View Full Version : 2020 Presidential Candidates
Voting for Trump after what we know now, is unfathomable to me.
Sure. But strong economics benefit a lots of people, not just me.
And evil and ineptitude hurt a lot of people.
Sure. But strong economics benefit a lots of people, not just me.
True. It benefits you and me and everyone wealthy enough to own stocks. So, yeah, the 20% that own 93% of the stock market do well.
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/showthread.php?17057-2020-Presidential-Candidates&p=329054#post329054
Markets have been up and down throughout history. As I noted above, Democrats seem to be better stewards of communal wealth than Republicans, FWIW.
I don't own securities now; I may again. But I've never voted for anyone along economic lines, and I'm sure I never will. It would be just a guessing game anyway. Human rights, the environment, and the Constitution/rule of law are among the issues I'm concerned with. I believe if these are dealt with, economics will follow along.
Bills paid? Check. Saving account? Check. Basic needs met? Check. That's the extent of my pecuniary interest, and it's served me well all these years.
iris lilies
7-1-19, 4:14pm
And evil and ineptitude hurt a lot of people.
The (apparent) ineptitude in the White House is very worrisome to me. The “evil” not so much.
So let’s see, if I vote my pocketbook I am selfish and non-empathetic. But yet when I vote against my own best interest I’m considered stupid.
It is really hard to figure out what you people want from me.
:)
iris lilies
7-1-19, 4:14pm
Markets have been up and down throughout history. As I noted above, Democrats seem to be better stewards of communal wealth than Republicans, FWIW.
I don't own securities now; I may again. But I've never voted for anyone along economic lines, and I'm sure I never will. It would be just a guessing game anyway. Human rights, the environment, and the Constitution/rule of law are among the issues I'm concerned with. I believe if these are dealt with, economics will follow along.
Bills paid? Check. Saving account? Check. Basic needs met? Check. That's the extent of my pecuniary interest, and it's served me well all these years.
You have no money in the stock market? At all?
You have no money in the stock market? At all?
None. I keep meaning to move savings into a money market account...
True. It benefits you and me and everyone wealthy enough to own stocks.
I live by investing. I'm pretty good at it. Trump has made it very difficult to engage in the sort of boring long-term capital management I do, because he can move the markets hugely with a single mid-night tweet, and then move them back again two days later with yet another tweet.
It is chaotic.
Which isn't actually all that good for "the market".
Which isn't actually all that good for "the market".
I now live mostly on savings in my retirement accounts. I've experienced approximately 15% annual growth, not counting contributions, in those accounts since November 2016 so my little chunk of the market has been doing pretty well.
iris lilies
7-1-19, 4:59pm
I live by investing. I'm pretty good at it. Trump has made it very difficult to engage in the sort of boring long-term capital management I do, because he can move the markets hugely with a single mid-night tweet, and then move them back again two days later with yet another tweet.
It is chaotic.
Which isn't actually all that good for "the market".
Well I will say that the stock market is irrational and everyone knows that, and then to tie itself to irrational tweeting is even more irrational. What can I say eXcept my investments are up. I think it will go down and I think they will go down slowly and I think they will stay down. For a while. I don’t know when that will happen. But many businesses like the regulatory environment right now.
You'd still be following the will of the people through their selection of Congress Critters. The Electoral College provides one vote per elected Congressional Representative now, it's just that the states have a little leeway in whether they are directly apportioned or winner takes all, etc.
I've heard some folks say that if we abolished the Electoral College and elected our President by popular vote, candidates would be forced to campaign in every locality, but I don't see that happening. Why would a Democrat campaign in California? Would you guys vote Republican otherwise?
Except we have gerrymandering in many states. Lawsuit here!
I will likely continue to have to vote for some 3rd-party candidate.
Not as a snark... but what is the point?? They have no chance of winning. It seems a wasted vote to me???
Not as a snark... but what is the point?? They have no chance of winning. It seems a wasted vote to me???
I fundamentally reject the idea that a vote is "wasted" if you don't vote for the winner.
(And in my state/district also, there is such a complete dominance by the machine-politician Democratic Party hacks that it really doesn't matter who you vote for, so even if "waste" was a concern, there's no "waste".)
iris lilies
7-1-19, 5:20pm
Not as a snark... but what is the point?? They have no chance of winning. It seems a wasted vote to me???
As a likely third party voter in the Presidential race, I don’t feel the need to vote for the winner. America will remain a two party system until a strong third-party challenges that system. I can be a part of that challenge. I’ve got my eye on the long term not the short term.
Trump could’ve been the start of an important third-party movement. To have someone so —not pleasing—Starting that momentum would have been an ironic thing. But alas, he didn’t take the ball and run with it.
Except we have gerrymandering in many states. Lawsuit here!
As of a few days ago the Supreme Court ruled that gerrymandering is outside the scope of the Federal court system. Your lawsuit is likely worthless.
I'm not a fan of our current President, but I'm also not a fan of the race/sex/gender/class divisive/populist governance priorities of the Democrats. I could easily pull the protest lever for a Joe Lieberman or John Glenn style Democrat but they've been effectively banned from the party. You guys can't provide an alternative for a principled Republican, so what choice do we have?
Alan, to be fair, the Republicans certainly haven't provided much of an option. Give Bill Weld the Republican nomination and you'll have my vote.
As of a few days ago the Supreme Court ruled that gerrymandering is outside the scope of the Federal court system. Your lawsuit is likely worthless.
Not necessarily. It just depends on the state constitution and laws that are in place, rather than federal laws. Or for states where voter initiatives are a thing, for voters to pass one in favor of a non-partisan redistricting commission.
Yes, this sort of district shape is a sign of some underlying problems....
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2014/05/crimes-against-geography.png&w=1484
Not as a snark... but what is the point?? They have no chance of winning. It seems a wasted vote to me???
Jose Saramago wrote an interesting book on this topic: Seeing. The only difference was that instead of voting for 3rd party candidates the entirety of society patiently turned in blank ballots and then went on about their lives. And the political class freaked out.
Jose Saramago wrote an interesting book on this topic: Seeing.
There are some interesting discussions around the topic of ethical non-voting as well.
gimmethesimplelife
7-1-19, 9:47pm
I will vote for Buttelieg if he does indeed secure the Democratic Nomination. Not only is he an out gay man living proudly - which in and of itself is nothing short of historic for an American Presidential Candidate - but he's a Democrat and this country sorely needs someone who knows how to behave and not alienate allies and trading partners. Also we need someone capable of being humane with the crisis at the borders, and our only hope for police reform to spare innocent American lives from death or physical harm is with a Democrat. Buttelieg has my vote - if he indeed secures the nomination. I'm also down with Warren and Castro but Biden? I just can't see him as an effective President any more than I could Al Gore......something's missing for me with Biden as a candidate. Rob
I will vote for Buttelieg if he does indeed secure the Democratic Nomination. Not only is he an out gay man living proudly - which in and of itself is nothing short of historic for an American Presidential Candidate - but he's a Democrat and this country sorely needs someone who knows how to behave and not alienate allies and trading partners. Also we need someone capable of being humane with the crisis at the borders, and our only hope for police reform to spare innocent American lives from death or physical harm is with a Democrat. Buttelieg has my vote - if he indeed secures the nomination. I'm also down with Warren and Castro but Biden? I just can't see him as an effective President any more than I could Al Gore......something's missing for me with Biden as a candidate. Rob
Seems like you are not that down with Buttigieg since you cannot even spell his name correctly.
gimmethesimplelife
7-2-19, 6:26am
Seems like you are not that down with Buttigieg since you cannot even spell his name correctly.For some reason I've had trouble with spelling his name ever since he rose to any prominence whatsoever......sorry. Rob
For some reason I've had trouble with spelling his name ever since he rose to any prominence whatsoever......sorry. Rob
I know! That gai guy Peat's name is shur hard to spell ;)
Hard to spell, but easy to say: "Booty judge."
Also: My dream job.
Hard to spell, but easy to say: "Booty judge."
I can't determine if it's pronounced "booty judge" or "boot edge edge". I seem to hear it both ways.
iris lilies
7-2-19, 8:49am
Seems like you are not that down with Buttigieg since you cannot even spell his name correctly.
come now, it is a hard name to spell and to pronounce as well, apparently. We knew who Rob meant.
frugal-one
7-2-19, 11:31am
I will vote for Buttelieg if he does indeed secure the Democratic Nomination. Not only is he an out gay man living proudly - which in and of itself is nothing short of historic for an American Presidential Candidate - but he's a Democrat and this country sorely needs someone who knows how to behave and not alienate allies and trading partners. Also we need someone capable of being humane with the crisis at the borders, and our only hope for police reform to spare innocent American lives from death or physical harm is with a Democrat. Buttelieg has my vote - if he indeed secures the nomination. I'm also down with Warren and Castro but Biden? I just can't see him as an effective President any more than I could Al Gore......something's missing for me with Biden as a candidate. Rob
I thought he stood out in the debates. I could care less about sexual orientation. It is not relevant IMO.
At his rally they were passing these out.
2857
We knew who Rob meant.
"The gay guy".
Identity politics.
Everyone has an identity--with luck, more than one. Of course it plays into all kinds of choices in life. I'll never get why that's a big deal to some.
Everyone has an identity--with luck, more than one. Of course it plays into all kinds of choices in life. I'll never get why that's a big deal to some.
Right. I'd rather evaluate the candidate based on their character, record, and positions.
Everyone ready for Trump's 4th of July parade?
https://manage.thediplomat.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/thediplomat-dvjzqqnvwaeopvp.jpg
Everyone ready for Trump's 4th of July parade?
Like the republicans say these days, better red than dead.
Everyone ready for Trump's 4th of July parade?
I had written a post yesterday about how I have found that Trump supporters love him because they perceive that he is a "true patriot," but there's such a fine line between patriotism and nationalism--then I deleted it. Then I saw that he is celebrating the 4th with military tanks, so I'm back to rewriting that people think that Trump is a true patriot, but there's a fine line between patriotism and nationalism. One is fine and the other crosses the line.
gimmethesimplelife
7-2-19, 2:59pm
I thought he stood out in the debates. I could care less about sexual orientation. It is not relevant IMO.Surprise! I agree with you - his sexual orientation is completely irrelevant. My point is that it is however historic for a married and out gay man to be running for the highest office in the land in the first place. I totally understand that just because he's gay does not mean that he automatically would make a good President. Granted and given. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
7-2-19, 3:00pm
come now, it is a hard name to spell and to pronounce as well, apparently. We knew who Rob meant.Thank You, IL. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
7-2-19, 3:03pm
Everyone ready for Trump's 4th of July parade?
https://manage.thediplomat.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/thediplomat-dvjzqqnvwaeopvp.jpgAs usual, the Mexican Flag will be displayed in my yard on July 4th this year....somehow this year it seems even more important to do so - to fly the Mexican flag. I guess after the tariff threat to this country's largest trading partner (Mexico eclipsed Canada as the largest US trading partner as of April 2019) it's just human nature. Rob
As usual, the Mexican Flag will be displayed in my yard on July 4th this year....somehow this year it seems even more important to do so - to fly the Mexican flag.
Compared to most of the USA most of Mexico is a poverty stricken, crime-filled third world country.
Why not fly the American flag upside down?
I really should get a Cascadia flag; maybe a Canadian one would do.
Then I saw that he is celebrating the 4th with military tanks, so I'm back to rewriting that people think that Trump is a true patriot, but there's a fine line between patriotism and nationalism.
I don't even think he's about nationalism. He's about strong-man-leaderism.
I hope his bone spurs don't cause him too much pain during the parade of tanks and military aircraft.
Teacher Terry
7-2-19, 5:00pm
Maybe he will be too ill to attend:)). It appears that Pence got called back to Washington and rumors are swirling.
dado potato
7-2-19, 8:48pm
The New York Times 6/30/19 edition had a front page report on the fake Biden website created by Patrick Mauldin, 30 years old, of Austin, Texas. For about 3 months the website which mocks Biden received more unique visits than Biden's campaign website. Biden's campaign was aware of the disinformation site, which superficially resembled their own, but contained Biden's gaffs, slow-motion gifs of Biden touching women, etc.
In the fine print, the deception website states "this is a political parody built and paid for BY an American citizen FOR American citizens". But Mauldin kept his name off the site. Until the Times investigated, the Biden campaign did not know the identity of the creator of the site. They may have wondered, was it done by Russian trolls? Or supporters of another contender for the Democratic Party nomination?
The Times reports that Mauldin makes videos and other digital content for President Trump's re-election campaign. And together with his brother, Ryan, Patrick Mauldin runs Vici Media Group, a Republican consulting group in Austin TX.
Mauldin also created anonymous websites to mock Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Bernie Saunders.
Meddling in U S elections by foreign actors is illegal. But trolling or disinformation by US persons is protected by the First Amendment. The right of free speech extends to people who want to be anonymous, or sign off with a pseudonym. (Take it from me, dado potato!)
Quoting a Democratic Party consultant, with websites like the faux Biden page, "essentially you (Mauldin?) are trying to sow chaos , and you're trying to basically do voter suppression... You (Mauldin?) want their (Democrat?) supporters to get sad, to get angry, to get turned off from their chosen candidate... The way voters tend to work: they don't turn off from a candidate and pick someone else; they turn off from a candidate and turn off politics."
As Mauldin told the Times reporter, the point of the gifs of Biden touching women, devoid of any context, is to be helpful to Democrats... "to help Democrats to see their candidates for who they are -- warts and all..."
Reading more about this bizarre Independence Day celebration it turns out that only republicans are getting tickets for it. So yet again, the trump administration is showing themselves to have no concern with breaking the law. If this is a communist party, I mean republican party, event, then the hatch act requires that the government not pay for it.
A person can't keep up--it's just too much.
Taxpayers are funding a campaign rally/military might show that has nothing whatsoever to do with Independence Day.
I will never again question how dictators come to power.
frugal-one
7-3-19, 12:11pm
I don't even think he's about nationalism. He's about strong-man-leaderism.
I hope his bone spurs don't cause him too much pain during the parade of tanks and military aircraft.
Yeah, and supposedly, he is robbing money from the National Parks to fund his "campaign rally." He would be better served to spend the money on homeless or needy Vets. He saw how France celebrated on Bastille Day and now he has to emulate. It reminds me of keeping up with the Joneses and trying to show the world what a big man he his. BLECH!
frugal-one
7-3-19, 12:13pm
A person can't keep up--it's just too much.
Taxpayers are funding a campaign rally/military might show that has nothing whatsoever to do with Independence Day.
I will never again question how dictators come to power.
I will never again question how dictators come to power.[/QUOTE] ..... Yes, people have blinders on.
Yeah, and supposedly, he is robbing money from the National Parks to fund his "campaign rally." He would be better served to spend the money on homeless or needy Vets. He saw how France celebrated on Bastille Day and now he has to emulate. It reminds me of keeping up with the Joneses and trying to show the world what a big man he his. BLECH!
Yes--robbing money from National Parks. Nice touch.
gimmethesimplelife
7-3-19, 11:18pm
Yes--robbing money from National Parks. Nice touch.Given my many seasons in the National Parks - mostly both the North Rim and the South Rim of the Grand Canyon - I really resent the robbing of money from the National Parks for an ego building unnecessary display. In a country where human life is not worth socialized medicine, there is no excuse for Trump's ridiculous parade. The nicest word I can come up with for this over the top display is that as a citizen of this country, it's very embarrassing......very embarrassing to have a President with such bizarre priorities. Rob
I heard Tulsi Gabbard today and got to shake her hand. It was a conventional speech until she got to the cost of war, when she really hit her stride and made points other candidates are not. For her it is not tax millionaires more but eliminate regime change wars to fund infrastructure and other domestic agenda items.
I heard Tulsi Gabbard today and got to shake her hand. It was a conventional speech until she got to the cost of war, when she really hit her stride and made points other candidates are not. For her it is not tax millionaires more but eliminate regime change wars to fund infrastructure and other domestic agenda items.
A political cartoon I saw today made the point that all our pointless wars and policies are causing waves of refugees around the world.
Teacher Terry
7-7-19, 7:54pm
Some of these refugees are definitely our fault for poking our noses where they don’t belong.
A political cartoon I saw today made the point that all our pointless wars and policies are causing waves of refugees around the world.
Paul Salopek, the National Geographic explorer who is walking across Africa, Asia, and eventually the Americas in his "Out of Eden" project has called this the golden age of migration. Not just the wars and regime changes, but cultural changes, food shortages, and I suppose fear of violence.
Paul Salopek, the National Geographic explorer who is walking across Africa, Asia, and eventually the Americas in his "Out of Eden" project has called this the golden age of migration. Not just the wars and regime changes, but cultural changes, food shortages, and I suppose fear of violence.
Water shortages, too. Is it Chennai, in India?
That's terrifying--they have surgeons resorting to buying water.
You can't live long without it.
Ultralight
7-10-19, 6:55pm
Water shortages, too. Is it Chennai, in India?
That's terrifying--they have surgeons resorting to buying water.
You can't live long without it.
Ever listen to Mos Def's song New World Water? Lyrics are as follows.
There's nothing more refreshing (that cool refreshing drink)
Than a cool, crisp, clean glass of water
On a warm summer's day (That cool refreshing drink)
Try it with your friends
New World Water make the tide rise high
Come inland and make your house go "Bye" (My house!)
Fools done upset the Old Man River
Made him carry slave ships and fed him dead nigga
Now his belly full and he about to flood somethin
So I'ma throw a rope that ain't tied to nothin
Tell your crew use the H2 in wise amounts since
it's the New World Water; and every drop counts
You can laugh and take it as a joke if you wanna
But it don't rain for four weeks some summers
And it's about to get real wild in the half
You be buying Evian just to take a ****in bath
Heads is acting wild, sippin poor, puffin dank
Competin with the next man for higher playin rank
See I ain't got time try to be Big Hank,
**** a bank; I need a twenty-year water tank
Cause while these knuckleheads is out here sweatin they goods
The sun is sitting in the treetops burnin the woods
And as the flames from the blaze get higher and higher
They say, "Don't drink the water! We need it for the fire!"
New York is drinkin it (New World Water)
Now all of California is drinkin it (New World Water)
Way up north and down south is drinkin it (New World Water)
Used to have minerals and zinc in it (New World Water)
Now they say it got lead and stink in it (New World Water)
Fluorocarbons and monoxide
Push the water table lopside
Used to be free now it cost you a fee
Cause oil tankers spill they load as they roam cross the sea
Man, you gotta cook with it, bathe and clean with it (That's right)
When it's hot, summertime you fiend for it (Let em know)
You gotta put it in the iron you steamin with (That's right)
It's what they dress wounds and treat diseases with (Shout it out)
The rich and poor, black and white got need for it (That's right)
And everybody in the world can agree with this (Let em know)
Consumption promotes health and easiness (That's right)
Go too long without it on this earth and you leavin it (Shout it out)
Americans wastin it on some leisure shit (Say word?)
And other nations be desperately seekin it (Let em know)
Bacteria washing up on they beaches (Say word?)
Don't drink the water, son they can't wash they feet with it (Let em know)
Young babies in perpetual neediness (Say word?)
Epidemics hopppin up off the petri dish (Let em know)
Control centers try to play it all secretive (Say word?)
To avoid public panic and freakiness (Let em know)
There are places where TB is common as TV
Cause foreign-based companies go and get greedy
The type of cats who pollute the whole shore line
Have it purified, sell it for a dollar twenty-five
Now the world is drinkin it
Your moms, wife, and baby girl is drinkin it
Up north and down south is drinkin it
You should just have to go to your sink for it
The cash registers is goin "cha-chink!" for it
Fluorocarbons and monoxide
Got the fish lookin cockeyed
Used to be free now it cost you a fee
Cause it's all about gettin that cash (Money)
Swalwell, realistic, is out. Sestak and Steyer, delusional, are in.
ApatheticNoMore
7-11-19, 12:01am
Oh great we trade a nothing candidate for two other nothing candidates.
Lets just hope Starbuck's Schultz doesn't join Sestak and Steyar. Personally I'm not voting for anyone with an S name.
So CNN is reporting that now we have a top tier of Democratic candidates: Joe Biden tenuously holding on to #1, Kamala Harris who is burning the track right now, Elizabeth Warren, strong and steady, and Bernie fighting to stay in the lead.
Ever listen to Mos Def's song New World Water? Lyrics are as follows.
,,,
The type of cats who pollute the whole shore line
Have it purified, sell it for a dollar twenty-five
Now the world is drinkin it
Your moms, wife, and baby girl is drinkin it
Up north and down south is drinkin it
You should just have to go to your sink for it
The cash registers is goin "cha-chink!" for it
Fluorocarbons and monoxide
Got the fish lookin cockeyed
Used to be free now it cost you a fee
Cause it's all about gettin that cash (Money)
I hope it's catchy as hell, because the lyrics are certainly on point.
I'm back on the Bernie bandwagon. I don't care how old he is, or the fact that he's white, and male--(read: putting aside identity politics)--He still has integrity and consistency of message, and he seems to me to be the least likely to sell out.
I just read that Kamala Harris's husband hosted a huge fundraiser that was sponsored in part by Epstein's law firm--while she was denouncing him. I know purity in politics is some kind of unachievable holy grail, but I do think Bernie is closest to it.
I'm back on the Bernie bandwagon. I don't care how old he is, or the fact that he's white, and male--(read: putting aside identity politics)--He still has integrity and consistency of message, and he seems to me to be the least likely to sell out.
I just read that Kamala Harris's husband hosted a huge fundraiser that was sponsored in part by Epstein's law firm--while she was denouncing him. I know purity in politics is some kind of unachievable holy grail, but I do think Bernie is closest to it.
It's a law firm with over 1000 partners. Are we really going to hold all of them accountable for the actions of a few? (This is assuming, of course, that the six lawyers who hosted the fundraiser were not involved in the Epstein case.)
It's a law firm with over 1000 partners. Are we really going to hold all of them accountable for the actions of a few? (This is assuming, of course, that the six lawyers who hosted the fundraiser were not involved in the Epstein case.)
I know what you are saying, and that makes a lot of sense. But reading about the fundraiser, with Epstein's partners involved, it made me realize that I think I want a true populist. Of course the other 999 lawyers in that firm are not necessarily pedophiles and sexual deviants, nor do they support Epstein. But yesterday, DH and I cried our way through the movie Philadelphia for the umpteenth time, and that joke at the end about a hundred lawyers at the bottom of the ocean makes me realize that a corporate law firm is as powerful as any Monsanto or Nestle, and they will do whatever they can to protect their corporate interests. If somehow Epstein had some value to them, they would defend him to the death for the sake of the company. And that's not necessarily for the good of the people overall.
That's why that fundraiser made me think twice about Kamala Harris and others who rely on corporate interests.
Playing devil's advocate here because from everything I've heard Epstein sounds like a truly awful person, and if the accusations are true he, and probably a lot of other people, ought to be rotting in jail for the rest of their lives. That said, I still think he, and everyone else accused of any crime, deserves to have good representation in court. Otherwise our criminal justice system can't be just.
Your point about taking money from big powerful lawyers is certainly valid. And is one of many reasons that I really like Warren. And also one of the reasons I'd prefer a more robust system of public financing of elections with more restrictions on how campaigns can be financed. But until we have that in place the reality is that the system is rigged to favor candidates that can pull in the big bucks.
Didn’t see much of note emanating from last night’s debate. Williamson will need to burn a lot of sage to drive those dark psychic forces out of the country. Could be good news for the sage industry. Bernie returned to his irritable get-off-my-lawn style. Someone named Bullock cautioned against “wish list economics”, but nobody listens to cranks like that except a few fringy paleo conservatives like me.
The Moderation seemed aimed at producing sound bites suitable for rebroadcast.
Well, I still love Bernie. I know people call him an angry old crank but he has such refreshing authenticity, idealism and zeal. It almost feels like he may have formed a "Progressive Survivor" pact with Warren--if you really want to increase your chances that a Progressive agenda succeeds, you don't split votes, and I'm wondering if Bernie is paving the way for an eventual endorsement of Warren.
My favorite quote was Warren's: “I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for.”
I have a soft spot in my heart for Williamson (I have TWO copies of her book "Return to Love")--obviously she will never be President but it was still fun to hear her point out things that people need to hear.
I missed the debate, but it seems like a lot of the differences are focusing on the progressive medicare for all vs. the moderate enhancement of Obamacare or offering more medicare options. Polls are saying there is a strong preference for the latter among democrats if given the choice of the two. For me it's not so much who exactly I like, but who might beat Trump and who might actually be able to get things through a divided congress. Personal favorite is Warren, but the practical choice is probably Biden for those reasons. There's a lot left to shake out. I actually really like our Colorado candidate, Bennet but he's sort of getting into the cold day in hell chances.
ApatheticNoMore
7-31-19, 10:39am
I'm wondering if Bernie is paving the way for an eventual endorsement of Warren.
could be, although in most polls Bernie tends to be ahead of her so at this point it would be an odd thing to do, could change. He supposedly wanted Warren to run in 2016, but she declined, and so he ran.
My favorite quote was Warren's: “I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for.”
I found that to be one of the more wrong-headed statements of the evening. She basically invites people to believe there are no constraints on the powers of the office so that they will believe any promise made to be possible. That’s not idealistic. That’s cynical.
Me, I like limits on power. The more the better. Whatever happened to politics as the art of the possible?
ApatheticNoMore
7-31-19, 11:29am
currently our politics are the art of the possible in which nothing is possible. Some people like Warren might like something as opposed to nothing to become possible.
there are far fewer constraints on the powers of the office than believed, I mean some candidates are giving good thought to what they can accomplish via executive order, regulation, etc. alone and what takes congress. But the reality is that Trump takes it on himself to cut food stamps alone and does it, Trump is making policy all the time, despite the fact congress is divided, he rules (and extremely badly it goes without saying).
catherine
7-31-19, 11:42am
I found that to be one of the more wrong-headed statements of the evening. She basically invites people to believe there are no constraints on the powers of the office so that they will believe any promise made to be possible. That’s not idealistic. That’s cynical.
Me, I like limits on power. The more the better. Whatever happened to politics as the art of the possible?
Really? How about the limits on the powerful corporate oligarchs? On the powerful political establishment? On the limited contraints of unfettered capitalism?
And I took Warren's quote as exactly the opposite: she it talking specifically about the art of the possible. Her drive to reach for the stars in terms of healthcare for all is no less a promise than JFKs promise to put people on the moon within a decade. She is for the power of the people to thrive without worrying about their health. She is AGAINST the power of the healthcare industries to dictate what doctors can prescribe and people can get in the interest of their own profits.
ApatheticNoMore
7-31-19, 11:50am
For me it's not so much who exactly I like, but who might beat Trump and who might actually be able to get things through a divided congress. Personal favorite is Warren, but the practical choice is probably Biden for those reasons.
I'm not sure why a candidate who seems to generate as little excitement as Biden does, is seen as a sure thing to beat Trump. Other candidates have their committed voters, even a few candidates polling 1-3% have a few people really excited about them, but is almost anyone excited about Biden?
Vote for Biden: bore more years!
I'm not sure why a candidate who seems to generate as little excitement as Biden does, is seen as a sure thing to beat Trump. Other candidates have their committed voters, even a few candidates polling 1-3% have a few people really excited about them, but is almost anyone excited about Biden?
Vote for Biden: bore more years!
i've had it--absolutely had it--with the status quo. i agree with Buttigieg that we're going to be maligned for being socialists--which many of us are--no matter what we do, so we might as well go big or go home. I'm sick of living in a country of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich--we can do so much better than that.
Really? How about the limits on the powerful corporate oligarchs? On the powerful political establishment? On the limited contraints of unfettered capitalism?
And I took Warren's quote as exactly the opposite: she it talking specifically about the art of the possible. Her drive to reach for the stars in terms of healthcare for all is no less a promise than JFKs promise to put people on the moon within a decade. She is for the power of the people to thrive without worrying about their health. She is AGAINST the power of the healthcare industries to dictate what doctors can prescribe and people can get in the interest of their own profits.
The problem I see with that kind of thinking is that it imbues the office of president with a sort of imperial aura. The president as hero who will strike down any villain we care to nominate. The great provider who can give us whatever we want.
The danger I see with that kind of thinking, especially after decades of congress ceding power to the executive, is that the dream of arbitrary power could eventually come true.
frugal-one
7-31-19, 3:10pm
Me, I like limits on power. The more the better.
Then it is time to get Trump out... he definitely needs limits!
frugal-one
7-31-19, 3:12pm
Vote for Biden: bore more years!
A lot better than the constant drama and chaos we have now!!!
frugal-one
7-31-19, 3:13pm
The problem I see with that kind of thinking is that it imbues the office of president with a sort of imperial aura. The president as hero who will strike down any villain we care to nominate. The great provider who can give us whatever we want.
The danger I see with that kind of thinking, especially after decades of congress ceding power to the executive, is that the dream of arbitrary power could eventually come true.
Isn't this exactly what Trump is doing?
Isn't this exactly what Trump is doing?
Yes. He’s as bad as Obama with his pen and his phone. I don’t know why people keep expecting me to defend Trump.
I don’t know why people keep expecting me to defend Trump.
Because Trump is Republican (sort of). I feel sorry for you Republicans having to take one of the team when the captain is such a Side Show Bob.
I wish more young energetic people would get enthused for candidates as they did for Obama. I think it is a pretty sure bet (I will be surprised if not) that an old, white man will be the President.
frugal-one
7-31-19, 8:11pm
Yes. He’s as bad as Obama with his pen and his phone. I don’t know why people keep expecting me to defend Trump.
As I have stated previously, I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats in the past. I think Obama at least tried to help people. The same cannot be said for Trump. He has an agenda.
frugal-one
7-31-19, 8:14pm
I wish more young energetic people would get enthused for candidates as they did for Obama. I think it is a pretty sure bet (I will be surprised if not) that an old, white man will be the President.
Hopefully, one who is not so dramatic and problematic. Also, I think "Mayor Pete" would do justice to the office. So far there are no Republicans stepping up against Trump??? Is it a given that he is the only Republican running?
Bill Weld is running on the Republican side, not sure if there are others.
As I have stated previously, I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats in the past. I think Obama at least tried to help people. The same cannot be said for Trump. He has an agenda.
The government is not here to help people--it's every man for himself in the good ol' US of A. The government is only here to wage war and boost corporate profits. Hope that helps. :devil:
Because Trump is Republican (sort of). I feel sorry for you Republicans having to take one of the team when the captain is such a Side Show Bob.
He's not a sort of republican. For better or worse he IS the face of the republican party today. If he wasn't we'd be seeing more people like Justin Amash stand up to him. If the remaining honorable republicans want to take their party back they will have to stand up to the trumpian republicans, and I just don't see that happening right now.
I have a soft spot in my heart for Williamson (I have TWO copies of her book "Return to Love")--obviously she will never be President but it was still fun to hear her point out things that people need to hear.
I certainly hope you’re right, although after the last election i’ve learned that anything is possible. But yeah, no one who says that AIDS patients got sick because they didn’t love themselves and god enough should be anywhere near the white house.
Biden seemed a little more active in his own defense than last time. Can he win by just surviving while the rest of the pack stakes out positions further and further to the left? Who was it who said that Democrats would rather win arguments than elections?
Gillibrand offered to explain white privilege to the ladies of the suburbs. I’ll bet that will be a big draw.
A lot of ambivalence about Obama’s record. You might have been excused for thinking some of them believed he was a dirty Republican.
I know that Michael Moore is a crusty old hoot, but I occasionally get some entertainment value from him. He had a recent interview where he said Michelle Obama is the one to beat trump. He cited a couple of polls where she is the top of the list for the most admired women in the world. I could go with that. The Obamas were apparently unavailable for comment. No doubt a little on the fantasy side, but some entertaining considerations.
Michael Moore cultivates the look of an unmade bed, but he's no fool. His documentaries are always entertaining.
I've been a fan since Roger and Me, and his short-lived TV Nation often had us laughing uncontrollably.
iris lilies
8-1-19, 3:16pm
I certainly hope you’re right, although after the last election i’ve learned that anything is possible. But yeah, no one who says that AIDS patients got sick because they didn’t love themselves and god enough should be anywhere near the white house.
Do you really think that about Williamson, or is that just the sound bite du jour about her up there out of her sphere of influence, SoCal?
From the few articles I just finished skimming, she doesn’t seem at all to be an enemy of LGBT etc. people. She adamantly denies counseling people with AIDS to give up any Western medicine although she does say that there was hardly anything offered to them in late 80s when she was working with people with AIDS.
The government is not here to help people--it's every man for himself in the good ol' US of A. The government is only here to wage war and boost corporate profits. Hope that helps. :devil:
I worked for the government... not EVERYONE is this way!
Do you really think that about Williamson, or is that just the sound bite du jour about her up there out of her sphere of influence, SoCal?
From the few articles I just finished skimming, she doesn’t seem at all to be an enemy of LGBT etc. people. She adamantly denies counseling people with AIDS to give up any Western medicine although she does say that there was hardly anything offered to them in late 80s when she was working with people with AIDS.
Yes, I reviewed a few things online that don't seem to suggest negative feelings toward AIDS patients. She's New Age, and she may have expressed the type of thinking that Louise Hay made a career out of--that illnesses like cancer are a function of the mind. There's a book by Anita Moorjani called Dying to be Me, in which she talks about her spontaneous remission from late-stage cancer when she gave up fear. There are a lot of people who believe you can become well by loving yourself and giving up negative energy. I'm not in that camp 100%, but maybe I am about 25%.
I've always wondered, if you extend that thinking outside human beings, does it follow that a dog with illness doesn't love itself enough? Maybe he/she should meditate and stress less? Look in the mirror and do a Stuart Smalley: "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and DOG-gone it, people like me!"
While I definitely believe in a mind-body connection, I don't blame the victim, and I don't think Marianne Williamson does either.
Well I've heard doctors say 80% of illness is brought on by stress, so to me, the more we can lead happy lives, the better our options to navigate whatever we we have to work with, genetics, environment, circumstance. I think a public debate is a great place to bring up some of the ideas that she was bringing up.
Teacher Terry
8-1-19, 5:31pm
I agree Catherine and Tybee. Doesn’t mean that I am going to stop taking my HBP medication.
Hey, Tybee! Great to see you back! ;)
I agree that attitude and stress have a lot to do with physical health in addition to the other factors mentioned, of course. We are such complex organisms!
I hear she's trending right now.
Chakras and awe!
He had a recent interview where he said Michelle Obama is the one to beat trump. He cited a couple of polls where she is the top of the list for the most admired women in the world. I could go with that. The Obamas were apparently unavailable for comment. No doubt a little on the fantasy side, but some entertaining considerations.
The last wife of a Democratic president who ran lost.
Well I've heard doctors say 80% of illness is brought on by stress, so to me, the more we can lead happy lives, the better our options to navigate whatever we we have to work with, genetics, environment, circumstance. I think a public debate is a great place to bring up some of the ideas that she was bringing up.
While indeed stress does likely cause a lot of illness, or at least make one more susceptible to certain illnesses, HIV is not one of those illnesses. At the very very best, reducing stress may slow the progress of untreated HIV infection, but it won't reduce the likelihood of someone who gets exposed to HIV from coming down with AIDS if they don't take appropriate medicine.
I've always wondered, if you extend that thinking outside human beings, does it follow that a dog with illness doesn't love itself enough? Maybe he/she should meditate and stress less? Look in the mirror and do a Stuart Smalley: "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and DOG-gone it, people like me!"
Perhaps if my cat wasn't so neurotic he could stop taking his thyroid meds!
Do you really think that about Williamson, or is that just the sound bite du jour about her up there out of her sphere of influence, SoCal?
From the few articles I just finished skimming, she doesn’t seem at all to be an enemy of LGBT etc. people. She adamantly denies counseling people with AIDS to give up any Western medicine although she does say that there was hardly anything offered to them in late 80s when she was working with people with AIDS.
I don't think she's anti-LGBT. I just don't think that her opinion is (or was, if it has changed) helpful, and could be potentially harmful if people actually attempt to deal with HIV infection through stress reduction instead of HIV meds.
Edited to correct the last sentence to add "don't" before think.
I don't think she's anti-LGBT. I just think that her opinion is (or was, if it has changed) helpful, and could be potentially harmful if people actually attempt to deal with HIV infection through stress reduction instead of HIV meds.
I 100% agree... having interviewed many HIV/AIDs patients who survived the holocaust of the 80s as well as those who have a promise of a full life today.
iris lilies
8-1-19, 8:30pm
I don't think she's anti-LGBT. I just think that her opinion is (or was, if it has changed) helpful, and could be potentially harmful if people actually attempt to deal with HIV infection through stress reduction instead of HIV meds.
She says western medicine and hocus pocus self love woo can work together. Support groups for people with health problems are good for our psyches. People with AIDS are not singled out for this philosophy.
She says western medicine and hocus pocus self love woo can work together. Support groups for people with health problems are good for our psyches. People with AIDS are not singled out for this philosophy.
And that's why I don't think she's an LGBT hater, just a stupid person and potentially harmful to people with HIV. And a bad candidate for president. I'd rather have one that believes in science.
And that's why I don't think she's an LGBT hater, just a stupid person and potentially harmful to people with HIV. And a bad candidate for president. I'd rather have one that believes in science.
https://www.marianne2020.com/issues/lgbtq-rights
It looks pretty tame, except at the very end. For some reason this bit raises my hackles:
Lastly, one extremely important issue must occur in order to properly approach this issue as we move forward, and that is with the 2020 US Census. One way our government allocates resources to its citizens is by knowing who its people are. The Trump administration has openly admitted its intent to weaponize the questions it intends to use in this next census. They must be stopped. The collection of information of the LGBTQ citizen is an imperative asset for the government to properly allocate its resources and to allow for national advocacy.
I'm not sure whoever wrote this quite understood some of the nuances...
https://www.marianne2020.com/issues/lgbtq-rights
It looks pretty tame, except at the very end. For some reason this bit raises my hackles:
I'm not sure whoever wrote this quite understood some of the nuances...
Wow. Just wow. Ok, now I feel the need to actively advocate against her as a potential candidate. This takes her from hippie dippy to scary in a hurry. Does she express an opinion about the whole citizenship BS?
ApatheticNoMore
8-2-19, 1:07am
meanwhile since I have not had time to watch the debates I hear (from my partner who did) that Biden is borderline senile. I did watch the first debate with him, he did seem off. Uh and here I just thought he had bad policies.
Now that seems more like something to worry about than some woo woo candidate unlikely to even make the next debate.
I live in mayor Pete's town. High crime, High Homelessness, and few good paying jobs. Perhaps if he'd spent money on infrastructure instead of a $650,000.00 mobile boom box, he could attract job's, lower crime and homelessness. https://www.abc57.com/news/south-bend-650-000-boombox-criticized. He is not qualified...
iris lilies
8-2-19, 9:55am
Wow. Just wow. Ok, now I feel the need to actively advocate against her as a potential candidate. This takes her from hippie dippy to scary in a hurry. Does she express an opinion about the whole citizenship BS?
Agreed, this is weird. I’m only vaguely aware of her because of her best-selling books over the 30 years of my career as a librarian. I’ve never picked one up to read it. I think it was A Course in Miracles ( pulled from my memory, I didnt look it up ) that was her biggest one and the one that rings a bell to me.
Anyway – – why does she keep talking about the LGBT etc. community? Isn’t her focus much bigger than that community? I wonder if she considers herself a special savior of the group.
https://www.marianne2020.com/issues/lgbtq-rights
It looks pretty tame, except at the very end. For some reason this bit raises my hackles:
I'm not sure whoever wrote this quite understood some of the nuances...
Wouldn’t it be easier if the government simply tattooed or chipped the citizenry with all the pertinent information needed to manage us?
Teacher Terry
8-2-19, 11:05am
From the clips I have seen Biden did much better in the second debate. Everyone was attacking him. I wouldn’t even give a thought to MW who probably won’t even be in the next debate. She is a non issue.
From the clips I have seen Biden did much better in the second debate. Everyone was attacking him. I wouldn’t even give a thought to MW who probably won’t even be in the next debate. She is a non issue.
I thought his counter-arguments held up, but I felt he acted a bit doddering to be honest.
Biden represents a breath of stale air from times long past. Let Republicans embrace the past (when women and minorities knew their place); liberals/progressives should represent the future.
ApatheticNoMore
8-2-19, 11:32am
I live in mayor Pete's town. High crime, High Homelessness, and few good paying jobs. Perhaps if he'd spent money on infrastructure instead of a $650,000.00 mobile boom box, he could attract job's, lower crime and homelessness. https://www.abc57.com/news/south-ben...box-criticized. He is not qualified...
unconvincing. Look he's very much not my favorite. He's be better than Trump, more likely to win than Biden perhaps whose doddering will not stand up to Trump in all likelihood, at least I think he's mentally all there and that might be a minimum standard but it's something, but that is all.
It's unconvincing because noone can almost name anywhere that has solved the homelessness problem, so I say: before complaining about homelessness and using it against any politician one happens to dislike: name somewhere that has got it right.
It seems New York City may have got it right as most of their homeless are housed from what I've read. But they spend 1.9 billion a year on homelessness to do this. Other cities are not ponying up that type of money so it's no wonder they can't replicate it (might require some policy changes of course but also requires raw spending probably). Now that's what it cost a big city, so other big cities can copy, but a smaller town can probably be scaled down proportionately. And yes one does need to make sure the money is not just frittered away - they need to copy the policies. Who else has solved homelessness, well I hear Finland, as homelessness actually is a global problem not solely the U.S.. Finland is pretty far afield from here, so if we tried to copy Finland I don't even know what it would take or cost since a lot of the welfare state infrastructure the program seems to rely on and who knows what else is probably not there, but it's a housing first program. Anyone know any where else that has done pretty well at solving homelessness so that at least most of their "homeless" are housed?
Biden represents a breath of stale air from times long past. Let Republicans embrace the past (when women and minorities knew their place); liberals/progressives should represent the future.
I think that’s very true. You could especially see it in the second debate. The progressives would tout things like slavery reparations, single payer health or health care for illegal immigrants, free college, open borders and the like. The moderates would raise practical objections, which are dismissed as “Republican talking points”, a fear of “Big Ideas” or shilling for industry.
If the progressives prevail, it will be interesting to see what the general electorate’s appetite for big ideas truly is.
I think that’s very true. You could especially see it in the second debate. The progressives would tout things like slavery reparations, single payer health or health care for illegal immigrants, free college, open borders and the like. The moderates would raise practical objections, which are dismissed as “Republican talking points”, a fear of “Big Ideas” or shilling for industry.
If the progressives prevail, it will be interesting to see what the general electorate’s appetite for big ideas truly is.
Trump's winning 2016 mobilized a lot of people in the direction of progressive causes. I would rather sacrifice 4 more years with Trump in the hopes that we can push the "revolutionary" ideas of government for the people, because eventually people will realize that what benefits most benefits all.
Trump's winning 2016 mobilized a lot of people in the direction of progressive causes. I would rather sacrifice 4 more years with Trump in the hopes that we can push the "revolutionary" ideas of government for the people, because eventually people will realize that what benefits most benefits all.
I think that there is a good chance that we will see a referendum on the more statist version of “government for the people” in 2020. We are seeing more radical proposals than any time since, what, the Great Depression?
It could well be a test of whether some of these ideas really reflect a trend in mainstream opinion or mere radical fringery. It will especially be interesting to see how some of these proposals, if enacted, will survive contact with reality.
Teacher Terry
8-2-19, 2:08pm
Free things have to be paid for. Serious cutbacks would have to occur in other areas which I am all for. I think healthcare needs to be tackled first with a realistic plan. It’s the most pressing need. No one dies if they don’t go to college. You can’t say the same for HC. I would much rather have Biden then trump if it comes down to it. All older candidates need a decent running mate that you wouldn’t mind seeing as President.
Free things have to be paid for. Serious cutbacks would have to occur in other areas which I am all for.
We can start by cutting the military budget 50%.
Housing First was tried in Seattle with great success. People were able to get relatively clean, drank and drugged less, and were safe from predators, while costing the taxpayers less overall. I don't know if the program was discontinued or expanded. I'm guessing the former.
We can start by cutting the military budget 50%.
And raising federal income tax rates back to reasonable levels.
And raising federal income tax rates back to reasonable levels.
I suspect if you cut the military budget 50%, you might well be able to reduce taxes.
Any discussion of "reasonable levels" of federal income tax rates would have to look at the *effective* tax rate after all the various deductions and special cases are considered. It is common to say "look, they paid NN% back in 1960, let's go back", but generally those comparisions are looking at the notional marginal rates, and not what *actually* got paid after all the dust settled. I know though it is a handy marketing slogan.
I'm not sure how much Bernie's health care type proposals hold up under scrutiny, but he makes a case that since we won't pay deductibles, health insurance premiums, co-pays and items not covered by some policies, the increase in taxes to pay for the new system would not be a significant marginal burden for people.
I'm trying to understand what they are calling Modern Monetary Theory. It has been mentioned working with the new green deal. The economics are so contrary to what we've followed, it sort of odd, but I can seen possibilities. Rather than creating new debt or more taxes, electronic money is just created in some electronic accounting balance sheet. The risk of increased inflation would be regulated with tax floating tax rates. If I get it right. After all, there doesn't appear to be a defined ceiling for borrowing and budget balancing anyway.
As such, taxation and debt are not required for government spending.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/16/18251646/modern-monetary-theory-new-moment-explained
AlaskanGuy
8-5-19, 11:58pm
Is this forum just for democrats? i dont even get the news where I live, but seems like this is democrat dominated? what about the independants and republicans? after reading through this, it seems pretty one sided... there must be something the independants are doing right, and something the republicans have going on for good?? seems like we tend to be so busy looking for the bad, that we completely miss the good. building up someone or something seems so much better then tearing down someone or something... what was that famous thing that JFK said??? ask not what .... somehing or another... focusing on the good stuff is the real test of ones nature. i have seen the Church mentioned around this forum... what does the word say about this sort of thing?
i am probably just being a ignorant hick or something, forgive me, and feel free to ignore me. i cant even spell... :help:
AG
Teacher Terry
8-6-19, 12:46am
Plenty of republicans and independents on here. We love the diversity!
Plenty of republicans and independents on here. We love the diversity!
I've been a registered Independent for over thirty years.
The only reason I'm a registered Democrat is so I can vote in the primaries.
rosarugosa
8-6-19, 10:05am
Is this forum just for democrats? i dont even get the news where I live, but seems like this is democrat dominated? what about the independants and republicans? after reading through this, it seems pretty one sided... there must be something the independants are doing right, and something the republicans have going on for good?? seems like we tend to be so busy looking for the bad, that we completely miss the good. building up someone or something seems so much better then tearing down someone or something... what was that famous thing that JFK said??? ask not what .... somehing or another... focusing on the good stuff is the real test of ones nature. i have seen the Church mentioned around this forum... what does the word say about this sort of thing?
i am probably just being a ignorant hick or something, forgive me, and feel free to ignore me. i cant even spell... :help:
AG
The group skews towards liberal, but we definitely have a few articulate and outspoken conservatives as well!
Is this forum just for democrats?
No.
Teacher Terry
8-6-19, 2:35pm
That would be boring if we were all the same.
Is this forum just for democrats? No, they're just a lot more vocal. Most of them have been here a long time and are so far to the left that the Democratic party is just now catching up to them.
Is this forum just for democrats? AG
Is there such a thing as a moderate anymore? I fall into the democrat crowd for many things and especially climate change, but am a gun owner, mostly for hunting, and can be in the conservative side for some issues. I think republicans have gone further right and democrats further left in more recent times. At least the tea party seems to be going away. It's easy to get caught up in tribal mentality.
Hopefully any liberal leanings won't dissuade you. It's good to hear how others think even if we don't all agree.
AlaskanGuy
8-6-19, 10:26pm
Is there such a thing as a moderate anymore? I fall into the democrat crowd for many things and especially climate change, but am a gun owner, mostly for hunting, and can be in the conservative side for some issues. I think republicans have gone further right and democrats further left in more recent times. At least the tea party seems to be going away. It's easy to get caught up in tribal mentality.
Hopefully any liberal leanings won't dissuade you. It's good to hear how others think even if we don't all agree.
Amen Rogar!!!
I believe most people like to think of themselves as reasonable moderates. But they define “moderate” in some radically different ways. What is the moderate position on health care? Or globalization? Or gun control?
I hear Elizabeth Warren is catching up with Joe Biden in the polls. That should please the dirigisme fans in the audience.
I hear Elizabeth Warren is catching up with Joe Biden in the polls. That should please the dirigisme fans in the audience.
I've always loved that song:
Play your didgeridoo, Blue
Play your didgeridoo
Ah, like, keep playin' 'til I shoot through, Blue
Play your didgeridoo
Altogether now!
Wait, I think that word doesn't mean what I thought it means.
I, as usual, will vote for the Communist candidate.
Mostly because I'd feel best about cleaning up that mess :-)
I see Hickenlooper is out, reasonableness being the narrow niche market that it is.
ApatheticNoMore
8-15-19, 6:46pm
The reasonableness of drinking fracking fluid. Whatever else, might just be good instincts, but noone wanted to go near that guy at least.
I see Hickenlooper is out, reasonableness being the narrow niche market that it is.
You mean the reasonableness that someone with less than 1% of voters picking him meaning that he had 0% chance of winning and should therefore choose a more realistic goal?
Even though he has previously said he wasn't interested, maybe running for senate is a better plan for him. Who knows.
I hear Elizabeth Warren is catching up with Joe Biden in the polls. That should please the dirigisme fans in the audience.
Anyone catching up with tired old joe gives me hope that the average person isn't as stupid as I assume they are.
And I love that you've eschewed the tired "socialist" tag that most "never will vote for a democrat, but want to concern troll them about what to do" conservatives have grabbed onto and instead picked a truly unique term for us. (and one that I had to look up.) Bravo.
And I love that you've eschewed the tired "socialist" tag that most "never will vote for a democrat, but want to concern troll them about what to do" conservatives have grabbed onto .....I see that the loud and proud Democratic Socialists who've influenced the party so far to the left haven't tired of it.
Anyone catching up with tired old joe gives me hope that the average person isn't as stupid as I assume they are.
And I love that you've eschewed the tired "socialist" tag that most "never will vote for a democrat, but want to concern troll them about what to do" conservatives have grabbed onto and instead picked a truly unique term for us. (and one that I had to look up.) Bravo.
I don’t think Warren is a socialist in the classic sense. I would classify her as more of a statist who believes she can immanentize the eschaton through the tax system and a powerful regulatory state. She aims to “fix” capitalism because she believes herself smarter than the markets are.
She is a good example of what Bill Buckley meant when he said he’d sooner be governed by the first eight hundred names in the phone book than the faculty of Harvard.
I see Hickenlooper is out, reasonableness being the narrow niche market that it is.
Hickenlooper got a lot done here. He never used dirty campaign tactics in his runs for office. Gun control legislation like universal background checks and magazine capacity limits. He went along with the vote to legalize recreational pot at the state level, one of the first states. He started a network of light rail that no doubt cuts down on greenhouse gasses and facilitates transportation. He brought the economy back from the financial meltdown to be one of the strongest among states. Now millennials and other are moving here relentlessly. One could even say we have a millennial migration problem here. Housing costs are spiraling up and cheesy small lofts are going up everywhere to accommodate the demand for affordable housing. We probably don't need a president like that.
I see that the loud and proud Democratic Socialists who've influenced the party so far to the left haven't tired of it.
I don’t know that any two of them could agree on what American socialism would look like. I know I don’t have a clear picture.
I don’t know that any two of them could agree on what American socialism would look like. I know I don’t have a clear picture.Much like the Affordable Care Act, we must fully commit before being entrusted with the details.
I don’t know that any two of them could agree on what American socialism would look like. I know I don’t have a clear picture.
American socialism is defined as "anything any democrat is in favor of". At least if you ask a republican. As Pete Buttigieg rightly pointed out, "no matter what we as a party do the republicans are going to call it socialism, so we might as well do what we think is the right thing to do."
American socialism is defined as "anything any democrat is in favor of".
That's probably because even the Democratic Socialists of America can't seem to define it beyond generalizations designed to lure in the gullible.
https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/
American socialism is defined as "anything any democrat is in favor of". At least if you ask a republican. As Pete Buttigieg rightly pointed out, "no matter what we as a party do the republicans are going to call it socialism, so we might as well do what we think is the right thing to do."
So they have nothing more definite than “what we think is right”? Who gets to speak for we? Sounds like your cartoonish Republican straw man may be right to paint with an equally broad brush.
This republican obsession with the definition of socialism is baffling. Especially in light of how they tend to be the ones coming up with the wackier potential definitions. I mean, really, one has to be a special kind of stupid to think that paper straws are in any associated with socialism. Although I suppose if the government took over the straw factory at the same time as it mandated paper straws maybe they'd be onto something.
So they have nothing more definite than “what we think is right”? Who gets to speak for we? Sounds like your cartoonish Republican straw man may be right to paint with an equally broad brush.
At the end of the day the voters will get to decide if they agree with what the democratic candidates think is the right thing to do and they will either get elected or not. Who knows, maybe you're right and kiddie koncentration kamps, tax cuts for rich people, and less people with health insurance is actually what the voters think is right. And if so we'll have four more years of that.
Like the Republicans who shout "Fiscal conservatism" until they're hoarse when Democrats are in office, then spend like they've just discovered gold when they are. Hypocrites in all ways.
Like the Republicans who shout "Fiscal conservatism" until they're hoarse when Democrats are in office, then spend like they've just discovered gold when they are. Hypocrites in all ways.
I do not approve of Republicans spending money as if they were Democrats.
I do not approve of Republicans spending money as if they were Democrats.
I quite agree.
I am, however, agnostic on the subject of paper straws.
At the end of the day the voters will get to decide if they agree with what the democratic candidates think is the right thing to do and they will either get elected or not. Who knows, maybe you're right and kiddie koncentration kamps, tax cuts for rich people, and less people with health insurance is actually what the voters think is right. And if so we'll have four more years of that.
It will if the Democrats come up with even scarier and more ridiculous proposals. Open borders, higher taxes and outlawing private health insurance all seem like steps in that direction.
At the end of the day the democrats have been trying republican-lite ever since bill clinton became president and it really hasn't worked. It didn't inspire republicans to vote for us and it didn't inspire democrats to get to the polls to vote for us either.
I get it, you're looking for a replacement for your failed party. But hoping the democrats will become it just isn't going to happen.
I heard Andrew Yang speak tonight. His crowd was overwhelmingly young, predominantly male, and very enthusiastic. He is definitely an economic populist, yet has strong techie support. I could see him appealing to voters of all educational backgrounds. He was articulate but I do not agree with him on everything.
At the end of the day the democrats have been trying republican-lite ever since bill clinton became president and it really hasn't worked. It didn't inspire republicans to vote for us and it didn't inspire democrats to get to the polls to vote for us either.
I get it, you're looking for a replacement for your failed party. But hoping the democrats will become it just isn't going to happen.
Failed in what sense? In the ability to win offices and exercise power? In the ability to frustrate the plans of it’s opposition? In the capacity of benchmark bogeyman for political fantasy?
I think if I could replace the Republican Party in it’s current form, I would make it more classical liberal and less populist-nationalist; but I would probably still welcome anyone willing to resist the idea that the “arc of history” required aggrandizing the state over the individual.
I heard Julian Castro speak today. He is the fifth candidate whose campaign event I have been to, and the only one where I came away with a negative opinion. He was dishonest about his record, overly general, and insufficiently humble.
I heard Julian Castro speak today. He is the fifth candidate whose campaign event I have been to, and the only one where I came away with a negative opinion. He was dishonest about his record, overly general, and insufficiently humble.
Thank you for reporting on these events. I really appreciate hearing from someone who has actually seen the person in person.
Failed in what sense? In the ability to win offices and exercise power? In the ability to frustrate the plans of it’s opposition? In the capacity of benchmark bogeyman for political fantasy?
I think if I could replace the Republican Party in it’s current form, I would make it more classical liberal and less populist-nationalist; but I would probably still welcome anyone willing to resist the idea that the “arc of history” required aggrandizing the state over the individual.
Failed in the sense that it is now the party of trump. That it would pick such an unqualified and corrupt individual as its leader. And then use all its power to shield him from accountability. What came before is dead. After trump is gone the party isn't going back to what it was. The racists among republican voters won't support that. They don't give a crap about individual power over the state. They are perfectly happy with using the state's power to maintain white supremacy and won't support any politician who disagrees with them. And there are too many of them for republicans to be viable otherwise.
iris lilies
8-19-19, 12:50am
I see that Eliz Warren tweeted out the falsehood about Michael Brown’s “ murder” here in St Louis. Kamela Harris cranked out the same. I dont pay attention normally to their yapping, but these proclamations are false. When even CNN calls them on the carpet, you know they are lying. Or ill informed. Or stirring the pot....politicking as usual.
I see that Eliz Warren tweeted out the falsehood about Michael Brown’s “ murder” here in St Louis. Kamela Harris cranked out the same. I dont pay attention normally to their yapping, but these proclamations are false. When even CNN calls them on the carpet, you know they are lying. Or ill informed. Or stirring the pot....politicking as usual.
It's been my strictly non-scientific yet seemingly obvious observation that Democratic politics revolves around victims and victimization. It's necessary to convince every potential voter that they are a victim of something bigger than them, and those who do not feel particularly victimized have been conditioned to think of themselves and others like them as victimizers who must pay for their sins by apologizing for their transgressions, real and imagined. Keeping the cycle churning requires a fair amount of misrepresentation and outright lying.
Since Bob Mueller refused to play ball on the Russia thing, we seem to be returning to the America-is-a-racist-nightmare thing. I guess it will have to do if the next recession doesn’t begin in time to help.
Since Bob Mueller refused to play ball on the Russia thing, we seem to be returning to the America-is-a-racist-nightmare thing. I guess it will have to do if the next recession doesn’t begin in time to help.
I think you're right. I like to keep up with Democratic talking points by checking in with MSNBC each morning. Today they're talking up both racism and recession in a hopeful manner.
It's necessary to convince every potential voter that they are a victim of something bigger than them, and those who do not feel particularly victimized have been conditioned to think of themselves and others like them as victimizers who must pay for their sins by apologizing for their transgressions, real and imagined.
The party of Trump has adopted these methods. Immigrants are stealing YOUR jobs, someone else is getting something for free that YOU aren't, being shamed for using talk that was tolerated 50 years ago (because the underdogs really couldn't speak up)... Trump really tapped into people wanting to feel like victims.
iris lilies
8-19-19, 9:02am
The party of Trump has adopted these methods. Immigrants are stealing YOUR jobs, someone else is getting something for free that YOU aren't, being shamed for using talk that was tolerated 50 years ago (because the underdogs really couldn't speak up)... Trump really tapped into people wanting to feel like victims.
I have not noticed the conservatives here feel like victims. Just the opposite. But maybe we are the “good” conservatives, the good Negroes if you will. The strong Trump supporters I know are happy with the economy and consider it Winning.
The party of Trump has adopted these methods. Immigrants are stealing YOUR jobs, someone else is getting something for free that YOU aren't, being shamed for using talk that was tolerated 50 years ago (because the underdogs really couldn't speak up)... Trump really tapped into people wanting to feel like victims.
I agree. Trump’s descent into identify politics is every bit as objectionable as his opposition’s.
It's been my strictly non-scientific yet seemingly obvious observation that Democratic politics revolves around victims and victimization. It's necessary to convince every potential voter that they are a victim of something bigger than them, and those who do not feel particularly victimized have been conditioned to think of themselves and others like them as victimizers who must pay for their sins by apologizing for their transgressions, real and imagined. Keeping the cycle churning requires a fair amount of misrepresentation and outright lying.
Were the orchestrators of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising victims? Or were they activists for justice and freedom? Were the original civil rights leaders victims or activists for justice and freedom? Were Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem victims or activists for justice and freedom? Were the organizers of MADD victims or activists for justice and freedom?
One can be a passive victim, or take action. Taking power back by political means is strength, not weakness. I am so grateful for the "victims" of ethnic, racial, and gender bias. I am grateful for the "victims" of lawlessness who rise up and change business-as-usual of the powerful who have vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
One can be a passive victim, or take action. Taking power back by political means is strength, not weakness. I am so grateful for the "victims" of ethnic, racial, and gender bias.
I agree it's good to fight against the injustice that race/gender/religion/sex based political ideologies engender, and it's time for the party which promotes those divisions to give it up.
it's time for the party which promotes those divisions to give it up.
Which is both. ;)
frugal-one
8-19-19, 5:32pm
It's been my strictly non-scientific yet seemingly obvious observation that Democratic politics revolves around victims and victimization. It's necessary to convince every potential voter that they are a victim of something bigger than them, and those who do not feel particularly victimized have been conditioned to think of themselves and others like them as victimizers who must pay for their sins by apologizing for their transgressions, real and imagined. Keeping the cycle churning requires a fair amount of misrepresentation and outright lying.
Trump is always claiming to be a victim. He is the worst one !!!! Poor, poor Donald ... he is being picked on. Pssssttt
frugal-one
8-19-19, 5:34pm
I think you're right. I like to keep up with Democratic talking points by checking in with MSNBC each morning. Today they're talking up both racism and recession in a hopeful manner.
Racism IS being displayed and a recession is likely. Hope it knocks Trump on his a$$!
iris lilies
8-19-19, 5:40pm
I think you're right. I like to keep up with Democratic talking points by checking in with MSNBC each morning. Today they're talking up both racism and recession in a hopeful manner.
Damn that stock market. Today it didnt plunge like it has been doing on previous Mondays. Can’t we get us some recession around here?
Remember how we conservatives are always chastised for voting against our best interests? It would seem to me that salivating over the idea of a recession fits that bill.
Me, I took my Trump bump money a few weeks ago and bought a shiny red car.
Damn that stock market. Today it didnt plunge like it has been doing on previous Mondays. Can’t we get us some recession around here?
Remember how we conservatives are always chastised for voting against our best interests? It would seem to me that salivating over the idea of a recession fits that bill.
Examples abound.....
Racism IS being displayed and a recession is likely. Hope it knocks Trump on his a$$!
See, weird huh?
Me, I took my Trump bump money a few weeks ago and bought a shiny red car.
Congratulations!
Me, I used some of my Trump bump money to buy a $30K travel trailer and a $47K truck to tow it with, and my retirement account balances are still larger than when I stopped contributing to them last year.
Better for us to enjoy our gains before the opposition has the opportunity to will or legislate them away.
Ultralight
8-19-19, 9:00pm
Racism IS being displayed and a recession is likely. Hope it knocks Trump on his a$$!
I just started a job in Illinois. So please, no recessions for a couple more years.
ApatheticNoMore
8-20-19, 12:16am
I have said even when I was heading for unemployment that I'd take a recession and being unemployed (again) if it meant Trump would be gone. And I hate that, a bunch of suffering, what an economy we have eh. But he's just that bad. And yes it does indeed matter who replaces Trump, but it's just hopeless with him in there.
I think it’s odd that we assign so much blame and credit to incumbent presidents for the state of the economy. It has a sort of cargo cult flavor to it.
I think it’s odd that we assign so much blame and credit to incumbent presidents for the state of the economy. It has a sort of cargo cult flavor to it.
I generally agree with that except for cases where the regulatory environment has been changed enough to have an either positive or negative effect. I think that if the 2016 election has gone the other way the effect would have been negative.
I generally agree with that except for cases where the regulatory environment has been changed enough to have an either positive or negative effect. I think that if the 2016 election has gone the other way the effect would have been negative.
It would have been much more positive for the environment.
I bought my 2014 Tacoma with paper profits from the great recession Obama recovery stimulus, which arguably did less to increase the national debt than the T bump.
I was doing a little internet googling and it appeared to me and some of the analysts that the in the last few decades economy generally does better under a democratic president. However, I think much of this, but not all, is a coincidence of the cyclical nature of things. I think we are at the end of a cycle, although T can still print up some more money and string out the inevitable.
When you factor in market externalities like climate change, a degrading environment, public health, poverty levels, and any sort of happiness index it gets muddled, but people tend to not measure those sorts of things.
How reasonable is it for us to hold our politicians and bureaucrats responsible for our prosperity and happiness?
What do we surrender when we think we can pass the burden of our welfare onto them?
There is actually a global happiness report. From Wiki, "The 2018 iteration was released on 20 March and focused on the relation between happiness and migration. As per 2019 Happiness Report, Finland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland) is the happiest country in the world,[23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report#cite_note-23) with Denmark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark), Luxembourg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg), Norway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway), Iceland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland), and the Netherlands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands) holding the next top positions." Considering the commonality of these places, one could conclude that politics and happiness are connected, although coincidence and causality can be confused.
Leaving aside the question of whether we can measure happiness, as opposed to how people respond to polls about their emotional state, is happiness really a legitimate policy goal? Different people are happy in different circumstances. How should government adjudicate between different concepts of the good life?
Leaving aside the question of whether we can measure happiness, as opposed to how people respond to polls about their emotional state, is happiness really a legitimate policy goal? Different people are happy in different circumstances. How should government adjudicate between different concepts of the good life?
I really don't know. Apparently there are experts of some sort who believe in all of this. I wouldn't rule it out based on any sort of biased. I've met people in other countries who live a very primitive poor lifestyle, but seemed as happy or more so than my corporate America work mates. Though I suspect their life expectancy was shorter.
I can see measuring a set of agreed upon values to a certain culture or country and then tracking them over time using the same criteria. It might get sticky comparing one culture to another. I would think that there are certain things like access to decent nutrition and health care, a bit of nice living space common to the area, and some sort of daily challenges other than idle unemployment or exhaustive menial labor to be universal measures, but it is probably still subjective. Those things are not exclusive from government.
frugal-one
8-20-19, 9:14pm
How reasonable is it for us to hold our politicians and bureaucrats responsible for our prosperity and happiness?
What do we surrender when we think we can pass the burden of our welfare onto them?
The constant drama with Trump causes unhappiness. If he would keep his trap shut it would help immensely.
The constant drama with Trump causes unhappiness. If he would keep his trap shut it would help immensely.
And if someone would confiscate his damn phone. Permanently.
I try not to let a bonehead like Trump rule my day to day happiness. My life under T is pretty much the same as under Obama and nothing has really changed for me once we got out of the 2007 financial mess. What does make me unhappy is looming environmental changes, but pretty much any Republican would tow the same line as Trump, although with a different rhetoric. Matter of fact the general American public doesn't seem that concerned. If I were a young person being left the environmental legacy of our generation, I'd be extremely unhappy. In some respects we are living in a golden time and place and I feel very fortunate. Trump is irritating, though.
I noticed a new Politico polls say Sanders and Biden are the only candidates to beat Trump.
I try not to let a bonehead like Trump rule my day to day happiness. My life under T is pretty much the same as under Obama and nothing has really changed for me once we got out of the 2007 financial mess. What does make me unhappy is looming environmental changes, but pretty much any Republican would tow the same line as Trump, although with a different rhetoric. Matter of fact the general American public doesn't seem that concerned. If I were a young person being left the environmental legacy of our generation, I'd be extremely unhappy. In some respects we are living in a golden time and place and I feel very fortunate. Trump is irritating, though.
I noticed a new Politico polls say Sanders and Biden are the only candidates to beat Trump.
I think you’re right about Trump. If people grant him a rent-free tenancy in their heads, they share responsibility for the resulting mental discomfort.
One of the 1% guys, I think Bennet, said something about wanting to be a president you only heard about every two weeks or so. I liked that.
I wonder if Germans in the run-up to full-blown Nazism were as blind to or unfazed by what was happening. As the meme goes, it didn't start with extermination camps, it started with propaganda demonizing the Jews and progressed from there.
Trump and his henchmen are systematically destroying immigration rules, the USDA, environmental agencies, national parks, our health care system, women's reproductive rights, and on and on, while encouraging violence ("fine people on both sides," "I'll pay your legal fees...") and demonizing anyone who dares to criticize or disagree with him.2937
I consider the analogy between Hitler and Nazism a false or exaggerated analogy when comparing to the US and Trump. However, it's worth pointing out that pre-Nazi Germany was in the midst of a great depression and the Nazi Party was supposedly responsible for it's return to stability and prosperity, at least for a time. I'd probably go, desperate measures for desperate times.
I consider the analogy between Hitler and Nazism a false or exaggerated analogy when comparing to the US and Trump. However, it's worth pointing out that pre-Nazi Germany was in the midst of a great depression and the Nazi Party was supposedly responsible for it's return to stability and prosperity, at least for a time. I'd probably go, desperate measures for desperate times.
The regime in power counts on citizens downplaying or denying similarities, I'm pretty sure. By "desperate measures" are you referring to the removal of Jews and other "undesirables" to the camps? We already have camps full of "undesirables," if not citizens yet. That may be a test of how much we're willing to stomach. Babies literally ripped from their mother's breasts? Fine, as long as I get a tax cut...
It is a common trait of conspiracy theorists to decry the willful blindness of people who don’t share their views.
America isn’t The Weimar Republic. Trump isn’t Hitler. The “Resistance” certainly isn’t the Maquis. We will see the evidence of that next November.
ApatheticNoMore
8-21-19, 11:38am
It just may not make a lot of sense to see things in that type of historical context. Some problems we face are in some sense bigger than the Nazis (climate and ecological collapse). And others are seen through a hyper-partisan lens. Not all of the immigration policies for instance are new with Trump, some pre-date him, and truthfully many will probably post-date him depending (I would like to be in the post-date period mind you :) ). I'm talking about policy, not his dreadful personality. Yes some of his policies are definitely worse, but it's sometimes hard to see through how thick the partisanship has gotten.
Anyway golden eras don't produce Trumps, eras of widespread and broad prosperity don't produce Trumps. But we do of course know the prosperity is NOT widely spread. Sure we have indoor plumbing I guess, and homeless families living under the bridge when we take a drive etc.
Anyway golden eras don't produce Trumps, eras of widespread and broad prosperity don't produce Trumps. But we do of course know the prosperity is NOT widely spread. Sure we have indoor plumbing I guess, and homeless families living under the bridge when we take a drive etc.
America has always had the down trodden and we are remiss in ignoring them regardless of the relative numbers. They were there with Obama and with highly qualified unemployed people going to food banks. But if you consider we are at almost full employment with inflation adjusted rising wages, the rest of us who are not living under bridges are doing quite well on the average. The environment is another issue that I think doesn't have a historical comparison. It's a global problem.
iris lilies
8-21-19, 12:15pm
I try not to let a bonehead like Trump rule my day to day happiness. My life under T is pretty much the same as under Obama and nothing has really changed for me once we got out of the 2007 financial mess. What does make me unhappy is looming environmental changes, but pretty much any Republican would tow the same line as Trump, although with a different rhetoric. Matter of fact the general American public doesn't seem that concerned. If I were a young person being left the environmental legacy of our generation, I'd be extremely unhappy. In some respects we are living in a golden time and place and I feel very fortunate. Trump is irritating, though.
I noticed a new Politico polls say Sanders and Biden are the only candidates to beat Trump.
Roger, your comments are always so reasonable and they speak truth. Thanks for posting!
The environment is another issue that I think doesn't have a historical comparison. It's a global problem.I think it does have a historical comparison, we just think that climate changes during our lifetime are unique. The climate has always been in a state of flux and we seem to think we can change that.
I think it does have a historical comparison, we just think that climate changes during our lifetime are unique. The climate has always been in a state of flux and we seem to think we can change that.
I don't want to get into a climate change debate, but only to say it's not that it's changing, but it is the rate of change. There is no real historical comparison, with maybe the closest being a few volcanic eruptions and asteroid strikes. Those were generally not favorable to the life forms of the time.
I don't want to get into a climate change debate, but only to say it's not that it's changing, but it is the rate of change. There is no real historical comparison, with maybe the closest being a few volcanic eruptions and asteroid strikes. Those were generally not favorable to the life forms of the time.
It's interesting to read about the Quaternary Glaciation Period and the alternating glacial and interglacial periods which are ongoing. A long term look at our climate shows that we're currently in a cooling trend which began about 6000 years ago and is expected to last for another 20,000 or so years. Fascinating stuff!
I don't want to get into a climate change debate, .....
I'm biting my tongue. I find it so interesting that such smart people can be so dismissive of global scientific consensus.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
I'm biting my tongue. I find it so interesting that such smart people can be so dismissive of global scientific consensus.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Not dismissive, just providing context for anyone interested.
I'm biting my tongue. I find it so interesting that such smart people can be so dismissive of global scientific consensus.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
I believe we should phase out fossil fuels, curb plastic and other pollution, maintain strict environmental rules to secure clean air and water and protect forests, etc. I don't, however, think "scientific consensus" is infallible. in fact, it has a pretty spotty record. We might have mitigated global climate change to a degree if we had phased out fossil fuels decades ago, but big money interests quashed that.
I don't, however, think "scientific consensus" is infallible. in fact, it has a pretty spotty record. That's because "scientific consensus" is just a generalized agreement of opinion. It has no place in the scientific method of observations, hypothesis, testing and eventual proof or refute.
I don't think our current popular notion of anthropomorphic climate change has been verified conclusively by the scientific method yet, it's still in the "likely" stage, much like the onetime "consensus" views that the Earth was the center of the universe or bleeding sick patients would release bad humours.
Someone please correct my heresy if I'm wrong.
ApatheticNoMore
8-21-19, 2:53pm
Science is usually right compared to all the quakadoodle theories that have replaced it in online media. Science is fallible and incomplete, yes I know, but how much time should I waste belaboring such a common sense obvious point, when outright quackery is what is competing with it usually, and seems to be multiplying by leaps and bounds. I mean most of the alternate theories for stuff scientific (I'm not including social science) have actually Far Less Basis than the consensus view.
Even further accelerated climate change may well be the fatal influence of frankly FAR right leaders like Trump, heaven help us all, and not just because he might be a tad bit worse than say Jeb would on this or that policy. I don't doubt that. But ... i'ts not those shades, it's what the far right is doing to the world, with Bolsanaro etc.. All these traces a line of inspiration from leaders like Trump.
I don't think our current popular notion of anthropomorphic climate change has been verified conclusively by the scientific method yet, it's still in the "likely" stage, much like the onetime "consensus" views that the Earth was the center of the universe or bleeding sick patients would release bad humours.
Someone please correct my heresy if I'm wrong.
I wonder if the examples you provided were not based on any contemporary scientific methods, but more religious dogma and folklore. When you are talking "conclusively" I don't know that there will ever be the evidence required by some. Would 95% probability work? At least that's what NASA says. Enough from me for now. I would hope you continue to challenge things just to keep us believers honest. I doubt we will agree anytime soon.
Would 95% probability work?.Yes, I'm impressed with 95% probability, at least when talking Global Warming, which I believe to be a short term event already well on its way to being mitigated. I'd require something a little more conclusive than probability though when discussing Climate Change, which is a much broader and farther reaching phenomenon.
frugal-one
8-21-19, 5:54pm
I generally agree with that except for cases where the regulatory environment has been changed enough to have an either positive or negative effect. I think that if the 2016 election has gone the other way the effect would have been negative.
You don't think environmental regulations being discarded are negative?
Just in case I mis-stated things, this is what NASA says. They did put a man on the moon after all (or so some say). OK, now I'm done.
"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia."
You don't think environmental regulations being discarded are negative?My comment you're referencing had to do with the economy, not the environment, but even if I had meant environment I'm not sure what negative effects we've seen. I believe we're still ranked somewhere around 26th of 120 nations in eco-friendliness (with another 75 or so not counted). Don't quote me on that, I may be off by one or two points plus or minus, but still among the worlds most eco-friendly countries.
Jay Inslee has called it quits. Who's next? Woo Woo Williamson?
ApatheticNoMore
8-22-19, 1:37am
Maybe the woman from CA who has to take a poll and consult with her donors to decide what she believes today. Maybe the old senile guy (oh wait he's the front runner). And then we have a billionaire who made his money on fossil fuels running on climate change because a Dem governor doing so was just never going to work but a billionaire with dirty money is so much better, and a guy handing out $1000 bills. Still though Trump is #1 in suckage if only because there would be a non-zero chance of something decent out of the rest, ha not even high, but non-zero.
Inslee I like. Oh well, too serious or something and people don't want to vote on climate change, oh heck people probably don't want to think about climate change. I'll be gone, you'll be gone, maybe we'll be gone due to climate change, but hey gone is gone.
I did not like that Inslee wanted to mandate everyone use electric cars. Electricity in my area is very expensive and a significant portion of it is generated with fossil fuels. I think hybrids are a better idea because you can charge the batteries at the time of manufacture with green fuel, but he was a one size fits all guy.
Maybe Bullock is next. Hickenlooper and Inslee were both governors. They seem to be more realistic about their chances.
Hickenlooper just announced his run for the senate. He will run against Cory Gardner (R), who is not in T's inner circle, but pretty much a tow the line Republican. He's quite popular here and probably has a very good chance of unseating Gardner. A better fit for him that POTUS. Andrew Yang seems to get some press about an increasing popularity Other than his guaranteed income for all, he didn't seem to have much to say during the debates. Like Inslee, I wonder if he is making a point rather than having high hopes. He may hold out a while longer, but I expect Bennett to be one of the next shoes to drop out.
frugal-one
8-22-19, 8:49pm
My comment you're referencing had to do with the economy, not the environment, but even if I had meant environment I'm not sure what negative effects we've seen. I believe we're still ranked somewhere around 26th of 120 nations in eco-friendliness (with another 75 or so not counted). Don't quote me on that, I may be off by one or two points plus or minus, but still among the worlds most eco-friendly countries.
I was a fed and upheld regulations. Those for the environment were there for a reason, as well as, those for workers and many others that trump has deregulated. Obviously, you don't believe in climate change. What I don't understand is... even if you don't believe ... why not err on the side of caution?
. Obviously, you don't believe in climate change.
Obviously, you're wrong. I believe the climate has been in a continual state of flux since the formation of earth's atmosphere and will continue to be so forever more as the dominant causes are well outside the control of mere mortals. I also believe in Global Warming, which I believe to be one of the states of flux within climate change and may be subject to conditions necessary for the further evolution or devolution of humans. Maybe you and I could discuss both subjects rationally one day, without accusations or political blame. Are you interested?
I was a fed and upheld regulations. Those for the environment were there for a reason, as well as, those for workers and many others that trump has deregulated. Obviously, you don't believe in climate change. What I don't understand is... even if you don't believe ... why not err on the side of caution?
What I think you were actually trying to say is that Alan doesn't believe that humans pumping trillions of pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere has any effect on the climate on earth despite substantial scientific evidence to the contrary.
What I think you were actually trying to say is that Alan doesn't believe that humans pumping trillions of pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere has any effect on the climate on earth despite substantial scientific evidence to the contrary.
Well that would be a silly claim for her to make. She may not know that Alan not only understands the effect greenhouse gasses have on the atmosphere, he's actually glad to see they're there since their absence would leave the entire earth in a perpetual state of deep freeze, and he hates being cold.
Well that would be a silly claim for her to make. She may not know that Alan not only understands the effect greenhouse gasses have on the atmosphere, he's actually glad to see they're there since their absence would leave the entire earth in a perpetual state of deep freeze, and he hates being cold.
Ok, I'll revise since I like to have things accurate. Alan believes and approves of the fossil fuel industry's bizarre ad campaign a few years ago. "Carbon dioxide. The breath of life." He's probably also super stoked that farmers in brazil are burning down the amazon at an, ahem, breathtaking rate, since it will mean more carbon dioxide to keep his part of the world warm.*
*If things don't work out for you and we actually elect people who implement policies to slow human caused climate change I will send you one of the two wool sweaters I bought in Dublin 18 years ago. They are awesome. I get compliments every time I wear them. And I wouldn't want you to be chilly.
Ok, I'll revise since I like to have things accurate. Alan believes and approves of the fossil fuel industry's bizarre ad campaign a few years ago. "Carbon dioxide. The breath of life." He's probably also super stoked that farmers in brazil are burning down the amazon at an, ahem, breathtaking rate, since it will mean more carbon dioxide to keep his part of the world warm.*
*If things don't work out for you and we actually elect people who implement policies to slow human caused climate change I will send you one of the two wool sweaters I bought in Dublin 18 years ago. They are awesome. I get compliments every time I wear them. And I wouldn't want you to be chilly.
Boy Alan sounds like an asshole, no way you should give your awesome sweater to that dude.
Boy Alan sounds like an asshole, no way you should give your awesome sweater to that dude.
Maybe if the sweater was stuffed with straw it could be propped up as a suitable debate opponent.
Teacher Terry
8-23-19, 11:40am
You guys crack me up!!
iris lilies
8-23-19, 1:00pm
You guys crack me up!!
They are a humorous lot, to be sure.
frugal-one
8-23-19, 2:10pm
Obviously, you're wrong. I believe the climate has been in a continual state of flux since the formation of earth's atmosphere and will continue to be so forever more as the dominant causes are well outside the control of mere mortals. I also believe in Global Warming, which I believe to be one of the states of flux within climate change and may be subject to conditions necessary for the further evolution or devolution of humans. Maybe you and I could discuss both subjects rationally one day, without accusations or political blame. Are you interested?
I guess what we disagree upon then is that "mere humans" can have an effect and slow down climate change. As stated earlier, why not err on the side of caution? Deregulation of laws that help the environment in favor of big business is not erring on the side of caution!
I guess what we disagree upon then is that "mere humans" can have an effect and slow down climate change.
I'm not sure what we can do to counteract sunspots, the earth's orbit or the earth's faint wobble, not to mention the effect of volcanoes and asteroid strikes which all contribute to climate change. Now humans almost certainly do have an effect on global warming which has nothing to do with climate, although I'm not sure what effect dropping out of the Paris Agreement or approving the Keystone Pipeline has had on that phenomenon.
frugal-one
8-23-19, 3:11pm
I'm not sure what we can do to counteract sunspots, the earth's orbit or the earth's faint wobble, not to mention the effect of volcanoes and asteroid strikes which all contribute to climate change. Now humans almost certainly do have an effect on global warming which has nothing to do with climate, although I'm not sure what effect dropping out of the Paris Agreement or approving the Keystone Pipeline has had on that phenomenon.
I do not profess to be an expert or even remotely up to date on the scientific data but think we should listen to the scientists. Now, it is just do what we can for big business ... to hell with the environment.
RE: Keystone Pipeline.... deals with leaks of petroleum.... again in favor of big business rather than the environment.
Paris agreement to help the environment in reducing greenhouse gases... isn't that a good thing?
RE: Keystone Pipeline.... deals with leaks of petroleum.... again in favor of big business rather than the environment.
Paris agreement to help the environment in reducing greenhouse gases... isn't that a good thing?
Your Keystone comment reminds me of the rationale behind the state of New York banning additional natural gas pipelines in the state. Now there's not enough capacity to provide natural gas to new construction. Whoops
On the Paris thing, I don't think we've reneged on any of the environmental agreements in place but suspect we won't be contributing to the $100B per year in payments to undeveloped countries the agreement required between 2020 and 2025.
On the Paris thing, I don't think we've reneged on any of the environmental agreements in place but suspect we won't be contributing to the $100B per year in payments to undeveloped countries the agreement required between 2020 and 2025.
I always found that concept odd - "here's a bunch of money, you undeveloped scum, smile and continue living in the mud".
ApatheticNoMore
8-23-19, 5:36pm
Pay them more than they can earn by destroying the amazon to keep the forest, as the reality is the amazon is worth more (from any *real* evaluation of worth, which our economics captures very poorly - we're going to GDP ourselves to extinction) as is than whatever can be developed on it. Currently the destruction of vast stores of natural capital, selling off one's natural capital, is counted as a gain. It's not one.
I was at a protest against the destruction of the Amazon. :help: :help: :help: One day off from jobs and that's what I do - without illusions. As for things we don't need: I don't need a vacation (days off yes, mostly for personal utterly non-political matters). I do need a livable planet.
Moulton turned out to be the next dropout.
I heard Buttigieg today at the largest and best organized campaign event I have been to yet. They pumped money into the local economy, hiring school bus drivers to shuttle people to the venue, police details, and a local event planning company. The crowd was older than I expected and included the town Democratic Committee chair and state senator, previously a gubernatorial candidate.
There was only seating for the elderly or disabled, but there were four of the largest, cleanest portable toilets I have ever seen, a sign language interpreter, and lots of music including country. Buttigieg spoke to the needs of rural voters while also stating he is mentioning issues of race to all audiences (including this 99.9% white one). He is the first candidate I have heard say we must not just take on the trendy speaking points about the opioid epidemic but also assist those incarcerated and otherwise dealing with the legacy of the crack and previous heroin epidemics. He just rolled out a mental health and substance abuse plan so focused on this but also had one liners hitting the typical litany of Democratic issues. He is opposed to single payer and came across as more Establishment, as did his supporters, than I expected. There were lots of staffers there, and most not the college age volunteers I have seen at other events. Several arrived in huge, tinted window SUVs that looked like small limos. The campaign appears to have the financing to go the distance.
I see Joe Walsh will be running against Trump in the primaries. I would probably vote for him over the other two opponents. Sanford and Weld carry too much baggage.
Now that Trump is “hereby ordering” American corporations not to do business with China, I see little distance between him and the Democrats in the command economy way of thinking.
I didnt realize it was possible for a republican candidate to have too much baggage. Hiking the Appalachian trail seems almost quaint compared to trump.
Isn’t it extremely unusual for someone within the same party to run against the incumbent? This is good news.
I'm really impressed by most of the Democratic candidates; they seem to have their priorities straight and solid plans for getting those priorities accomplished. Their contrast with today's Republicans/Trumpists is stark.
I'm really impressed by most of the Democratic candidates; they seem to have their priorities straight and solid plans for getting those priorities accomplished.
Really? I haven't heard anyone give an answer to how we pay for all their priorities, maybe I missed it.
Maybe I'm amazed at the way you help me sing my song,
Right me when I'm wrong-
Maybe I'm amazed at the way I really need you.
Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh.
I didnt realize it was possible for a republican candidate to have too much baggage. Hiking the Appalachian trail seems almost quaint compared to trump.
Republicans are fashioned from the same crooked timber as the rest of humanity.
Really? I haven't heard anyone give an answer to how we pay for all their priorities, maybe I missed it.
They plan to send the bill to the dastardly rich. Whether there are enough of them for all the promised trillions might be reasonably questioned.
Other countries--ones not s wedded to a bloated military and upper-class grifting--seem to have figured out a way.
Maybe I'm amazed at the way you help me sing my song,
Right me when I'm wrong-
Maybe I'm amazed at the way I really need you.
Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh.
:cool::laff:
I heard Amy Klobuchar today. Of the seven candidates I have heard she is the only one who was boring. It was one middle of the road policy AKA legislative proposal of hers after another. Warren is policy heavy but has a compelling personal narrative tying things together. Yang also had a good life story explaining how he got where he is.
Klobuchar also indicated her strategy is not to come up with interesting and innovative ideas, but simply to try to wait out her opponents. She is also a little stuck in the Hillary was robbed by the Russians narrative.
I see her generating little to no enthusiasm among the base.
Other countries--ones not s wedded to a bloated military and upper-class grifting--seem to have figured out a way.
Yes. They don’t pretend the rich will provide for everyone. They tax everyone heavily, although many are kinder to their corporations than we are. It also helps if you can shelter under a defense umbrella provided by someone else.
Apparently woo woo williamson tweeted that she believes that ‘mind power’ and ‘prayer’ can turn hurricanes.
https://www.towleroad.com/2019/09/marianne-williamson-hurricane-dorian/
Yet another example of why she should be nowhere near the white house. As a random person this is stupid but amusing. As the most powerful person in the world this would be just as horrifying as the current horrifying idiot in chief.
Apparently woo woo williamson tweeted that she believes that ‘mind power’ and ‘prayer’ can turn hurricanes.
https://www.towleroad.com/2019/09/marianne-williamson-hurricane-dorian/
Yet another example of why she should be nowhere near the white house. As a random person this is stupid but amusing. As the most powerful person in the world this would be just as horrifying as the current horrifying idiot in chief.
It makes the President’s idea about using nuclear weapons on hurricanes seem eminently practical by comparison. Although I understand that in certain quarters there are rumors of using a hurricane as a vehicle to invade Oz.
Not sure what the position of the New Green Deal would be on this. Possibly an excise tax on wind speeds in excess of a velocity determined by the Bureau of Air Movement and Humidity.
I have read somewhere that actually tornados work better for getting to Oz.
I have read somewhere that actually tornados work better for getting to Oz.
All the best people will tell you that elite coastal wind is superior to deplorable Red State wind, which doesn’t even know it’s own best interests.
Another debate tonight. How exciting. The pundits seem to be billing it as a Biden/Warren matchup, which could stir some desperation moves in other quarters.
I am watching the debates now. Asked about the racial achievement gap Biden said teachers can't educate because kids' parents don't expose them to enough words and "need to put on the record player". The record player? Seriously?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.