point if I may. Obviously these debates were dominated by the progressive-centrist split. Lots of commentary on that, and the 'right wing talking points', but again sort of ignores that the party as a whole IS moving left and do want change.
I think the real debates sort of start once the field gets winnowed and the debates begin to hone on the real choise the Democrats will be faced with. The 'nothing is really going to change' of Biden (and be sure.. you will hear that clip of him saying that a million times in ads in the next year, or the 'brave new world (politics) of Warren-Sanders.
the more so because .. simply Biden and Warren do not like each other. Disappointing they haven't been on the same stage yet, but even if they had, the format and shear number of candidates would have diltuted the substance of that.
Lessions needed to be learned from 2016 and it seems that many in the Democratic Party have forgotten them. People want change, they gave Trump a chance, now in 2020, it could well be next man/woman up. Far from being pie in the sky or political suicide (was Trump and everything he was.. suicide). I think the outrageous you speak of can easy be twisted to mean utter disgust with the status quo.
It can be another change election but of what kind. To my mind, the candidate who plays well with the electorate of the disenchanted is one who is prepared to go economically left while not straying left socially per se and particularly on immigration and national security. That is, healthcare reform may play well but border decriminalisation will not. Both Gabbard and Yang seem to be playing this sort of game but not many others and none of the big name candidates who are polling well so far.
Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66588
Posted: August 01 2019 at 07:43
As we have previously discussed, I am one of those moderate/centrist Democrats, which I have mostly considered to be a social Democrat. I agree with the Democrats on many of the social issues, but I am fiscally conservative and part ways there. I really cannot see myself voting for a Warren or a Sanders. While I know that they think that they mean well, their policies of free everything are nothing but a pipe dream and I believe would do far more harm than good for our country. I have watched all 4 debates because I must be a sadist and the only candidate that I think that I could fully support would be Delaney, and obviously he is not going anywhere. If the Democrats settle on Biden, I would probably support him, but like with Clinton, I wouldn't be overly thrilled about it. If Sanders or Warren is the candidate, than I might have to go a different way with my vote.
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
Posted: August 01 2019 at 05:04
Atavachron wrote:
None of them looked very good.
Personal observation David? If so, I'd be curious to know about the one person who probably best of all of them across the two debates. For not only to these eyes, but more importantly the narrative that came from these debates which is important for it sets a great narrative moving forward for face it.. only the most energized per se are really paying attention, thus that narrative is important for that is what most are following it in passing or simply looking to that narrative at this point in the campaign rather than following it directly. It is the summer you know, and a long way off for most until they do need to make up their minds and actually vote.
Warren by far looked best in her first half.. and the second half. Good analysis on her on her talent and skill in dealing with the dynamics that were in play during that 2nd debate.
Edited by micky - August 01 2019 at 05:05
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
Posted: August 01 2019 at 04:49
Atavachron wrote:
^ Biden fumbled because he's old and tone-deaf. None of them looked very good. We may be in a brave new post-Trump era where if you're not outrageous you're crap.
yeah Biden... a great deal of inertia is going to get him a ways but think at some point as we really get into next year he is going to run out of gas, or simply drop dead
wise point if I may. Obviously these debates were dominated by the progressive-centrist split. Lots of commentary on that, and the 'right wing talking points', but again sort of ignores that the party as a whole IS moving left and do want change.
I think the real debates sort of start once the field gets winnowed and the debates begin to hone on the real choise the Democrats will be faced with. The 'nothing is really going to change' of Biden (and be sure.. you will hear that clip of him saying that a million times in ads in the next year, or the 'brave new world (politics) of Warren-Sanders.
the more so because .. simply Biden and Warren do not like each other. Disappointing they haven't been on the same stage yet, but even if they had, the format and shear number of candidates would have diltuted the substance of that.
Lessions needed to be learned from 2016 and it seems that many in the Democratic Party have forgotten them. People want change, they gave Trump a chance, now in 2020, it could well be next man/woman up. Far from being pie in the sky or political suicide (was Trump and everything he was.. suicide). I think the outrageous you speak of can easy be twisted to mean utter disgust with the status quo.
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 1.258 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The American Politics Thread
Topic Options
rushfan4 wrote:
great posts guys.. and after a few cold ones I might tackle a few of the wonderful replies.
